EPIGONIC

Proof of Her Lying, If You Needed It

If you are a Clinton supporter, and you think your candidate is being honest, truthful and honorable in her quest to seat the delegations in Florida and Michigan, I heartily recommend you read this.

UPDATED: And this, and this.

Bottom line: If you care only about Hillary Clinton being President, and about nothing else --  a woman's right to choose, the Supreme Court, the war in Iraq, our health care system, our environment -- then perhaps you can be comfortable with her actions.

But if you give a damn about the Democratic Party, what it stands for, and what's at stake, I don't see how you could support her actions, which have no likely result other than sowing further divisions within the party and increasing the chances for John McCain in the Fall.

It's the Lying, Stupid

It may be true that some people aren't voting for Senator Clinton because of sexism. That's sad, not worthy of Democrats if indeed it's true.

But there are a lot of us who don't and won't support her because she has a difficult relationship with the truth.

The latest lie -- and it's going unchallenged by the talking heads, for now -- is that she is ahead in the popular vote. There is only one, tortuous way for her to make that claim:

1. Include votes in Florida, even though the candidates did not campaign there, because the DNC dictated that the primary would not count because it was scheduled in violation of Party rules.

2. Include votes in Michigan, where Obama was not even on the ballot and thus didn't receive one single vote. Again, the candidates did not campaign there, because the DNC dictated that the primary would not count because it was scheduled in violation of Party rules. And all of the other candidates besides Senator Clinton took their names off the ballot, to play by the rules.

3. Not include votes from four caucus states: Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington -- about  320,000 votes for Senator Obama.

In other words, the only way that she, Howard Wolfson, Terry Macauliffe and Lisa Caputo can make this claim is by cheating -- not playing by the rules she agreed to when she thought she would win the nomination on Florida and Michigan. And, lying.

Do we really want to have a candidate who has the audacity to shovel out this kind of BS? We've just finished eight years of this kind of President, we don't need another four.

The Open Source Political Campaign

I admit to being seriously obsessed with politics, and my family can attest it becomes an irrational obsession every four years. Chalk this up to my upbringing. I'm the son of a political journalist in Washington, D.C., ours was a family where talk of politics was a nightly ritual, where I was instructed about the pocket veto at age seven and dragged out onto the campaign trail at age eight (McGovern, on the press plane, in 1972, yes I'm that old).

This year, the obsession has been more extreme because I'm supporting the best presidential candidate of my lifetime. I'm just cynical enough to feel slightly moronic even writing this. But I truly do believe this is the best politician I've seen, in my life, full stop.

So, instead of just obsessively checking every political blog every 2 minutes, instead of just donating money, I've actually gotten involved. I worked as a precinct captain here in San Francisco, making 1000s of phone calls to about 500 potential voters in my precinct, then canvassing the precinct on foot for 3-4 days to get out the vote.

And two weeks ago, I headed to Indiana to work in a field office, in Muncie. I could write so much about that experience, as I canvassed such a wide variety of neighborhoods during my three days on the ground -- from the poorest African American neighborhood in the city on a Sunday morning, to blue collar mostly white neighborhoods, to more upper middle class neighborhoods.

But the thing I wanted to write about here, based on these two experiences, is the open source nature of the Obama campaign. It's a profound change from what has come before.

The work of the campaign is driven by a substantial army of volunteers (1 million or so). Their efforts are loosely coordinated. As a volunteer, it is expected you'll have the wherewithal to figure most things out on your own, with little direction or guidance from anyone else. What to say to voters, how best to make Obama's case, what days to canvas, what nights to make phone calls.

This is, I am quite sure, by design. Perhaps it's mostly a legacy and learning from Obama's days as an on-the-street field organizer himself. Or, perhaps it's also a more direct embrace of the open source framework for collaboration by large groups. I don't know.

The Obama website is your data platform, spewing out phone numbers of voters to call, precinct canvassing lists, and handy access policies to be used.  Sharing knowledge, in person and online, about what works and what doesn't is encouraged.

As a volunteer, you are left to figure out what you're going to do, when, and how you'll accomplish your work with the tools you've been given. It's not for everyone. But, because it forces a kind of self-selection early on, I've found that the Obama army is unusually diverse, driven, hard-working, confident, and self-reliant.

There are other parallels. Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everyone  is my nightly read at the moment, and his description of the volunteer army that makes Wikipedia is also relevant here.  In particular, Shirky makes the argument that Wikipedia should have theoretically been a victim of the tragedy of the commons, but hasn't because the volunteer, loosely-coordinate army that  is devoted to Wikipedia working is usually able to thwart the trolls and ne'er -do-wells seeking attention.

It's clear the large, passionate and active army working for Obama has been of similar importance. In the past two elections, folks like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly have been able to drive the debate in the broader mainstream media, by pushing relentless, often unfair and untrue, lines of attack that get picked up by mainstream outlets and go unanswered.

As Exhibit A, review their work in 2000 and 2004 against Al Gore and John Kerry, where their attacks largely went unanswered, and instead were amplified by mainstream media outlets that felt compelled to cover them as "news." Often without any analysis of the claims, in a quest for neutrality and objectivity, leaving the candidates to try to answer the charges themselves, which in turn made them look defensive and sometimes weak.

This year, hundreds of thousands of bloggers, with their own personal media outlets, have had Obama's back. They've responded instantly and vociferously and increasingly intelligently to the extremist right-wing mischief makers, or similar thrusts from the Clinton campaign. They can't keep an O'Reilly or Scaife or Hannity or Limbaugh from saying what they're going to say; but they have been able to keep other mainstream media outlets a bit more honest. As Exhibit B, I give you the ABC News debate.

We don't know yet whether this will result in Obama's election. But these changes are dramatic, important, and will be far-reaching in the end. 

What We've Been Waiting For

For most of my adult life, Democratic politicians -- especially Presidential candidates -- have adopted a "Republican light" approach to foreign policy, with an eye towards looking just as "tough" and "strong" as the Republicans.

Without a doubt, this is why John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton voted for authorizing the Iraq war in 2002. They didn't want to look like wimps in 2004 or 2008 as Presidential candidates.

One of the reasons so many of us like Barack Obama is that he hasn't fallen into that trap. He has shown you could oppose the Iraq war -- strongly, consistently, without wavering -- and be just as strong an advocate for our national interests and our national defense as those supporting the war. If not stronger, indeed.

With his vigorous response to McCain and Bush today, he demonstrates again that strength, and why he is more fit to be C-in-C than either McCain or Clinton, both of whom marched lockstep with Bush in 2002 and 2003:

George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for. They have to explain why we are now entering our sixth year of war in Iraq. We were supposed to be going over there for weapons of mass destruction that we never found. We were told that it was going to last a few months and cost a few billion dollars. We have now spent over 600 billion dollars. Thousands of lives lost, and we have not been made more safe. They’re going to have to explain the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large and is sending out videotapes with impunity. They need to answer for the fact that al Qaeda’s leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan. They’ve got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our invasion in Iraq. It made Iran stronger. George Bush’s policies. They’re going to have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian authority. They’re going to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and poses the greatest threat to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.

That’s the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are the failed policies that John McCain wants to double down on, because he still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way in which he’d be different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy.

That's the key line: George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for. The more he can say that between now and November, the more stunning and substantial his victory will be. Because, in the end, they do have a lot to answer for with the most disastrous foreign policy misadventure in a century.

The Hamas-Loving McCain of Davos, Switzerland

Will the real McCain please stand up?

Is it the Dick Cheney-wannabe, who yesterday pandered to a gaggle of radical right-wing bloggers, saying Obama was unfit to be President. He claimed -- a claim that was an outrageous lie -- that Obama wanted to negotiate with Hamas.

Or is it Senator McCain of Davos, the man desperate to cozy up with European political and media elites talking of his own willingness to sit down with Hamas.

The story here, from a James Rubin op-ed (Mr. Rubin is a strong Hillary Clinton supporter) in yesterday's Washington Post:

Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today. (emphasis added)

Some enterprising blogger ought to get and post that footage of Senator McCain of Davos, desperately seeking the approval of folks like Tom Friedman and Joe Klein. Might be our "windsurfing" video of 2008.

UPDATE -- of course, turns out the Jed Report already has the footage:

Some candidates, when they run for President, do indeed lose their bearings. Their thirst for power and glory becomes so overwhelming they forget who they are, what they stand for.

We've seen it with one candidate in the Democratic primary, and now we're seeing it with the supposedly-maverick and independent John McCain. As an Obama supporter, one of the things I'm most proud of is that he's kept his cool, and mostly stayed true to his cause and his beliefs. Here's his response to McCain and Bush:

Bring it, McLieberBush

So the Bush-McCain-Lieberman trio are at it, with a coordinated attack today on Obama.

Here is McCain's hit job. He says today:

"I think [it] is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security."

I say, bring it. Let's have that discussion about who has "the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security."

For example, let's talk a bit about McCain's ongoing, steady, unwavering support for the most disastrous foreign intervention in our country's history. Wherein we diverted resources from Afghanistan, and our fight against Bin Laden and Al Queda, to invade and occupy Iraq instead on false pretenses and premises.

Let's talk about that judgment.

Or his unwavering support for a Bush economic regime that has weakened us from within. A set of policies that have made us debtors to a series of nations -- China, Russia, and the Opec powers most prominently -- who may have strategic reasons to accumulate our debt, and use it in ways not in our national interest.

While we're at it, let's talk about some history. Does John McCain now denounce and reject Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Harry Truman? The first pair met with Mao Zedong, the second with Josef Stalin, both the biggest mass murderers of the 20th century (and maybe ever) with nuclear arsenals pointed our way. Was "talking" with them a sign they didn't have the knowledge or experience necessary to be President or in charge of our foreign affairs?

Let's talk about John McCain, the false prophet of decency and moderation. With today's rant, people of even moderate intelligence will now know he's just another Republican scare-monger, with his bag of well-worn set of scare tactics dating back to Joe McCarthy.

Today, John McCain showed us who he really is. He's not some moderate-friendly Republican, a maverick with a streak of decency. No Chuck Hagel, he.

No, when it comes to governing, McCain will be just another version of Dick Cheney, but one dressed up for public consumption and media idolatry with some pseudo-straight talk and appearance of access.

Hillary Clinton's Slimy Misuse of 9-11 and William Ayers

Last week, while watching the infamous lowlife debate on ABC News, I got so disgusted I had to turn off my computer (was watching online) and go home.

Most people were disgusted at the moderators, with reason. So was I, but I expected so little from Stephanopolous and Gibson that I wasn't shocked by their shabby and shambolic questioning.

Instead, what made me want to wretch was watching Hillary Clinton during the Ayers questioning. That's when I turned off the debate. Here is part of her despicable pile-on:

Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.

And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died.

Let's catalog the reasons why this is so pathetic, despicable, and unworthy for a Demcratic contender:

1. Hillary Clinton knows -- and essentially admits -- there is absolutely no substance to the Ayers attack. It's pure political piffle and theater. It has absolutely zero to do with Obama's character, his readiness to be President, his judgment, his values. Obama was eight when the Weather Underground were active, and nothing in his record, life, or actions suggests he sympathized with their agenda or use of violence.

2. Coming from the Hillary Clinton, the attempt to paint Obama to the Weather Underground is downright hypocritical. After all, Bill Clinton, in his final days as President, pardoned two members of the group who were actually tried and convicted of setting bombs (one of the people pardoned was allegedly involved a decade later, while on the lam, in a Brinks robbery that resulted in the death of a policeman).

3. Hillary Clinton has tried to blatantly and inappropriately tie comments made by Ayers to 9-11.  The Jed Report has a terrific post up tonight that documents.

4. Clinton uses the Bush-Cheney-Rove playbook, and exaggerates the facts to try to make the mud she's dishing seem stickier and more substantive. Note the key, dog-whistle words: "And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died." Except that:

• Ayers himself was never charged nor convicted of any such acts
• The only people actually killed by bombs made by the Weather Underground were members of the Weather Underground (in an accidental explosion in NYC)
• Her own husband pardoned someone who was charged and found guilty of making those bombs!

Chutzpah doesn't even begin to describe this kind of attack by Clinton. Sadly, folks on the right are ecstatic given the rank hypocrisy involved. Here's the National Review Online last week:

...the Ayers/Evans/Rosenberg controversy is just another example of how surpassingly strange the Democratic race has become.  Given Evans and Rosenberg, how can Clinton credibly criticize Obama?  But given Ayers, how can Obama credibly criticize Clinton?  No one has room to accuse the other of anything.  Now, John McCain, on the other hand…

That Clinton is doing the right's job for them annoys me. But the reason this has made me so mad -- and essentially guarantees I'll never vote for Hillary Clinton, ever, for any office -- is that she's using the very same, vile character assassination tactics used against Bill Clinton, Max Cleland, Al Gore, John Kerry and countless other Democrats in the past two decades.   

Finally, there is this. As I watched her tonight on Olbermann, I couldn't help but be impressed by her grasp of the details, her effortless recital of policy points. She always shines there. But at the end, when his question about her embrace by Richard Mellon Scaife drew her inauthentic cackle, the worm turned. She reminded me of that former President also known for his detailed grasp of policy, but whose mendacity and vicious brand of politics that Clinton now practices gave us this adjective: Nixonian.

The Big Chip on Maureen Down's Shoulder

You knew Maureen Dowd would turn against Obama at some point. He's just too smart, and she doesn't like that in her Democrats.

So, tonight we get her expected column bashing him as an egghead, professorial type. Key graphs:

The elitism that Americans dislike is not about family money or connections — J.F.K. and W. never would have been elected without them.

(ed. note: that's worked out has it with W.?)

In the screwball movie genre that started during the last Depression, there was a great tradition of the millionaire who was cool enough to relate to the common man — like Cary Grant’s C.K. Dexter Haven in “The Philadelphia Story.”

What turns off voters is the detached egghead quality that they tend to equate with a wimpiness, wordiness and a lack of action — the same quality that got the professorial and superior Adlai Stevenson mocked by critics as Adelaide. The new attack line for Obama rivals is that he’s gone from J.F.K. to Dukakis. (Just as Dukakis chatted about Belgian endive, Obama chatted about Whole Foods arugula in Iowa.)

There we have it.

Sadly, her disdain for folks with smarts hasn't changed much despite eight disastrous years of W., whom she admired for his common-man touch despite his stupidity. Let's now travel back in time to re-read one of Dowd's famous anti-Gore columns from 2000:

The vice president spoke 1,565 words, really, really slowly, with glacial pauses between each word. He propounded and expounded for more than 15 minutes, touching on such diverse topics as the human genome, the ice-free future of the Arctic Ocean, the ''Star Wars'' journey, the climate of New York City, federal entitlements, the climate of Atlanta, embassy security, the climate of Illinois, Individual Development Accounts, the climate of Oklahoma and the state of the U.S. economy in 1835.

She spends so much of her life engaged in pop-psychological analyses for her columns, you have to wonder if she's ever had asked herself why she hates smart people so much.

Hillary, Take a Hike

After your little ad tonight, we're so done with you and your husband.

Those of us who so strongly support Senator Obama -- there are millions of us -- I wouldn't count on us for a dime. Ever.

Paul Krugmam, I'm Sick of You

So, tomorrow we have another Paul Krugman column about health care where he just has to work in yet another criticism of Barack Obama's health care plan. Which, given the reality of the last 50 years, is about the same as the Clinton plan (and what was the Edwards plan), which Krugman seems to adore.

What is this, the 5th, 10th, 20th, 30th such column? I think the man has some form of column-writing Tourette's.

I'm tired of the friendly fire incidents from Krugman, and after these dozen or so columns, I'd really like to see Obama or one of his aides deliver the smack down.  I know it won't happen, for a variety of good reasons, but I'd like to see it happen.

I mean, here we have Mr. Krugman, the self-styled man of the people, crusader for the working man. Who consulted for Enron. Who spent a year working for Reagan's economic council. Who assures us he's a bona fide liberal. Who has been nestled for his entire adult career and life in the comforting bosom of the academy.

And he's criticizing a guy who has devoted his life to working folks. Puh-lease.

Krugman's wing man this primary season has been his Princeton neighbor Sean Wilentz. (Is there something the water there?). Who has authored a series of idiotic and  distorted hit pieces in the service of his masters, the Clintons.

I don't mind serious, independent, thoughtful criticism of Obama.  But this pair of Princeton, New Jersey poseurs -- I'm done with 'em.