Good Article from Chris Durang

Hi America!

If anything makes me vote against Hillary (besides her war vote), it’s the vibe I get of the kind of operation she runs. It’s apparently a really gross club of egomaniacs, old school nasties and rat-f*#%ers (that's actually a political term from the Nixon days), infant terribles and power-hungry politico-freaks that I do not want assuming the core leadership positions of my country. Doesn’t it count for something that Obama has maintained amazing espirit de corps and discipline of the troops in a decidedly non-Republican way? Or that the management style of Obama’s campaign would obviously to some extent translate to the White House? I won’t print it all here, but read this amazing diatribe on what it’s like inside Team Hillary and tell me why it will be that different were she to be Prez, or for that matter, that it’s that different from what Bill’s romp was?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=54d3af5a-abde-4874-9d98-2bc4b8e23185

And now, with one day to go before Pennsylvania votes, Chris Durang wrote a great, if somewhat rambling, piece for the Huffington Post today. He really pulls some key facts out of the whole melange to make the case against Hilary and for Obama, so I’ll just let him take it away:

Obama, not at the time in the Senate, gave a speech against the war that was smart and saw many of the problems that we ended up having with this wrong invasion. (Here's the speech.)

But consider two other things about Hillary's vote:

There was a substantial number of Democrats, unlike Hillary, who indeed voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war (if and when he felt like it).

21 of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. That's 42% of Democratic Senators who Hillary did not join in voting against the authorization.

Those 21 Democrats were: Senators Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).

Also voting against it was 1 Republican, Sen. Chafee (R-RI), and one independent, Sen. Jeffords (I-VT).

All those Senators, some of whom took the time to read the N.I.E. which included some of the intelligence opinion that did NOT favor invasion, voted against the resolution. Senator Durbin in particular urged people to read the N.I.E. and said it influenced his decision to vote against authorization. But the pressure to go to war was high, and most Senators did not read it. (I think Hillary did not; I came across articles where it seems she refused to answer if she had. Then I gave up looking.)

However, there was something else Hillary did not vote for. She did not vote for the Levin amendment, offered at the same time, that would have caused the president to return to Congress one more time before deciding to invade Iraq.

I came across an op-ed piece written by Senator Chafee (the one Republican who was against the authorization). It describes the amendment well.

And Hillary's not voting for this is a further example of bad judgment by her (and many other Senators). Because it's about war, and many have died (Americans and Iraqis) and five years later it's still not done. So this was a serious lapse in judgment.

I hope you'll read the whole Chafee piece but here are some quotes from it:

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States' international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin's amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not "promptly adopted" or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America's right to defend itself if threatened.

...To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the "go it alone" approach of the Bush doctrine.

Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq -- whether by force or diplomacy -- would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.

We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region -- Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, "A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil."

Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23.

Hillary was one of the 29 Democrats who joined the Republicans to make 77 votes authorizing this war that has turned out to be a disaster and an enormous economic drain.

There were 21 Democrats who knew better. As did Barack Obama (and Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi and many Democratic Congress people).

Stockholm Syndrome

We’ve heard it bleated to death: Barack Obama’s claim that the reason people resist supporting him is because they’re bitter about the economy, and so hold on to the values they know, their religion and their guns, and become single issue voters. The point he made is so obviously true it’s amazing he was even challenged on it. But in a low blow in a campaign of low blows, Hillary Clinton decided this was her best shot, and she took it. Playing to the mob, and indeed the lowest common denominator in the mob, she pounced with all her Battle of the Bulge remaining resources, and yelled to the crowd, “He’s saying you’re stupid! He’s talking about you, you idiots!” If there ever was a cynical ploy, this was it.

 

The saddest and most ironic thing about it is that at the end of a pretty impressive liberal career, fighting Watergate, fighting for Health Care, fighting for women’s issues, Hillary has been so bludgeoned by the “right wing conspiracy” that she has actually become more than its victim, she’s become it’s puppet. After Ken Starr and the humiliation of the whole scandal-plagued presidency of her husband, which she really did seem to have stuck with to have her own shot at the title,  she’s so scarred by the “republican playbook” that she can’t help but, in her death thoes, emulate it. It’s like Stockholm Syndrome, the documented strange human quality where you begin to identify with your tormentors. Hillary’s demagoguery defines her finally as those she’s fought to expose. Who but she knows better the truth in Obama’s explanation. The “bitter” ploy was base and baseless.

 

Since this website is rapidly turning into “What Obama Should Say Now,” let’s just conjure with that theme a little further and offer our best thoughts on his response. Tonight is the debate, and I think he should say, “Sorry if the truth hurts, but this is a big country, and that’s the way some people are. If you’re not used to this kind of straight talk, get used to it. Because if I’m President you’re going to hear a lot more of it. Until we’re honest about who we are, we’re not going to change how we are.” The other thing he could say, or point out, or somebody other than him could point out, is that he was being nice. He was essentially being asked why people might be prejudiced against voting for him, and rather than say “Because they’re racist,” he said, “Because they’re hurt.” That’s the mark of who he is, and that’s emblematic of the new politics he’s been talking about. He should, and we should, be proud of that.

 

The Torch Has Been Taken Hostage!

Protests in the city streets tonight. Olympic torch ironically headed for China due in San Francisco tomorrow. Hopefully tomorrow San Francisco will take the torch hostage. It could happen. See it with me: A guy dressed as Spock gives the torch runner a Vulcan nerve pinch because he’s really a martial arts master and knows how to knock the guy out with the least amount of effort. Our eco-performance artist terroir-ist grabs the fallen torch, and he tosses it to his buddy who evades security by driving through the pylons in a Smart Car, whereupon a bike messenger whizzes by and snags it. The torch ends up at Land’s End broadcast by live video feed: “China! We have your torch! You will not see it again until you stop torturing innocents and free Tibet!” So we send it out, a live broadcast on the Internet. It would work even if we don’t capture it. Who would know? “We have your torch. We have taken it hostage. “

Cut to live video from our eco-cave, with a parallel feed on Mapquest, showing the suspected site of the sequestered torch. As authorities rush to the spot, the live video shows our heroes chucking it out to sea, via catapult, where the Greenpeace Warrior is waiting offshore. As it’s thrown the eco-hero yells: “China, come and get it!” The Warrior, populated by among others a few Burners Without Borders with long telescoping nets, reaches out and grabs the catapulted torch. Now the torch is 500 yards off shore on a boat with state of the art broadcasting. A call to arms goes out, as people from all over the Bay Area swarm the old Battery, the Presidio, and Lands End, massing on the cliffs, waiting for an attack by China. The city is actually at peace, but as performance art it's war, and anyway if it’s live on the Web and TV it's really happening. All over the world the story rings out: “San Francisco took the torch hostage!” Mayor Newsom is briefed, and he’s into the drama. He holds a news conference during the crisis, laughing, saying, “Well, looks like the torch has been taken hostage. It is crazy San Francisco. I hear some guy has the torch in a cave somewhere in the Presidio.”

I'm just saying it's: “Come and get me China!” time. I'm just having a vision. I see all of America coming to our shores to defend this country. Not against an attack by sea, but against an attack we don't see. We begin to say it together: “Free Tibet, China.” Uncle Sam sez: Let’s have the guts Reagan did when he stood up to the Berlin Wall. Let's make sure the message is not lost: Free these people, China.

~ US

Change

Whether or not Obama wins, one point he has made sufficiently well is that at some point in history very soon there will be a President named something other than Jefferson or Lincoln or Kennedy. Great leaders though all these people were, there will come a time when in American history where there will be a president named Barack Obama or something similar.

Green For All

Today Green For All kicked off in Memphis. I called my dear friend Lora O’Connor for a report from the ground, and she said that Harry Belefonte rocked the house, saying how dare we distance ourselves from Reverend Wright. We should all of us be saying how dare people tell us who have been so wronged how to be angry. And Lora reported of the young people in the streets, dancing and inspiring us all with their own hope. She said, “History is being made today. This is the beginning of the true fusion of the envionmental movement and the social justice movement.” She said, “I wish you could be there.” I said, “I am there, with you.”

 

One last thought. Regarding the war in Vietnam, obviously somewhat like the war in Iraq, MLK said: “There will be no meaningful solution, until the attempt is made to know these people, and hear their broken cries.” Obama is saying this now. Only he’s actually running for president.

 

Yesterday Was an Interesting Day

Today was an amazing moment of confluence between events in China and inside the Democratic party. In each case, a ruling elite bent on retaining power lashed out against a perceived popular democratic threat with lies and hate-mongering. Who better than Hillary Clinton to tell us not to believe anybody’s sweet talk about what’s possible with a Barack Obama presidency. And who better than Red China to provide us with the exact same warning about the Dalai Lama. Using the politics of fear in a disgustingly obvious and disingenuous way, each camp portrayed the threat posed respectively by these two men as a sure recipe for disaster. It’s war, these so-called leaders are telling us, and we must realize the danger of following these phonies. It’s as if we’re all in chains, mesmerized by the shadows on the wall, and meanwhile somebody who’s been hammering away for years finally cracks through, and a shaft of light appears. The wizard behind the curtain freaks out, and has no choice but to pull out the Goebbels’ big lie. Obviously, these guys are really scared shitless, which is kinda exciting I think.

In other news today The New York Times, a newspaper that for a variety of reasons, mainly being a now somewhat lame, cow-towing, bleating, weak-kneed once great rag down on its luck, having dropped immensely in value and credibility and quality of writing and choice of subject matter and willingness to speak the truth over the last few years, did have a great issue yesterday. Once in a while a newspaper really just has a good issue, something you would want to stick in a time capsule, where everything just comes together, with stories that you won’t see anywhere else, and an overall appeal and effect that simply is far better than what we’re normally spoon fed. Wednesday's issue was such an issue.

I will only cite two stories that set Wednesday’s Times totally apart. One is the story about Mudhir Abd al-Karim Thiab Abd al-Kharbit, a guy who was one of the main information sources and planners for the CIA pre-Saddam, and once Bremer and his gang rolled in and shut down the Sunnis, got in a heap of trouble and because the Shiites issued an international warrant for his arrest, Interpol nabbed him in Lebanon and he ended up in jail. It was a sad, pathetic, beautiful story about a totally wronged man languishing in prison. Even the UN’s refugee program investigated the charges and called them baseless, but nobody, including the US, is willing to lift a finger to help him out.

The other was Maureen Dowd’s editorial. Normally she's irritating in the way any repressed, middle-aged, very white, seemingly oversexed, overly intellectual inside-the-beltway shrill-voiced politico can be (but she was the one who called Bill Clinton the “teenager in the White House," so good for her). But she really nailed it with the Hillary Waltz. She basically said that the primary fight is actually good for the Democratic party, but she did it in a totally new way. She made her point in such a way as to not tear down Obama, but rather forced us to recognize the battle-worn advantages that Hillary has over Barack and brings not just to the campaign, but to the other campaigners as well. She said it's great what Hillary's doing, she's a real American, and because there's something contained about the race, she's training Obama to deal with McCain and ultimately Ahmadinejad and whoever. She’s his sparring partner and it’s a good thing. It was a totally unique approach to this somewhat false debate, and she came up with it and put it out there.