Irony, Thy Name is National Enquirer

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. I've always had a healthy disrespect for tabloids. In fact, throughout my college years, when I was ensconced in my studies of media and journalism, I considered the term "tabloid journalism" an oxymoron. Boy, is my face red. But, not so red as is the Gray Lady's, I should think. She's now playing catch up on news her editors did not think "fit to print." Scandal has turned Mr. Edwards into a pathetic has-been. It's had much the same effect on the news bosses at the mainstream media, who used to be the gatekeepers for all things fit to print. When the Enquirer broke the story months ago – while Mr. Edwards was still in the race – they treated it like poison ivy. “Classically not a Times-like story,” sniffed Craig Whitney, the standards editor of The New York Times. This was the same paper, you may recall, that recently ran an innuendo-laden story on John McCain and his friendship with an attractive lobbyist a decade or so ago. No wonder critics accuse the MSM of double standards – one for Democrats, and another for Republicans. Indeed, the Enquirer turned up its nose at McCain non-story. It would seem, wisely so. This and other revelations from The New Republic -- they, of the Stephen Glass debacle. That The National Enquirer is burying the bona fide press corps in the sack, is shaping up to be the story of the year. Normally, in the pitched tabloid battle for exclusives, losing a competitive bombshell like the McCain scandal would send Perel into fits. Not this time. Five Enquirer reporters had spent more than a month in 2007 chasing down the same rumors but failed to uncover any documentary evidence. "I wouldn't have run that piece, there was nothing in it," Perel told me recently about the Times story, which received widespread criticism when it ran. "It was filled with innuendo. . . . When you're done reading it, you're like, there's no there there." My first intimation that the Enquirer might just be a force to reckoned with came while I was watching a documentary on the O.J. Simpson trial. (No. It did not come during the actual trial; a story which became so burdensome, day after day, that I extended great effort to tune it out.) But, I was somewhat taken aback to hear more legitimate reporters speak in respectful terms about the quality reporting the Enquirer did on O.J. While other reporters were beating minutiae to death, the Enquirer was willing to get dirty, and in doing so, kept breaking the big stories. They became the go to source during that scandal. In fact, the barbarians have been at the gates ever since the O. J. Simpson trial, which turned out to be a cultural and racial event of immense significance. The MSM couldn't bear to dumpster-dive into the lurid details, even as an insatiable public gobbled them up. That was when they began to lose their grip on deciding what is news. With the explosion of the blogosphere, their power is gone for good. It seems that while many of the major media brokers are busy chasing headlines, Enquirer reporters are chasing actual stories. I speak not of the kinds of stories they do, but of the way they do their reporting. Like it or not they are doing actual investigative journalism -- something the TNR piece makes clear -- while far too many so-called reporters are writing stories from press releases and proving to be knee-pad wearing whores for the same unreliable sources, again and again. New York Times "Reporter" Judith Miller photo: Kevin Wolf AP Nowhere has the whoredom of mainstream press been more evident than with the media circus over VP selection. Massive resources have been allocated for reporters to camp out on lawns and whip themselves, and, sadly, the public, into a frenzy over something that we were all going to find out anyway. Why is it so important to get a story first, when no one, but no one, will give a shit two weeks from now who "broke" the "Biden is the VP pick" story? The only thing mildly interesting in this woeful display has been watching some bloggers and reporters step on their cranks, in their haste to "get it first." What is more important? Getting it first, or getting it right? Perhaps the paper of record will be able to reestablish its cred with the newest investigation into John Edwards's smarminess. This they will do by retracing some of the source material for their successful reportage into Eliot Spitzer's smarminess. I hope it pans out for their sake, if not for Elizabeth Edwards's.

Fair, Balanced, All Edwards, All the Time

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. Now I would be the last person to say that the Edwards affair is not news. In fact, I've pretty consistently argued that it is news. But this is positively surreal. I think my favorite part is where Erbe is explaining the political and national security implications of the Russia/Georgia war, as they show endless video of John and Elizabeth Edwards and Rielle Hunter.

Stealing Edwards’ Delegates

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeI was somewhat shocked with the attitudes of some Hillary supporters after the Edwards endorsement, especially those swearing they will still vote for Hillary even if she is not on the ballot. Yeah, it is their right, but I am unsure if they were really Democrats to start off with. For example, I was one of those lunatic Gore supporters, hoping against hope (insert Obama pun here) that he would get into the race. That didn't happen. Then I was supporting Kucinich because he and I are both staunchly anti-war. That relationship didn't last long. I then landed in the Edwards camp and winced when he dropped out before Super Tuesday. I think if he had stayed in, the primary would have been VERY over at Super Tuesday, not because he would have won, but I have always felt he drew votes away from Hillary and made Obama look stronger and making it easier for Obama to pile on more delegates. When the final tally of votes came in for West Virginia, I think I was proven right as Edwards still garnered 7% of the vote and he wasn't even running. Edwards connects deeply with the blue collar worker - the biggest boast of Camp Clinton these days. So now I am in the Obama camp and hoping he wins the Presidency. However, if Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote for her - no problem. So, am I a good Democrat or just a shill for the Democratic Party? Neither really, I am an independent voter who wants a progressive government.As an independent, am I a better Democrat than the Hillary sycophants? I don't know. But I do know total candidate allegiance is not good for democracy. SPECIAL REQUEST FOR TCD FANS: The San Francisco Chronicle is pondering the addition of new cartoons for their paper - a process that seems to be initiated by Darren Bell, creator of Candorville (one of my daily reads - highly recommended). You can read the Chronicle article here and please add your thoughts to the comments if you wish. If anything, put in a good word for Darren and Candorville. I am submitting Town Called Dobson to the paper for their consideration. They seem to have given great weight to receiving 200 messages considering Candorville. I am asking TCD fans to try to surpass that amount. (I get more than that many hate mails a day, surely fans can do better?) This is not a race between Darren and I, it is a hope that more progressive strips can be represented in the printed press of America. So if you read the San Francisco Chronicle or live in the Bay Area (Google Analytics tell me there are a lot of you), please send your kind comments (or naked, straining outrage) to David Wiegand at his published addresses below. If you are a subscriber, cut out your mailing label and staple it to a TCD strip and include it in your letter. candorcomment@sfchronicle.com or David Wiegand Executive Datebook Editor The San Francisco Chronicle 901 Mission St. San Francisco, CA 94103

John Edwards: Duty Performed

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeThere has been a lot of rage, tears and way to much "idiot Edwards supporter" language going on. Yes, I would have liked it if he kept going but he has gone far and beyond what most of us do to push this democracy forward. From some dusty piece of paper... Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Just saying...

Let's Embolden Obama With A Progressive Firewall

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Wild Wild Left, the Peace Tree, Independent Bloggers Alliance and Worldwide Sawdust. Since returning from work today my inbox has been flooded with people either venting about Edwards dropping out, praising his campaign or wondering what if anything I have to say. Viscerally, I’m despondent about his leaving. Even if Edwards wasn’t likely to prevail he set the pace on the issues debate. Edwards was far ahead of candidates in both parties on healthcare, poverty, the plight of the working poor, the phony global war on terror and global warming. John Edwards is a champion of progressive values. Only a progressive mandate can facilitate the massive modernization our infrastructure needs, implement an exponential upgrade of public education to ensure the future, nurture a commitment to research and development for cleaner energy, reorient the economy so it values work over gentrified wealth, empower unions so wage earners will have more leverage, reform a justice system that supports a prison industrial complex by disproportionately incarcerating young black men and challenge America’s empire culture so we’re no longer at odds with the civilized world. The best response for Edwards supporters like myself is to work for a progressive firewall in congress and statehouses nationwide. Given all the Republican resignations in Washington as well as the changing political landscape in state capitols, this can be achieved. A progressive firewall will hopefully either embolden a President Barack Obama towards greatness or earn respect through leverage with a President Hillary Clinton, to achieve as many objectives as we can. Should a John McCain become president, it will take a progressive firewall to effectively challenge and obstruct the calamity of American conservatism that he represents and be in a strong position to ascend in 2012. Hardly an ideal scenario and I am certainly not giving up on the White House for Democrats this year. But one thing Democrats have learned the hard way over the years is that we can’t be too dependent on a single personality. Even so, Obama’s immense potential does penetrate my despondency over Edwards departure. Perhaps he truly can assemble a movement that achieves critical mass and reverses the trajectory of American politics. I want to believe Obama can inspire a transformation from our ethos of greed to a culture of community. I had more faith in the tangible, gritty, populist struggle waged by John Edwards. Yet, if Obama can incorporate Edwards blend of populism with his fighting fire with water persona then he’ll be one of the great ones. With a progressive firewall behind him, hope may not require audacity so much as the will to roll up our sleeves. So as of now Barack Obama is my candidate as the quest for economic and social justice goes forward.

John Edwards and the Standoff in New Orleans

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeRumors this morning is that John Edwards will quit the campaign today. Only time will tell. I am unsure if this is true or not - it may be. I think if I was John, I would at least wait until after Super Tuesday to make the decision. If he does quit so soon before Super Tuesday, then a great majority of people will not get the chance to vote. Time will tell. If he does leave the campaign trail today, I will miss him - his message resonated with me and many times, he was the only adult running. We shall see.

John Edwards will gain once Hillary drives off the road.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeAs we all know by now, the outcome of the South Carolina democratic primary was an earthquake and the fault line went right through the Clinton campaign. Race was a factor in this campaign and was made one by The Clintons - and continues to be. In a shocking election night, several things stood out to me. The first being Barack's outstanding win - beating Hillary 2:1. His gratitude speech was one of the best political speeches I have ever heard - it seriously reminded me of the speech in the film Independence Day - given by The President (played by Bill Pullman): We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore... We will be united in our common interest. [..] We are fighting for our right to live, to exist, and should we win today, the fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the whole world declared in one voice 'We will not go quietly into the night, we will not vanish without a fight, we are going to live on, we are going to survive, today, we celebrate our Independence Day! Obama's speech also beat down the past few weeks of Clintonian hogwash. He called the nonsense of Reagan and race baiting old politics and he warned that there will be more to come. Then there was the Clinton gratitude speeches - or lack there of. In South Carolina, Hillary Clinton issued a statement to the press stating that Barack had won. A few minutes afterward Bill Clinton took the stage and started talking about himself - no mention of the campaign or Obama. On cable news while this is going on, they showed Hillary leaving the hotel with bags packed (they were toted by the campaign slave behind her) and she headed for the airport. She was in the air on her way to Nashville while Bill was still on stage! Once she was in Nashville, now about 11pm, she told the crowd she congratulated Obama (she was referring to her press release, not a phone call) and she plowed into a long town hall stump speech. And now we come to John Edwards. His comeback from where he was before the democratic debate in Myrtle Beach was astonishing. I think that was the leading edge of people getting sick to death of Hillary. My feeling is there was a lot of people abandoning Hillary - moving to their second choice of either Obama or Edwards. And there a lot going to Edwards. I think as Super Tuesday gets closer, we will see Edwards gaining significantly and drawing those gains from Hillary. The calls for him to quit the race are immature and unwarranted. He needs those delegates. If he wasn't in the race, there is no guarantee the votes leaving Hillary would go to John. Here is my new theory. Edwards will stay in the race just to garner as many delegates as he can. Hillary, feeling desperate, is trying to get those banned Michigan delegates and she is even stumping in Florida for more banned delegates. Why? She knows she will need them. Obama will continue to be the leader in the delegate count up until the convention, but won't have enough to cinch the nomination. Actually, none of the candidates will - they will need the super delegates. The super delegates being old school Dems may throw their weight to Hillary as their early anointed choice. But Edwards could cast his delegates to Obama for some exchange (they have already discussed future strategies) and Obama's and Edwards' delegates will have enough to overthrow Hillary and her super delegates. That said, super delegates have already begun to throw their weight behind Obama. Ted Kennedy being the fucking King of the super delegates will endorse Obama this morning. For him to come out this early and diss the Clintons is telling. Plus Caroline's article points to the possibility of a full-blown revolt in the Democratic party. It not only a fight for the soul of the Democratic party, it is a fight for the soul of America. Edwards will do a lot better once he can get past Hillary Clinton. It is up to us to clear the road.

Holy Crap! Barack Obama Is Black!

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Wild Wild Left, the Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust. Anybody out there ever watch the Family Guy cartoon on the American Goebell’s Network otherwise known as FOX? The only reason to watch FOX is for cartoons such as The Simpsons or The Family Guy. How ironic FOX airs cartoons with satirical commentary about America’s conservative culture. Anyway, some years ago, an episode of the Family Guy showed imbecile father/husband Peter Griffin watching Star Trek on television. In typical Peter fashion he observed, “Holy crap! Lt. Uhura is black!” Adding to the humor was how Peter watched Star Trek regularly and only realized Uhura was black that very moment. Watching news coverage of this year’s presidential campaign I feel like everyone from corporate media executives, field reporters and the Clintons have declared: “Holy crap! Barack Obama is black!” Bill Clinton hoped to diminish the outcome of South Carolina by noting how Jesse Jackson (a black man!) won the primary in 1984 and 1988. In other words just a black man getting a lot of black votes in South Carolina. Black votes can’t possibly be considered as a credible bellwether of a candidate’s political viability unless they’re supporting the Clintons. The media of course fanned the flames of race to further generate hype. Hype is far easier to cover than substance anyway. Sadly, it will only get worse as we approach Epic Tuesday on February 5th. You will read and hear more “horserace” garbage about the Clintons scheming for the woman vote and using subtle codified language to remind voters that Obama is the “black candidate.” Meanwhile, the John Edwards populist anti-corporate message will be dwarfed, as the media instead focuses on how he splits white southern voters with Hillary Clinton. Finally, you will begin to read how important Hispanic voters are in states such as California as pundits ponder whether “brown” voters combined with women will help Clinton over Obama. A subtle backdrop to all this is how the corporatist media could never allow John Edwards to prevail because he just might implement policies that benefit wage earners at the expense of America’s corporatist pro-war plutocracy. Populism isn't sexy and doesn't fit into a narrative that reconciles with America's corporatist brain massage machine. Please forgive me for pointing out that the stakes demand infinitely more respect than treating this election as an insipid beauty contest. For starters, the greatest threat to humanity today is global warming. Nothing else comes close. Certainly not the fear mongering canard known as "radical Islam" exploited by sniveling neo-cons. On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon cited a report from Independent Alert, a London based peace organization that identified 46 countries with 2.7 billion people where climate change and water-related crises create "a high risk of violent conflict" while an additional 56 countries, with 1.2 billion people "are at high risk of violent conflict." I posted about this very topic in December 2005 and noted evidence of a growing water shortage in the American southwest. How come we never hear any of the candidates asked about the world’s pending crisis regarding access to fresh water? All the Democratic candidates and John McCain regularly utter platitudes about global warming but have any of them even thought through the challenges ahead once global water shortage reaches critical mass? Has any journalist thought of asking them about the issue during the debates instead of their usual gotcha drivel? And then there is the minor problem of America’s crumbling infrastructure. Typically, infrastructure and capital projects fall under the bailiwick of state and local governments. Seven years of insipid conservative rule, crony capitalism and tax cuts favoring the rich have created a fiscal calamity for municipal governments nationwide. Perhaps the candidates should be asked if they have a plan to bail out municipal governments and how they intend to pay for it. In yesterday’s New York Times, William Yardley reported about the increasing demands for infrastructure repairs and the inability of municipal governments to meet their obligations. If you think that isn’t important I suggest talking to those Minnesota families who lost loved ones when the Interstate 35W bridge collapsed last summer. And don’t get me started on New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina. If we're discussing race why not ask the candidates about the number one growth industry in America today: incarcerating young black men to populate our prisons? America’s prison industrial complex is as much a blight on our national soul as Guantanamo. What does Barack Obama think about that? Perhaps he should be asked that question during the debates. Finally, I realize Americans would prefer to just ignore the world but like it or not, we’re currently occupying two countries. Regardless of whatever propaganda you read about the surge working in Iraq or progress in Afghanistan, our continuing occupation of both countries is ineffective and immoral. Yet how many interviews have you observed with the presidential candidates when they’re not asked a single question about either Iraq or Afghanistan? Why not ask the presidential candidates what they intend to do about the increased opium trade in the United States due to our occupation in Afghanistan? There is also more to the world than America’s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Rape and violence against women is used as a weapon in the Congo’s ongoing civil war. Genocide continues in Kenya and Darfur. The Bush Administration, Prime Minister Olmert’s government in Israel and Palestinian President Abbas thought they could simply inhumanely ignore the people of Gaza. As a result there is a border crisis with Egypt to further destabilize the region. Challenges abound at home and abroad with far reaching repercussions for our society, economy, security and ecosystem. Furthermore, the American empire is disintegrating and the fall out needs to be managed with tolerance and sense. But who cares about any of that? Barack Obama is black! Holy crap!

Pity the Citizens of South Carolina

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeIn past elections, only those poor souls in Iowa and New Hampshire were abused at the hands of a media circus, but now it has spread to South Carolina. South Carolinians are getting tired of the way the media is trying to shape the election. Kathey E. Adams [...] said when traveling and watching reports about her state, "I was horrified by what I saw." She deplored reports that focused on black voters, saying "It's a new South. What do they think, we're in hoop skirts?" As for her choice in Saturday's primary, Adams said she will "probably" supporting Clinton. She had been a Joe Biden supporter before leaning toward Clinton. She said was "disappointed" by the exchange between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama during the debate Monday. She said she is considering former Sen. John Edwards because she agreed he was "the only adult in the sandbox." The coverage I have seen has not been kind to SC - cataloging it as a backwards state, podunk, etc. Folks, South Carolina makes BMWs! Yes the South is a living dichotomy. New South vs Old South. Klan vs. Progress. I wonder if they will vote for Edwards just out of spite? Besides he is actually a local.

The Haute Cuisine of Hoppin’ John Edwards

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge Most people are very aware of Cajun cuisine from Louisiana but few are aware of South Carolina's claim to fame - Lowcountry Cuisine. It is a subtle blend of flavors from unusual ingredients to make a dish that surprises you. Lowcountry cuisine also springs from poverty and limited local resources. There are only so many things you can make when your income is limited. A lowcountry breakfast consists of mostly grits, butter, and shrimp with a biscuit. If you are feeding a family on a very low income, chances are lowcountry breakfasts were part of your diet. Here is another example - the Hoppin John - black-eyed peas, bacon (or fatback), rice, onions and salt. Simple, cheap and filling. That was John's childhood. Lowcountry food was probably (guessing here) something that graced his plate on occasion while growing up in the brutal poverty of South Carolina. I am not surprised that John Edwards is exploding in the polls in South Carolina - he understands the issues of poverty to his bones, unlike his opponent Hillary. Here is my new pet theory. John will continue to gain strength in the polls because the race has thinned. Yes, Kucininch is still in the race, but all media attention (for better or worse) is on Obama, Clinton (and Clinton) and Edwards. In the past debates - all of them previous to Nevada, Edwards had to fight for time with almost a dozen other people. And even then, time typically went to Obama and Hillary more than the other candidates. So John had little opportunity to rise above the din. Now it is just the three of them and Edwards has the opportunity to make the vivid comparison between himself and the other candidates. While Clinton and Clinton trade jabs with Barack Obama, John is building. He is moving forward. Frankly I am ready for a steady diet of Hoppin John Edwards.

The Thug Life Of John Edwards

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeLast night during CNN's South Carolina Democratic Debate, John Edwards came out swinging, but not at Hillary or Obama, he came out swinging for the poor, the middle class - for those of us who aren't getting billion dollar bonuses for closing down US manufacturing plants. In turned out to be a Jerry Springer Show for political geeks, John Edwards kept on topic during the Hillary/Barack cage match. He was the only one that looked Presidential, acted Presidential and was the one that exhibited an inner strength that our pre -Bush allies could respect. But he could stand his ground when the occasion arose. Hillary brought up the issue of trial lawyers donating to Edward's campaign. Here is his golden response... CLINTON: Well, John, trial lawyers have given you millions and millions of dollars. So... EDWARDS: And what they expect from me is they expect me to stand up for democracy, for the right to jury trial, for the right for little people to be heard in the courtroom. And that is exactly what I stand up for. That is not the same thing. That is not the same thing as corporate lobbyists who are in there every single day lobbying against the interests of middle-class Americans. And I think we need a president who can stand up. We have a difference about this. You're entitled to your view. But we have a real difference about it. Respectful but forceful. We have had a President that has dished bullshit since way before he was ever elected and from what Hillary dished out last night, it just made me queasy. Her relentless and unwarranted attacks on Obama were difficult to watch, especially the lies about the Reagan and Rezco nonsense. That was NOT Presidential. Oh yeah, one more thing, can we please get out of Iraq?

Horserace or Horse Manure?

The topic below was originally published in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as The Wild Wild Left, Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust. My immediate response to Saturday’s results in South Carolina and Nevada are jaded despair. None of the candidates in either party, including my preferred candidate John Edwards, inspires my confidence about the future. Even worse, my preferred candidate with the most progressive message didn’t even garner five percent of the vote in a heavily unionized state. Overall, too many figures in the corporatist media, as well as bloggers, are consumed by the “horserace.” The focus has been on Hillary Clinton’s tears, Barack Obama’s platitudes, John Edward’s hair or John McCain’s so-called “authenticity.” There was also the silly hair splitting about who said what in the Clinton and Obama camps over race or inspid attention on Obama’s statements about his disorganized desk. What the hell is wrong with all you people out there? Why are people so incapable of focusing on the salient challenges of our time and demanding answers from the declared candidates about why their ideas are best? Sad to say, today's candidates don't measure up to previous presidents. America for all its flaws benefited from skilled leadership at crucial junctures in history. Our first president, George Washington, established a legacy of peaceful succession in an era of kings while surrounded by enemies. Abraham Lincoln kept the union together in spite of a bloody civil war due to the evil institution of slavery that wasn’t sustainable. Theodore Roosevelt took on entrenched corporate interests that were turning America into a plutocracy and established reforms that later became the building blocks of the New Deal. His cousin, Franklin Roosevelt saved America from an economic depression that impoverished millions with the New Deal and mobilized the country to defeat Nazi Germany's quest for global domination and genocide. During the Cold War, presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy managed to avoid the calamity of nuclear war in spite of reactionaries inside the military industrial complexes of both the United States and the Soviet Union. Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were flawed, paranoid leaders who prosecuted a self-defeating immoral war in Vietnam but both also successfully pursued détente with the Soviets. President Jimmy Carter helped put human rights on the map and empower a dissident movement inside the Soviet Union that leveraged Ronald Reagan to seek accommodation with the reform minded Michael Gorbachev and end the Cold War. Today’s challenges, requires a caliber of leadership beyond even Washington, Lincoln and FDR. Those presidents were guided by the concept of American Exceptionalism. It’s an ideology practiced by presidents and political parties in this country for over two centuries. It’s based on a firm conviction that our society is morally superior, America knows best and our consumption of over a quarter of the world’s resources entirely justified. I know there are some knee-jerk conservatives out there thinking, “another blame America first leftist.” I don’t blame America first. The world itself is flawed with greed and we’re a part of it. America was simply in the best position to pursue its greed because of power. Many other societies would have been far worse for this planet in the role of super power. I’m proud of my country in many ways. If not for the United States of America my grandfather would have perished in a Polish concentration camp and I never would have been born. I love my country even with all its flaws and warts. But we have to be honest with ourselves. America’s power is descending. In recent years we’ve overreached due to greed, immorality and misguided hubris. We’re over extended economically, strategically, militarily and spiritually. America and the world can no longer afford our addiction to empire. At one time it could be plausibly argued that the American empire preserved a level of needed stability in a bipolar world. Today however, evil non-state terrorist actors and multinational corporations regulate this planet with more influence than centralized governments. Hell, Blackwater has one of the largest armies in the world and Osama Bin Laden has no allegiance to any flag. Meanwhile, the global economy we long championed is now carving up financial institutions such as Citcorp. When even banks are experiencing a credit crunch due to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and selling off assets to Saudi Arabian princes, your average wage earner will be left in the dust faster than you can say the American dollar is sucking wind. The next president will have to usher in a new era of humility, conservation and international cooperation without surrendering America’s sovereignty or producing a destructive backlash among xenophobic racists, desperate plutocrats, delusional hawks and anti-civil libertarians. While I suspect many Americans can rationally and intellectually jettison our national security empire state it will require a severe cultural adjustment. Even the most progressive peace advocates among us have grown up with an America as a colossus and many citizens will have difficulty embracing new realities. Furthermore, much of the planet alienated by America’s greed, imperialism and heavy- handed militarism will have to be cajoled into joining us in a mission to save humanity from global warming and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Among the candidates for president in both parties I don’t see a leader possessing the combination of strength and finesse to confront contemporary realities. Edwards has the most progressive message, Obama is a gifted man who offers great symbolism and even Clinton would be an improvement over Bush. Hell, John McCain would be an improvement over Bush simply because he doesn’t advocate torture. My boss would be an improvement over Bush. Your boss would be an improvement over Bush. People I personally dislike would be an improvement over Bush. So yes, it’s nice that next year at this time we’ll have a new president regardless of who prevails. But I am not confident that any of these candidates is the right person for the moment. How can anyone be? My advice to citizens is stay as informed as possible in this shallow environment and don’t be easily seduced by platitudes, misinformation and just plan horse manure. I also advise that disenchantment is no excuse for apathy. As disenchanted as I am, I intend to vote and increase participation through get out the vote efforts as much as possible. Ultimately, our only salvation is an informed, realistic electorate that's involved, asks questions and makes itself heard.

Nevada Debate: When Media Zombies Attack!

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeWhat a miserable debate last night. The worst of the campaign season by far. This one started off with what looked like a a group hug in the principal's office over race relations and it slid downhill after that. The candidates aren't at fault here, it is the mainstream media. The spoon-fed, pre-programmed "gotcha" drip of questions did not serve the people of Nevada or We The People for that matter. The whole shindig seemed to be designed to give each candidate an opportunity to bitch slap their opponents. Definitely not something worthy of Jefferson's Virginia Statehouse. The bright spot was the heckler. The heckler also had the most poignant statement - race baiting which is what this debate was all about. A purposeful attempt by Russert and the gang to start a class/race war among the candidates, thankfully they did not bite. I am left wondering when We The People will bite back... bite the mainstream media? BTW, today's strip is dedicated to Dot. You can't see her right now. She is fighting the good fight, deep down in the trench.

The Weekend Pulse

For those unfamiliar, The Daily Pulse was at one time, and is now again, a regular feature. It surveys local papers' editorial pages to capture the "pulse" of Americans froma local point of view, rather than seeing what the beltway and the national media TELL us to think. Over time, it recognizes trends you might not otherwise see coming. It also lets you know just how effective the national media is in pushing memes, be it the New York Time or FAUX NEWS. Today, The Daily Pulse looks outside its window at Indiana snow, and takes are hard turn south to sunny Florida. This stacks up too high here, and I can't move the rest "after the fold," so if you want to see the rest, you can see it at The Daily Pulse.

Clinton: Spiraling Downward

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeWhat a mess for the Clinton campaign. Iowa was a total disaster for Hillary and she didn't need to expose herself in that way. A friend of mine over at If This Be Treason laid it out like this: Hillary had nothing to gain but everything to lose in Iowa. If she didn't campaign there and Obama or Edwards won, it could be said that it wasn't a real win since Hillary didn't participate. If she participated and won, it could be said she was the presumptive front-runner and it was no big deal. But if she lost, questions would arise and power would be handed to the winner. If she lost BIG TIME, the exclamation points would add up - the questions would be more painful. And she lost BIG TIME in Iowa. Obama has the momentum, and Edwards also, going into the New Hampshire primary. Hillary does not. You do not receive upward momentum by being a political loser.

Religious Right: Jesus has abandoned us!

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge Yesterday I made some bold predictions. Let's see how I measured up... Prediction: Hillary - losses big. Reality: Right on target. Prediction: Obama - Finally learns that having a FIRM STANCE on issues is really audacious. Reality: I thought he would come in second, beating Hillary, but he did much better once he went FIRM STANCE in the month before the election. Prediction: Edwards - wins by a small margin and that changes the face of the campaign for New Hampshire. Reality: Beat Hillary by a small margin, but the message of change is the meme now for all candidates. Prediction: Thompson - who? Reality: Fourth place, I was frankly surprised. Prediction: Romney - does well and find himself with an unlikely competitor. Reality: Romney can't buy his way out of a paper bag. He may actually be slugging it out in New Hampshire as Ron Paul's populism eats more of his expensive lunch. Prediction: Ron Paul - finally shocks the shit out of Sean Hannity with a good solid turnout, competing now with Romney. Reality: Paul didn't do as well as I expected, but Romney would have loved to have had his votes. Prediction: Rudy - gets issued a one-way train ticket back to New York. Reality: Right on target. Prediction: Huckabee - warmly embraced by every crazy, screaming Christian Fascist in Iowa - all of them swinging plastic baby fetuses nailed to a cross. Reality: Right on target.

Sitting On the Fence Is Creasing My Activist Butt

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Peace Tree, Wild Wild Left and Worldwide Sawdust. Warning, this is a long post. It’s long because supporting a presidential candidate for me is deeply personal. It’s not simply deciding which candidate I will pull the lever for in the privacy of a voting booth. Rather I approach the decision as an activist and ask myself: after weighing all the virtues and flaws of the declared candidates on whose behalf am I willing to devote my free time? In my darker moments I’ll ask myself, “Do any of these lying corporatist whores deserve my support? Why bother with any of them?” The ship has long sailed on my days of being a "true believer." Ultimately, in spite of my disenchantment, I believe in the power of the vote. Even with the sordid history of stolen elections and broken promises, I remain convinced the best way to change the system is through participation in the political process. And the best vehicle for progressive reform is by leveraging the Democratic Party – flawed as it is. Which means I have to finally stop creasing my butt, get off the fence and choose a candidate. Picking a candidate this primary season has been especially agonizing. My top choices were former Vice President Al Gore and Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. I would’ve volunteered for either in a heartbeat. When both opted not to run I was left cold and preferred to wait until the race sorted itself out. Meanwhile, this past year I amused myself reading blog postings on Daily Kos and elsewhere expressing certitude about the virtues of particular candidates while trashing rival campaigns. The theme was usually along the lines of “only my candidate is the true progressive with a chance to win while so and so is simply an enabler of the corporate pro-war plutocracy who will destroy the Democratic Party and eat your children.” The only certitude I felt was disenchantment with Hillary Clinton whom I believe would govern entirely from weakness and be an agent of the status quo. Furthermore, I never bought into the Clinton rationale about “experience” because of her tenure as First Lady. For what it’s worth, as a New Yorker, I believe Clinton’s done an admirable job of constituent service in the senate. But on the broader issues of war and peace, bridging the gap between rich and poor and being a progressive advocate, Clinton’s record is under-whelming at best. Otherwise the remaining field left me uncommitted. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Barack Obama are all compelling figures with many virtues as well as flawed agents of a corrupt political system. And yes that includes Edwards who despite his populist message is also not a white knight. None of them are. I appreciate much of what Dennis Kucinich has to say, resent how he was denied access to a recent debate but never seriously considered supporting him. As a protest candidate Kucinich has contributed and I respect his supporters. But he was a failure as Mayor of Cleveland and would have as much chance winning a national election as I do of dating Scarlet Johansen. If I were twenty again, I might find stuffing envelopes, canvassing and phone banking on Kucinich’s behalf the right way to go. But that doesn’t feel right this time. Rather I believe it imperative Democrats avoid the calamity of nominating Hillary Clinton and supporting a protest candidate won’t get that done. Clinton’s original support of the Iraq war was a callous and cowardly act of political expediency. Her tepid ‘if I knew now what I knew then’ explanation regarding Iraq is neither believable nor acceptable. War and peace requires a different standard of leadership. Not calculating cynicism resulting in needless bloodshed. In 2007, Clinton’s vote labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization for example was irresponsible at best. One can presume that as president the political fifty-yard line will be looked upon as the Holy Grail and doing right a secondary consideration. Senator Clinton has managed to achieve a rare political feat: she is both a polarizing figure and without a principled core. As long as Clinton is regarded as a polarizing figure anyway, it boggles the mind why she refused to stand for something as senator. Clinton's had six years to put her prestige on the line for the working poor, human rights and a judicious foreign policy. Instead she only enabled the neo-cons and is now regarded favorably by the drug and pharmaceutical companies. Whereas Bobby Kennedy became a tribune to the underclass as senator, Hillary Clinton positioned herself as a reassuring figure for corporate special interests. Tell me Senator Clinton has scheming to achieve centrist nirvana taken the edge off your polarization in any way? Clintonism undermines the progressive cause just when the center of political gravity is in our favor. Conservatism is sucking wind and we can’t allow this moment in history to be squandered by nominating another Clinton. Edwards and Obama are the only Democratic candidates who have any chance of defeating Senator Clinton and prevailing in November. Hence, supporting any of the other candidates, regardless of their principles, personal virtues and credentials is a waste. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. I wish it were otherwise because the field beyond Clinton, Edwards and Obama is far more accomplished in my opinion. Unfortunately, our political system rewards style over substance. If I didn’t feel it so imperative to stop Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination I’d likely support Chris Dodd. But under the circumstances I’m left to choose between Obama and Edwards. There are positives in the biographies of both men. Obama could have pursued a career as a corporate lawyer after Harvard Law School and dedicated himself to making money. Many in his position would’ve done exactly that. Instead he chose community activism. That impresses me. As an Illinois state legislator, Obama skillfully navigated the complex web of race, entrenched power and ego that comprise Chicago politics to be an agent of pragmatic reform. It was there that Obama’s political persona was defined: he fights fire with water. That has translated into a presidential campaign of progressive advocacy with the soft rhetoric of unity. In my blog writing I’ve occasionally referred to Obama as a “platitude machine” in frustration at his reluctance to forcefully indict the agents of corporatism and militarism that have plagued our country. Too often this year Obama appeared content to utter polite words about bringing everyone to the table under the mystical aura of bipartisanship. Yet Obama has shown remarkable growth in recent weeks and found his voice. I am impressed at how he’s drawn distinctions without coming off as shrill. The fist in the velvet glove is a rare gift in politics and Obama seems to have it. He’s been especially effective at contrasting himself with Clinton’s institutional/machine oriented politics of restoration entitlement. I also note that among Obama’s foreign policy advisors is former Bill Clinton National Security Advisor Tony Lake. Unlike other members of the Clinton Administration currently advising Senator Clinton, Lake opposed the war with Iraq from the beginning. And of course so did Obama himself. For a time I was ready to jump on Obama’s bandwagon, excited at the prospect of his potential for knocking off Hillary Clinton. Also, symbolism does indeed matter in politics and statecraft. A dark skinned president named Barack Hussein Obama, with part of his childhood spent in Indonesia and possessing Kenyan ancestry is powerful. Domestically the very idea of a President Obama is unifying for a nation sundered by race and baby boomer culture wars. Moreover, Obama’s international profile offers the promise of helping America return to the community of civilized nations. The temptation to support him is almost irresistible and I was nearly seduced by it. America however needs far more than what Obama offers. Class warfare waged from the top has metastasized under the Bush Administration and must be forcefully reversed. Yes, water is usually the best antidote for fire. But this moment in history requires someone willing to make an omelet by breaking some eggs. Politics is a fight and the quest for fairness in our current gilded age won’t be accomplished without a determined struggle. Edwards as we all know rose from humble beginnings to take on predatory corporations in the courtroom and he won big. Whenever Republicans talk about tort reform its code to prevent advocates such as John Edwards from helping regular folks against entrenched corporate power. The fact Edwards earned a fortune at the expense of predatory corporations only angers the predatory conservative establishment even more. Remember the plutocracy considered FDR a traitor to his class too. As previously noted, Edwards is not a white knight. For much of 2007 I leaned toward Edwards but his original support of the Iraq War and dabbling in hedge funds bothered me. Was his apology for originally supporting it genuine or merely politically expedient? How can any of us really know? Politicians have a nasty habit of being chameleons as it suits them. Yet even as politicians pander to win over a public more interested in Hollywood scandal then global warming, it is possible to identify a core in some of these people. Al Gore for example, was a tactile politician who could shift with the prevailing winds but believed and worked for reversing global warming before it was popular. And John Edwards has spent much of his adult life standing up for ordinary people against predatory corporate power. This is a man who remembers where he came from. Some consider the John Edwards message one of anger and prefer the soothing rhetoric of Obama. I find the Edwards message empowering. As Paul Krugman wrote in today’s New York Times, “There’s a fantasy, widely held inside the Beltway that men and women of good will from both parties can be brought together to hammer out bipartisan solutions to the nation’s problems.” As we saw six years ago, even with no mandate, predatory conservatives had no interest in sensible bipartisan solutions. Instead they shamelessly exploited the symbols of patriotism and war to finance crony capitalism at the expense of consumers, small business owners and the very old and young. One can’t negotiate power with these people. Power must be taken from them. For the first time in a generation we have a window to facilitate a true progressive reformation if we’re willing to fight for it. We negotiate when we’re cutting our losses. We fight when we have hope. This blogger is opting for the audacity of hope and supporting John Edwards.

The Neo-Con Virgin Birth and how John Edwards will save us all.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeSome things are just too horrible to contemplate. This is one of those things. As with all Christmas family gatherings, sometime, somewhere, the conversation always turns to politics. It can't be helped. This year, the conversation was not whether Bush was a good or bad President, or if the Iraq war was necessary, but the table chat was about which Democratic candidate would make the best President. That and just how much of a total fucking loon Huckabee is. If my family's table chat is any indication, John Edwards is the choice of the people. Some were grudging supporters while some were fanatical John freaks, but in the end, Obama seemed to be the choice for VP and Hillary would remain the Senator from New York. Frankly, the only other thing everyone agreed on was their mutual distaste for Hillary Clinton as a President.

Iowa - Smells Like Edwards Country

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeI have always considered Iowa as being volatile when it comes to elections. When Dean charged through the state in 2004, Iowans turned to a war hero and picked John Kerry. I doubt they knew he would take abuse laying down. So as we inch closer to the election we begin to see the volatility all over again. This time it is springing up in the InsiderAdvantage poll: John Edwards has leapfrogged over his rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and leads the Democratic field in Iowa, according to the latest InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll. In the Republican caucus race, Mike Huckabee continues to hold a narrow lead over Mitt Romney. The race among the three top Democrats is extremely close, with the potential for any of them to finish first – or third. Edwards leads with 30 percent in a poll of Democratic voters who said they intend to participate in the Jan. 3 presidential caucuses, followed by Clinton with 26 percent and Obama with 24 percent. When the sample was narrowed to the most likely caucus-goers, based on several questions, Obama leads Edwards by less than a percentage point with 27 percent, with Clinton in third place at 24 percent. I bet Huma is on bartender duty today.

Is Hillary Clinton digging her own grave or somebody else's?

(Cross posted at Rants 'n Reviews, my blog) Hillary Clinton has taken off the gloves, calling Barack Obama naive, inexperienced, and striving for the Presidency since birth (her campaign sleuths have dug up a paper from Obama's long-ago past: An essay little Barack wrote in kindergarten entitled "I Want to Be President"). Silly former First Lady. The question I have is how does Hillary say with a straight face that she's experienced? Number one, how is she materially more experienced than John Edwards or Barack Obama? She's been a Senator, what, 7 years? Obama 4? Big difference. Woopty-doo. Name an accomplishment she's made while Senator from New York...any of her bills signed into law, any leadership positions of committees where something -- hell, anything -- substantial has arisen? And what did she do in the White House? Stand by her man? Try to socialize health care and failing miserably so? Let's get one thing straight: Intellectually, I am sure she's smarter than the average bear, even smarter than really smart bears. She can probably go toe-to-toe with her genius husband, Bill. I'd love to sit in on some of their conversations. I'd probably have to just sit there and act like I got it when I clearly didn't get it. Her new strategy of attacking her opponents, coupled with her old strategy of fabricating her credentials, is going to backfire on her. When is somebody going to ask her the simple question: What makes you more qualified than anybody else? Additionally, she's going to have to choose -- most likely -- one of her opponents that she's beat up as her running mate if she wins the Dem's nomination. Are we then to forget how stupid and inexperienced they are? Will Clinton's Obama Attacks Backfire? - TIME Hillary Attacks