It's August 2008 All Over Again

It seems the Republican Party still hasn't come up with an argument against Barack Obama's abiding popularity.

So they've returned to the tried and toothless. My new best buddy RNC Chair Michael Steele just sent me an e-mail that's like a greatest hits CD - a sort of McCain campaign reunion concert - of attacks on Barack that didn't work the first time around. The one new gobbet of dis-information they've stuck in is the bit where the jump up and down, shouting that he apparently called America arrogant! To FRENCH people!

Sure. For the record, here's the full quote:

"In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America."

Why does the President hate America?

Anyway, here's the full RNC e-mail - enjoy.

Dear Karin,
Recently in his speech in France, Barack Obama called America "arrogant." 1 I'm sure the French loved it -- And so did the liberal press.

But who is this president who calls the American people arrogant?

This is the same politician whose supporters anointed him "The One" and a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." 2

This is the same man who indicated his disdain for small town and working Americans when he said they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," while addressing a group of San Francisco caviar and champagne liberal elitists.

How arrogant is that? Arrogant enough?

In truth, President Obama seems to champion the twisted "Blame-America First" mentality of the worst of the American left.

More importantly, it shows an absence of wisdom to criticize the United States while on foreign soil, and then join with the Pelosi-Reid Democrats in Congress to do everything possible to end American exceptionalism and create a weak, dependent socialist state patterned after the examples of Europe.

He has taken steps towards nationalizing American auto companies; firing executives while leaving in power the same Union Bosses who funded his campaign and helped cripple the U.S.'s manufacturing base.


He has refused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans 3 so he can make them hostages to the whims of the Federal government.


As a lawyer, Obama once sued the same financial institutions on behalf of radical groups like ACORN for failing to use leftist social engineering criteria for lending instead of an applicant's ability to repay a loan.


He campaigned on "transparency" and "integrity" in government and then has nominated a rogue gallery of tax evaders, Washington bureaucrats, and lobbyists to run his Administration.


Obama brazenly follows his chief of staff's maxim of "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before" 4 to cripple our free markets with massive taxation and spending that wrests away our freedoms and puts even our great-grandchildren in debt.


And now, anyone who dares speak out against or challenge Obama's ultra-liberal agenda, such as the hundreds of thousands of patriots who attended last week's Tea Parties, should expect to be labeled "unhealthy" by this Adminstration. 5 Now, THAT is arrogance!
You know that Barack Obama's hubris and charisma conceal the inexperience and lack of wisdom that our country cannot afford in its president.

And though the teleprompter and mainstream media liberals may delay America's realization of the peril the Obama White House portends for our future for a while, the eventual failure of leftist policies and ineffective leadership will not.

We must be ready when that time comes.

Please help the Republican Party's effort to spread the word about the Democrats' arrogance of power and support GOP Members of Congress as they work to hold the Obama Democrats accountable to the American people, by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the Republican National Committee today.

Your gift will also help support the recruitment and election of principled candidates who will defeat the Democrats in 2009 and 2010 and lay the groundwork for ending Barack Obama's grip on power in 2012. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee

Of course the original message included a call for donations at the end. Instead, as a suggestion, you might want to chip in a few dollars here: www.democrats.org/page/contribute or here: www.democratsabroad.org/contribute/

Seems Nutty Is Flavour of the Month in Washington

President Obama's Nominee for Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen, is a specialist in constitutional law who has spent many years working in that office, including a stint heading it up as Acting Assistant Attorney General from 1997 until 1998.

But, apparently some folks - including leading Senate Democrat Ben Nelson, of Nebraska - have a problem with Dawn. Republicans plus Nelson have indicated that they will not support her nonimation in the Senate. What's their problem with her?

Well, apparently Ben Nelson is concerned about her time spent working for a particular organisation - NARAL. That's right - it turns out, horror of horrors, that apparently Dawn Johnsen is PRO-CHOICE! (Like the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, tha vast majority of all Democrats and 60% of the American public...)

Nelson's spokesman says:

"Senator Nelson is very concerned about the nomination of Dawn Johnsen, based on her previous position as Counsel for NARAL. He believes that the Office of Legal Counsel is a position in which personal views can have an impact and is concerned about her outspoken pro-choice views on abortion."

But... abortion is LEGAL. Constitutionally protected, even. Nothing that Johnsen, or even Congress could do would overturn the Supreme Court's ruling on that.

So this (Democratic!) Senator's objection is that Dawn Johnsen, in her role at the Office of Legal Counsel, would be forced to work to... uphold the law? That to his great regret and concern her position is to... strongly support the current legal and constitutional framework?

Don't know what their serving in the Senate Cafeteria these days, but it seems to be something kinda nutty.

HINT: Should you wish to let Senator Nelson know your thoughts, you can reach him at

Washington, D.C.
720 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-6551
Fax: (202) 228-0012

Blago - By Request

Brendan asked my why I haven't written about Blago - AKA disgraced former Governmor Rod Blagojevich. OK, I will!

But I guess if anything the reason I haven't done so before is because it's hard to mock him. No seriously. The guy was under suspicion for corruption and tells the press that he would welcome the FBI to tape his conversations. So they do. He promptly decides to put a US Sentate seat up for sale - on tape. That I could mock. But then we find that he also was trying to strip money that had already been allocated to a local childrens hospital unless they gave money to his campaign. Still in the realm of mockable. But THEN he insists on appointing someone to the senate post he was busted for trying to sell - and when there's uproar over this he insinuates that they are persecuting his nominee because of racism. He compares himself to Martin Luther Kind and Nelson Mandela.

I can't make that sound any funnier than it already is.

And NOW - while under federal indictment he seeks permission to go to Costa Rica so he can film a Survival style reality TV series. The judge denies him permission and suggests that perhaps he doesn't fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation he is in.

He therefore goes outside and... well, read it for yourself:

Outside court, after the hearing, Blagojevich told swarming reporters: "This is another day in the big city. I know what the truth is when it concerns me, and I know that I've done absolutely nothing wrong. ...I'm actually looking forward to this day in court. ...I want to prove my innocence, I want to vindicate myself."

He stopped several times to greet non-media onlookers and curiosity seekers.

"I didn't let you down," he said to one woman.

"Want to get on TV? Come on in!" (emphasis mine) he yelled at another man.

Asked by a reporter how active he will be legally in his own defense, the former governor replied: "I'm going to be very active. I know a lot of things about me."

Then he goes on the Today show and tells them he is still hoping to find some way of eating bugs for pay. On account of how much he loves his children.



Nope, not much I can do with that. Stay healthy Rod, you are a master of the form of absurdist drama and therefore a national treasure.

Republicans Blocking Sebelius Nomination? Madness

Just a quick post to say that the Republicans' current efforts to block the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services is... flat out crazy.

They describe her as a "fairly contentious" candidate.

She's the Governor of Kansas. KANSAS. One of the most conservative states in the country.

And she's extremely popular there, with a reputation for pragmatism and problem solving. She's exceptionally well qualified. And she's pretty much the exact opposite of contentious. Except, of course, that she is a Democrat.

The Wichita Eagle editorial department blog writes of the GOP obstruction: "Many of the Kansans of both parties who elected Sebelius to statewide office four times may have trouble recognizing thier cautious, middle-of-the-road governor in the portrait painted nationally of an abortion- and socialism-loving tax cheat."

Seriously, the Republicans need to get a grip. Not only is the obstructionism annoying, but the country actually needs a non-insane second Party.

Imbyism - A Word is Born

So I have been mulling my thoughts about the current state of British politics, and have been searching for a word to define the pattern that seems to be cropping up. My sense is that more and more, political life here in the UK is motivated by small local groups who just want to hold on to stuff they have that they like.

Don't take away our post office!

Don't close our hospital!

Here in Walthamstow we are currently fighting to prevent closure of (I kid you not):

• Our local museum
• Our local hospital
• Our local cinema (already closed, we're trying to get it back)
• And our local post office (also already closed, we're trying to get it back)

There's this sorrowful sense that loads of services we love and appreciate are being taken away from us - and this seems to be happening in local communities across the country.

I call this Imbyism. You know, like Nimbyism - Not In My Backyard - which is the phenomenon where people protest the arrival of things they object to.

In My Backyard-ism - Imbyism - is my word for protesting and fighting to keep the things in your neighborhood that you like.

And if I'm right that it is the underlying tenor of politics in the UK right now - then that does not bode well for Labour. They really ought to start giving people some stuff they want. Or at least stop taking it away.

It's All Over Now, Baby Blue

I've just read a really interesting article on Politico about Obama's seeming imperviousness to cultural attacks from the right. Though I have this sneaking suspicion that the article is really looking for an excuse to dig up every single anti-Obama culture war argument they can find ("He bowed to the Saudi king! He ADMITS his middle name is Hussein! He's talking to... FRENCH people!") in the guise of analysing them, I think the underlying point of the article is basically true: no one gives a damn.

This has many causes, but first among equals, perhaps, is the general sense that the political center of gravity has shifted away from the Baby Boomer generation and therefore from its generational arguments - draft dodging hippies versus "silent majority" reactionaries. As in my previous post about Socialism, to many of us these types of arguments feel stale and irrelevant.

But the article also makes another point that I found trememdously inciteful (and encouraging):

And then there is the nature of Obama’s victory last year.

“He had a coalition where he didn’t have to figure out how to get socially conservative voters behind him,” noted Carrick, a South Carolina native who has helped his clients navigate the culture wars. “He won with younger voters, Latinos, African-Americans and college-educated suburban voters. Those folks, for different reasons, just don’t care about some of these issues.”

In other words, Obama didn't win in November just because he was able to persuade a sufficient number of actually-conservative voters that he wouldn't be too scarily progressive. He actually has a pretty respectable majority composed of people who WANT him to be at least somewhat progressive. Demographic changes in the country, plus the most successful Democratic get out the vote operation in History have made that possible for the first time in a long time.

Larry Sabato thinks this will be a re-aligning election - personally I'm not sure. We'll know in a couple of years whether we're heading in that direction, because a successful midterm election would make three in a row for the Democrats.

But I do think there are trends in our favor that go beyond just the Republican failure to get themselves organised. Although that is, it must be said, quite spectacular in its own right.

Update: And another thing! As Steve Benen at Washington Monthly points out and as I should have mentioned initially:

It also seems that Obama isn't taking any meaningful hits because his policy agenda is fairly close to the one he presented during the campaign. Martin questions, for example, why the president has gotten away with a more progressive policy towards Cuba. Maybe it's because he already told us he'd do exactly that?

Indeed, with a few notable exceptions, most of the President Obama's agenda is in line with Candidate Obama's agenda. He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them for the middle class? He wants to reform the health care system? He wants a withdrawal timeline for U.S. troops in Iraq?

Perhaps the president "skates" on these issues -- all of which the right finds outrageous -- because it's what voters hired him to do.

Socialism - By Request

Christine asked me to say a few words about the right's constant cries of "socialism" any time a Democrat dares to speak. Good idea!

Personally, I have two complementary theories about why this is not only silly but counterproductive for the Republicans.

Theory one is based around this fact: I am 35 years old. When the Berlin wall fell, I was a freshman in High School. So I've been a voting citizen for 5 presidential elections now and for my entire voting life, and for the four formative years before that the Soviet Union was over.

And yet, it seems to me like the Right uses the word "Socialism" in exactly the same way that it was used during the Cold War - that is, not only as a description of an economic system but as a shorthand way of saying "the enemies of America". But even though I was raised a cold war kid, I just don't see it that way. "Socialism" is no longer synonymous for me with just doesn't mean much of anything at all to me in terms of modern day threats, or even like a relevant argument to be having. No major force in the US is advocating Socialism right now, nor have they ever, nor is there an external force that goes by that name that sets me quaking in my boots.

So the whole thing seems antiquated to me, like the echoes of an old argument. If I feel that way, I'm guessing that most folks younger than me feel even more baffled by this argument - like some old codger jumping up and shouting "Gold standard! Gold standard!" The old All Hail Capitalism, Down With Socialism debate is done.

But on the other hand, maybe not.

Because theory two is based upon the fact that the Republicans appear to be inadvertantly mainstreaming the socialist terminology. It turns out, all the young folks know about socialism these days is that the Right Wing Looneys really hate it. And that makes it... rather appealing.

The young may now disdain Wall Street -- but what do they know of socialism, past and present? Who even speaks of socialism in America today? The answer, of course, is the demagogic right. According to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and their ilk, Obama is taking America down the Socialist Road. As Benjamin Sarlin has noted on the Web site the Daily Beast, the talkmeisters of the right have linked a doctrine that never commanded much support in America to a president whose approval rating hovers around 60 percent and much higher than that among the young.

Rush and his boys are doing what Gene Debs and his comrades never really could. In tandem with Wall Street, they are building socialism in America.

One must take a moment to admire the irony.

Of course, I'm sure lots of my Labour party readers will pop up to say that Socialism never was such a bad thing anyway. Fair enough. But that's the funny thing - I was never a Socialist. Apart from Bernie Sanders (bless his little cotton socks) none of us were in my lifetime. But now, the rhetoric of the right has actually perversely caused an entire generation to give the term (if not the ideology) a second look.

Personally, I still say it's a dead debate - classical laissez faire economics is dead, has been for generations, and pure Socialism has likewise snuffed it, expired, shuffled off this mortal coil.

No I am Not Gordon Brown, Nor Was Meant to Be...

If, like most sensible human beings, you haven't been following the Derek Draper/Guido Fawkes/Damian McBride story, I can hardly blame you. The Guardian has a useful summary and timeline here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/14/damian-mcbride-email-smears-row1 A while back, though, I promised to write a little bit about the Labour party - so this seems like a good chance.

On some levels, I feel a certain amount of pity for Draper and McBride here - after all, the (trulyoffensive and wrong-headed) e-mails were intended to be private. They were batting around ideas the stupidity and suicidal nature of which must have become eminently clear to them long before the leak, since the "Red Rag" site was never created and the false rumors never circulated.

Why, then has the media and the opposition clamped their jaws around this incident like determined pit bulls?

Well for two reasons - the same to reasons that Labour looks increasingly unlikely to win the next general election.

1) No one seems to know what principles Labour stands for anymore.
2) No one seems to be leading Labour as a party.

If I told you nothing other than those two facts, plus the inevitability of a general election next year, by a process of scientific deduction you could surely distill the likelihood that the party would revert to attack politics in the hopes that might get them through. (And incdientally, the argument that "Right Wing Bloggers Say Mean Things About Labour" will not earn you a get out of jail free card on this. If you don't know why, go away and think about it, then come back to me.)

The media had already diagnosed the disease, so they were on the lookout for the symptom - so many of the stories dominating the headlines right now are really thinly disguised fin de siecle stories.

Expenses fiddling? It's about forgetting what you stand for.
Infighting? It's about leaderlessness.

And the rot goes deep - it's deeply felt in the party's most loyal activists, who are angry, disillusioned, frustrated and desperate for leadership. For many, it was the war in Iraq that first gave them that hollow feeling - the empty sense that their party no longer stands for them. For others, it's been the steady erosion of civil liberties. For some, the disastrous decision to scrap the 10P tax rate (if Labour's for raising taxes on the poorest workers it's hard to think of a core principle left).

Is it too late to pull out of these doldrums, this morass, this deadly lethargy?

Maybe not. There's only one certain cure I know for such catastrophic flailing.

Leadership. Specifically, bold leadership. Someone needs to draw a firm, clear line under all these petty failings and launch the ship towards some uncharted waters.

Gordon Brown, that's your cue.

If I were you, I'd start with an apology. It would might go a little bit like this:

"I didn't write the e-mails in question, I didn't receive them, and I didn't even know about them until the rest of the world did. But I can't say that personally I did nothing wrong here.

I was in the wrong. I was wrong, as the leader of this Party, to allow anyone in my employment for one moment to believe that we would want to win in this way.

Let me correct that error right now. This Party cares about this country. We seek to maintain our majority in the next election, of course. But even more than that we seek to deserve it.

Personal attacks, smears, lies, and innuendo have no place in this Party. They have no place in our politics. The challenges that we face are too great, the moment is too important, for pettiness, viciousness or games.

To every member of this party, those who canvass in rain and cold, those who have kept faith with us through the darkest days, I apologise that your leaders have not always lived up to the example that you set for us.

And to all Britons, I promise you this: that in the coming year we will never again forget that your needs are more important than ours."

Tea Parties

In America yesterday, there were all these folks hanging around doing something or other with tea. I'm not really clear on the details - not sure they were either. Was looking around for some clear statement of what the whole things was all about and the closest I could find was this:



Thanks for clarifying, guys. Statistically, does this mean that a 6% increase would have been 200% tyranny? And how would that work in practice?

Cannons to right of me! Cannons to Left of me!

So I happen to be of the view that anyone who takes the time to care about politics deserves a fair hearing and a reasonable dialog. Even if you may disagree with them quite a lot. So I thought it would be worth posting a couple of recent discussion I've been having with some friends - both to the right and to the left of me and/or the President.

First up, here's a stimulating dialog I had with Clayton Trapp - who has been an activist and an e-mail correspondent of mine for some time.

Clayton was initiall writing in response to my posts about why the Obama buget makes me hopeful. Here's his initial e-mail:

Top 10 Reasons I'm Concerned about Obama

(1) Willing to let AIC goofs take $100K bonuses at the expense of me
(2) wasting cache on defending the right of AIG contortionists to take $100K bonuses for running their fucking company into the dirt, and then having the gall to demand that the rest of us, working hard and doing better, bail their sorry fucking ass out
(3) merit pay. does he realise that it goes to whoever doesn't bitch? (i.e. accepts the sorry state)?
(4) Does He understand that he is tacitly endorsing bonuses, for the same clowns who run their businesses into the ground and then WHINE for help... we don't make that in a year, man. He told L.A. he doesn't play. We dont' whine. But we do vote, ane he of all people should know that. We deserve better. We will vote again.
(5) I saw what he said in Wisconsin. That was rad. THIS is BULLSHIT. And it's not long until he gets called on it. The liberal press waited on Clinton, I have no idea why.
(6) I didn't vote for a friend to be moved around by Wall Street. I voted for a President to lead. If this is it, I'm still looking
(7) the historic transfer of wealth from everyone else to the elite, as noted by (Republican) Kevin Jarvis, is apparently not only to continue but to be encouraged. NO thank you. Might as well have voted for Hillary or anyone else.
(8) Nope. Those are the only seven. But they're very real. And this Bill Clintonesqe corporate ass kissing ain't gonna result in any support when we get another chance.

SO GET OFF THE FUCKING HOOF AND STAND FOR SOMETHING (like the election rhetoric)!!!!!

Respectfully,

Love,

Clayton

Well at least he said it respectfully. And with love. (Kidding.)

Here's my initial response:

Hi Clayton,

With respect, I have to disagree - especially with point number 7. In economic terms, Barack has already been the most progressive President since FDR - the stimulus plan alone has given hundreds of billions of dollars to the poorest Americans, and by abolishing the Bush tax cuts and making further targetted tax hikes to the very wealthy, Obama has already put his money where his mouth is in terms of economic redistribution. His budget is ten times more money on, for example, early childhood education for the poor as AIG is paying out in bonuses.

Am I angry that those AIG Assholes are getting this money? Hell yes - they should be fired, right now, not rewarded. I am still inclined to hope they will be. But there was some reason to believe that these assholes' contracts, if broken, would have wound up with lawsuits resulting in triple the initial amount paid. I think Geithner, rightly or wrongly, calculated that it wasn't worth that risk.

Still, in terms of the scale of the things - the extraordinary investment that Obamam is making in our national infrastructure simply isn't comparable to things like these bonuses.

And finally, in terms of the overall financial bailout package - including AIG's - I hate giving the bosses of these companies one thin dime (the don't deserve it, I agree). But Obama has his finger in the dyke right now trying to prevent the entire US economy from literally collapsing overnight. I don't know yet whether he and his team are doing the right thing here, but I don't actually believe you know that for sure yet either - I can't even get my head around what would happen if the US financial system collapsed entirely - the consequences are simply beyond my comprehension. But I don't believe it would only, or even mainly, be fat cats and wall street types who would suffer. I'm willing to cut him a little bit of slack here.

In any case, the budget is a separate issue - and the budget is unabashedly a progressive vision. All progressives should get behind it - the Right would love to distract us from our progressive goals by ginning up populist outrage, but I am not going to let it happen.

With very best wishes and kind regards,

Karin

His response:

Hey Karin,

Thank you for your thoughtful and immediate response. I take it that we're both venting! So I would add:

> point number 7. In economic terms, Barack has already been
> the most progressive President since FDR

this is a really nice line (I'm going to get friendlier on other responses, I promise)...but the reality is that President Obama's standing is yet to be determined. He is currently tacking towards Big Business, which got us into this mess and fails to distinguish him from Reagan, Bushes, Clintons...

He has thrown the lower 98 percent of the economic pyramid some bones already, which is either nice or disingenuous, but doesn't distinguish him from Bill Clinton. (oh thanks for my $3k back)

> poorest Americans, and by abolishing the Bush tax cuts and

with all due respect I don't believe that many people voted for President Obama based on the limited belief that he might roll back Bush W. tax cuts to Bush H.W. levels, and at the same time kick cash down to any multi-billionaire who had a bad quarter and can't see how to sustain his/her profits

> Obama has already put his money where his mouth is in terms
> of economic redistribution.

I would just ask you to reconsider this sentence, particularly in light of AIG redistribution, which everyone understands.

> rewarded. I am still inclined to hope they will be. But
> there was some reason to believe that these assholes'
> contracts, if broken, would have wound up with lawsuits

I'm guessing that we've both been around the block enough times to understand that whenever anything changes, and a cash flow is interrupted, there will be lawsuits. I've never been afraid of them if I thought I was doing the right thing. Why should President Obama? Tim is a different question, he's never had credibility on the left. When he offers lame-ass explanations like this it just brands him a Clinton wannabe.

They want money? They don't deserve it and didn't earn it and effectively stole it? Our policy is to back down because we're afraid of their lawyers? I don't think so. I KNOW I didn't vote for that.


> Still, in terms of the scale of the things - the
> extraordinary investment that Obamam is making in our
> national infrastructure simply isn't comparable to
> things like these bonuses.

It's not separable because it's part of the same movement. That being said, and repeated, the move to renewable energy and improve education at the same time as healing the economy is breathtaking in ambition and scope.

The economy, though: is the necessary and inevitable re-settling of a monolith where too much cash went up too fast, repeatedly and for nearly 30 years... If someone was worth 45 million at lunch time and is now worth 32 million it's really just a market correction in terms of 1980 value. When they fire ten thousand people to maintain their profit margin there's a problem. We need to fix the second one, not the first.

> literally collapsing overnight. I don't know yet whether
> he and his team are doing the right thing here, but I
> don't actually believe you know that for sure
> yet either - I can't even get my head around what would
> happen if the US financial system collapsed entirely

I hear some dumb clod Republican candidate saying the same thing in four years. And that we've been paying corporate CEOs to rip us off, and that he wouldn't have done it (Newt Gringrich very wisely, I think, urged McCain to denounce bailouts and turn it into the Bush/Obama Bailout...of course Mr Gringrich's problem was that he also effectively urged no one to ever question a corporate strategy in public ever again...that was a moment and this is a moment. I expect us to do better than Gingrich/McCain)

I'm with the President, but I'm afraid I've plummeted to B+ and falling. We need fundamental economic reform, and we need it at the expense of those to whom the President is aggressively and immediately currying favour.....there will not be a better opportunity than this, they will not hand over cash on their own, they do not give a fuck about healthcare for you or me, and the president is killing the wave that could make it happen.

I really appreciate your taking the time to respond, though. I know that we're all in this together. My only point is that there are a lot of us unwilling to go the wrong way.

Respectfully,

Clayton

And finally, here's me again:

Hey Clayton,

I guess my overall point is that you can argue the rights and wrongs of things like the AIG bonuses issue, and I'm perfectly prepared to believe that Obama may have made a mistake there (I'm not sure he did, but there are things I would have done differently).

But my larger point is that we have a President who has already (in the stimulus package) passed a $750Billion+ progressive package that is making massive investments in services to the poor, education, transport infrastructure... just tons of great stuff that redistributes wealth from wealthy taxpayers straight to poor and working people. And the budget is based on the same principle, boldly taking a big chunk out of our need to invest for the future and lining up exactly with his campaign pledges in this area.

But this scares the conventional Washington types - because if this progam happens and stays popular it's the end of the conservative era in American politics. So better to gin up anger over things like executive bonuses - it's the same "demonise immigrants and gay marriage" strategy these people have been using to win elections for years, and it's a great big distraction exercise. "Oooohhh... look over here, rich people are getting money! Don't look over there where the country's problems are getting solved." I'm not fooled.

I meant what I said about Obama already being the most progressive President since Roosevelt, and I stand by my statement abotu redistribution. Hundreds of billions are going to help the poor and working class whose wages have stagnated for a decade (or who are out of work right now). Even the financial bailout money is going to keep tens of thousands of working class people in jobs - not just in the banks themselves bit in the companies they finance. Alternatively, you can let these companies go under and then you have to pay welfare and unemployment for their workers later on - I don't see how that's better for the taxpayer, and it sure isn't better for the workers.

Anyway, enough rambling. But I am highlighting the budgt stuff because I'm truly excited about it, and I think all of us who voted for a progressive vision of America should be.

All best wishes,

Karin

So tell me - who's right? Diatribes, defences, indignation and indifference all welcome in comments.

And stay tuned for an e-mail dialog with an old friend from the right.

Chag sameach! Obama's White House Seder

The Obama family celebrated a traditional Jewish Passover seder Thursday night at the White House.



Apparently, the President had also been present at a seder hosted by the campaign team last year during the heat of the Primary. At that time, Obama followed the traditional statement of, "Next year in Jerusalem!" with an extra hope, "Next year in the White House."

He got that wish. Mazel tov!

One thing to note though, somewhat whistfully: Obama, though a Christian, is comfortable hosting a Jewish seder because he has copious Jewish friends and even family members (little known fact - one of America's most prominent rabbis is Michelle Obama's uncle).

But, as we all know, Barack also has lots of Muslim family members. However, while one assumes that there is not now a big conspiracy theory working the rounds about Barack's secret judaism, I'm sorry to say that I don't thinkt he same would be true if he were to chose to celebrate Ramadan in a similar spirit of joyful celebration. And that's really too bad.

American exceptionalism

President Obama is asked if he believes in American Exceptionalism.



"I believe in American exceptionalism just as I suspect the Britishbelieve in British Exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

And boy, from what I've seen of the Greeks - they sure do.

It's a Liberal Conspiracy!

My article meditating how British political activists still haven't quite grasped teh lessons of the Obama campaign has now been posted the website Liberal Conspiracy, for your reading pleasure.

A snippet....

While Barack Obama has moved on to a serious if difficult effort to cope with the economic crisis and some real movement towards the investment in infrastructure, health care and energy independence he promised during the campaign, it feels like the British debate has scarcely moved past this nonsensical “who is the British Barack Obama” argument.

The launch of the (excellent) Fabian Society book, The Change We Need, recently brought this navel gazing to a new peak.

In recent months I’ve been meeting with a lot of British candidates and political organisers who seem to believe that if only they could copy one easy thing from Obama’s efforts, all would be well. But they also need to be careful not to learn the wrong lessons from this success.

Here are the top five things I think British left of centre politics still gets wrong...

Obama Saves the Day - Conducts Actual Diplomacy

At the NATO summit in Strasbourg, one of the major items on the agenda was the appointment of a new NATA Secretary General. All the countries present were in agreement except for one: Turkey. The group could have easily ignored Turkey's objections, but Obama decided to try something different:

Obama told his fellow NATO leaders that he believed Rasmussen was the right man for the job, but that everyone needs to be convinced. Mr. Obama told the leaders that all countries need to be able voice their concerns.

With that, Turkish President Abdullah Gul voiced his concerns. This enabled Gul to avoid “feeling like a decision was already precooked," the source says. “This was critical because like other countries, if you’re put in a corner then you recede. If you feel like people are forcing you into a decision that has already been made you’ll rebel.”

Adds the source: “It’s important for small counties to feel that they have a voice. Obama gave this to Turkey.”

Rasmussen, Gul and Obama then had a private conversation.

At Saturday morning’s NATO session – a discussion largely about Afghanistan – the pressing need to finalize a decision about who would be the next secretary general was apparent. Following the morning session there were a round of private phone from leaders to Gul.

And Obama, Rasmussen and Gul had another conversation, for about an hour, according to Obama's national security adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.), and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

When the three men returned to the main session, Jones told reporters, they had smiles on their faces, indicating that a deal of some sort had been clinched.

“This was a different style than what the leader are used to from a U.S. President," the non-Obama administration source said. "Obama was instrumental in making this happen. Obama eventually clenched the decision with his leadership – and because he listened to what people said.”

Please note: the outcome here was the same - the US got the NATO leader that they wanted. The crucial difference here was that instead of an angry ally, Turkey is now an ally who feels respected. It cost us nothing and it earned us some valuable good will that we will need later on (Turkey is the fulcrum of a lot of our foreign poicy needs and concerns).

This is what he promised us.

Obama Speaks at Nato Summit

Expresses his thanks to NATO allies for increased assistance in Afghanistan.