Debunking State of the Union [SOTU]

Think progress has a very thorough debunking of the SOTU.

If you care.

If anyone reads this blog.

Here is some good commentary on SC win and how there may be a backlash to scorched earth politics of Clintons.

If I'm right, those voters were pretty clearly saying that they didn't like the kind of campaign the Clintons were running against a fellow Democrat. It's a rebuke for both Clintons that will force them to rethink their scorched-earth strategy toward Obama and that presents them with a conundrum.

I remember Tomasky, the author from some US blog. Which was it? Rght, he was editor of American Prospect. Thanks wikipedia.

Update: Rangel gets it.

Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, was said to be lobbying intensively for any payment to be sent to all low-income Americans, including those who did not pay any taxes last year. Some Republicans say benefits should be only for taxpayers.

In a statement Mr. Rangel said, “We must follow the guidance of so many economists who have said, with great clarity, that this package must put money back into the hands of the middle- and lower-income families who will then spend it directly into our economy.”

Ho Hum. The economy is tanking. Let's throw a line to the top hats in the life boats

The Titanic is sinking. You steam up to the disaster ready to help. Do you throw a line to the poor sops treading water for a few more seconds until the freeze or drown? Or do you start to haul up the life boats?

Well, as we skitter into the Iraq Recession (The "Iraq Recession" is here), Bush et al want to guess what? Help the well-off.

The Bush administration proposes to give only partial or no help to the 40 percent of tax filers with modest incomes—less than $40,950 a year. Families of four making less than $24,950 would get nothing. The Congressional Budget Office reported earlier this week that lower-income Americans are likely to spend more of their rebates, infusing money into the economy more quickly than higher-income Americans who are likely to save their rebates. With long-term fiscal responsibility in mind, we must have the biggest bang for the public’s buck for all dollars spent on the stimulus.

The Center for American Progress [CAP] discusses how to make a stimulus package that would actually put money in the hands of people who need it. It includes dealing with the devastating loss of home equity facing many average Americans. It recommends raising unemployment and Medicaid benefits.

Tom Brokaw Speaks Wisdom. Chris Matthews is a bloviator.

Check out this exchange... Thank you Brokaw (in the spirit of Lynn's shout out to Gloria Steinem).

MATTHEWS: We’re going to have to go back and figure out the methodology, I think, on some of these.

BROKAW: You know what I think we’re going to have to go back and do? Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

MATTHEWS: What do we do then in the days before balloting–

BROKAW: What a novel idea–

MATTHEWS: –We must stay home then I guess.

BROKAW: No, no, we don’t stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they’re saying. We know from how the people voted today what moved them to vote. We can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that had not been fully explored in all this.

But we don’t have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed and trying to stampede and affect the process.

Look, I’m not picking just on us. It’s part of the culture in which we live these days.

But I think the people out there are going to begin to make some judgments about us, if they haven’t already, if we don’t begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding, in many cases as we learned in New Hampshire, as they went into the polling place today or in the past three days. They were making decisions very late.

Thank you, Gloria Steinem

Is Senator Clinton the perfect candidate? No more than Barack Obama--but seriously, no less, either. And no less than Edwards, either. Let's face it -- we're lucky to have so much depth on the bench.

But I have to say that the media's treatment of Hillary has been appalling and ... typical. Gloria Steinem has got it right -- if you haven't yet read her column in the NY Times and you consider yourself a fair person, then it's a must:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

To tell you the truth, I'm surprised at how angry I was following the results of the Iowa caucuses. A lousy 200,000 people vote and suddenly the press is asking how Hillary will bow out -- after she has dominated the polls for months. The exultation of taking down a powerful woman. In the follow-up debate in New Hampshire, the two boys ganged up on her. Nobody saw that as less-than-dignified behavior. But look at the headline when Hillary shows a hint of emotion and confesses that the campaign is wearing: "Hillary feeling stressed before the New Hampshire primaries." Another stressed-out woman. And did you see the photo on the website of the Washington Post? All we see of Hillary is her stiletto heel. When she's not stressed out, she's a cold, calculating...well, you know.

I'm far to the left of Hillary, as she stands publicly on the issues, and have been frustrated by her acquiescence to the Bush administration outrages. I don't know where she stands in private. But what would people say if she had a Dennis Kucinich stance on Iraq? Be honest -- it wouldn't fly, coming from a woman. Let's just imagine how far she (or any woman candidate) would get with a folksy Mike Huckabee approach. I guess that's where I disagree with Gloria Steinem: unfortunately, Hillary DOES have to prove her masculinity, and in a big way -- yet, she can't prove it like a man because that's unwomanly. In short, there is really no way that Hillary could possibly behave, as the "rules" stand today, that would allow her to be womanly and strong and "presidential."

When I think of all this, it makes me respect Senator Clinton for taking that on, even though she is plenty smart and plenty experienced enough to know exactly what she was getting herself into. You call it bald ambition? Well, why not? You fault her for calling her years as First Lady 'experience'? It was a trial by fire -- wanting desperately to exercise her intelligence in a position that called for her to be a mere decoration. And besides, how else could a smart, ambitious woman get to the White House? Hillary is not the only one to have tried to carve a meaningful role out of the vacuous position of First Lady. And they say that Vice President is the most meaningless role in government.

Hillary is not perfect, but you can bet that she can stand up to whatever people hurl at her. You can bet that she will be prepared for every meeting, and that she will study and understand the issues. You can bet that she will speak in coherent paragraphs. And if we let her, she may even show her human side, too.

It wasn't so much the results of the Iowa caucus that bothered me -- it was the crowing that went with it. My deep disappointment came from realizing just how far we still are from accepting women on the same level as men in positions of power.

Short video overview of Fox attacking Obama

Here is short clip that covers the typical Fox smears against Obama.

I am glad he is rejecting them out of hand.

Video.

Clinton LEADS in Delegate count

Katrina Vanden Heuvel at the nation points this out. Clinton has the most delegates after Iowa. how? Superdelegates. One more reason I find parties, at best, anti-democratic.


According to CNN:

Clinton 169 (56%)		Obama 66 (22%)		Edwards 47 (16%)
Richardson 19 (6%)		Kucinich 1 (0%)

Obama and Edwards on Change

Here is an on the ground blogger in NH with a very nice set of two 1.5 minute clips discussing the nature of change. I teach a class on change from time to time, so I am intimately aware of strategically vague it can be as a term.

Two video clips


My take:
Obama is trying to argue for change based on a big tent coalition. He wants to change the tone of politics and policy in a positive (Hopeful) way to make policy happen. From Hope, policy.

Edwards is trying to argue for change based on an unflinching awareness of the stakes. He makes economics a moral issue, just as the Rs framed economics in moral terms 30 years ago by linking their neoliberal economics to the rhetoric of liberty. From Righteous Ire, policy.

Which will win? Which will actually produce results? Those are the $20,000 questions for a population, teetering in recession, that can hardly afford to pay for the wrong answer.

i don't know either, which is probably why I jokingly say I am for "Obedwards." Its not a come-on.

Kristol Lets Slip the utter disdain NeoCons have for Democracy

In general, I agree with the view of neo-cons as a basically authoritarian political philosophy and worldview. People can not be trusted, especially the flighty choices of an electorate. They must be sold a war. Their quaint notion that popular opinion should shape war policy must be counteracted with a ferocious dedication to information control (read: propaganda).

Bill Kristol, a leading Neo Con thinker, whatever that means, uncorks this gem in one of his early NYT columns:

The conservative establishment is strikingly hostile to Huckabee — for both good and bad reasons. But voters seem to be enjoying making up their own minds this year.

See? isn't that cute. Voters, even Republican ones, want to make their own choice instead of being good little Christian soldiers for God and the Corporate Socialism they call Capitalism.

The point of the column is a tepid endorsement of Huckabee. I agree with Jim that this surprises me, but if he cements his wins in other states, staying in power will trump other concerns like principles or ideals for the Republican insiders. I think Kristol is seeing how well he likes holdinh his nose while he cheers for the Huckster from Hope.

Edwards Set the Tone

Ezra Klein nails it for me about how important Edwards has been.

Barack Obama won tonight, but, in a sense, John Edwards' campaign also triumphed. The progressivism of the race, the focus on ideas, the courage of the Democrats -- all were products of his early example. He began the campaign by talking about poverty, announced his candidacy in the mud of New Orleans, set the agenda with the first universal health care bill, and closed Iowa speaking of the uninsured. This is Barack Obama's victory, and it's richly deserved. But Edwards, running as a full-throated populist, set the agenda and finished second, ahead of the Clinton juggernaut. He said his role was to speak for the voiceless. He now barrels towards New Hampshire with ever more volume. And while his shot at the nomination is long at best, his candidacy, even if it fails, will have been far more successful than most.

The chattering class could not figure out why Edwards did not give a "normal" concession speech. Duh. Because there is nothing to concede. His campaign is about real issues, real needs, real people. And, in his invocation of how "change won tonight" he acknowledged Obama's message and reinforced that this party, this time, is about issues more than the media's preocupation with personalities and horse races.

All three front runners are pretty good. And the results reflected that. And Edwards' and Clinton's speeched also reflected that.

Who's your candidate for president?

Here's an invitation to talk presidential politics.

On some level, presidential politics might distract us from the work that really needs doing (creating a progressive coalition that is able to get something done--like undoing the mistakes made in Iraq), but it is also a chance to talk about what matters to us and why.

Personally, I'm supporting Barack Obama because I believe he could create a working progressive coalition. I like several other of the Democratic candidates, but I think Obama is least tied to old approaches and most open to something new. The longer he's in the senate, the less true that will be. Now is the time. I know lots of people who are excited about Edwards and/or Kucinich. I have not heard the same enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton. Anyone want to take up the case for these or another candidate?

Ron Paul has certainly been the freshest voice in these debates (especially now that Mike Gravel has been frozen out, it seems).

Who are you supporting and why?