The Broad View

How come we're smarter 'n anyone?

by EDN

Pat and I have really intelligent discussions with each other. These days, of course, they're mostly about politics.

And mostly we come up with insights and solutions that are just plain better than anyone else's. The question we often ask each other is, "How come we're so smart and they're not?" (This is usually with reference to pundits and their panels.)

We've long included RJ Eskow in our [verrry exclusive] pantheon of really smart people. Here are two examples of why:

On Wes Clark

On the risks of Obama's lurch to the "center"

Digby's fond farewell to Linda Greenhouse...

by EDN

...and the reason, even if can you find no other, to vote for Barack Obama.

"One of the Good Ones"

Bastille Day

by EDN

Vive la France!

(Aside: How come all the Germans at Rick's went to Yale?)

I weep for us...for our poor, broken country

by EDN

Glenn Greenwald: "Today's coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama — The Democratic nominee's support for this bill speaks volumes about what he is and isn't."

Read it and you'll weep too.

The Gap fire, a couple of miles from the line

by EDN

Thank you to everyone who has written or called to express concern. I shall update this post whenever there appears to be new news — assuming of course that the Internet doesn't go down again, along with the rest of the power grid! (The photo below, after the jump — click to enlarge — makes it clear why the power went out on Wednesday and Thursday nights, and for a while yesterday afternoon: thick smoke and ash wreaked havoc with Edison's main transmission lines.)

Update: 11:40 a.m. PDT, Wednesday
It looks as though we're in the clear. We at the coast, that is. The fire continues to burn in the back country, and the high heat inland and unpredictable winds mean that firefighters still face significant challenges. According to The Independent:

It appears possible that many of the hard fought gains of the past five days could be lost if today’s weather proves to be as potent as the forecasts predict. While there is no danger of the fire turning back and threatening those parts of Goleta which were evacuated earlier, should the fire breach the West Camino Cielo fuel break and move onto the north side of the mountains, this would expand the fire line dramatically.

More... "The Gap fire, a couple of miles from the line"

Obama the Octopus? Superdelegates take note!

by EDN

The "other shoe" keeps dropping.

Just how many legs and feet does Obama have, and thus how many more shoes are there to drop? As I wrote to a friend, an Obama supporter, "What's next? Asking Joe Lieberman to be his running mate?"

Put another way, a question I put forward in a much earlier post: Just how many progressive principles is Obama willing to sacrifice in order to achieve "post-partisanship"? We are beginning to get the answer.

Consider his recent stance on FISA; the pandering to the right with his proposed augmentation of Bush's "faith-based initiative;" the obfuscations of his position on ending the war in Iraq; and his, uh, restatement of just what it means for a woman to have a "right to choose."

To my fellow-progressives, my fellow-liberals, those of you who giddily parroted Obama's "change" mantra, projected your own "hope" onto a blank screen, confused style with substance -- how are you feeling today about your candidate?

I know that the FISA business has caused a great stir on the listserves and in the comment area of Obama's website. But that may not be enough.

It may be time for serious re-thinking. It's not too late for superdelegates to change their minds. All it would take is a caucus, and a vote for Hillary, and the nomination could be hers after all.

That's what superdelegates are all about...being the grown-ups who keep the Democratic Party from being hijacked. And make no mistake, it is being hijacked, by a charismatic orator whose only ambition is for himself and who has now proven that he will say anything and do anything, including sacrificing family, friends, surrogates, supporters -- and the bedrock principles of the Democratic Party -- if they get in his way.

Hey Barack, quit posing for Mount Rushmore and do the right thing

by Chiaroscuro _

A few days ago, Arianna Huffington posted an astute list of "Seven Things Barack Obama Should Do to Keep from Blowing It" and included this inspirational quote from one of Obama's speeches:

"This campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us - it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice - to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.... That's why I'm in this race. Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation."

Contrast this to Obama's statement to his supporters that attempts to justify his cave-in on the FISA bill:

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny. 

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok.  But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.

I'll leave aside the disingenuous suggestion that the "compromise" FISA bill is a "better bill." Glenn Greenwald has skewered that notion thoroughly. Anyway, it's akin to the idea that there's no such thing as "a little bit pregnant." So it is with this bill. You can't get by with saying it's only "a little bit unconstitutional."

Beyond the awfulness of the bill, is the awfulness of the attitude. As one DKos diarist put it, in Obama we have "our next 'Decider'." This is the candidate that asked us to believe in our ability to bring about real change. Obama told us that he wanted our advice to let him know when he's not doing right. Well, that sentiment has become a quaint relic of the primary season. Now, "going forward," it's Barack Obama Knows Best. Squawk all you want, I've got some politickin' to do.

Knowing full well that McCain is beyond the pale to Democrats, Obama is perfectly fine with "taking his lumps" on his FISA flip-flop. He's pretty sure that it won't be a "deal breaker" and he's made the calculation that he'll have enough money and enthusiasm from the weak-minded that he can afford to cut loose those who expected that Obama would not only "listen to their concerns" but act on them as he had solemnly promised. In the words of another DKos diarist and a veteran of the first Iraq war, MotleyPatriot, "You, Sir, are forgetting all of those who helped you get to where you are today."

Our country, all that we hold dear, is on the verge of being lost.  Our constitution, that piece of paper that many have died to protect, is on the verge of being relegated to the annals of history as a concept that didn't survive the test of time.
[snip]

You state, "Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have."

I, Sir, disagree.  For me, Sir, and many like me, there is nothing that outweighs our Constitutional rights, our country, our very identity as a nation; that which makes us Americans.

This fourth of July, Sir, I ask that you go to Arlington Cemetery.  I ask that you walk among the graves of those who fought and died to protect that to which you wish to compromise on.  I ask that you read the tombstones, the names, of those who gave all to an ideal that you wish to play politics with; our Constitution.  I ask, Sir, that you look upon grave after grave and let the totality of them press upon you what honor means.

This fourth of July, Sir, I ask that you travel to Walter Reed Medical Center and you see the veterans.  Talk to the amputee's.  Talk to the men and women whose lives are broken from their service.  Ask them what prompted them to give what they gave for their country.  Learn, Sir, what it means to sacrifice for your country.

This fourth of July, Sir, you can do what is right, and hear a collective cheer from the masses that hasn't been heard in centuries, or, you can do what is politically expedient and hear the collective groan from a nation that knows it is dying; one capitulation at a time.

That last graph makes me cry. I want so very, very much to see a Democratic presidential candidate stand his ground and do the right thing. We yearn for redemption of our national soul through restoration of our Constitution. This is something far beyond partisanship and it will never be accomplished through expediency. As Arianna says, it calls for "real leadership, not a poll-driven facsimile."

Obama will easily beat McCain only -- ONLY -- if he gets back to proving that he's got some bedrock principles after all. The mushy middle, the celebrated-yet-elusive "swing voters" may say they don't like "partisan bickering" but they swing toward the stronger partisan every time. Every time. Why? Because, like loose electrons, these voters have no core, no bedrock philosophy of American governance.

Therein lies the irony of all those Democrats who've "moved to the center" and repudiated their base, only to find defeat at the polls. The mission for Obama is to hold close to our Democratic ideals and so attract all those confused wanderers with the fierce strength of his commitment. Sadly, we haven't seen much fierceness lately, unless it's to denounce the people he's got in a vain quest to get the people he'll lose.

Beware the "Secret Plan"

by Chiaroscuro _

There's no mistaking the resemblance these days of Barack Obama's chameleonic statements on withdrawal from Iraq to Nixon's coy campaign promise of having a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. Nixon never used the phrase, "secret plan" -- the phrase was a reporter's description -- but he never disavowed it either. It was tailor-made to lure voters sick of the disastrous war yet loathe to align themselves with the dirty fucking hippies.

Of course, Nixon had no secret plan:

Nixon's secret plan, it turned out, was borrowing from a strategic move from Lyndon Johnson's last year in office. The new president continued a process called "Vietnamization", an awful term that implied that Vietnamese were not fighting and dying in the jungles of Southeast Asia. This strategy brought American troops home while increasing the air war over the DRV and relying more on the ARVN for ground attacks.

Bush is heavily invested in "Iraqi-ization" and all signs point to Obama being prepared to put his chips on the same lame strategy. And he's preparing his supporters to swallow it.

His demurrals yesterday on Iraq withdrawal timetables aren't just nuanced love calls to the center-right. They are hints of what's to come.

It's instructive to recall our prolonged exit from Vietnam:

From the time Richard Nixon took office on January 20, 1969, to March 1973 when the last American combat troops left Vietnam, was over four years. And we still weren't truly out of Vietnam; military advisors and Marines protecting U.S. installations remained. We weren't completely out of Vietnam until April 30, 1975. That day, the North Vietnamese rolled into Saigon, just hours after the last dawn airlift out of the U.S. Embassy. Before dawn, two Marines were killed by rocket attack at the Saigon airport and became the last Americans to die for a mistake. It was more than six years after Nixon had been elected to end the war and secure "peace with honor."

To be fair, Obama has always said his 16-month timetable would be consonant with the safety of the troops. I submit that in the real world, Obama is going to be pressed to find all kinds of "safety" reasons why troop withdrawals should proceed at a glacial pace. Remember, in Vietnam Nixon started to withdraw troops, albeit very slowly. But there were also periods of troop increase and certainly drastic expansions of the theater of war and violence through bombing.

Let us not forget all the bases we've had Halliburton/KBR et.al. build in Iraq at very great taxpayer expense, complete with American shopping, entertainment, perimeters extending for miles and every indication of being totally permanent. Then there's the embassy compound that's as big as Monaco. Finally the true goal of the Iraq invasion is almost achieved: The oil majors are on the brink of returning to lord over the Iraqi oilfields. Will President Obama have the right stuff to tell all the very special and persuasive interests that their time is up?

Obama sees the White House almost within his grasp and suddenly he's confronted with anti-war supporters who must be sidelined, gelded, made to sit down and STFU. It's only good politics -- accepted Village wisdom -- to fuck over your own Democratic supporters, dirty fucking hippies all, but "these things must be done delicately."

First Obama has to trivialize the passionately-held beliefs of the liberal Boomers and the experience we've gained from dealing with Republican ratfuckers for the last forty years. Here's Obama in his speech on patriotism:

And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often, our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments, a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.

Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions. None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely. After all, when we argue about patriotism, we're arguing about who we are as a country and, more importantly, who we should be.

But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism.

Note that it seems as if he's gently criticizing the hard-hats who took clubs to the DFHs in the peace marches of the '60s and '70s, but on closer reading it's clear that he's conflating the left and the right. We were all wrong, he's saying. Our arguments are old and threadbare. Now can't we all lower our voices and compromise -- on Iraq, on FISA, on universal health care, on separation of church and state?

Our concerns over the Iraq War are made to sound like part of "the old battles." We're just dinosaurs who can't stop fighting those boring old "culture wars." Obama may have been born in the Boomer cohort, but he is not one of us. He was outside the country or in the remote islands of Hawaii during the upheavals that forged the attitudes and beliefs of my generation.

Obama's arguments are gaining a certain amount of traction with Democrats desperate for victory in November, no matter what has to be thrown overboard. Cruise over to DKos to see the raging flame wars. Here's one example: "Markos, you Blockhead.... let me boil it down for you on FISA." Nice, eh?

Obama and his youthful followers, so naive and full of hope, will come to real grief if they don't learn the lessons Vietnam taught us. It has nothing to do with "culture wars" but with political integrity when it matters. It's about understanding that compromise is not always a virtue. It has to do with trusting in the Constitutional order, even when it seems inconvenient or dangerous. It's about understanding how hard it is to tell the truth about a failed war, a failed policy and a bankrupt nation and then do something about it on your watch. It's about how hard it is to lead people and persuade people that the honorable course is to end a dishonorable war, not to compound the dishonor with delusions of victory. It's about explaining that victory, in this case, is a victory over the dark side of fear -- victory over torture, rendition, the surrender of our freedoms and blind wrath against imagined enemies.

If Obama is all ready to compromise, reach across the aisle, and pretend that the bipartisan divide is somehow made of meaningless distinctions, then he is headed for disaster. He and his most ardent supporters may be bewitched by the idea of post-partisanship, but there has never been any hint or suggestion that the Repubs believe or would cooperate with any such thing. Every time they've had the opportunity to compromise, they've offered Democrats filibusters and amusing attacks on Democratic intransigence. Obama will be a weak and disappointing one-term president, ridiculed and rolled by Republicans who are not afraid of ruthlessness.

Then there is the terrible danger that Bush and Cheney will seek to cement Obama into endless war with an October surprise: the opening of an air war on Iran. It's something I've been fearing all along. All the signs are there, all the pieces have been moved into position. Will war with Iran be just another compromise for Obama, another opportunity to show he's his own man by bravely fucking over his own supporters?

Happy Birthday, America.

"...the rhetorical equivalent of driving around in a tank."

by Chiaroscuro _

The Rude Pundit, seriously ruder than usual, on Obama and FISA (H/T Charles Pierce):

Of course, the real disappointment here is Barack Obama and his collapse on all but telecom immunity. [Except that Obama's total collapse includes immunity.] It's a bullshit political position, a convenient way of deflecting any snarling McCain attacks, the rhetorical equivalent of driving around in a tank. What Obama is supposed to do in this instance is say, "I'm a tougher motherfucker for standing for the Constitution than for allowing terrorists to dictate how many rights we have."

Every time a Democrat backs down from a tough stand because the Repub howler monkeys are in full cry, that Democrat looks weak, unprincipled and totally malleable. When Democratic spine is reserved only for defying the Democratic base, the message to the electorate is that there's something wrong with being a liberal Democrat. When someone who wants to be commander-in-chief refuses or is unable to counter the bullying tactics of his opponent, he looks like a floundering amateur among the pros. You can put on the helmet, but unless you're ready to do battle, don't pretend to be a fighter.

Andrea Mitchell, Queen of the Damnable

by Chiaroscuro _

Or, at least, Baroness of the Bullshitters. Andrea Mitchell is, IMO, the most repulsive "personality" on MSNBC, far, far worse than Tweety Matthews. She is a pro-active shill for the right wing:

Here she is again, in all her botoxed glory. (What is it about Republican women? At the risk of being catty, I have to wonder why so many of them look like mummified anorexics.)

Chronicles of America in the 21st Century

by Chiaroscuro _

Another step taken down the road to quivering paranoia, thanks to a State Dept. run by Bush men afraid of bushmen:

Three West African bushmen recruited to build a mud-hut village at the Frontier Culture Museum of Virginia have been denied visas because officials say the men were poor, didn't speak English and failed to convince them that their visit only would be temporary.

Museum director John Avoli said museum officials were heartbroken.

"They were denied because they were considered poor dirt farmers who lived in mud huts and can't speak English and supposedly have no business in America," Avoli said.

"No business in America." That would seem to be the new slogan of Fortress America, land of the spied-upon and home of the pissing in their pants over the darkies.

The U.S. consular official in Nigeria, Debra Heien, explained that not only were two of the bushmen "not able to make a living," but that one "couldn't properly explain the building project" and one didn't fill out his visa forms properly. 

Imagine that. I wonder if Ms. Heien would be able to make a living if she landed in an Igbo village. Never mind. The State Dept. obviously considers the bushmen a little too authentic to land in Virginia, unless it's the Virginia of 1808 and the men are in shackles.

Ms. Heien did offer this hope in a letter to Sen. John Warner (R-Va), whose staff had attempted to get the ruling reversed:

"Should the applicants decide to apply again, they must make appointments using our on-line appointment system."

Do the Igbo have WiFi?

Toobin on Obama says it all

by EDN

Today on The Situation Room (made palatable by the absence of Wolf Blitzer, with John Roberts replacing him) -- Jeffrey Toobin had the last word. He turned to a fellow panel-member and said,

I'm old enough to remember when Barack Obama was a Democrat.