Category: Politics & Elections

As I said in an earlier post, any candidate who supports corn ethanol is unqualified to lead the country. By that standard, we don’t have any qualified candidates for president. But the bar should be higher than that. If we don’t know who will advise them, how they plan to pay the bills, and who they would nominate for the Supreme Court, they haven’t given us the minimum information needed to support them.

The above from Scott Adams.

Digby is one of the most worthwhile writers today on American politics and recent political history — but you knew that. Here’s an excerpt from a long — but important — post you should read.

But our nation has a past which should preclude any person who’s taken a high school level course in American history to believe what Andrew Sullivan claims to have believed prior to the invasion of Iraq. America has a long history of immoral deeds, done by men who at the time we all might have assumed were moral and upright too. Unless you think that Native American genocide, slavery, lynching, jailing without due process, apartheid, medical experiments on prisoners and military personnel, forced sterilization, wars of aggression etc are moral acts, you can’t possibly think that what Bush has done is unique to despoiling “the meaning of America.” The meaning of America has always been ambivalent and confused. (Thomas Jefferson, the writer of that great document about liberty and unalienable rights owned slaves, for gawds sakes)

Of course, Bush was capable of immoral acts. He’s a human being. That is why we should never blindly trust our leaders’ (mostly manufactured) “characters” and rely instead on the rule of law and the constitution. And it’s why we must be vigilant in defending ourcivil liberties and democratic processes even when we really, really love our leaders. Humans are flawed, power corrupts, leaders are stupid, shit happens. You can’t depend on powerful people’s good intentions. It’s more than a little bit silly that so many adults seem to need to maintain a romantic fiction that elected leaders are more prophet than politician, but many of them do.

So what do you think? Was it a good speech? Did it serve Obama well? Did it serve the country well?

Did you even watch it, or part of it, or read it? Why? Why not?

Here’s the text.

Here’s the video (37 minutes, 39 seconds).

The entire premise of Barack Obama’s candidacy is built upon the opposite assumption — that Americans are not only able, but eager, to participate in a more elevated and reasoned political discourse, one that moves beyond the boisterous, screeching, simple-minded, ugly, vapid attack-based distractions and patronizing manipulation — the Drudgian Freak Show — that has dominated our political debates for the last two decades at least.

Glenn Greenwald

Can aspiring to our better angels succeed in 2008 America?

Here’s someone who thinks it might.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has a brief email exchange with Barack Obama but click for the photo.

This Democratic presidential business would have been over some time ago if Hillary weren’t a woman or Barack wasn’t an African-American. Give Clinton the 10-15% of the voters who won’t vote for a woman or Obama the 10-15% of the voters who won’t vote for a black and it would have been over in February.

We can quit congratulating ourselves on the historical breakthrough anytime now.

What was the worst pick for vice president?

Al Gore picking Joe Lieberman?

Walter Mondale picking Geraldine Ferraro?

(Thomas Jefferson didn’t actually pick Aaron Burr.)

Eric Alterman wrote this and NewMexiKen posted it four years ago today.

“In my brief veep discussion yesterday, I left out the actually ideal choice — even including Edwards — which would be John McCain. Can you imagine? McCain’s recent voting record is closer to Kerry’s than to his party’s leadership and the man does hate Bush’s guts. It would be an enormous roll of the dice for both men but extreme times call for extreme measures.”

Worst call since Gore picked Lieberman.

Hates his guts, eh?

“[Obama] needs to give a speech in which he explains this all to a willfully amnesiac country that has grown illiterate of its Constitution, ignorant of its founding principles, and taught by three decades of conservative government and idiot popular culture that its fundamental rights are at best inconveniences and, at worst, loopholes through which criminals escape justice and terrorists infiltrate the country. They are not ‘their’ rights. They are our rights, damn it.”

Charles Pierce, who has more on the speech Obama should give.

Who is older — John McCain’s oldest child, Sidney, or Michelle Obama?

Who is taller — John McCain or Hillary Clinton?

Barack is a Semitic word meaning “to bless” as a verb or “blessing” as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible. It first occurs in Genesis 1:22 — “And God blessed (ḇāreḵə) them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
. . .

Now let us take the name “Hussein.” It is from the Semitic word hasan, meaning “good” or “handsome.” Husayn is the diminutive, affectionate form.

Barack Obama’s middle name is in honor of his grandfather, Hussein, a secular resident of Nairobi, Kenya. Americans may think of Saddam Hussein when they hear the name, but that is like thinking of Stalin when you hear the name Joseph. There have been lots of Husseins in history, from the grandson of the prophet Mohammed, a hero who touched the historian Gibbon, to King Hussein of Jordan, one of America’s most steadfast allies in the 20th century. The author of the beloved American novel “The Kite Runner” is Khaled Hosseini.

But in Obama’s case, it is just a reference to his grandfather.

Juan Cole | Salon

My middle name is from my grandfather. (1) I’m happy for the connection. (2) I had nothing to do with getting the name. (3) I suspect Barack Obama did not choose his name either.

For the record, McCain’s middle name is Sidney. That’s his father and grandfather’s middle name.

And “W” in Bush’s middle name stands for Walker, his grandmother’s maiden name.

Writing for Newsweek, Martin Linsky thinks Obama shows feminine traits.

But he is pushing against conventional—and political party nominating convention—wisdom in five important ways, with approaches that are usually thought of as qualities and values that women bring to organizational life: a commitment to inclusiveness in problem solving, deep optimism, modesty about knowing all the answers, the courage to deliver uncomfortable news, not taking on all the work alone, and a willingness to air dirty linen.
. . .

Clinton’s campaign, on the other hand, is centered on the idea that she is the experienced realist. She understands the rules in this man’s game of politics and governing, knows how to play by them and win, and can take the heat that inevitably comes with entering the fray.

More stereotypes?

“It is important for me as well as Sen. Clinton to communicate to our staffs as well that … we’re both trying out for quarterback, but we’re on the same team.”

— Senator Barack Obama

This is all over the blogs this morning — it’s Mark Halperin at Time and his 15-point plan for how McCain can beat Obama.

Things like:

4. Encourage interest groups, bloggers, and right-leaning media to explore Obama’s past.

5. Make an issue of Obama’s acknowledged drug use.

6. Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama.

7. Exploit Michelle Obama’s mistakes and address her controversial remarks with unrestricted censure.

8. Play dirty without alienating his party.