Democracy and the DNC

I watched the whole DNC Rules committee marathon May 31st (thanks C-SPAN) and while it was very interesting to listen and watch the posturing, it was clear that the outcome was a forgone conclusion. The media had reported the likely outcome over a week ago and so we know that the deal was really struck behind closed doors in negotiations sometime back. That's disappointing. Clearly, if this charade shows us anything it's the need for a national primary and stop this silly jockeying for position by the states.

Bill: It's Everybody Else's Fault.

Political Forums - Politico.com - Politico.com

OK. I was a Bill Clinton supporter while he was president until he embarrassed the country with the Monica Lewinsky nonsense. It's pretty funny when I keep hearing what a great president he was; his last 2.5 years were consumed with impeachment, disbarment, and obsession with saving his presidency - not running the country. But since then we've also learned the downsides of the repeal of the Glass Seagall Act and his support for deregulation of the banking industry which led to banking abuses and ultimately the mortgage crisis, and NAFTA, which I basically supported but has certainly had its negative side, both issues promoted by Bill Clinton. This constant refrain that we have to vote for Hillary because Bill was such a great president is myopic and represents nostalgia for a time that never really existed. And his constant refrain that she is the victim and subject to vilification by just about everyone (except perhaps the Republicans)just doesn't make sense. If her campaign has been destroyed by such negatives how in the world does that make her the stronger candidate in November?

Glenn Greenwald on the press

The Politico's John Harris admits now what he denied last year - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Excellent piece. To understand why Greenwald is so right, all one has to do is read through the comments attached to his article. Most have nothing to do with the content; most are more interested in calling names than discussing issues; many are barely literate, most show a distinct ignorance of what Greenwald said. The press is a reflection of us: lazy, ignorant and simplistic. We get what we deserve.

There are many really good books out there, including Greenwald's, that provide some very interesting and relevant context to help understand today's dysfunctional Washington. Just to mention a few: Nixonland by Perlstein, Clinton in Exile by Felsenthal, The Strong Man: and John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate by Rosen plus many, many more.

Let's get rid of the vitriol.

The level of vitriol just never ceases to amaze me. The fact remains this has become a battle of isms: sexism v racism v ageism. Both Obama and Clinton benefit from belonging to their respective "'ism." Only John McCain suffers; I doubt anyone will vote for him because he is old. Can't we honor others' positions without assuming that because they take a position it's because they are sexist or racist? Can't I prefer Clinton because I appreciate her supporter for liberal causes over the years and her many accomplishments and not because I'm afraid of Obama's race? Can't I prefer Obama because of his extraordinary management skills in running a flawless campaign and his ability to charge people of all ages, races and sex with a new excitement without being labeled a misogynist? Can't I prefer McCain for his former independence and service to this country without being considered both racist and sexist? The fact is that there are numerous questions that should be asked of all the candidates that would help define their positions and it would be useful if the media helped us by asking them. In the meantime, why can't we, as democrats (small "d) start asking them ourselves instead of wallowing in Wright, Hagee, RFK and other really unimportant side-issues? I, for one, would like to ask the following, just as a sample:

1. The federal government is a huge bureaucracy that may have become unmanageable. How do you propose to bring competence and efficiency to such an entity?

2. Any organization that gets a federal grant is required to be audited. Why can't we expect the same of the Pentagon and the defense budget?

3. How could the web be used to streamline and improve interaction between government and its citizens?

4. What should be the role of the United Nations and what should be the level of support for the UN by the US?

5. Do you have a plan for paying down the federal debt?

6. Do you have a plan to reform the tax system and who would you put in place to implement such changes?

7. Would you call yourself a Keynesian? or what economic theory guides your thinking?

8. The government has used secrecy to avoid embarrassment. Do you have a plan for opening up how government works and becomes accountable?

Just a sample. Let's bring some civility and rationality and discussion of philosophy and issues back to the debate.

Misogynism

Hillary has been making a strong case recently that the press and country have been increasingly misogynistic and that has hurt her candidacy. This, much like her strategy to paint Barack as too inexperienced to deal with national security threats, is not a good strategy for her. For her to say that the anti-women vote and positions are stronger than the anti-black means logically that she would be less likely to win in the general election than more likely, an argument the reverse of what she would like the super-delegates to adopt.

Similarly, when she argues that she is the stronger national security candidate than Barack, she redefines the election battle in terms of national security, and McCain would love that, beating her easily on that issue.