Sherrod's firing is a symptom of Obama's illness

Try to imagine a member of the Bush administration firing a lower level employee because they had learned of an impending embarrassing media story. It would never happen. As much as I disagreed with nearly every policy promoted by the previous administration, I have to admit that no matter how idiotic and counterproductive the policy, they could carry a message, stick to a script and get their programs enacted-- we have 40,000 needlessly maimed and killed soldiers as evidence, but that's another topic.

Where is the revolution I voted for in 2008? Not only are many of Obama's policies Bush-light, but he has been only able to pass lukewarm health care reform, wimpy financial regulation and anemic economic stimulus, and even in the every day management of personnel, Obama's administration has faltered. Who fires someone without all the facts? If his cabinet members wet their pants over a potential Glenn Beck story, then it's no wonder they couldn't champion a public option in health care, and what chance is there that Afghanistan won't become another Vietnam?

Let's roll some Olbermann, who is growing weary of the Obama diplomacy to the dingbats:

Tom Vilsack didn't first look at the whole videotape, didn't first ask if the event took place when Ms. Sherrod worked for USDA, and not 24 years ago."We could have waited all day, we could have had a media circus," said the Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House. "But we took decisive action and it's a good example of how to respond in this atmosphere."...

..."Can you give us some, specifically, some things that he said that would help us?," Mr. Gibbs was asked at this afternoon's press briefing. "Well again," Mr. Gibbs replied, "I think he, he talked about the fact that, that, that a disservice had been done here and an injustice had happened."...

...He was quoting you Mr. President. Fired up!? "A disservice has been done." Fired up!? "An injustice had happened." Mr. President, it is beyond admirable that in your position, and at this time of fearful division in this country, that you view yourself as President of everyone, not —as your predecessor did — only as President just of those who voted for you.

...But you must, at long last, Sir, come to terms with the fact that while you have spent these first 18 months and one day of your presidency bending over backwards for those others, they have spent this time insisting you are not actually president, or you are a communist, or you are bent on destroying whatever is starring this week in the paranoid fantasies churned out by Fox News and the farcical Breitbart....

...As you stay silent and neutral and everybody's President, they are gradually convincing racists that they are civil rights leaders and you are Police Chief Bull Connor. And then some idiot at Fox news barks, and your people throw an honorable public servant under the nearest bus, just for the sake of 'decisive action' and the correct way to respond in this atmosphere....

...Mr. President, please stop trying to act, every minute, like some noble, neutral figure, chairing a government of equal and dispassionate minds, and contemplative scholars. It is a freaking war out here, and the imagined consensus you seek is years in the future, if ever it is to be re-discovered....

...Sir, get a copy of the Michael Douglas movie "The American President." When you get to the line where he says "I was so busy keeping my job, I forgot to do my job" — hit the rewind button. Twenty times. "Fired up?" "FIRED up?" Anybody? Anybody?

Exactly. Falling for a Breitbart scam can be conveniently pinned on Vilsack, but the otherwise miquetoast response is vintage Obama and is symptomatic of a sick presidency. As with every opposing camp, the right wing nutjobs who cautioned that Obama may be too naive to be President spoke some truth. The paradox is that we all want someone untainted by Washington, but then require him to operate within the crucible. The last President had the benefit of a sociopathic Vice-President who was cut from the coarsest fabric of DC, having served in some of most corrupt Administration's in history, and could inoculate the Administration from attack. Mr. Cheney had experience and mentored George in the ways of deceit and disinterest. Mr. Obama's team has not been as effective.

Let's face it, Obama won largely because a senile increasingly senescent sailor who serves in the Senate from a landlocked state picked a beauty queen as his running mate. Sure, many of us romanticized that Obama could change the paradigm, but the hard fact is that Palin lost that election as much as Obama won it. So let's disabuse ourselves of the fact that the paradigm has shifted in any substantive way, as we send more billions down the rat hole of Asian wars and see more people lose their jobs and health care while Wall Street shovels dollars into their coffers, and now concentrate on the work-a-day business of navigating the nation out of the most treacherous waters in recent history.

President Obama would do well to tune out the cacophony from the Breitbarts and the Becks, and assume, as many of us have for years, that they are full of shit; nothing they say has merit and most likely their "facts" are outright lies. The operating thesis is that President Obama is a one termer, so he should attempt to do as much as he can now, and don't plan on cleaning up the loose ends after the 2012 election. If you do get re-elected, great, but until then, live in the now.

Obama is wrong. Period.

Nobody covers this better than Glenn Greenwald.  Olbermann has been issuing scathing criticism of President Obama's reinforcement of the policy of the previous administration regarding civil liberties.  In fact this infringement is being extended by President Obama so that it now includes a prohibition of citizens' rights to pursue damages in court. 

The Olbermann videos in the above link need to be watched, especially the second one with Jonathan Turley, a respected Constitutional attorney.  Any honest person must recognize the travesty implicit in this governmantal abrogation of our rights as citizens.  

Suffice to say that I read Greenwald every single day and I cannot understand how any responsible citizen cannot garner valuable argument from him.  Although I may not always understand his theses or agree with his opinion, Greenwald is one of the most articulate voices from the left, and in this case he is spot on with his defense of civil liberties and his discomfort with the current administration policies.

"They are not 'those' kids, they are 'our' kids...."

In case The Kalamazoo Post is your only outlet to the Democratic primary, I will furnish Barack Obama's increasingly famous "Race Speech" in its entirety. Not exactly Martin Luther King, but important if only for the fact that it's given by the likely next president of the United States.

Especially listen from 28:20 to the end (less than 9 minutes).

The Self-Pitiable Obamanauts, Wolcott Edition

First of all, nobody blogging in the English language holds a candle to James Wolcott of Vanity Fair. The fact that he treats us to a near-daily helping of his delicious prose is one of life's gentle hugs, never mind that I care not one lick for half the topics he covers.


Most recently, Mr. Wolcott lays waste to the dramatist undercurrent of the self-important Obama supporters. His issue is not with all Obama supporters, mind you, just the ones worshiping the graven images within Obama's cult of personality. Saint Barack of the Transcendent Hope has got himself a loyal posse of Messiah seekers.

Read it yourself-- it is choice.

This Nation Needs to Heal (not Heel)

This nation needs to heal. Barack Obama’s message.

Respect is due both Hillary Clinton and John McCain, but the juggernaut of President Obama will not be deterred. The message is clear. Division and triangulation, even under the guise of policy nuance, have no place in the election of 2008.

Fear is everywhere. Fear of recession, fear of inexperience, fear of terror, fear or banking crises, fear that Obama is merely a “cult of personality.” It’s time to put aside the fears and get to work.

I’m not a fan of hope. The Buddha famously said, "Fear and hope chase each other's tail." Oftentimes, a call for hope is either a fatuous rhetorical flourish or a cynical and counterproductive cop-out. It’s not time for hope—it’s time to get back to work to make this nation healthy.

Make a stand. You are either with us or with the terrorists: the terrorists who have instilled fear into a nation. These terrorists have stolen our government, spied on us, waged an illegal war in our names, tortured people and killed civilians with our weapons, transferred wealth to our enemies and willfully devalued our currency. They have damaged our country by destroying our diplomatic relationships, destroying our economy and destroying our spirit.

It’s time to stand up and be counted. We can. Obama is not the movement, but just one member of the movement. It’s about you. This nation needs to heal. This nation needs to re-discover what it’s like to be healthy, to be productive, to contribute.

There's been a lot of damage, so roll up your sleeves.

The Case for Barack Obama

The last couple weeks I’ve engaged in a little back and forth over the Hillary and Barack rivalry. The Democratic party is fortunate to have two intriguingly qualified candidates and I am dismayed that the nomination is sprinting toward a contentious battle that may cause scars within the two factions.

In re-reading my scathing rebukes (one and two) of Frank Rich’s soft thinking and ridiculous defamation of the only female candidate in the race, I realize that casual followers of my polemics may think that I am some vehement pro-Clinton lackey or a virulent anti-Obamite. Nothing could be further from the truth. My gripe is with Rich who practices careless critical thinking under the guise of journalism.

Today, Paul Krugman decries the friction: “The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing…Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.”

The fact is I understand the hope and vision that Barack Obama prattles on about. I grew up in a grimy Irish Roman Catholic neighborhood on Chicago's south side. By the time I was conscious, the Kennedy Camelot had already been destroyed with two of her finest sons murdered, but the hope was still palpable. We knew that someone like us could one day be president. Growing up, every one of my friends my age was named either John or Bobby or Joe. The girl I took to senior prom in 1979 was Jacqueline. The legacy of those sunny days before November 1963 lived on throughout the decades of my childhood. We're all college educated now, schoolteachers, engineers, lawyers and doctors; some having served appropriately in the Peace Corps, and the Kennedy legacy was a large part of our identity.

This nation could benefit greatly from a President Obama who may indeed bring feelings of limitless possibilities to countless kids in Chicago’s Altgeld Gardens or Detroit’s downriver communities or Kalamazoo’s hardscrabble north side. Such buoyant optimism that could penetrate such insoluble circumstances may be worth the election of Obama in itself.

Or not. While I recognize the intangible benefits that Obama brings to the election, I cannot transcend my concern about the nuts and bolts of running a country at a critical time. My background is limited to plying my trade as a highly skilled laborer in the health care field and I admit ignorance regarding much of geopolitics, federal budgets and legislative process. I know few things, but I do know that Obama’s rebuff of a mandate for universal health insurance will only serve industry and corporations’ interests at the expense of citizens and small businesses, and four years from now we will be no closer to solving that problem. If he lacks detail on that critical issue, then where else is his platform deficient?

When the dust settles, I will likely vote for whichever Democratic candidate is the nominee. I may prefer Hillary Clinton for her policies on specific issues and my perception is that she knows what is necessary to achieve specific goals, but Obama would be okay, too. Barack Obama is appealing for his transcendent rhetoric—and that no doubt is important—and he will get my vote in November (if his name is on the ballot) even though I still see many of his policies as delusional (negotiate directly with Iran’s Ahmadinejad) or toothless (lack of mandates on health care) or pandering (expanding SCHIP).

I understand that certain voters feel excitement about their candidate. Heck, even Tom DeLay and Trent Lott could somehow get their supporters motivated for their hapless candidacies of hatred and cynicism. I get it. What I don’t get is the virulent lying crap being promoted by otherwise progressive and rational Obama supporters—much of it right out of the playbook of Karl Rove. Frank Rich promotes the Orwellian tactic that assumes mere repetition makes any accusation valid.

I agree with Krugman as he points out:

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality…

…What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

I like Barack Obama, but if he plans on being the transcendent uniter, he would do well to remind his supporters (and Frank Rich) first.

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.

Obama Speech Set to Music...

Mr. Dippy's video:

http://www.dipdive.com/


It's worth a look.

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.

Obama vs. McCain

As the primaries begin, the odds are that the race will be Barack Obama (D) vs. John McCain (R). Taking the long view, this is a beneficial development since this slate will obviate the need for me to put my house up for sale during the current Michigan economic depression. I can live with either of these guys as president. Romney or Huckabee get elected? I’m not sure I can pay taxes to a republic that could elect such people. Seriously.

For no other reason than Hugh Hewitt thinks Romney will be the next president, I now know that the Mittster is history. From the Iraq war to immigration to tax cuts, HH has been so wrong on so many opinions and prognostications that the mind boggles. Hewitt’s brand of stupid is the same that brought us 8 years of Dubya and, if you’re old enough, 6 ½ years of Nixon. It’s amazing to me that someone can actually make a living as a political pundit with such a track record of ineptitude about politics.

If you’re thinking Mitt Romney is your guy, then you probably aren’t informed about his shameless bloviating and prevarication. But then, Republican voters don’t seem to care much about such piffle.

So that leaves us Saint John McCain to win New Hampshire because there is no way those voters will go for the underlying insanity that is Mike Huckabee. An evangelical minister in the White House? Haven’t we already done the Dumb and Misinformed Guy as President thing, and isn’t it playing out as a disaster? The staid New Hampshire voters will put a stunning halt to the ersatz Huckabee juggernaut, which is proof enough that there is indeed a God.

No matter. If Iowa is any evidence, a Republican winning the Presidency in November has about as much chance as Barry Bonds being the next CEO of Pfizer. Over 70% of the votes cast in the primaries and caucuses were for Democratic candidates, so this country’s conservative heartland obviously ain’t buying the GOP’s bullshit anymore. (You may have asked, what the hell took them so long...?) This is the first time in modern history that both the Republican and Democratic primaries have been contested during the same presidential election, so history of sorts was made.

If I had to vote today with the current choices* still in the race, I’d rank them thusly:

1. Clinton
2. Obama
3. McCain
4. Paul
5. Richardson
6. Edwards
7. Move to Canada, Cost Rica or Australia.

Michigan is a cross-over state, which means that voters can choose which party’s primary participate in, and may cross over to vote for any candidate in either party. Any of the Democratic presidential candidates will be fine, so just as in 2000, I may choose to vote for John McCain in the primary in order to do my part to prevent another presidential disaster (or a capital loss on my house.)

*Sadly, Dodd and Biden, either of whom would have made an excellent candidate, have pulled out of the race as of Friday.