The book, Game Change, has rightly been the talk of Washington, DC, and the pundit class. Like many have, I have read the published excerpts, a few of which shock me, but most of which confirm the rumors long existent about the real nature of the notable players in the groundbreaking 2008 Presidential election. What the book does for me is question the number of times I have given the benefit of the doubt to politicians based on their passionate entreaties that they have been so unfairly smeared by the media. In some instances, I have completely doubled back and reversed course altogether from my initial reservations regarding certain candidates (namely Hillary Clinton) by second-guessing myself. In doing so, I assumed that perhaps my own first impressions were wrong or were motivated by some heretofore unrealized internalized sexism on my part.
I wonder about the timing of releasing such salacious, and ultimately damning revelations now. Clearly, John Edwards' reputation and political fortunes were rendered null and void long before the book's release, though one does get the added bonus of being supremely grateful he didn't even come remotely close to securing the nomination. The small, but substantial band of true believers who bought into what we know now was coordinated, though barely contained myth might be the real losers in all of this. These people felt demoralized and rudderless when Edwards crashed to earth. If even half of what is printed is true regarding Elizabeth Edwards, she is unlikely to be able to reserve space on daytime television couches ever again. At any rate, few will be pressing the Pope to canonize her for suffering nobly with quiet resolve from breast cancer while her husband was carrying on an affair with another woman. The Edwards', like so many political marriages, apparently are made for each other, somewhere on cloud-cuckoo-land.
What might be the intent of releasing this book now? To encourage the Democratic party to rid itself of dead weight to maintain ample majorities in both the House and Senate with the upcoming Mid-Congressional elections? To make President Obama look good by comparison? To dance one final dirge on the grave of the supposedly invincible Clinton machine? To keep the Republican party weak and divided leading into 2012? As a cautionary tale towards all Americans that one should never believe the man (or woman) behind the curtain? Or is it purely as a means to stir up controversy and sell books by the cartload? Only the authors themselves know for sure.
Everyone's been talking about the Harry Reid comment, as well they should, but when I read it, all I see is an out-of-touch politician stuck in a way of thinking forty to forty-five years out of date. Who says "Negro" anymore, aside from hip hop superstars, except maybe in an ironic context? Though the remark is embarrassing enough on its face, it also points out just why Senator Reid was in a vulnerable state before this bombshell exploded. Behind the times and certainly behind the eight ball, the ultimate impact of this ill-chosen remark will not arrive for another ten months, but if this is the beginning of the end, history will record the precise reason why. One would hope this would also be a bucket of cold water to the face of the Democratic party, who has consistently clung to wet noodles like Reid and eschewed inspirational and potentially transformative leadership out of a stubborn refusal to delegate power to those with better ideas and better strategies.
If the portrayal in Game Change rings true, then we were fortunate to neither have nominated, nor elected now-Secretary Hillary Clinton. She comes across as a supremely impotent and callous leader: petty, cold, vindictive, and totally unprepared after the surprise loss in the Iowa caucus. The irony among many is that, if this story is true, Hillary Clinton is the absolutely last person I would ever want picking up the red phone at 3 am. Furthermore, the results of Bill's apparent unwillingness to stop philandering might not have been leaked to the public, but the fear that it would proved to be a major distraction, among many many others in the Clinton War Room. There were many of us out in the blogosphere who were accused of being clandestine Republican, or at least disloyal traitors to the party for voicing these same reservations, and I hope that now perhaps we can be vindicated as placing mostly ethical conduct (if not a winning team) before party line.
I don't blame those who wanted to see Hillary Clinton as the first female President in the hopes of putting a symbolic end to the oft-reviled glass ceiling. Even going in, she was clearly not a flawless candidate, but many who participated in the front lines of the women's equality movement were willing to overlook them in order to make a clear and unequivocal statement. As for me, I can't count the number of times I've voted for a candidate who neither inspires me, nor fills me with anything more than a rather perfunctory obligation to cast a ballot (see: Kerry, John). In the minds of some, no red flag or combination of red flags could have swayed them from taking Hillary Clinton to new living quarters at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But, in saying this, it is very dangerous to superimpose any dream on one single individual, particularly when the cause itself can at times be distorted into purely self-serving ends, rather than with the intent to positively influence as many people as possible and in so doing improve life for everyone.
Regarding the Hillary supporters, I do understand their motivation. When she was criticized from whichever corner was actively firing at her, they felt criticized, too. All of the times where women in position of power were discounted or called "bitch" when they tried to intrude upon what had long been spaces reserved purely for men translated to a supreme justification for their unyielding favor with Team Clinton. Still, what one must do, however, is qualify the criticisms and the negative comments in their proper context. "Bitch" can be meant in an equally petty, snidely condescending fashion regarding any woman who broaches Patriarchal protocol and demands to be both highly visible and highly outspoken. "Bitch", it must be added, can also be an epithet for someone whose mean-spirited behavior and ill-tempered personal conduct renders them most unpleasant and not especially ingratiating. So there is a difference, though sometimes it can be obscured or manipulated when it is politically expedient to do so.
This degree of self-identification at the expense of viewing the Senator's New Clothes is what drove the hard-core Hillary loyalists, some of which became PUMAs come convention time. It is also why the mainstream Feminist organizations like NOW backed Hillary Clinton to further their own cause, though in truth they are beholden to aging leadership, obsolete strategies, and tone-deaf attempts to stay relevant and pertinent to a new generation of younger feminists as well as those interested in the cause. Thus, it shouldn't be surprising why these organizations allied themselves with a candidate who shared all these same regrettable tendencies. Hillary Clinton might as well have been a PUMA herself, since by the end, it was only those of her own age range, skin color, level of education, and background who clung tenaciously to a fading hope. Again, true change will always be threatening to the status quo, but passing the torch isn't an inspirational invocation, it is an admonition in this context. It is well past time for a new generation of Americans to move forward the cause.
Returning briefly to then-Candidate Clinton, though there was certainly an undercurrent of sexism inherent in media portrayals and public opinion of Hillary Clinton, as revealed in the book, the candidate certainly didn't help her case by her private behavior. Furthermore, she was brought down and utterly discounted by one of the most bizarre bedfellow arrangements I've ever seen in the form of the Anybody but Hillary bandwagon, the nascent Obama campaign, and the weakened, but still effective Republican party media blitzkrieg. For once, all three were on the same page, with the same target in their sights, and all were dishing out a version of the presumptive front-runner that the passage of time has proven to be closer to fact than to fiction. When you actually are that which your opposition claims that you are, then it is time to consider punting.
Books like these reveal a fundamental truth about Americans, and perhaps all humans. We are all eager voyeurs, gleefully peering behind the curtain to observe a glimpse of something we should not be able to spy, but also praying that the camera eye will never be turned upon us at any time, for any reason. One might call it hypocrisy or the by product of a repressive society, but at any rate, it is the fundamental tension that leads us to create carefully crafted public images which are often nothing like our private, unguarded selves. This is true on Facebook and it is true out in the work world. I'd rather pursue this angle rather than resorting to a bunch of faux moralizing about how this book is scandalous and tawdry to no good end. Scandalous and tawdry has become a cottage industry of sorts and it will always have an eager market. There was a market for it a thousands years ago and there will be a market for it a century hence, I have no doubt.
One would hope, then, that recognizing the painful dysfunction inherent in our political stars would cause our views to soften or at least evolve. Being given a clear example of how propriety has a way of distorting the real from the imagined one would think would be liberating. Imagine if there would be no need to outsource our own shortcomings to a war room within our own heads or, if we had the money, five or six well-paid keepers. Still, to normalize this sort of behavior is neither my intent, nor my goal. I'd rather focus on how initial altruism often takes a back seat to ultimate ambition, both in the minds of candidates and those actively involved in the game itself. This is the lasting lesson I glean from all of this.
We can continue to build a cynical notion that politicians and politics are a game of smoke and mirrors. Books like these do nothing to dispel such beliefs and everything to root them in place. A study of hubris on the scale of this one should give us all reason to wonder if, were we in the same position, we would do any better. It takes a tremendous amount of self-discipline not to give in to the applause, to the star-struck supporters, to the constant attention, and to the flirtations and propositions of those attracted to power, eloquence, and inspiration. Fame is ephemeral, certainly, but it is also often instantaneous or immediate. One day we are unknown, the next everyone knows our name. We might handle it better if we'd had time to prepare ourselves for the good times and also the slings and arrows that are part of a packaged deal. Though we may tell ourselves and others that being important is a state of being we would not wish for ourselves, there is a partially hidden part of us who craves it and would not turn it down if it were offered. The rewards are too tempting for most to resist, or at least for very long. When new fame comes attached to power, one can understand why any system views it uneasily, though the reality is that only by embracing a fresh set of legs and a new energy can we ever move farther down the road towards progress.
With President Obama being a major disappointment in some corners, it was perhaps inevitable that Hillary Clinton loyalists would exercise their right to second-guess the inevitable nominee. Anne Kornblut's column in The Washington Post entitled, "When young women don't vote for women" is but the latest effort to chastise young feminists and young women in general for not being more supportive of the first female candidate to make a serious run for the White House. The column, regrettably, also invokes the counter-productive liberal guilt complex construct of the Oppression Olympics to make its point, which is something I thought we had recognized does nothing to unite and everything to divide. Pitting women against African-Americans in some kind of twisted priority system has been the demise of many worthy organizations and the beginning of arguments that inevitably lead to raised blood pressure.
Don't be confused by President Obama's speech on Afghanistan. Despite the president's word on Tuesday that a surge of US and international troops in Afghanistan would "allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011," that date is not a "drop dead deadline"--at least according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates recorded an interview this week with NBC's David Gregory on Meet The Press. Set to air Sunday morning, both Obama advisers will walk back on Obama's withdrawal language. While the president did say during his speech that conditions on the ground would be considered before a transition, Clinton and Gates seem to go a step further:
HILLARY CLINTON: We're not talking about an exit strategy or a drop dead deadline. What we're talking about is an assessment that in January 2011, we can begin a transition. A transition to hand off -- responsibility to the Afghan forces.
ROBERT GATES: We're not talking about an abrupt withdrawal. We're talking about something that will take place over a period of time. Our commanders think that these additional forces, and one of the reasons for the President's decision to try and accelerate their deployment is-- is the view that this extended surge has the opportunity to make significant gains in terms of reversing the momentum of the Taliban, denying them control of Afghan territory, and degrading their capabilities.
On January 1, 2007, Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken published a widely read article in the LegalTimes entitled, "How Does Your State Rank on The Democracy Index." Gerken argued that just as the Environmental Performance Index ("EPI") shamed countries such as Belgium to upgrade their environmental practices, a "Democracy Index" would embarrass state and localities into reforming their electoral administration through competition.
Since Bush vs. Gore in 2000, the debate about electoral reform has been dominated by anecdotes and overheated abstractions. Liberals like me have long suspected that states such as Ohio and Florida were deliberately disenfranchising minority voters sympathetic to Democratic candidates. Conservatives complained that voter fraud and urban political machines were allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots at the expense of Republican candidates. With her article, Gerken contended that a Democracy Index would replace a debate dominated by shouting with data driven arguments instead:
I just got done reading Keith Olbermann's tortured excuse for not calling out Barack Obama on his FISA cave, and frankly, it's as lame as it can get. Sorry, Keith, but you've sold out to the far right without even realizing it. Here's why.
Throughout this campaign, you've been doing little or nothing but bash Hillary Clinton for all the wrong reasons. While the senator supposedly representing New York has undoubtedly made plenty of verbal gaffes and has a poor record of defending the Constitution against the shrub and his gargoyle, you focused your rage exclusively upon her, and for all the wrong things. One example is her suggestion that the bigot bloc might not vote for Obama, which is true: no matter how much he panders to the far right, no matter how often he bashes blacks to their faces, the bigots in this country simply are not going to vote for a black man for president; they'd sooner cast their ballots for a white woman. You, however, joined in with those who relentlessly attacked her for pointing out this fundamental truth.
"This isn't the party I planned but I sure like the company," Hillary said as she opened her concession speech at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC.
Speaking to the "18 million...from all walks of life," who voted for her, Hillary congratulated and endorsed Barack Obama, stating:
"The way, the way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passions, our strengths and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States."
Thanking her supporters for their hard work and dedication, Hillary expressed the optimism that she oft spoke of on the campaign trail. "See, you can be anything you want to be."
Continuing her fight for Universal Health Care, a signature issue for Hillary Clinton, she noted that she entered "public service to help people solve their problems and live their dreams."
"You'll always find me on the frontlines of democracy fighting for the future." Hillary said.
Hillary also focused women's rights, stating she wants to address "every last bias out there."
"We must make sure that men and women alike, understand the struggles of their mothers and grandmothers and that women enjoy the equal opportunities: equal pay and equal respect."
Moreover, Hillary spoke to equality in general saying, "There are no acceptable prejudices," and that "children will take for granted that yes, a woman or an African American can become the President of the United States."
Emphasizng unity, Hillary stated, "This has been a tough fight but the Democratic Party is a family," and repeated throughout her speech, "We must help elect Barack Obama President."
As Hillary said today, "We cannot let this moment slip away."
A hearty and sincere congratulations to Barack Obama and all of his supporters. The only other thing I have to say about that is to ask you to please reach out to our brothers and sisters in the HRC camp, many of whom have been abused in this process. We are all Democrats, we are all progressives, and we all have a lot of work to do in fixing our sadly and badly broken country.
"I want to publicly acknowledge Hillary Clinton for the outstanding race that she has run.
"She is a great senator from New York she is an extraordinary leader of the Democratic party and she has made history alongside me over the last 16 months and I'm very proud to have competed against her."
--Barack Obama on Hillary Clinton
"I know Senator Obama understands what it is at stake here. It has been an honor to contest these primaries with him. It is an honor to call him my friend."
--Hillary Clinton on Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two of the ablest politicians in recent memory, have declared an end to hostilities. Understanding that they share the same goals, with some respectful disagreement on how to achieve these goals, they are beginning the process of coming together to form a united front against John McCain in the fall.
As passionate partisans, it is now time for us to follow their lead and start the reconciliation process among the netroots so that our country can turn abruptly away from the edge of the cliff it's been skating along these past few years of the Bush administration, and start heading in a direction that restores our values and reunites our country.
(wtf... btw... omg. it's a disease, these acronyms. - promoted by pfiore8)
I didn't notice it at first. I was under the all-consuming headphones, demolishing my remaining hearing with an album called Diamond Hoo Ha, deep within the selfish recesses of my own warped and spoiled suburban mind. It was the night of yet another dipshit, two-bit primary in some states, and an even skimpier night of civic duty here on the Central Coast, so the low whine was indistinguishable from Gaz Coombs and Measure G and Proposition 99 and the rest of existence's dull roar.
Then I recognized it, processed the foul frequency in my debilitating cerebrum, and promptly dismissed it. Popular vote Florida Michigan in to win why'd he back when I was president blah blah fucking blah. Another primary is lost and yet won. Another goal post is moved and yet there are still points scored and funds raised and egos stroked and babies kissed and blood sucked and brains fried in this stupefying death march of a Democratic primary. The ciphers croaked on. The mirrors kept reflecting. The desperate projection couldn't stop thinking about tomorrow.
I have an idea for a health insurance company, one that is sure to work really well. Here's the pitch:
You pay me a fee every month-say, between $500 and $1,000-and I pocket the money. In return, in the event you need someone to cover your medical expenses, I'll tell you in so many words to go fuck yourself, you're on your own. I'll use any excuse to deny your claim, and if one of my employees does the unthinkable and puts me in a position of having to shell out money to pay for your freeloading, I'll send that imbecile to join you on the unemployment line.
I might feel the occasional bout of generosity; I might deign to throw you the occasional bone, just to keep you complacent, and cover some minor thing. But don't expect me to pay for your heart operation. What were you doing wearing it out by making it beat so much, anyway? Don't you know that's a sure-fire way to end up needing surgery at some point? Especially if you don't take care of yourself by eating right and exercising regularly? And you can forget about that cancer treatment. Drugs and radiation treatments cost money. Pay for it yourself. I'm busy counting.
By the way, you can forget about complaining. Even if you manage to get through the array of computers set up to discourage you from lodging a complaint, any human employee is going to give you the runaround, too. Raise too much of a ruckus, and I'll just cancel your policy. That'll show you, you ingrate.
And I won't stop there. Just in case some uppity customer decides this isn't legal, or shouldn't be, I'll use some of the money you pay me every month to bribe politicians in the form of campaign contributions to pass legislation protecting my right to bilk you for those monthly fees. Oh, sure, you might complain. You might even try to vote out corrupt politicians who accept my bribes, but by the time you get off your lazy ass I'll have bought pretty much everyone in D.C. and the fifty states who might be capable or inclined to resist. Let's face it: with campaigns costing more and more money each cycle, politicians listen to those who can fork over a hell of a lot more than that measly ten or twenty dollars you can afford to part with. You're screwed.
Great idea, right? Well, not for you, but we're talking about me. You don't factor into the equation, except as an ever-opening wallet. What's that? You don't think it's so hot a concept? You're right, it isn't. But that's exactly what you buy into whenever you sign up for insurance from companies ranging from Humana to Kaiser Permanente. The only difference between what I pitched to you, and what the health insurance industry tells you, is that I'm being up front about my intentions.
The health insurance industry is the among the biggest and most successful scam operations in the history of the United States. It is set up to get you to pay money in return for almost nothing. And because what little public health care exists is severely underfunded, and qualifications limited only to certain cross-sections of the poor and elderly, this means your options for alternatives are extremely limited. In fact, nearly fifty million Americans have no recourse but to go without insurance, because they cannot afford the premiums (I'm one of them, by the way).
How did all this get started? As Michael Moore pointed out in his excellent documentary, SiCKO (which I blogged about last year), the scam was created when the CEO of Kaiser Permanente at the time had his flunkies meet with then-president Richard Nixon to discuss how the insurance industry could kill three birds with one stone: dismantle what public health care system existed, ensure that it could never return, and become obscenely wealthy in the process. It wasn't long afterward that Nixon pushed through Congress legislation that would fundamentally alter the health care system of the United States-for the worse.
What Nixon and Kaiser rammed through Congress resulted in the creation of the HMO system we suffer today. It's the scam outfit that separates you from your money, while denying you coverage for your medical expenses. And you allow it to go on. Why is this? I could write a dissertation about it, but essentially it all boils down to fear and the dominance of the right in the media on issues such as health care. Professor George Lakoff of Berkley University described in 2005 how conservatives have come to shape and control the national discussion, and get Americans to vote against their own interests. The fear element involves scaring you with horror stories of socialism and the loss of freedom, never mind that you've already given up your freedom.
The problem is compounded not only by the failure of the Democratic Party to oppose this sort of swindle, but in its embrace of the status quo as a matter of policy. While Barack Obama builds up his illusion of progressivism, his actual history suggests he is not prepared to challenge the status quo at all, but merely is all too willing to continue it. Hillary Clinton joins him in being among the top recipients of bribe money from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. The two Democratic rivals for the presidency have even taken millions of dollars in bribe money from so-called health professionals. And we all know where Republican John McCain stands on the issue of health care: more of the same.
This is the scam you pay for with your tax dollars, and the money you pay out of pocket. In my next entry, I'll tell you how you can do something about it.
Denver, CO - At the main entrance to Denver International Airport there is a towering statue of a blue fiberglass bronco with blazing eyes. Mustang is the closest thing to a horse from Hell that I have personally ever seen and the fucker is eerily disturbing on a very basic level. It pops up visibly from miles away as you drive into that massive airport that is closer to the fucking Kansas state line than the Mile High City like some primitive warning to ward off warring tribes, very primal. The story behind the damned thing apparently is more than somewhat macabre as it fell upon the sculptor one Luis Jiminez, killing him prior to being finished which to the more superstitious amongst us is in and of itself enough to send chills up the spine and make the roots of hair follicles tingle. The brutal irony of this monstrosity guarding DIA with the coming war for the future of the Democratic party at the Denver convention this August is absolutely delicious.
Perhaps the most poignant statement of today's DNC Rules Panel, was offered by Donna Brazile, Superdelegate and Panel Committee Member. Brazile's comment came as a counter to Governor Blanchard, Hillary Clinton supporter. Blanchard denies the Michigan election was a "flawed primary" as Congressman Bonior and others pointed out:
"You must NOT turn you back on our loyal state," said Blanchard. The candidates taking their names off the ballot "was a knowing, willing decision. It doesn't make the election flawed. It makes a flawed strategy."
Brazile, driving home the obvious, stated that "Changing the rules in the middle of the game is called cheating."
Donna Brazile: "My Mama Taught Me to Play by the Rules."
It seems everyone is in uproar over Hillary Clinton's remarks about her staying in the race for the Democratic nomination to run for president through the month of June, and her ill-chosen example of Bobby Kennedy-the senator and brother of John F. Kennedy who, like his presidential sibling, was assassinated. The remarks were, of course, in the poorest of taste and they have received all the scorn they deserve. But are the commotions raised by those remarks, the sheer outrage and disgust, for the right reasons?
Clinton could just as easily been talking about herself, and the potential threat of assassination to her own person, as about her rival for the nomination, Barack Obama. That few, if any, seem to realize this is yet another attack on her for all the wrong reasons. Yes, it was insensitive and divisive, hurtful and potentially dangerous, for Clinton to invoke the trauma of Bobby Kennedy's murder in 1968 in making the case that she must remain in contention for the nomination to run for president.
Kipling is the only English writer of our time who has added phrases to the language. The phrases and neologisms which we take over and use without remembering their origin do not always come from writers we admire.
One of Kipling's most famous poems offers lessons to Hillary Clinton on how she ought to conduct herself as this marathon, bruising fight for the 2008 Democratic nomination draws to a close. And the need for party unity becomes paramount to coalesce behind a once-in-a-generation candidate who is poised to succeed in the General Election in November.
The choice is obvious: either we succeed collectively or fail individually -- only to see a continuation of the most destructive domestic and foreign policies in the post-WW II era.
Reform Immigration -
March on Washington
