Tweenbots

Something on the positive side (of human nature).<-Click here.



I was a bit disappointed that these solo devices don't go all the way from downtown to uptown, much less to California. More like across one side of Washington Square to the other. But at least they made it that far, with a little help from their friends.

Jon,

While not differing with your analysis at all, you don't really expect us to believe that you had an illusion about Obama in the first place, do you? "Benefit of the doubt," perhaps. But not hope leading to disillusion, really.

I could even give Obama a benefit-of-the-doubt on his handling of the financial crisis so far: It could conceivably be that--and this would be a stretch--that he is letting Geithner, Summers, and the rest of the Wall Street pack have their heads in order to draw them far out of their lairs. Caesar Augustus and others used this trick. When this current solution fails, as I believe is inevitable, he'll then have all the justification and popular approval he needs to give them the heave-ho and make another major move toward socialism, confirming your nefarious suspicions about him. I believe that as step one in the process, a full scale and necessarily secret process might yet be under way to take over the (at least the 20-40 biggest) banks some coming weekend. That is a big step, it has to be done all at once to avoid runs on banks that are left outside the fold. And it could be done under the cover of this temporary prop known as the bail out. Any way, you can bet on some historic moments ahead, perhaps as early as next week if there is another significant deleveraging event on Wall Street as some predict there will be.

Returning to what I think is an order of magnitude more important failure of US leadership --including but well beyond the President, to Congress, media and other elites-- in the face of the worst global financial (and ultimately political and social) crisis of our lifetimes -- and in our case that is a whale of a lot of years -- I give you below a comment from ZeroHedge, the best insider financial blog I have yet found a comment from ZeroHedge (see Anonymous @ 3:55 a.m.). I could not have expressed it so well:

---------------------------------------------------

1) The current global crisis is the end result of at least 20 years of economic and political rule-changing and greedy overreaching by the financial and government elite. Look at a multi-decade chart of the S&P: it went ballistic in the late 1980's when financial laws were changed to benefit Wall Street.

2) A 20-year global asset bubble has burst, and it cannot be re-inflated in this short a time, by these pathetic methods.

3) This crisis is steadily revealing to more & more people what some (like Tyler & Jonny already knew): just how deceitful, criminal, and co-conspiring the financial industry & the government are.

4) The derivative mortgage-backed securities "time-bombs" are more extensive, widespread, and dangerous than most people know or are willing to admit. All the banks, the FED, the Treasury, the White House, Congress, & mainstream media are covering up the banks' insolvency.

5) Financially dependent on Wall Street, and fearing a global financial crash, depression, and social violence, the government is trying desperately to "prop up" the banks, the stock market, and the economy, via Japan-style methods instead of by the smarter-but-harder Sweden style methods.

6) These efforts will cause bear-market rallies temporarily, but these rallies will all fail, and the bear market will resume until the deleveraging and deflationary problems work themselves out fully, over years not months.

7) The corporate-state elite are betraying the common people for generations to come. By protecting the likes of AIG and Citigroup from receivership and dismantling, our national debt will grow by tens of trillions of dollars by the time this crisis is over. How long will $20-40 trillion take to pay off?

8) As Anonymous said above, taxes will rise and the dollar will fall. As a result, the standard of living of average Americans will suffer and stay depressed for decades. We will have less after-taxes dollars & those dollars will buy far less.

9) Eventually, China, Japan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, etc. will buy less of our debt, and even start selling our Treasuries. Facing default, a credit downgrade (and national disgrace), the government will be forced to pay down its astronomical debt & deficits by severely cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other safety nets, and military spending.

10) Economic suffering and social tensions will cause crime, violence, and civil unrest to increase. There will be political upheavals. Our democratic processes and our constitutional rights will be severely tested.

How the balance of power and the sharing of wealth between the elites and the common people in America turn out will depend upon how active the people become in demanding the kind of life & future we desire & deserve.

It usually takes a Great Depression or a war before average people organize to demand justice & greater equality with the rich & powerful.

This is clearly a historic crisis: not just financial or economic, but political, social, ethical, and very personal.

-----------------------------------------------------------

IMHO the only questions worth discussing at this time are where and how sensible, decent people will be able to weather decades of very hard economic and political times. I don't know if there is an answer, but I do know that it is time to take our collective heads out of the sand before we are buried up to our collective asses, as realism is a good tonic for denial, and that other questions, like the last mistaken election, are of lesser interest to me, and soon to you. I honestly think it would be most constructive use of our limited times and attention spans, if it is not too late. I think that i personally will just keep working on step one, needed intervention to break the syndrome of denial.

And, in contradiction to one of my previous agnostic posts, and not inconsistent with it I might add, I went to the Easter Services at Echmiadzin, the seat of the Armenian (apostolic) church, this morning. I will be posting some of the pictures of this inspiring rite dating back to the fourth century AD or so.
Dave


On Apr 12, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Jon wrote:

The evolution of a disillusion.

At first, I thought Obama should have the benefit of a doubt in general...

As he began to corporatize the state and seize control of the economy, I said he should be given the benefit of a doubt on foreign policy at least...

He did seem to be following the Bush polices in Iraq and Afghanistan...

But then, he gave up missile defense to the Russians, and got nadda...

He vowed to end our long nuclear winter, and the North Koreans laughed...

He bowed to the Saudi King and got nadda...

He bashed his own country endlessly to the Europeans, as they liked, asked for troops for Afghanistan and got nadda...

Inside Somalia, we learn Obama's crack team thinks the al-Shabab organization requires "a more patient, nonmilitary approach" -- in order to get what you KNOW will be nadda...

Now his Navy has told us it is "waiting out the pirates," so as to get, I assume, nadda...

Barak Obama vs. Johnny Depp. Millions for tribute, perhaps, not one cent for defense.

My disillusionment is nearly complete.

Jon

We're ba-a-ack!*

I'm thinking of bringing this weblog back into action. Will be less of a demand on the mailing listees who are not interested. I will just send them a note from time to time that there is new content posted.

__________________________________
* Apologies to Jack Nicholson, The Shining

Wherefore art thou, o Hillary?

Please, cheer me up. She seems just to have completely caved. What has she told you? I was sure that she would have responded personally and taken prompt action.

This is too depressing. Tell me some way that your guy has a chance.

DABbio
(No longer a Democrat)
for McCain


On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Jon wrote:

Just saw this (No I did not watch the speech. The Brewers were busy knocking out Randy Johnson, 7-1. Prince is on his game again, and the pitching is really coming round.) Anyway, from Obama peroration.

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Good God. Can't he just promise us a chicken in every pot and be done with it? He's going to stop the sea levels from rising?!! Who does he think he is, King Canute? As Bob Dylan put it, "Freedom just around the corner from you. But with truth so far off, what good will it do?" Confidence Man has arrived.

Jon


On June 3, 2008, DABbio wrote:

Subject: Re: Hillary, not really a Democrat anyway.

As the depressing news breaks out here in Armenia, with the dawn, boy, do I agree with Eliot. As well as Jon. This all deserves blogging-- somewhere else besides my blog, where it will lie buried for millions of years like the obelisk in 2001.


On Jun 4, 2008, at 1:57 AM, crankytrucker wrote:

I'll bet that some part of Hillary is fed up with the Democratic clique. They've given her and all the moderates in the party the bum's rush and she should return the favor.

Do a Lieberman and run as an Independent.

I know that all the liberal elite would accuse her of playing the dreaded "spoiler", but fuck them. If it's good enough for baseball why should she have to lie down and hand dysfunctional Democratic apparatchik's a league title? I don't believe Obama has a chance anyway, and I'd imagine Hillary must know this too.

This country is in dire need of a centrist party with clout which she could deliver. In the likely event she ended up with more votes then Obama in November that would really stick it to Edwards & Co. Its not like she has much of a future with this current version of a neo-socialist Democratic Party.

First things first though, she needs to kick Bill and his cronies out of the house (which she should've done right after he left office), get on her best pants suit, take Chelsea out on a shoestring barnstorming tour and show her supporters she really believes in herself. The money will come.

The last thing in the world she should do is kowtow and play a running mate role or stand up at the convention and embarrass herself.

Just do it!


On June 3, 2008, DABbio wrote:

Subject: Re: Raise a Glass to Hillary

Excellent letter of yours, as usual, and good article by Jennifer Rubin, Jon. It is all pretty sad, but things generally have the stamp of inevitable decline written all over them, and Obamamania was just one symptom. Only place I disagree is that I think that Hillary's defeat spells no good news for McCain, even though Obama is a fatter target.

Especially when you couple it with what I am convinced, despite your economic optimism, is an oncoming depression, which will deprive John McCain of his chance too. No Republican is going to be able to win against any Democrat this November,* as I have been saying all along, which is why I was so partisan for Hillary. And subconsciously, it may also have been a contributing factor in the Republicans' mixed feelings about Hillary. They too sense that a Democrat is going to win, no matter how well the war is going, no matter how many dark clouds Obama finds hanging over him, because it's the economy y'all. Not that Obama is any less of a jerk about the economy than McCain. It's just the Republicans well earned reputation for fiddling while Rome burns. Which reminds me, where did Greenspan go. There ought to be a movie made about that supreme conman of the 20th century. That is what he was, and that is ALL he ever was. I felt it at the time, but never had the guts to say it.

What I have been trying to get you to understand is that the underlying statistics are not only all bad-- there are not any silver linings, and the article here The Mean Season leaves out even some of the dark clouds, such as the lowest consumer confidence index on record--but the interaction among them is toxic, as it is in any complex ecosystem. There are just too many huge instabilities in this enormous system for the usual positive feedback loops to act as the gyroscope that they would in ordinary times. I do expect to see oil come back down as the economy spirals down; unfortunately, the spiral will by then have too much momentum.

Such a situation spells doom for the Republicans. Frankly, I cannot sympathize with them much either. Their culture of easy money, Ayn Randian selfishness, and laissez-faire anti-government and anti-regulatory attitude-- as is implied even by the rock ribbed Republicans quoted in "The Mean Season" article cited above, now too late chastened about the need to regulate this nautrally but insanely selfish and humongeous economy-- have played a big part-- not the major part, but a big part-- in the spin-out of the USA. Please don't tell me how things are OK in the mid-west. They're not any longer, and the mid-West is small economically speaking.

The major part of the spin-out, from this ecologist's point of view, was really 63 years of relative peace--NO ONE's fault-- and the illusion that competition has somehow been eliminated from the story of the survival of species (and sub-species, like believers in the Enlightenment); that softened things up more quickly than one might have anticipated, although I've anticipated it since about 1952. But that's another story.

Love,
D
Democrats for McCain

* (1) Only caveat: Perhaps there are some emergency levers, like printing money, that Bush & Co. can pull to keep the economy afloat until November. That may allow McCain to sneak in. After him the deluge, which will be even broader and deeper due to any such extreme "salvage" measures. (2) I will be so happy to be foolishly wrong on my prediction that the Republicans are doomed this November. I am really just as fearful as you of an Obama presidency.


On Jun 3, 2008, at 8:54 AM, Jon wrote:

I expect I am the only real conservative in this particular group. Hence as a point of clarification, now that Hillary appears ready to bow out (I hope only "suspend," but it may really be over), I would like to share the Contentions Blog entry (see below), by Jennifer Rubin whose running commentary on this race has been among the best things out there.

I do this because I am sure there are those among you who think conservatives only have backed Hillary for the fun of watching the Dems eat each other. Absolutely that has been a part of it. But the YouTube clip I sent yesterday showed a female Democratic delegate I would be willing to bet every Republican I know of would accept as an honorable and honest opponent, one with whom mutual respect would be possible. One in the grand tradtion of American politics in which the most fundamental principle is split the difference and fight another day. That tradition is dying. Eight years of the ugliest and most irrational hate-fest directed at a current president (and that includes Nixon) that I have lived through has placed it in mortal danger. In my opinion Obama will perpetuate all of this horribly. For all his preening and phony humbleness, he has shown utter contempt for all "ordinary" politicians (to say nothing of ordinary citizens), even those in his own party. He really does think he is something new. He is a true believer who has never in his brief political life EVER actually reached across any isle, but is now arrogant enough to claim he will bring us all together. No politician I know of better sums up what drove me from left to right to begin with.

So I agree with Jennifer Rubin here in every detail. Hillary in fighting this fight, whether because she came to believe it or simply because she had to to survive, moved to a stance in defence of ordinary America, of the unchanged, unchanging and (for any Obamiacs among you) not needing to be changed, basic America. For that, I am as Rubin says here, honestly grateful. In a McCain-Hillary campaign, I would still fight vigorously for McCain. But I would remain confident no matter what. I will not with Obama. I do not know him. Not a bit -- nor do you. I certainly cannot comprehend his ability to tolerate (even if he does not "agree" with) the totalitarian and/or racist fury of Wright, Pflegler, Ayers, Dohrn, and (yet to be explored) ACORN, and who knows whom else? I do not trust his Saul Alinsky/New Left community organizing mentality and his radical social engineering bent, to say nothing of that of his wife. I will still probably sleep fine at night, but only for this reason: America designed its system so magnificently that it would take a million Obamas or more to shift it noticeably off its unchanging indifference to mere word-masters and ideologues. American will grind up Obama long before he grinds up America. That will be my consolation. In the meantime, here's a toast to Hillary. She's fought the good fight and I hope she's got some fight left.

Jon

Hillary, We Hardly Knew You
commentarymagazine.com - Contentions

Hillary Clinton’s campaign may end today. It may end tomorrow. But it will end soon enough. It has been an improbable journey for her, from inevitable to impossible. But the journey for many Republicans observing the Democratic primary has been just as strange.

She began the campaign, from the Republicans’ perspective, as the villainess, like movie character brought back from a prior film with a slightly different look but every bit as maddening and as scary. The cackle! The smarmy sidekick Bill! And that cloying campaign announcement! It all seemed painfully familiar. But slowly things changed. It is no secret that she got a much friendlier reception and fairer treatment from the conservative than the liberal media. Both in public and private Republicans shook their heads, admitting that she had, well, grown on them. What happened?

Yes, there was an element of mischief-making in some Republicans rooting her on, the most widely known aspect being Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos.” And sure, it was fun for Republicans to see the Democratic race drag on and on and on, as the Democrats attacked and villified one another. But there was something more.

Hillary became the sane one in the race, at least from Republicans’ perspective. She was the one who looked at George Stephanopoulos with a look of incredulity when he questioned why she would threaten to blow Iran to smithereens if Iran nuked Israel. When Obama defamed religious and gun-owning Americans she objected, reminding the Democratic party for a brief interval that people loved their faith because . . . they loved their faith. And when Obama offered that raising the payroll tax cap on those making $102K would affect only the “rich,” it was Hillary who said, “That’s not rich!” Most strikingly, it was she and her campaign who did object, and object strenuously, to Obama’s plan for direct, unconditonal talks with rogue state leaders. And she even withstood her fellow Democrats’ barbs for voting to classify the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization.

Some might question her authenticity on some of these issues, but whether or not she truly believed it all, her articulated views were often the least crazy thing coming out of the Democratic race on any given day. What’s more she was getting clobbered, unfairly and personally nearly every day in the race by Obama’s media cheerleaders who disclaimed much if any interest in reporting the race objectively. Republicans could relate to that.

And let’s face it: Republicans are not always the hippest folks in the crowd. They tend to frown on the excesses of popular culture and Hollywood fads in particular. So when he became the darling of the fashionable and she, the awkward middle-aged gal, rolled her eyes at Obama girls–again, Republicans could relate.

So it is a good thing, perhaps, for John McCain that she lost: what started out as an idle threat or joke (”I’ll vote for Hillary over McCain!”) among the conservative base became a distinct possibility for some Republicans, and certainly many conservative Independents.

Looking back, few would have thought eighteen months ago that Hillary would lose. And fewer still would have thought some Republicans would be sorry to see it.

Still more Obamamanianalysis

Jon writes:

Meanwhile, this is vastly less creative [than "Hillary's Downfall;" see link below --Ed.], but just as hilarious in its own way...



...This man, who has been bashing Bush for 18 months: "the old politics," "the tired old Washington politics," "the politics of fear and division," etc., ad naseaum, etc, now has the audacity to criticize Bush for a charge of "appeasement" that MAY have been directed at Obama. Given Obama's documentable, undeniable, and many times repeated offer to conduct presidential talks without preconditions with anyone, I guess the shoe fit. In fact, Bush might well have meant the shoe for Jimmy Carter -- who Obama himself actually criticized, because with finger in the wind (new politics style, of course) he knows he must.

As Newt Gingrich pointed out, had Obama not been as thin-skinned as a naked clam, and a lot stupider than he is given credit for, he could have just said, "I absolutely agree with the president and I said as much about Jimmy Carter's disgraceful kiss on the cheek of Hamas." But no, Obama's instinctive response is to go hyper-defensive ballistic about his defeatism in the very act of denying it. Of course, maybe he is not quite so dumb, and the game here is, aside from Obama's precious self-infatuation, that he thinks he can use this incident to go after Bush and then tie McCain to Bush over it. Why he wants to do that by calling screaming attention to his own worst political stance to date is beyond me. Maybe he really does think the public is as defeatest as he is. I hope he is not right, though I have my own doubts from time to time, I have to admit.

Hillary's Downfall

Warning: X-rated for blue language and gratuitous offense to various minority groups. Otherwise, listed on my top 10 funniest videos.



With a tip of the hat to Stephen Bloom for bringing it to my attention.

The Right-Wing Attack Machine Reporting In

Regarding Glen Greenwald's Great American Hypocrites, I admit it, this is me alright...

"most have dodged military duty, have strings of broken marriages and affairs, and live decadent, elitist lives, which they so ruthlessly condemn Democrats for doing."

Well, only one broken marriage, actually, but I did dodge the draft (sort of) and I am surely decadent (love those Culver's malts) and elitist (I am reading three books at once now, ain't that somethin'?). But if we Republicans are to be condemned for leading "decadent, elitist lives" now, does this mean this anti-Republican agrees with us that these are not good things? Or is he praising us, as in "hypocrisy is the complement vice pays to virtue"?

Seriously, what does any of this have to do with anything? I love it that this blurb, after spewing out the usual litany of ad hominem attacks on GOPers, tells us it's the GOP that is letting its "time-tested marketing ploy spin itself silly while avoiding debate on real issues." What issues does the blurb ask us not to avoid? I must have missed those.

This GOP attack machine line of attack lately has taken on truly preposterous dimensions, given that the anti-Hillary left has employed all the "time-tested" invective against the Clintons that the Republicans ever manufactured, plus a LOT more and a LOT worse invective all of its own making. Or am I missing something, and it is actually true that the "right-wing propaganda machine" (god I wish there were one) really does exist and really has taken over Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Moveon.org and all the other actual and really existing expletive manufacturing hate machines?

Right, I think we should put a Stetson on Hillary and get her on a horse
packing a six shooter over her pants suit!
Clinging indeed.
From my liberal anonymous friend:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/05/14/tarantella/print.html

Great American Hypocrites

Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics

Written by Glenn Greenwald

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Published by Crown

ABOUT THIS BOOK

A takedown of the GOP’s deceitful propaganda machine from the hugely popular blogger of Salon.com’s Unclaimed Territory and the author of the New York Times bestsellers How Would a Patriot Act? and A Tragic Legacy

Long since Americans were wooed by images of Ronald Reagan astride a horse, complete with cowboy hat and rugged good looks, the Republican Party has used a John Wayne mythology to build up its candidates and win elections. Their marketing scheme of evoking brave, courageous, heroic warriors has been so persuasive and strikes such a patriotic nerve, that many citizens have voted based on this manipulative imagery even when they’ve flat out disagreed with the GOP’s positions on key issues.

Glenn Greenwald puts this bogus GOP mythology under microscopic critique and successfully argues that none of these men is, in fact, a brave, strong moral warrior—far from it. Rather, most have dodged military duty, have strings of broken marriages and affairs, and live decadent, elitist lives, which they so ruthlessly condemn Democrats for doing. Such false archetypes—that GOP leaders are exclusively fit to command the military, represent traditional family values, and are fiscally restrained and responsible because they’re just regular folk like us—are so firmly entrenched in our culture as to allow the GOP to sit back and let their time-tested marketing ploy spin itself silly while avoiding debate on real issues. When they actually do voice opinions, it’s nothing more than a smear campaign of the supposed weakness and elitism of the Democrats.
To prevent this tired marketing scheme from succeeding again, Greenwald takes off the gloves and knocks down the hoaxes and myths, exposing the tactics the right-wing machine uses to drown out both reality and consideration of real issues. But he also calls on Democrats to shake off the defensive posture (“We love America too,” “We support the troops too,” “We also believe in God”) and start attacking the Republican candidates for the hypocrites they, in truth, are.

The first book to dissect the Republican Cult of Personality and leave it openly exposed in its unabashed, shameful depravity, Great American Hypocrites is a deeply necessary call-out to Democrats to attack the GOP with their competitor’s very own weapons.



Ever since the cowboy image of Ronald Reagan was sold to Americans, the Republican Party has used the same John Wayne imagery to support its candidates and take elections. We all know how they govern, but
the right-wing propaganda machine is very adept at hijacking debate
and marketing their candidates as effectively as the Marlboro Man.
For example:

Myth: The Republican nominee is an upstanding, regular guy who shares the values of the common man.
Reality: He divorced his first wife in order to marry a young multimillionaire heiress whose family then funded his political career.

Myth: Republicans are brave and courageous.
Reality: It’s a party filled with chicken hawks and draft dodgers.

Myth: Republicans are strong on defense and will keep us safe.
Reality: They prey on fears, and their endless wars make America far less secure.

Myth: The Republicans are the party of fiscal restraint and small, limited
government.
Reality: Soaring deficits, unchecked presidential power, and an increasingly invasive surveillance state are par for their course.

About the Author

GLENN GREENWALD is a former constitutional law attorney and now a contributing writer at Salon. His political reporting and analysis have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the American Conservative, numerous congressional reports, and various other publications.

McCain's Climate Cave

An email I just sent to BMI (Business Media Institute) on a piece they did on McCain's global climate change statements. Then I sent it to the McCain people themselves.

BMI
I wish the McCain people would realize how bone-headed their approach to the global warming issue is.

First of all, it is coming at a point where the case for global warming alarmism is collapsing badly, both due to research and due to the turn in the climate itself since 1998 -- which perhaps people in Arizona do not notice but we in Wisconsin ALL NOTICE.

Secondly, his efforts are a pander that the right will revile (I certainly do) and the independents and liberals will also see through completely as a pander. Why? Because they (the liberals) know in their heads, if not in their hearts, that NONE of the crackpot ideas floated so far about climate change will work one iota to change the climate, no matter whether its ups and downs otherwise are themselves a problem or not. I mean does McCain actually think the left is SERIOUS in its calls for draconian change to change the climate? He might start by wondering how it is any of them even knows what the right climate is, let alone how to get it. Then he might consider truly ludicrous nonsense such as John McCartney getting a hybrid Lexus for his enviro self-esteem but then going ballistic because it was airlifted to him. My point: None of them, absolutely none of them, is SERIOUS. And so when John McCain pretends to be, they know he is pretending, just as they know THEY are pretending. So they see his current game as his effort to fool them and even to mock them. I wish they were right. I hope they are right. Please tell McCain to send me a message back telling me they are right. He's only joking. No? Please.

Oh, well, pardon me. I have to leave now to go put some ethanol in my tank and starve a few more Third Worlders.

Jonathan Burack

More Obamamanianalysis

On May 14, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Evansen, Russell G wrote:

What is most galling to me is watching how the MSM has so thoroughly interjected itself into this whole political process, to the point where supposed “journalists” now take it for granted that they are charged with letting everyone know who will be the nominee and the next president – no matter what those annoying voters choose to do or believe. The talking heads of the Sunday chat shows and the insipid morning programs (“After the break we’ll discuss Hillary’s impact on the pantsuit industry – but first, what’s the latest on Miley Cyrus? We sent an investigative team to find out!”) have decided that we all need Obama the Healer to save us from ourselves, and they will brook no argument. This thing is OVER, they declare – so stop your stupid voting!!! Don’t you know that a bunch of elitist party hacks are going to decide this for you? Can’t you see that they are far wiser than you?

You’d think the fact that the Democrats’ hopelessly broken nominating system has yet again found a way to select the party’s most far left liberal candidate to be their November standard-bearer might give someone pause (Hello, Howard Dean? Do you recall George McGovern, or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis, or John Kerry?). But let nothing stand in the way of the fairy tale that is “post-racial, post-partisan” Obama – certainly not those vulgar Clintons. The Dems are done with them, and now it’s time for them to begin the more acceptable former-first couple career of meddling in foreign affairs and writing fatuous books about how conservatives are bringing about the apocalypse.

Russ

From: Jon Burack [mailto:JBKburack@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:50 AM

David,

I was pleased to see the utter repudiation of Obama in W. Va., but I fear it will not deter the Obama juggernaut. I mean Obama's already explained it all -- those yokels are bitter and the victims of false consciousness. I do not know the answer about what happens after a first ballot, but it looks to me like the Democrats are determined not to let there be more than one. I also am not yet seeing that this fight is, as David says, "sharpening the focus on real issues" for Democrats. It might do that if the two candidates were the least bit clear about what the issues are and what they believe.

As for "corporate conglomerates or the mass media," a lot could be said. I just don't see what the "self-interest" is of either the conglomerates or the media intelligentsia in the choice between Obama and Hillary, or even McCain for that matter. No matter who wins, the mainstream media will continue to decline in the face of the pressures mounting on it, newspapers will continue to cut staff, the old ships will go down as newer ones arise. The same hacks, meanwhile, will get the same Pulitzers for writing about the same irrelevancies. They same numskulls will continue to pat each other's backs for the fine moral fellows they all will tell themselves they are. In fact, you could make the case that McCain will make it easiest on them (and sell more hype to profit their corporate owners) by keeping alive the insane Bush Derangement Syndrome (already transmogrifying into the McCain Derangement Syndrome) that has given them the frame for everything they say and do, forestalling the need for thought and making life easy for them.

Meanwhile, the U.S. waits, prepared as no one else is to rescue the people of Burma, reviled to its core by Burma's military and the humantiarians of the UN and the liberal "international community" all over the place, as is this president, who has done more to combat AIDS than any other single man on Earth, as the people of Iraq also wait to learn if they really will be delivered back into the tender mercies of fanatic killers, Israel waits to learn if total annhilation will move from rhetoric to action, and the rest of us wait to find out which of these three future presidents will raise taxes the highest on us to "give" us free health care and make the climate change stop, God help us. At least I hold out hope McCain's warrior ethos and opposition to spending will keep him from really doing much about that last one, despite his apparent readiness to go with the flow on they hype.

Jon

From: David Burack
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:57 AM

At this point in time, immediately post-West Virginia, I have to admit that I am enjoying it. Even the possibility of watching Obama learn on the job how to become king.

But I am willing to bet a small amount on Hillary, and I just sent her yet another 50 bucks. She is appropriately scrappy, and I sense, if not a turning of the tide, at least a stopping of it from running Obama's way. She will go to the mat to bring at least some part of Florida and Michigan to bear. I think it will be tough for the DNC to deny MI and FL, regardless of the "rules," which the DNC of course has the power to change if it suits their purpose. And how can it suit their purpose to publicly disenfranchise some of the same electorate that they so justifiably claimed was disenfranchised by the Supreme Court in the last election?

With Hillary's win in W. Va., reality has begun to sink in on the party and the party-ers. The super delegates have to ponder whether they want to do another McGovern-- and I think that they're going to stop bleeding off to Obama at least until June. But they might be the idiots they appear to be, and throw this thing to Obama on the flimsy basis that the fight hurts the party. It doesn't hurt the party; it is sharpening the focus on real issues.

Question: Is it true that if there is no majority on the first ballot, then the delegates are free to vote their consciences? Or is that no longer the rule, if it ever was? If so, isn't there the faint possibility of having the first true convention, floor fights and all, since the 1940's or 50's?

The delegates choose the nominees, not Newsweek, not CNN's "Best Political Team," not even the odious New Yorker's Hendrik Herzberg, or New York Times political reporters whose almost openly biased coverage is all slanted to get them a ratings-enhancing black vs. white confrontation and to elect Barack Obama President. I'm not sure who needs to be reined in more, the corporate conglomerates or the mass media. Wait a minute; is there a difference?

But where the heck are the women? Are they really going to chance passing up the only possible female candidate for President in their lifetimes?

Dave B.


On May 9, 2008, at 8:44 PM, eliot markell wrote:

Thank you all for your feedback, especially Jon's in depth analysis.

Of course this whole mess could have been avoided by a Clinton nomination but so it goes. I now have until November to be persuaded to either sit this one out or cross over to the dark side and for the first time vote for the party of Lincoln.

Will my disenfranchisement from the Democratic Party, and distaste for Obama be enough motivation for me to put aside my discomfort with the Republican domestic agenda to lodge vote against a left wing platform that leaves me out in the cold? I guess I'm saying that if I decide to vote it would be to help establish an anti-Obama coalition within the Independent Party.

Would enough Independent voting against the Obama send the Democrats a message? Probably not, but if it looks like theres some kind of momentum to go against Obama within the Independents come November I would probably side with that movement.

Eliot

JFK and Obama

I had trouble reading some of the things up here (David, what can be done about line breaks?). Here was one point I think I see:

"Kennedy denied necessary air support during the Bay of Pigs. Ordered the CIA to murder Castro (a fact that was covered up during the Warren Commission and beyond). Kennedy did make contact with Khrushchev during the missle crisis. It's what saved the world. It was Khrushchev's proposal that ultimately prevailed in the end result. As well a set of phones were installed to talk to our enemy. They were called The Hot Line, so the leaders of the nuclear powers could easily talk in the event of conflict."

I am a bit confused as to whether this is a defense of Kennedy and of Obama's comparison of himself to Kennedy, or not. I mean trying to get Castro killed does not seem like what Obama meant by talking with one's enemy. As for Kennedy talking with Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis, like I said, if this is what Obama means by talk I am all for it. As in the Swat team talking with the hostage taker to the degree of saying "Put down that weapon, step aside, and then maybe we can talk." In other words, if Obama is going to talk to Iran in the context of making it clear beyond a reasonable doubt as to the dire consequences of not talking, I am fine with that. But so far, that does not seem to be his intention. He wants to talk without preconditions (I know he denies this now, but the words are down on paper and he did say it.) JFK talked with Khrushchev in Oct. 1962 with the most dire preconditions imaginable.

Now Kennedy did have an earlier meeting with Khrushchev, wherein Khrushcheve appeared to role him and in fact came away believing he could be rolled. I cannot think, in fact, of a better example of what is wrong with talking without preconditions to one's enemies. They think you need them more than they need you.

Everything about Obama, from his refusal to disown Wright to his obfuscations about Hamas's endorsement of him, suggest the same thing to me. He will not take on absolute enmity with any realism or clean firmness. On the one hand, he protests that he doth disown them all. Yet his slippery words almost inevitably slide over to making excuses for them as well. Yes, he ultimately has come down strong on rejecting their ideas as utterly beyond the pale. But his heart is in the excuses he then makes, and you can tell it. They (Wright, Hamas) are the consequences of, on the one hand, white people's past racism, and on the other, the festering hatred our policies in the Middle East have ginned up. JFK did not have an once of this "nuanced" self-doubt (as Obama has also put it), and so I stick by my point.