Arthur's Tuesday Notes

• Newt Gingrich is given credit for waging a semantic war on progressive politics. His inventions include calling it the "Democrat Party" instead of Democratic. To call Estate Tax "Death Tax" and so on. In the process the term "Liberal" was so often used in a negative context that it became a slur, rather than a description. Obama, whatever else he is, seems to have a better sense of how to attack that issue head on. It is a fight that is long overdue.
• When the election is over and people are tallying up inappropriate comments, this will be my nomination in the "funny, but inappropriate" department. From the Clinton campaign, after their New Hampshire victory (apparently through use of cattle prods) one Clinton staffer mused (to a reporter, which is a no-no) the following thoughts:
  "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."
• And here's the ultimate election spoiler: Diebold accidently announces the results of the 2008 election.

Arthur

Random Musings On a Stormy Sunday

I've spoken previously about my impressions of the Obama campaign, particularly commenting on their focus on outreach to donors, rather than just sending out e-mails or letters asking you to send more money. Another point worth making. If you have e-mail, they never send anything through the mail system. It all goes electronic. The tempo of e-mails is never intrusive or excessive. Maybe one every three or four days, at most, each very different from any previous one. Almost all of them suggesting things that one can do to help the campaign beyond just donating money. Very, very smart. People (opponents) speak of Obama building a "movement", usually in a dismissive tone of voice, as though that is somehow cheesy or not playing by grownup rules, and they are probably right.

I have heard people speak of this phenomena as unlike anything they have seen since the McCarthy era, or Bobby Kennedy. I do not recall either as having this character. What I am wondering is whether Uncle Bob can help us by comparing and contrasting this with FDR. It seems to me that may have been one of the last eras when there was a sense that the nation had a responsibility to unite and correct the terrible conditions spawned by the Depression. My wife hangs out a bit at a local coffee joint run by a remarkable lady who lived through hard times in San Diego before the war. She says things were so bad that that many families were housed in an enormous tent community. She speaks of getting rickets as a child and having a doctor who worked there as part of the public health system tell her family she needed to eat a lot of oranges to get over it. We don't think of ourselves as being a country in which people go hungry, or live in tent cities like refugee, or in which people are dangerously undernourished through lack of good food. But it was true then, and while hidden, sadly it remains true now. As with the effects of a poor education, the effects of poor nutrition as a child creates consequences that impact and impair that individual throughout their life. The effects can be both physical and mental. By some measures the effects of malnutrition can be seen in as much as a third of the world's population, and the breadth of those problems are likely to increase as populations increase during this century. The Bush administration(s), deeply in the thrall of fundamentalists who suspect Jesus may be due back any minute, have never been big on the idea of population control, fearing that it might lead to recreational sex, or thwart the destiny of the "unborn", or lead to abortions or promote licentiousness among the young. Meanwhile, the world's population, particularly in poor countries with marginal land resources, continues to grow beyond the ability of that land to support their populations.

And sadly, holding large rock concerts and sending food from overseas is not a sustainable solution to a structural problem within a given country. It certainly makes every one feel good and feel noble, but it fails to address the long term structural issues. Many of those issues may be impossible to solve, due to political impediments. Just like the impediments in our country. But at the very least we can get our own house in order before we lecture other nations. We can, if we have the political and moral will to do it, create a better and more egalitarian society. Will Barack Obama, one man, be able to do it all by himself? Impossible. Even if he has the will to do so, and is able to engage large sections of our population, is it possible? It would still be a stretch, but that a task may be out of reach is no reason not to attempt it. Of the candidates running for President in 2008 he seems the most likely to accomplish something. Instead of nothing, or worse, which I think will be seen as the true legacy of the Bush administration. 19% approval rating. That was similar to the approval rating of General Musharaff just before his political party lost the parliamentary elections by 230 to 40. I personally can think of an entire list of Republican foot-soldiers and camp followers that I would like to see be driven into the political wilderness. And there are a host of them that I just haven't paid much attention to. If, as I suspect, Obama is the nominee, and if he is not killed during the campaign by a crazed racist seeking to create chaos and race war, I am inclined to think that Obama will have long, long coat tails. It has been a long time since we have seen a Democratic President in office with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a comfortable margin in the House.

By coincidence, here is the Obama campaign sending out a list of the things you might want to read, watch, discuss, make phone calls to support, oh... and maybe even donate to, so that they can reach their goal of a million donors. It is sad that the campaigns are often judged by the media by how much money they can raise. Or from how many donors. But that is the world we live in, those are the childish measures by which political campaigns are judged to either be relevant or irrelevant. We need to work to change that, but during this campaign we must work with what we have. A donation of even as little as a dollar serves to add another "donor" to the list edging toward a million (it is currently in the low 900,000s) and this is the only funds appeal that you are ever going to hear from me. For as little as a dollar, or whatever feels comfortable, you will also have the opportunity to see what I have been seeing, which is outreach a political organization that appears to be rewriting the rules. Without exaggeration, I think after a couple of weeks you will begin to see the same thing I am seeing, that something quite unusual is happening.

And since the media seems to be composed of well-dressed sheep, bleating in harmony as they prostrate themselves before power, the numbers of donors will drive them into paroxysms of delight and wonder. To see the news pundits turn themselves into fools in public and struggle to explain what part of the Republican "message" has gone so terribly wrong this years... well hey, that's a sight that's got to be worth a buck or two, right?

p.s. I have heard a number of Republicans recently say that they think McCain is not quite right in the head, which they think is a consequence of his long imprisonment. Again, I would defer to Uncle Bob in that regard, though I think Bob would tell us that McCain's experience was by far the harsher of the two. Am I right? Does terribly harsh imprisonment lead to emotional damage? Or is McCain just a Republican?

Arthur

(Bad Hat Alert: The Clinton campaign is winding down. Click here. For an update on the Obamma campaign, click here. )

Texas Is On Fire

This pattern of early voting, in wide margins Democratic, is strongly suggestive of a shift in political winds. My youngest son is in college in Austin. I have a cousin in Midland, actually a couple of them. A lot of folks in Texas have been voting Republican because there were a lot of Republican candidates from Texas. Seemed like a good idea, but not so good right now. Particularly to young folks. The polling place was moved to seven miles from the Texas A&M campus, to keep those damn liberal agriculture and mining students from voting. The students organized a march of two thousand students who walked seven miles down the highway with signs to the polling place so they could vote early. Probably not for the local political machine.

The odd Tom DeLay redistricting ploy in 2002 produced districts that in this election will award disproportionate numbers of delegates to Obama. Who could have seen that one coming? If Clinton loses in Texas, her race is over. If Obama really does raise $50 million in February he will have raised more than John McCain has during the entire primary season. That bodes well for Obama being able to raise more than enough money to stay competitive in any state he wants to contest in the general election. Personally, I'd like to see him advertise even in safe GOP seats, just to improve his overall popular vote count. That matters to people in regard to building a sense of consensus.

I don't want to knock Clinton when she is on the ropes. But there is one point that has been nagging at me. Yes, Clinton did try to get some sort of universal health coverage for all Americans. But what was the result? The situation now is far worse than then. I am not saying that she personally made it worse, but rather that her efforts misfired so badly that they did not serve to put the brakes on the path to where we are now.

Meanwhile oil has topped $100 a barrel, gold it at $945 an ounce, headed toward $1,000/oz. What that means is that our currency has been significantly devalued. What that also means is that other nations are going off the dollar standard and on to Euros or Yen. Not good news for our economy.

Arthur

McCain

McCain might be able to claim that he did not actually have sex with that Lobbyist woman, that since he often was in bed with lobbyists, that doing so doesn't really mean anything. There are some interesting statistics in this article. I definitely want to elect the Democratic Party candidate who can independently raise stacks of money (Obama) so he can stand up to the corporate money flowing in to the other (dark) side. This is shaping up as an interesting election campaign, for an entire host of reasons.

By the way, if you watch the last of the debate last night, watch during Clinton's moving rendition of a John Edwards speech, that he delivered during an earlier debate. Clinton's reading of it was even better than Edwards'. But did she give credit to Edwards, as she was all over Obama for not doing? Nope, not a word. Watch Obama while she is doing that. He is not a happy man. In fact, I would argue that his body language says he is furious. He had just been raked over the coals on national TV and accused of being nothing more than a "xerox". Mere minutes later, there is Clinton delivering a purloined speech, almost... yes, almost as though she hoped that he would explode on camera. It didn't work, if that was what she and her advisors hoped for. She had a nice speech, but my sense is that she hoped for much, much more. But just as that particular speech served as a swan song for John Edwards, it may well signal the start of her farewell tour. It was interesting to see how Obama acts when he is tired, is said to have a cold, and someone tries to blindside him. He seemed very rigid for about five minutes, then appeared able to shake it off. That works.

And all through the evening Clinton smiled that amazing stainless- steel smile, a facial mannerism intended to convey confidence, radiance, high spirits, warmth and good humor, but in the end, signifying... nothing.

She is a hell of a campaigner. They both are. I am feeling good about the general election, though it will get very, very strange before it is over. Racist stuff, anti-Moslem stuff, zenophobia, fear, fear-mongering, attack ads, false claims, phony bimbo eruptions, lies, fake national crises, avuncular statements about the "grave threats" to America if Democrats are elected. All sort of Big Brother, version 1.2b. If you want to see what Orwell envisioned, stay tuned.

Obama is running the smartest political campaign I have ever seen. The Edwards campaign was just... ineffective. Nice guy, valuable discussion of the gulf between rich and poor, an important voice in the early campaign. But do you want to see a campaign with legs? Donate as little as one dollar to the Obama campaign and you are in for an education in what can be done with even the most minimal contact from a voter. They reach out to ask your opinion, to engage you in writing to super-delegates, to donate, to make a pledge to match the donation of a first time donor, then they put you in touch with that new donor so you can bond. Then they ask you to come and work in the office and make calls to Ohio, to stuff envelopes, to call donors, to... and the list goes on. They don't just tell you all about what THEY are doing, they tell you about what they need you to help make happen. It takes both the donations and the interest on the part of a voter and grabs them and gives them a job. That multiplies their donation ten-fold. Seriously, send them one dollar, or five dollars, and you'll see. You can unsubscribe, but I think you will find, as I have, that it is fascinating to watch one of the cleverest people-based political machines I ever hope to see in operation, as it increasingly looks as though history is being made. Oh, stuff can always go wrong. Nothing is certain. But crossing a street has a risk, too. And I agree with Obama's base premise, we are badly in need of a major change right now. Being stupid is not charming, nor good governance.

Oh... and cozying up to a herd of lobbyists is not a sign of character.

Arthur

Weekend Update - February 23rd

• While most of you have probably heard by now that I'm retiring from Lane Transit this August, let's start things in the right direction with this: Debunking the Hemp Conspiracy Theory.


• Fidel Castro slumps away, Bush races to history's dungheap, and 13 million TVs prepare to die. Are you ready? Mark Morford comments on the end of an era.


• How to Stay In Iraq for the Next One Million Years. Tom Engelhardt


• The myth of The Surge. Hoping to turn enemies into allies, U.S. forces are arming Iraqis who fought with the insurgents. But it's already starting to backfire. A report from the front lines of the new Iraq.


• Dittoheads nationwide are spewing and foaming, and comedian Rush Limbaugh slips off his meds and calls Liberals "snakes." It would all be quite funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
• And then there's the racist ass wad Bill O'Reilly who wants to start a "lynch party" for Barak Obamma's wife. Holy crap!

Roger Stone, Dirty Trickster, Surfaces Again

(The following is a note Arthur sent me, and its target content is so bizarre I had to share it with all of you. This is just a small example of what will happen if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee for President.)


Roger Stone last was on the radar as a key player in the Bush Records case that misfired some years and took out Dan Rather in the process.

Now Roger has a new organization, pandering to the darkest heart of America: Click here.

And guess what? A rival anti-Hillary group thinks that his organization defames their group by being even creepier than the original. Is that irony, or what?

Arthur

New York Times Columnist Calls a Foul

(Note: Arthur wrote this February 10th. )


The Times endorsed Hillary Clinton in the NY Primary, but this editorial by Frank Rich appears to be moving the Times perilously close to switching camps in mid-primary. In an appearance before the Maine primary Clinton has again appeared to be taking questions from planted members of the audience, asking set-up questions. She got called on that earlier in the primary campaign, said that it was a dumb decision by a staffer who had been admonished or fired and would never happen again. But clearly it has. Rich is making strong statements about the Clinton campaign in this article. He sounds angry and contemptuous. When the press turns on a candidate that carries with it some incredible dangers. They have the resources to do some digging back into previous statements and actions that the public lacks the ability to follow up on. If the press feels that they are being played for fools they can easily become hostile, sometimes very hostile. We may not all read the NY Times, but the other journalists do. This sort of editorial can be deadly, particularly if Clinton loses the Maine caucuses today and then takes a hit this Tuesday in Virginia and Maryland, as seems increasingly likely.

Clinton can point to her victory in California, but I would caution others not to make too much of it. It is possible to get a permanent absentee ballot in CA, just by asking. Many people fill out their ballot and send it in when they receive it a month before the primary, so they won't lose it. If you lose it you have to go in and sign something saying you lost your ballot and be given some good- natured guff by the polling volunteers. There were two million plus absentee ballots in CA, most of them mailed long before Obama began to get some attention and momentum.

Meanwhile, over in Camp Bush, Mike Huckabee is having his own moment in the sun. The core Republican base seems torn as to who they dislike more, McCain or Huckabee. Both are seen as economically liberal or at least erratic, with Huckabee seen as more socially regressive, hence a nicer guy. Anyone who supports Christian militias and thinks the theory of evolution is an affront to God is not my idea of a "nice guy". McCain appears to have a permanently clenched jaw, as a result of skin cancer surgery and is said to be prone to lighting up on his colleagues if they disagree with him on legislation. With McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee for 2008 this could turn into an interesting campaign. Barack Obama increasingly seems to be the story on the Democratic side. He appears to be better liked by the press, which is be a huge benefit. Obama has some negatives of his own, that may be problematic in the general election, but his youth and speaking ability may be more than sufficient to help him win, if he makes it through the primary battle. And it will be a battle. At some point Team Clinton may realize that they are eroding the value of their brand name, but that moment has not yet happened. On balance, former Presidents probably should not campaign for their spouses. I find that the more of Bill Clinton that I see and hear, the less I want to see and hear. Less of him would make my heart grow fonder. He probably doesn't care what I think. What I think is that it is healthy for Democracies to have new faces, new advisors, new alliances, rather than just keep driving in the same ruts again and again, no matter how familiar those ruts are. Time for a change.

Arthur