More Frank Rich BS speweth forth

A couple weeks ago the New York Times columnist Frank Rich received a thumbs down from the Kalamazoo Post with his promotion of ancient anti-Clinton memes. This week, Rich makes up a whole new set of delusional memes to be cast about without regard for accuracy. He must be studying the swift-boat Kool-Aid recipe and his fellow liberals are drinking it up.

My critique of Frank Rich's most recent missive would be equally scathing and replete with references, but I'm not sure I want to make a mini-career of trying to clear up all of the inaccuracies in Mr. Rich's blather. I'll make a couple observations. First, we learned that Frank Rich watched Hillary's entire Town Hall broadcast but has absolutely nothing substantive to say about the actual content of that broadcast, only that it apparently wasn't as cool as the Barack Obama Youtube video. The horror!

We also learned that Bill Clinton is a racist for praising Jesse Jackson's 1988 South Carolina campaign and Hillary's strategist is a racist for saying the word "cocaine" (a word used in Obama's own memoir), but Rich is not bringing race into the conversation when he uses the term "ghettoize" or when he talks almost threateningly about a potential "race-tinged brawl" at the convention. And Rich accuses the Clintons of risking "shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America"? Methinks he doth protest too much.

Finally, Rich fictionalizes the current situation of the "ghost delegates" from the phantom primaries in Florida and Michigan. Somehow Clinton is the establishment candidate because she went against the Democratic establishment and entered those primaries and won delegates. As the primary season matures, it is becoming glaringly apparent that the Democratic Party may not have a candidate with the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination unless these two large disenfranchised states are somehow counted. According to Rich, Clinton is somehow being unfair for asking for consideration of those votes that loyal Democrats had cast for her and then he makes up some claim that she is being disingenuous because she never wanted them counted in the first place. Huh? Idiot.

If Mr. Rich likes Obama, great... he should vote for him. But he should refrain from this BS demonization of Hillary Clinton. At some level we should see the lunacy of this constant and pointless unsubstantiated malevolence towards the Clintons; it was wrong when the right-wing smear machine made stuff up, and it's wrong when soft-headed liberals do the same. If the left wing of the Democratic Party intends to win the White House, they will need to polish their tactics because such obtuse reasoning and rank inaccuracies will never make it against the right-wing Leviathan waiting in the wings.

Economists Debate How to Fix Health Care

Paul Krugman (left) explains why Hillary Clinton’s health care plan works and Barack Obama’s does not.

Dean Baker (right) makes a weak rebuttal.

And Krugman makes a few other points.

My rant: Fixing health care would fix a lot of economic problems in this country. Employees would have more mobility thus increasing innovation, costs would decrease as more healthy insurees pay into the system and insurers are required to take all comers, more health maintenance would give us a healthier workforce and employers would be more willing to hire if health care were not an issue.

Mandates are the only way to get to universal care and Obama relinquishes that item from the start-- a fatal flaw in his plan. In addition to Krugman's many salient points, I would add that currently physicians and hospitals are required to care for all sick and injured people; therefore, all potentially sick and injured should have the ability to pay for those services. Only Clinton provides this requisite.

Health Care: Barack vs. Hillary

My quick analysis of health care issue. I’m certainly no policy wonk, but as someone who is concerned about health care and its delivery system, I have paid attention to their competing policies. Lately it has become popular to view the two candidates as being similar ideologically and the differences are only in tenor and perceived electability. I disagree. There are fundamental differences in the two health care plans and I’ll explain why I think Clinton’s is better.

First, Hillary Clinton’s plan calls for mandatory coverage, while Barack Obama only wants to make insurance available and affordable. He feels that nobody “chooses” to go without insurance and thus no requirement to be covered is necessary. While reducing costs will enable more people to get health care insurance, a significant number will remain uninsured yet physicians will still be required to treat them when (not if) they get sick.

Clinton has famously said, "If you don't start with the goal of covering everybody, you'll never get there… Democrats should stand for universal healthcare." This is absolutely without doubt the only realistic plan. As long as doctors and hospitals are required to care for the sick and injured, then the potentially sick and injured should be required to have the ability to pay for that care. Period.

Note that neither candidate is calling for centrally controlled health care. Both see a place for private insurance companies in the process.

Second, Barack Obama has called for an expansion of State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover middle class kids. This is a federally funded program, administered by the individual states, to provide care for indigent children.

Hillary Clinton championed SCHIP from the beginning, but she wants to keep it only for poor folks. TO expand this program to families making $74,000 is not appropriate.

Third, Obama has called for open legislative deliberations to discuss priorities for any health care plan. Bring “all the players” to the table, he says, in order to shed light on the lobbying and finagling that normally goes on behind closed doors.

While this is a popular meme, the so-called Sunshine Statutes often bring such deliberation to a screeching halt. Deals are made behind closed doors all the time and sometimes that is the only way the individual lawmakers can claim that they fought hard for their constituents and sponsors while they may have had to compromise key issues in the smoke-filled room. The practical fact is that health care entails deeply held dogmas about the right to care versus huge industry profits and open debate may stilfe a workable solution.

I give Barack Obama credit for recognizing the obvious fact that health care is a compelling issue, something the Republican Party has missed. But I agree with Hillary Clinton that universal care is a requisite, and these deals sometimes have to be ironed out with gnashing of teeth by policy wonks and not necessarily held up for grandstanding as lobbyists watch their expensive Senators pontificate.

There are distinct differences on this issue between the two candidates, and I lean heavily toward Hillary Clinton on her thoughtful plan.

Frank Rich: Tool of the Week

With all due respect to my friend the Communications professor, Frank Rich is a moron. And this current article has at least five examples of outright inaccuracy or delusional thinking. I read it yesterday and was half-tempted to write a complete blog, but demurred because I figured it didn’t matter anyway. Conservative Democrats don’t take Rich seriously, Liberal Democrats are so delirious over Obama by now that any fuel to this anti-Clinton fire is superfluous, and Republicans don’t read. But since the good professor brought it up, I’ll try to sum up my thoughts as concisely as possible. I’ll let Dr. S correct my errors.

Rich says, “Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?” The examples of red-faced eruptions, I presume (Rich cites no specifics), are when Clinton called foul on Obama’s self-characterization as an anti-war candidate when he voted for every single war funding bill, including the supplementals. Is this not true? The only difference is that Hillary voted for the 2002 Iraqi Force resolution before Obama was in the Senate. He says he was against the war before that resolution, but we have to take him at his word how he would have voted. Remember that 2002 bill was not a declaration of war, only a consent for president to use force if necessary to carry out UN inspections. Obama was in office when the fighting started and voiced no official dissent (unlike others like Russ Feingold and Chuck Hagel.)

Clinton defends this stance in another clip and sets the record straight on Obama using the race card. I see no “red face” or hear any “rant”; watching the video is important because you can see and hear the tenor of his voice and the smile on his face. He looks like I would imagine any professor would when educating a student on a sophomoric question.

The “fact-challenged rants” I can only imagine (again, Mr. Rich cites no specific “rant”) perhaps refer to Clinton’s assertion of voter disenfranchisement by the Democratic party in Nevada. If you listen to the exchange, Clinton was merely answering a question about a lawsuit filed by the teacher’s union against the Nevada Democratic Party. In the video I see, his face is not red and I sense no rage or even any discontent, only a little impatience, which I think is more than appropriate. [As an aside, when listening to these videos, savor the moment of a president actually speaking in complete sentences—quite a pleasant departure from what we have grown used to, no?]

Okay, Chris, here is my assertion. Jon Stewart on the Dailyshow has put this more succinctly than I could with this piece by Samantha Bee. An entire dialogue is being created here by the anti-Clintonians of an out-of-control Bill Clinton flying into purple rages and making wild accusations about the opposing candidate. Bill is characterized as “red-faced” and “fact-challenged” yet Rich supplies no references. Who’s “fact-challenged” here? But the facts don’t matter because the damage is done by the mere rhetoric of the characterization, and the liberals and Republicans lap it up. The Republicans always believe this stuff-- I can understand that-- after all they’re still eating Karl Rove’s shit sandwiches, but I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed in the Liberal Democrats—they should be smarter than this.

Frank Rich goes on to broach another meme, the so-called Clinton dirty laundry. He says, “Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been ‘vetted’ and that ‘there are no surprises’ left to be mined by her opponents.” Rich goes on about the Clintons failure to provide a list of contributors to the Bill Clinton Library in Arkansas, and I can just see the glee in little Frank’s pudgy face when he concludes that this is a fatal flaw in Hillary Clinton’s campaign because the names on that list will, I suppose, sink her candidacy. Imagine if we learn that Saudi Arabia gave ten grand, or –heaven forbid!—Merck gave a hundred grand! The horrors! Rich even goes back to the Marc Rich (no relation I presume) pardon for fuel to heap on this inferno of apparent guilt and shame.

Frank Rich says with an apparent sigh, “People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business.” Thank God we have Frank Rich to put a fine point on the tactics of the Republican Party operatives – I’m sure most of us, especially the Clintons, were unaware.

The fact is that Barack Obama has not run through the gauntlet of Republican opposition research. After all, the only state-wide election he has won was against the vaunted Alan Keyes—not exactly a tough match. The Rovians will doubtless find all the dirt that is out there, every nickel bag of dope Obama admittedly smoked had a dealer attached. Every ex-girlfriend will have a story and every parking ticket will be investigated. Has Frank Rich already forgotten the 1992 campaign when we heard from Arkansas state troopers, Juanita Broaddrick and assorted unsubstantiated other rape charges? Does Rich already forget the lame 6-year Whitewater investigation, the “murder” of Vince Foster, Travelgate… etc, etc, ad infinitum? Why does Rich think this will be different? Have the Republicans become kinder and gentler?

Obama is a classic old-school liberal, as far as anyone can tell. This week’s endorsement by Ted Kennedy has the conservatives licking their chops—imagine all the ads that are being created as we speak. My guess is that the only way a Republican can win in November is for an inexperienced candidate like Obama to wander naively into the oncoming locomotive of the Republican pro-business juggernaut. So much is at stake in this election, I have every confidence that no stone will be left unturned and Obama may be fried alive if he makes it to the general election.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the guy. He seems smart, charismatic and honest. But my money is on Hillary Clinton for several reasons. You can read them here. Frank Rich needs to get a clue and stop buying into the clichés hyped by the media concerning Bill’s “fact-challenged rants” and “eruptions.” The real fact is that Hillary Clinton does represent the middle way, the moderate problem-solver. Bill was the rare animal who was not only able to get elected, but was also a lucid, capable bureaucrat; not since FDR or (maybe) Ike have we had one of those. I have confidence that Hillary would be a capable president, but the jury is still out whether she can get elected. I wouldn’t bet against the Clintons—or as Frank Rich so cutely puts it, “Billary.” (Calling them “Billary” is just so-o-o clever that Frankie repeats it at least half a dozen times… and even puts it in the title! What a stunning intellect!)

For What It's Worth: Let's pick a President

Hillary Clinton is my choice for president, but I am quick to say that any of the top three Democrats would get my vote in a general election against any of the current Republican nominees. If I were a dreamer, and why not (?), I would hope for a deadlocked Democratic convention and Al Gore gets drafted, picking Barack Obama as his running mate. But since all my dreams have already come true in this life, I doubt I’m due any more.

Why do I choose Hillary? This is not an emotional decision. I have friends who have expressed visceral beneficial feelings for Barack Obama, and while I do not share those feelings, I respect and understand them. I have a wife who becomes teary at the prospect of a woman president, and while I do not share that emotion, I respect and understand it.

My support for Hillary is very basic. I agree with her entirely on every single issue, and I think she has the nuts to get things done. Period. Additionally, I have to admit that I would get a certain joy in my heart just seeing the verbally abusive band of anti-Hillary varmints go batshit crazy during her Inaugural Address. I fantasize that they’d have to scrape Rush off the pavement after he wanders aimlessly out into traffic in a Vicoden-induced haze. I picture Tom DeLay putting down his bug sprayer just long enough to choke on his own DDT-laced vomit. I would get a half-chub watching Trent Lott’s plastic hair spontaneously combust in angst.

While Obama seems to support many of the same policies, I’m not sure he has the stones to stand toe-to-toe with the creatures of the Netherworld who currently call themselves Republicans. He’s a nice guy, and a smart guy. But he’s just doesn’t seem mean enough or paranoid enough to negotiate his way through the quagmire that he would certainly encounter. As Caroline Kennedy recently pointed out, Barack Obama does seem very much like her father… and unfortunately, we all remember the tragic end to that Camelot. I believe that Hillary knows when to duck.

The United States is at a critical juncture with stepwise disasters, like several slow motion train wrecks, occurring simultaneously on both the domestic and foreign fronts. The current administration has allowed so much to go wrong that it will take a generation of flawless governance to right the ship of state. While I usually do not go in for campaign rhetoric, I admit that I have fallen for Senator Clinton’s riff about experience.

Senator Clinton has been fighting for things like universal health care and fiscal restraint, “third way” Rubinomics, for at least the 15 years that I have been paying attention to her. The picture of her at Nixon’s impeachment trial (pictured at left) in 1974 speaks volumes of her long term wherewithal. While Edwards was chasing ambulances, she was taking these motherfuckers to task. If Hillary didn’t break under the inhumane treatment that she received in the 1990’s, then she is truly bionic. If she wants this job after all that shit, then she deserves it.

A few nuts and bolts. The universal health care plan that Senator Clinton has outlined is exactly the way it should be done. Everybody gets health care insurance, whether it is through an employer or purchased on the open market. Citizens get a choice and the government subsidizes those that cannot pay. People pay what they can, they get care, and doctors get paid. Perfect. Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who does not desire to “expand S-Chip”, she only promises to “protect S-Chip.” I know this is subtle, but there is an important distinction: S-Chip is welfare—a form of Medicaid—and middle class families who make $74,000 per year should not be eligible for welfare. Obama and Edwards are quick to pander on this issue.

I truly believe that Hillary Clinton in the White House will immediately re-establish the United States’ role as the arbiter of human rights in the world. Our allies would undoubtedly accept either Barack Obama or John Edwards as well, but Clinton would be able to quickly garner international support for such things as multinational forces for Iraq, regional summits in the Middle East, international climate treaties and guidance from friends to help us unwind the Guantanamo gulag in an orderly and legal way. The world remembers our commitment in the Balkans under Bill Clinton, and they remember the yeoman’s effort put forth working for peace in Palestine and the success of his expertise in Northern Ireland, a part of the world that is currently enjoying unprecedented economic growth largely due to that peace agreement.

We need an energy policy. We need to rebuild our infrastructure. We need to educate the next generation for a changing world. These have all been neglected for eight long years, and I think that Hillary has the proper balance of left and right cerebral function to formulate complex plans, get legislation written and supported, and begin to solve these problems. Could Obama or Edwards get these things done, too? Sure, I think they probably could, but I have more confidence that Hillary would.

I’m not sure I could physically cast a ballot for a malpractice attorney, but if John Edwards were the nominee, he would get my vote. This election is too important to allow a militarist like McCain in the White House. I’ll be honest, I understand the Constitution’s proscription against a religious test for office, but there is simply no way in hell I would acquiesce to an evangelical minister who eschews evolution and thinks Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to have control of the most sophisticated military in the world. And guys who wear magic underwear? Likewise, I’m sorry but Romney doesn’t get my vote either. Giuliani? Heck, even the thick-skulled Republican voters have figured out what he’s all about.

Bottom line: we need a Democratic president. None of the candidates are perfect, but they never are. Frankly, I am heartened at the good choices we do have this time around, but I also realize that my judgment may be skewed; heck, even Homer Simpson would look pretty good after watching our current president stumble his way through the last 7 years.

I look forward to a change in the White House. I would be honored to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton for our next president. And I’ll be first in line for Barack Obama in 2016. Al Gore, if not our next president, would certainly look great as Secretary of State or Attorney General... and maybe President Obama can put him on the Supreme Court someday.

Let's end the misery... put Hillary in the White House

Can't we just put Hillary in the White House now and get on with governing this nation?

I’m no obstinate Hillary fan by any means, but a couple things have led me to the conclusion that we would be better off with another Clinton presidency, and the sooner the better.

Mideast Peace. We currently have an alignment of the stars that represents a fleeting chance to achieve something substantive in the Palestinian “situation.” Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas are the most moderate respective leaders of Israel and Palestine in generations. They are willing to talk, to summit and even to appear with George W. Bush—all very high risk behaviors—in order to pursue the greater good of a peaceful two-state solution in the Levant. This is big stuff. After seven years of outright neglect, the US has been forced to host the summit in Annapolis. Our president, ever the gracious host, showed up briefly for a photo-op and managed to mispronounce not just one, but both leaders' names in the space of 30 seconds. Idiot. Bush should go away. Now. He has no intention of putting any effort into anything else and Israeli-Palestinian peace is too important and too achievable to leave it to such a simpering dolt. Bill Clinton was known for his detailed understanding of the conflict; even knowing which Jerusalem streets bordered key neighborhoods. He brokered the peace in Northern Ireland that has garnered him rock star status there for their burgeoning and booming economy. Let’s see if Hillary can do the same for Israel.

The other Democrats. Let’s face it; no other Democrat has a real chance of winning the nomination. Sure, I may prefer Biden or Dodd or Richardson, but they aren’t going to make a big push to challenge Senator Clinton. Obama seems smart, but he’s has no chance of manufacturing a winning coalition to beat Hillary. Come back in 8 years when you have more gravitas and Senatorial stature. Hillary Clinton, while not the perfect candidate, is intelligent, thoughtful and has the right connections to turn this ship of state around. Every candidate has flaws, but none of hers are fatal. The issue of perceived unelectability is a sham. Yeah, there are a lot of people who hate Hillary, who loathe her very protoplasm. She evokes a visceral response from a significant number of voters. Just as Tucker Carlson was making this very point last night, it occurred to me… who gives a shit? Tucker isn’t voting for Hillary anyway, or Biden or Obama or any Democrat, ever, so who gives a rip what he thinks of Hillary’s “electability.” And that goes for anyone delusional enough to have voted for George W. Bush or old man Bush for that matter. Heck most of those people, if they’re old enough, were so bent that they voted for Dick Nixon-- Dick Nixon for crissakes!!--so how can their opinion possibly be trusted—or even considered? It’s time to take this country back and cast such lunatic worries—such as caring what the Republicans will think—aside. One part of me wants Hillary elected just because it will piss off as many Republicans as possible.

The Republican candidates. The frontrunners are the most ragtag cast of losers and miscreants ever assembled. Seriously, are Republican voters that cynical that they can keep a straight face and vote for Giuliani after all the hell that was raised over Bill Clinton’s extra-marital tryst? Giuliani kept his mistress holed up on Long Island with police protection while he went through a messy divorce. New Yorkers hated Rudy up until 9-11, and then they still voted him out of office. Romney has flipped more times on more issues than Aunt Jemima has flipped pancakes. Sleepy Fred Thompson still thinks we’re at war with the Soviet Union—just what we need: yet another ill-informed, lazy old white guy who overplays his “aw shucks” persona at the expense of realpolitik. The only reasonable candidates are Ron Paul who at least is a consistent conservative, and John McCain who inexplicably cannot find traction in this field of incompetents. Whichever candidate slitherss out of this quagmire of misfits surely will have no ability to rouse the base into going to the polls next November. But, whatever.

It’s way too early to become too invested in the day-to-day battle for the White House, but certain issues make the status quo shameful. Bush obviously is the lamest duck president in history with no hope or inclination to improve his legacy. His major concern is now how much money he can make on the lecture circuit, “you know, to replenish the ol’ coffers.” While our soldiers continue to die in his war and taxpayers continue to pay off his debts, we can all rest easy that George’s “ol’ coffers” will be replenished—I know that was your greatest concern.

My personal wet dream is that the current Democratic Congressional leadership grows the gonads in the next few months to impeach Bush and Cheney for high crimes against our Constitution, spying on American citizens, holding prisoners without counsel, torturing prisoners against the Geneva Conventions and disenfranchising voters. Will that happen? Doubtful, but I can dream. I have to say that Pelosi and Reid have been a disappointment to me. While their majorities are thin, they do have control of committee chairmanships, which gives them the power of the subpoena, and they have not taken advantage of this gambit. My preference would have been to bring this government to a screeching halt while the rule of law was rammed up the administration’s collective asshole; but that was not to pass and it’s hard not to grow cynical.

Now we have to endure Karl Rove rewriting history instead of reviewing his defense briefs. In his laughable account of the run-up to the Iraq war, Rove claims the Bush administration asked for restraint on the Iraq Force Resolution in 2002, but the Congress passed the Iraq force resolution anyway thus painting poor old George W. Bush into a corner. Ha! Welcome to 1984 and George Orwell's memoryhole. And tell me again why Karl Rove is even allowed to walk the streets without being spat upon in castigation?

Reasonable people cannot try to appeal to such a moronic subculture that would accept Rove, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice as viable leaders. This same subculture should be marginalized and ignored. We have been thrust into a war that has enriched all the wrong players: private contractors (ie, mercenaries), tribal warlords and oil sheiks whose petrodollars have an uncanny way of showing up in support of terrorism. Our tax dollars have been flushed down the rathole with no prospect for any return on the investment. Our soldiers have been killed and maimed while no political or diplomatic solution is proffered.

Next November a Democrat will certainly be elected President. That Democrat will likely be Hillary Clinton. Can’t we just put her there now to get a head start on the godawful mess she’ll need to cleanup?