Democratic Party: Still hacks

My favorite letter to the editor in the June issue of Harper's contains an apt description of the seemingly hapless (we wish) Democratic Party as what it really is: a keeper of establishment power and the status quo of America's plutocracy.

Kevin Baker uses unnecessarily baroque interpretations of the motives of “liberal” political actors. In my experience, based on attending three Democratic Party meetings a week for more than ten years, the role of the Democratic Party in American politics is to offer token resistance to the corporations and the rich and then to roll over. The sports analogy is not to beanbag or Little League but rather to TV wrasslin’ or the 1919 World Series. The people at the top of the Democratic Party are furthering their class interests by weakly making the case for liberal reform and then throwing the game.

This paradigm of American politics was best articulated by Harper’s Magazine’s own Walter Karp in Indispensable Enemies. Karp divided the political world into two kinds of people: “hacks” (self-interested careerists) and morally driven “reformers.” The hacks of both parties collude to keep the reformers out.

In the Sixties and earlier eras, the reformers forced concessions from the hacks. These reforms were then taken back under such hacks as Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and, sorry to say, Obama. Obama ran as a reformer, of course, but has governed as a hack. If he were a real reformer, we would have single-payer health care.

Bo Richardson
Bellingham, Wash.

That letter was in response to Kevin Baker's The vanishing of the liberal: How the left learned to be helpless. The essay becomes a history lesson on the ground liberals have ceded since the New Deal by not defending the government's role in the country's affairs. It is an indictment on the lack of party leadership in advancing core Democratic principles. At least stated principles.

My favorite passage of Baker's essay is aimed square at the Technocrat-in-chief Obama and his party of corporatist lackies.

Obama is an adroit politician and, like the last adroit Democratic president, he may be able to secure another term in the White House. Perhaps he will even be able to keep a Democratic majority in Congress, though this now seems unlikelier by the day. But to treat this as a triumph of activism is to say that a prisoner retains free will because he is able to stay in his cell. Obama, the congressional Democrats, and most of our politicians at every level now maneuver within political confines defined by financial and military interests they cannot conceive of challenging. Perversely, our ruling elite today is one of unparalleled diversity, and includes unprecedented numbers of women, minorities, and individuals who have worked their way up to power on brains and determination alone, usually without having inherited connections or wealth. It is a meritocracy much like the one long envisioned by many liberal reformers—and it has decided to capitulate, reap its considerable rewards, and draw the ladder up after it.

Who will challenge this shining fortress upon a hill? The right-wing pseudo-Populists who have devoured the Republican Party may win some victories in the short run. But the Tea Party and its fellow travelers have already become a jointly owned subsidiary of News Corp. and the likes of Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks lobby. (To understand just how fraudulent the movement is, one need only look at the $549-a-seat price tag for tickets to its first convention, and the $100,000 speaker’s fee paid to Sarah Palin. So much for box socials and sing-alongs.) Right-wing Populism is anyway inherently contradictory, a demand that the state recede to a size that will leave its citizens utterly defenseless against the gigantic forces at loose in the world today. No one is going to abolish the Federal Reserve, or the income tax, or Social Security and Medicare; if they did, small businesses and working people would be trampled beneath the corporate entities bent on their exploitation. The counter-Populism of the right is the prisoner’s last, despairing option, to move from learned helplessness to suicide.

Coming to power when he did, with the political skills and the majorities he possesses, Barack Obama squandered an almost unprecedented opportunity. But it is increasingly clear that he never intended to challenge the power structure he had so skillfully penetrated. With the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations are, once more, people, American democracy has snapped shut again—the great, forced opening of the past 130 years has ended. There is no longer any meaningful reformist impulse left in our politics. The idea of modern American liberalism has vanished among our elite, and simply voting for one man or supporting one of the two major parties will not restore it. The work will have to be done from the ground up, and it will have to be done by us.

The ruling class has failed us time and time again. And to quote a famous politician's now-empty campaign slogan, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." Yes Mr. Obama, ironically, we are.

Kucinich, one of the few liberals to speak up on assassinations of US citizens

Jeremy Scahill reports on Dennis Kucinich's view of the approved search to assassinate American-Yemeni citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

Kucinich told The Nation he has sent several letters to the Obama administration raising questions about the potential unconstitutionality of the policy, as well as possible violations of international law, but has received no response. "With all the smart people that are in that administration, they've got to know the risks that they're taking here with violations of law," he says.

[...]

He added: "The assassination policies vitiate the presumption of innocence and the government then becomes the investigator, policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner all in one. That raises the greatest questions with respect to our constitution and our democratic way of life."

Kucinich says the case of al-Awlaki is an attempt to make "a short-cut around the Constitution," saying, "Short-cuts often belie the deep and underlying questions around which nations rise and fall. We are really putting our nation in jeopardy by pursuing this kind of policy."

Scahill says that his attempts to reach Sen. Russ Feingold and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, two usually tough liberals that have re-election campaigns to think about in 2010, went unanswered. Amid this silence of the "progressives" in Congress, I give Kucinich credit for saying something, anything substantive in way of a rebuke of the president's actions. But it's really a shame that it's come to this. Where is the Democratic leadership? They are getting rolled by Obama and they don't mind at all. They've got cover to get reelected if Obama is still semi-popular. Why should they expend their energy on pushing him from the left? If America likes him, that's better for our preservation, they think.

But back to the thoughts on Awlaki, Kucinich said, "We are really putting our nation in jeopardy by pursuing this kind of policy." He referenced the intelligentsia that must know what kind of Pandora's Box they're opening. It's not just those big, bad Bush-Cheney deadenders anymore. It's also the sellouts (though that term could be disputed) in the Obama White House. They have dutifully continued the lawlessness of their predecessors.

Drones and assassinations: Our legacy in the war on terror

Richard Wright makes some important points on Predator drone strikes in Pakistan -- void of the Pakistani government's full support or authorization -- and the order to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen now in Yemen implicated in inciting the Fort Hood shooter and the Underwear bomber.

If Harold Koh — the state department lawyer assigned the job of justifying Obama’s strategy — carries the day, America will be telling the world that it’s O.K. to lob missiles into countries that haven’t attacked you, as long as you think a terrorist may live there. Do we really want to send that message to, for example, Russia and China, both of which have terrorism problems? Or India or Pakistan?

And are we sure we want to say that, actually, due process of law isn’t really guaranteed all American citizens so long as there’s a war on terrorism — which, remember, is a war that may continue for eternity?

(For more background, Koh gave a speech recently defending many of the national security policies the Obama administration adopted from the Bushies. Adam Serwer gave a detailed breakdown of Koh's points on drones and assassinations.)

Sandy Levinson asks, What if it were Bush?

It is widely known that Obama has ordered more drone strikes in his year in office than George W. Bush did in his entire administration. One can only wonder what the response of the left would be if it were Bush (and, say, John Yoo) engaging in (and defending) the actions that seem central to the Obama Administration's policy in Pakistan (and Yemen and....). The most ominous part of Wright's column is an argument that the policy is very likely to be counterproductive, for a number of reasons he goes into. So there may be a "negative trifecta," i.e., a policy that raises serious moral and legal questions and is counterproductive to boot.

But more to the point, Is this what we want America to be? How can we realistically disallow other powerful countries from conducting similar activities -- especially in the case of drones -- without completely losing all credibility (if we haven't lost enough already)?

And I'm not really sure why I'm even asking because I know why: Where are all the Bush haters that complained about these very same procedures? There are MORE drone strikes mowing down civilians and vague, unverified "suspects" now and Bush never targeted an American citizen for DEATH. Where are the liberals, progressives, civil libertarians and others on the Left now?

Military officials defend trials while Dems still MIA

In the absence of any kind of spine or will to defend criminal trials for detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere from the Democratic Party, military officials, among others -- not including the similarly lame, "objective" mainstream media -- have spoken up against the growing call for military commissions.

From the Post's story today on "advisers" (Rahm?) to the president saying commissions are the likely result for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others:

Marine Col. Jeffrey Colwell, acting chief defense counsel at the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions, said it would be a "sad day for the rule of law" if Obama decides not to proceed with a federal trial. "I thought the decision where to put people on trial -- whether federal court or military commissions -- was based on what was right, not what is politically advantageous," Colwell said.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Harry Soyster, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency:

“My concern is what it looks like to our enemy. And they certainly should be delighted in what appears to be great confusion, great ambiguity and inability to address the issue, so they should feel they are making progress if in fact our initial stand is reversed. from my perspective, the president [initially] chose chose the harder right over the easier wrong when he made the stand, supported his attorney general…and he should hold firm to that.”

Time and time again, we ask: Where are the Democrats? Who is speaking up against Lindsey Graham (apparently Rahm Emanuel's puppet master, and the new authority in regard to trying suspects), McCain, Lieberman and the rest of the advocates for denying due process? Just like health care, just like Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab, just like the Patriot Act, congressional Democrats lack either the will or the basic desire to do anything about deliberate misinformation and disregard for the Constitution from the Right (and many other Democrats). I don't doubt that there are many Democrats that support civilian trials over tribunals, but I don't see anyone rushing to push against the administration.

This ultimately comes down to Barack Obama, though. And if Obama changes his mind on a criminal trial for KSM and others, it would be a monumental blow for the rule of law in America. I don't think that's hyperbole. Glenn Greenwald sums up the ramifications for Obama if he flips:

If, in the face of "GOP demands" that Mohamed be denied a civilian trial, he again reverses himself -- this time on the highest-profile civil liberties decision of his administration -- he will unmistakably reveal himself, even to his most enamored admirers, as someone so utterly devoid not only of principle but also of resolve: you just blow on him a little and he falls down and shatters into little pieces.

Even just as a political matter, is there any better way to ensure that Americans will view him as weak than by abandoning one key decision after the next as a result of the slightest pressure? What kind of person could possibly admire a "leader" who does this?

Update, 4:30: Via Greg Sargent, looks like Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) has come out in support of criminal trials.

“We have a great track record of successfully trying and convicting terrorists in civilian courts. The military commission system is largely untested, and these cases could easily get bogged down in years of legal challenges. The best way to bring these terrorists to justice swiftly is through our civilian courts.”

So, there's one Democrat -- and the most likely to do so at that since Feingold is probably the most committed civil libertarian in the Senate.

Persecuted Wall street overlords throw temper tantrum

There's some serious arrogance that oozes from this New York Times piece on those poor persecuted Wall St. bankers suffering at the hands of the big bad Democrats (who've proposed such lukewarm regulations after Wall St. terrorized the American/global economy that this entire exercise is beyond laughable).

Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda.

Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.

“If the president doesn’t become a little more balanced and centrist in his approach, then he will likely lose that support,” said Kelly S. King, the chairman and chief executive of BB&T. Mr. King is a board member of the Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies for the biggest banks, and last month he helped represent the industry at a private dinner at the Treasury Department.

“I understand the public outcry,” he continued. “We have a 17 percent real unemployment rate, people are hurting, and they want to see punishment. But the political rhetoric just incites more animosity and gets people riled up.”

Glenn Greenwald sums it up:

... that Wall Street is dissatisfied with the Democrats and the Obama administration reveals how extreme are their expectations of control of the Government. The second-highest-ranking Democratic Senator, Dick Durbin, recently conceded of the Democratic-controlled Congress: "frankly, bankers own the place." It's impossible to find a more loyal and attentive servant to bankers than Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. As the NYT article this morning details, Wall Street executives and their lobbyists have virtually unfettered access to the administration and to the President himself. You would think they'd be satisfied with the state of affairs in Washington. Yet so extreme are their perceived entitlements of control that even mere symbolic and rhetorical disobedience from the politicians they own -- he said some mean things about us -- creates a sense of righteous grievance: our government employees do not behave this way toward us and will be punished if it continues.

And, of course, the GOP is waiting to benefit off of this. The end of the story:

The Democratic campaign committees declined to comment on Wall Street money. But their Republican rivals are actively courting it.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he visited New York about twice a month to try to tap into Wall Street’s “buyers’ remorse.”

“I just don’t know how long you can expect people to contribute money to a political party whose main plank of their platform is to punish you,” Mr. Cornyn said.

Shocking. I can't wait to see the outrage when the tea partiers hear this....

And any excuse to post this video is appreciated. Big John Cornyn is here to save the day! Biiiiiiiiig Jooooooohn.

Something goes wrong again ... and again and again

With the federal budget rollout, a jobs bill and action on financial regulation on the near-term docket in Congress, what's to happen with health care?

Both houses have passed a bill. Relatively minor differences could be worked out. What's the delay? Are the Democrats playing dead for now, only to (improbably) pick up HCR down the road, as Rahm Emanuel suggests?

Jonathan Chait details why such a strategy would be beyond disaster for Democrats:

Suppose there's no upside at all to passing health care reform. McArdle assumes, without explicating her reasons, that walking away from the issue is a way for Democrats to cut their losses. Why, though, would that be the case? Passing the bill may or may not make it more popular, letting it die is surely going to make it less popular. If the bill dies, then it's the subject of lengthy, painful postmortem coverage detailing its flaws and mistakes. It becomes the symbol of big government run amok, and the 60 Senate Democrats and 220 House Democrats who voted for it will suffer politically all the more. Moreover, the already-demoralized liberal base would become apoplectic with the Democratic Party. 1994 was bad, but passing a bill through both chambers then sitting by and letting it die is the kind of behavior that makes even the most pragmatic Democratic voter want to punish his own party.

In sum, I'm totally unpersuaded by the argument that Democrats will let health care die because it's in their interest to do so. It's not. It's a suicide pact, and pretty much every liberal I know -- the kinds of liberals who understand the need for compromise and running to the center -- will be there to hold the pillow over their face if they do it.

They've come this far, and forget them picking it up beyond a few months from now, when 2010 campaigning kicks into gear. Dropping everything at this point would be proof of a monumental retreat by a party that had the guns, Jan. 2009 AND now, to get this done. Abandoning this would only serve as a cudgel for Republicans to use against them. I think it would mean large GOP gains in 2010 and 2012, an albatross attached to any kind of agenda Obama would have left to enact in the next two years and a severe loss of respect and belief in Obama as a leader.

Pass it, you still have detractors, but at least you climbed the mountain and have the scars to prove it. Many with lingering consternation of what the bill means will come around when they see how moderate and pragmatic much of it is.

Stopping now, or delaying too long, is sheer lunacy.

Denigrated, disregarded and demoralized

In a particularly acerbic post (for him), Ezra Klein nails the state of the modern Democratic Party and its connection with base voters.

The loss in Massachusetts was a terrible disappointment to Democrats. But it can be explained away. Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate. Scott Brown ran an excellent campaign. These things happen.

But the reaction congressional Democrats have had to Coakley's loss has been much more shattering. It has been a betrayal.

The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn't like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That's why those voters believe in them. That's why they're Democrats.

But the party looks ready to abandon them because Brown won a special election in Massachusetts -- even though Democrats can pass the bill after Brown is seated. What that says is crucial: Whereas the base thought it was making these hard compromises and getting up early to knock on doors because these issues are important, the party thought all that was happening because, well, it's hard to say. It was electorally convenient? People need something to do? Ted Kennedy wanted it done?

There's no Democratic leadership. They campaigned on things like health care. They spent months debating it, which ultimately became the glaring problem ... it took too long and now they're feeling the heat of that drawn-out charade. And by the way, both chambers already voted for health care!

Now they're going to pull back on health care because of Scott Brown? They still have a vast majority. The filibuster is not the end all be all of the Senate. Can you imagine George Bush-era Republicans backing down like the Democrats are, and have all year? Not that I'm endorsing Bush-era bullying, but a large electoral mandate is just that. All you need is 51 votes my friends. Democrats are so afraid of being labeled liberals that they have consistently given in to a Republican party full of conniving demagogues that are only worried about securing power rather than the monumental problems our nation faces -- ones they have a sizable claim to.

This all wouldn't be a huge deal if Democrats had any balls or coherent sense of leadership. But, alas, they are ineffectual, two-faced, sad-sack losers. One party is too stupid to lead. But the other is too gutless. I'm not sure which is more disheartening.

The downward-spiral effect of America's terror policies

In the aftermath of President Obama's statement today on the "potentially disastrous" failure to stop Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding an airliner in an apparent bombing plot, Spencer Ackerman points out a distinction that should be highlighted when discussing what has been called a breakdown in connecting the dots by the intelligence community. Obama said the intel was available, but he then repeated the line about professionals within the intelligence apparatus missing the connections.

Ackerman:

But it’s not true that there was sufficient information “that would have placed the suspect on the no-fly list.” As a U.S. intelligence official told me last week, there is a standard for moving someone from a person-of-interest list run by the National Counterterrorism Center to the FBI-maintained Terrorist Screening Database. That standard is “specific derogatory information leading to reasonable suspicion.” And that FBI-maintained database still has another procedural and evidentiary step to go through before placing someone on the no-fly list.

In essence, if Obama wants to change the standards of how one lands on a no-fly list, he should do it. But to blame officials for not "connecting dots" isn't really accurate. As the official told Ackerman, there are certain standards to follow; simple suspicion has to take that extra step. Ackerman once more:

Obama can say that common sense dictates that Abdulmutallab ought to have been on the no-fly list. But that’s reasoning backward from the conclusion. It’s appropriate after a failure occurs. But it’s not appropriate as an explanation for how that failure occurred. The standard for placing someone on the no-fly list is simply not met by the aggregated intelligence that Obama cited (and he didn’t unveil any new information).

For the president to hawk this as a connecting-the-dots failure seems to be either disingenuous political theatre to put on a show for our feeble minds, or just a misunderstanding of the issue.

Speaking of political theatrics, the administration announced that several Yemenis kept at Guantanamo Bay for years, then found innocent of any crimes, must stay incarcerated due to the "deteriorating security situation" in Yemen, all so Americans can know that their Daddy president is protecting them from the evil terrorists.

Reuters:

President Barack Obama bowed to political pressure from Democratic and Republican lawmakers not to send any more prisoners to Yemen as a result of revelations that a would-be bomber on a Detroit-bound plane had received al Qaeda training in Yemen.

"It was always our intent to transfer detainees to other countries only under conditions that provide assurances that our security is being protected," Obama said.

"Given the unsettled situation, I've spoken to the attorney general (Eric Holder) and we've agreed that we will not be transferring additional detainees back to Yemen at this time," Obama said.

As Andy Worthington has pointed out in his dogged coverage of Guantanamo Bay, this rationale is bad policy at best (in that it only threatens to radicalize more than it protects anyone's safety) and against the rule of law at worst.

“only at Guantánamo can fear trump justice to such an alarming degree” that, “if [the officials’] rationale for not releasing any of the Yemenis from Guantánamo was extended to the US prison system, it would mean that no prisoner would ever be released at the end of their sentence, because prison ‘might have radicalized’ them, and also, of course, that it would lead to no prisoner ever being released from Guantánamo.”

Our monarchical structure says we can indefinitely detain anyone we deem a threat. From Bush to Obama, this is set American policy. Can anyone claim with a straight face that any president in the near future will reverse these policies based on A) today's support torture by (at least) one political party and an alarming number of Americans who have been instilled with fear at every turn, B) our spineless, constantly-posturing political class and C) an irresponsible, for-profit mainstream media that will exploit TERROR! and FEAR! and DANGER! to cull ratings.

So at this point, we're left with what could be called Terrorball, the unwinnable game of fear and paranoia brought to you by Washington's ruling and chattering classes.

Our national government and almost all of the establishment media have decided to play a similar game, which could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:

(1) The game lasts until there are no longer any terrorists, and;
(2) If terrorists manage to ever kill or injure or seriously frighten any Americans, they win.

Read the entire post at Lawyers, Guns and Money. He shares statistics detailing the number of deaths in America unrelated to terrorism, but caused but things we have accepted as normal, as in starvation, homicide and lack of health care.

Ladies and gentlemen, your America in 2010.

That is rich: Joe Lieberman edition

What a dick.

“I don’t feel like a spoiler,” Mr. Lieberman said. “I feel like somebody who has wanted to be for health care reform. We have within reach — the core parts of this bill are a historic accomplishment. I mean, think about it, 30 million people who can’t afford health insurance in our country today are going to get it under this bill. The cost curve is going to be bent down.”

We're supposed to thank Joe Lieberman for all his work on reform? Fuck that. This obstructionist, sour grapes, vain drama queen has ostensibly done more than any Republican to block true meaningful reform since he's part of the block of 60 votes that are supposedly behind reform. And he's got the balls to say he should be hailed as a positive force in this?

Basically what getting 30 million of the 45 or 47 million uninsured people under some kind of insurance means is that those 30M will HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE out of their own pocket from a private insurer. That is reform? That is the liberal answer to this colossal clusterfuck? Digby:

Nobody's "getting covered" here. After all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. Indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good. --- and doing it without even the cover that FDR wisely insisted upon with social security, by having it withdrawn from paychecks. People don't miss the money as much when they never see it.

And don't let anyone say there are solid reforms sprinkled throughout the Senate's proposal that will actually mean something to a decent amount of people. Why? Because the forces of Washington will water them down and eventually strip them of any substance, especially if Republicans ever have power again, which they will.

Nice work Democrats. You let the likes of Joe "Elmer Fudd" Lieberman and Ben "Ralph Wiggum" Nelson derail reform (Although that may give those vanity whores too much credit; Obama and Harry Reid have been completely ineffectual for the liberal cause). And any so-called progressive in Congress, especially the Senate, has been walked right over.

Par for the course in 2009, the year of Obama. Maybe we should all write our congressman. I wonder what they would write back?

Don't surrender

Here are two good reads for the day.

Cary Tennis of Salon on identity and self-expression.

The "common-sense" assumption is that "underneath" we are all just regular joes. The true self may be extraordinary and fine. It is axiomatic that if each of us is unique, our true self will be something the world has never seen before. If we are completely ourselves, we may not be recognized. We hide the true self, fearing rejection by the crowd. So we "dumb down," you might say. We find a million ways to conceal.

One of the tricks I have learned is that by seeming to reveal all we can conceal much. The more we reveal, the more we can hide. What we really wish to conceal lies at the bottom of the heap of revelations. Often what we truly wish to hide is our own weakness, fear and vulnerability. That is how I felt at that meeting -- weak, fearful, vulnerable. Yet I found myself thinking my way through it and not acting. "What, indeed, is the exact effect of speaking to others about our condition?" Blah, blah, blah.

And Glenn W. Smith at Firedoglake talks us off the ledge and injects some hope of his own into the ruins of Obama's multi-layered mess.

While we struggle to overcome that fundamental error, we run the risk of demoralizing Americans. In the long run, we need one another more than we need Obama. I might even say that inspiration should be our first and most important strategy. Our demoralization is certainly a key strategy of our opponents, as it has been with all authoritarians. A great essay on the renewal of hope in the face demoralizing tyranny is Vaclav Havel’s, “The Power of the Powerless.”

I have many acquaintances who can no longer even read news about the health care reform because they find it depressing. This demands recognition and action. These anxious folk are not weak or apathetic. Their hopes need renewing. We rely on our individual resources, but also upon one another for inspiration. If we don’t take steps to relieve the anxiety and restore hope, we will set the movement back a decade. The 2010 elections will be lost, but that may turn out to be the least of our problems.

[...]

Hope requires a tougher realism than either cynicism or surrender. Without an eyes-wide-open view of what is, the necessary steps for change are impossible to determine. Also, hope can easily devolve into a sentimental “everything’s gonna be alright” passivity or naivety. Popular melodrama sells a lot of this.

It takes much more character to hope in bleak times than it does to give up. That's invaluable advice.

Divas

Is there any species roaming the earth today that is more vain than a "centrist" Democratic U.S. senator?

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.) announced Saturday that she would vote to begin debate on a $848 billion health-care overhaul measure, putting Democrats on a path to reach a 60-vote threshold needed to approve an initial procedural motion on the bill.

Lincoln's announcement appears to give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) the final vote needed to prevent a filibuster on the test vote. Lincoln warned that she would not support the bill in a vote on final passage if it included a "robust" public health insurance option, however.

"Although I don't agree with everything in this bill, I have concluded that I agree it is more important that we begin this debate to improve this health care system rather than simply drop the issue and walk away," Lincoln said, adding that Saturday's vote is "not my last or only opportunity to have an impact on health reform."

Lincoln's announcement came soon after Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.) announced that she would support the motion. Landrieu also said she had not decided whether to support passing the bill in a final Senate vote.

The vote on the procedural motion, which if approved would allow the Senate to formally begin debate on the measure after it returns from a Thanksgiving recess, is set for 8 p.m. EST Saturday.

Lincoln's and Landrieu's announcements follow a similar announcement by Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) another centrist, on Friday.

So kind of you three. Thanks.

Obama's problem? The anesthetized expectations of supporters.

Dan Froomkin writes the best critique of the nine-month-old Obama administration (and of those who voted for him) I've read thus far.

But some of Obama's lack of boldness may stem from the fact that when he looks behind him, there's essentially nobody there.

His legion of supporters, after rising up and sweeping him into office a year ago, basically sat their butts back down. They stood up again to cheer and cry on Inauguration Day. But then it was back to the recumbent position.

[... he has had some key accomplishments ...]

But on some key issues such as jobs, the bank bailout, the war in Afghanistan and a whole slew of executive-power related issues, Obama has fallen way short of expectations. He surrounded himself with too many people who represent politics-as-usual, and he has buckled under to pressure from the national security establishment that Bush put on steroids.

How much of that would be different, however, if the people who voted for Obama had remained politically active? If they were visibly and energetically not just supporting him, but pushing him to be bolder?

But Obama's supporters aren't giving him even rudimentary political cover.

This brings up some obvious truths to bear. The action stopped on Election Day. That was that. It was that easy.

People like me have been hard on the president for talking a big game in the campaign and not following through. Sure, not being George Bush is easy to pull off and assuages quite a few liberals. But he hasn't shown much in the way of bold leadership. And Froomkin is right, it's that he has a weak political structure behind him, at least compared to what he was riding in the campaign. Some might say that comparing an historic election to everyday governing is completely unfair. But, in a unique case like Obama's (He's a black American president! The first, in fact!) that campaign fervor is not normal. This is where his celebrity hurts him. The country was swept up. He was hailed. The McCain voters saw how what they didn't want was so glorified in their own country. So the resentful are now hardened and bitter, and supporters have been anesthetized by their "so noble and enlightened" gesture in voting for him that they forgot to demand that change. He's not the king they elected. He's a part of the equation in a Washington culture that can chew him up and puke him out without the public fervently behind him.

That's the connection between my disappointment in him and my disappointment in the electorate, the citizens. That doesn't let the Obama administration off the hook. But since we aren't going to empower them, they've just decided to take the egregious executive powers Bush left behind. Keeping those around is coming in handy!

Peggy Noonan steps out of Candyland to give us her thoughts

Peggy Noonan, queen of the Beltway drones:

NOONAN: There was a Gallup poll out this week that said, essentially -- it was a fairly broad poll. And people said -- it had gone up about 12 percent, the number of people who thought Obama was governing from the left, not from the center. It used to be about 42 percent. Now it was about 53, or so, percent of people.

I think the president, in a number of ways domestically, but lower it to a lot of busyness, a lot of spending. The promise, I think, of tax increases has taken people aback a little bit. And I think he has damaged his brand, as they say in the language of merchandising, which has now become the language of politics.

I think Jersey was the big election. I think Obama had carried Jersey, I think by about 15 points, just one year ago. Now, the Democratic governor, a strong supporter of Obama -- Obama had come and stood with him three times saying, New Jersey, vote for this man -- he just lost by five points. It was about a 20-point drop in support.

That tells you something. Jersey is a Democratic state, but they're worried about specific things. Unemployment, taxes they worry about a lot in Jersey, terrible property taxes, a bad economy. That's where their minds are. That's who votes in Jersey.

[...]

But the other big thing is that, as you said, partisanship -- which we thought he might be able to reduce -- the poison of partisanship has grown. It's gotten -- it's helped the Republicans. It's partly, I think you're right, the fault of the administration by not calling everybody in, not calling everybody from Bobby Jindal to Nancy Pelosi and saying, let's figure out how we're going to get health care and what the principles are.

[...]

I think the Democrats didn't notice that, when they were passing a stimulus bill that couldn't get one single Republican vote, it might have been viewed as problematic by the American people.

This is exactly the kind of bullshit that feeds through the Washington pundit class everyday. This unattainable fairy tale existence they call bipartisanship, where the machine politician and the fiery populist and the genteel conservative Southerner can all come together, regardless of party, and do what is "right" for the people. Shut up Peggy. When did that ever exist? Or if it actually did, it's long fucking gone. The Republican Party is completely unserious about responsible governing. The Democratic Party is void of any will beyond what keeps them in power. Both parties are corrupt and ultimately shills for whomever pays for their campaign to keep that power.

Spineless majority

Digby bemoans one decidedly Beltway prediction for the health care bill in the Senate, that the House's abortion amendment has to be adopted by the Senate to appease Centrists so empowered by House moderates. Who vested that power to moderates? The spineless House liberals that allowed this reckless power play. The sacrifice is women's rights.

So restricting women's fundamental rights is a horse trade. But why should it be that instead of something else? Are all of these "centrists" anti-choice? (I don't think so.) They could, after all, give them an airport or an aircraft carrier instead. Maybe offer up a little deregulation on some special interest in their district. Why would an issue like this assuage them en masse?

Unless what you really want to do is show everyone that liberals are not in charge and that they have to feel (even more) pain, real pain, before they get their way. There is no reason other than political domination to demand this particular issue as the bargaining chip: it is an object lesson to liberals, particularly women, for getting too uppity.

Update:
41 House Democrats have sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi vowing to withhold a vote on the merged Senate-House health bill if the abortion provision remains.

Dear Madam Speaker:

As members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women's access to reproductive health services.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law.

And upon this, Chris Bowers is skeptical, as we all should be, of the lame Progressive caucus:

It is a nice threat, but I have mixed feelings about Progressive Blocks right now. They succeeded as a negotiating tactic to keep the public option alive to this point, but it was not the public option they were targeting. Also, Stupak's regressive block was able to force an amendment vote on the House floor, while the Progressive Block was unable to do so.

Overall, Progressive have advanced their influence, but still don't hold as much power as conservative Democrats. The basic reason for this is that House Progressives still haven't held together to defeat a bill because their demands were not met. Until they do so, it is unlikely anyone will take their threats seriously. Maybe they should kill the climate change bill once some horrifying version of it passed through the Senate.

H1N1 vaccine to Wall St. and the illusion of change

John Aravosis of AMERICAblog on Wall St. firms getting the H1N1 flu vaccine before most other Americans:

This is an example of why Democratic turnout was low in the Tuesday's election. Not because Democrats have somehow "moved too far to the left." In fact, Democrats have moved too far to the right, and voters have had enough - including Democratic voters who are starting to wonder why "change" keeps looking like the same old corporate patronage crap we had under the Bush administration.

I believe there is nothing truer than that last line about the illusion of Change. The Obama administration's acceptance of so much of what this country -- or at least the Left -- despised about the Bush administration is really beyond ridiculous at this point. While I believe Democrats are mostly spineless when required to stand up for their stated principles, I'm not so naive as to think it's as simple as having a little courage. They are now in power. This has completely corroded them. Wall St. and corporate America lead them around. All Democrats are worried about is staying in power. What do they have to do to keep power? Appease who holds the purse strings. It's a Republican Light party. Barack Obama can say "change" all he wants; he's not serious about it. And if he is serious, well then he does lack a spine, just as most other Democrats.

So, I guess it's one or the other: no spine or typical power-hungry hack who will say just about anything to anyone for the sole purpose of holding power.

Details, details, details

Jane Hamsher agrees: The devil is in the details. She reminds us what is still at stake:

The good news: Pressure on Reid from progressives when his poll numbers are flagging made him defy the White House. More importantly, he ratted them out to the press. Rahm thought he could continue to push for triggers in the background and satisfy the base by mouthing gibberish about “the President supports a public option” until it was too late. It didn’t work out so well.

The bad news: Having a state opt-out that will make corporatist Democrats happy is quite likely not to be “available nationwide from day one,” and thus does not meet the the definition of a “robust public option” by anyone’s terms.

Regardless of what kind of opt out Reid selects, many people will be refused a chance at the option. Opt out by a governor? State legislature? Both? (Jane has all the numbers.) Many states have both a Republican governor and legislature. They're out. Some states have a mix. If a state like Missouri, which has a Democratic governor (Jay Nixon) and a Republican legislature, is forced let the legislature only decide, then no way. They won't think twice about opting out, unless people really make their voice heard. Some stalwart Republicans will be tested. I'll predict a state or two may buck the trend at the beginning. It's hard to predict after that.

I hope these conservative Democrats, like Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.), that oppose a public option, claiming it's on principle to our "free market values," realize what they're a part of in resisting further reform and relief for their constituents.

Obama wants the trigger. Will Reid give in?

After months of stated support for a public option in health-care reform legislation, President Obama looks to have come out on what he wants in the bill: the trigger option touted by Sen. Olympia Snowe ... a Republican and our de facto president. Politico:

Obama told Senate Democratic leadership at the White House Thursday evening that his preference is for the trigger championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — a plan that would allow a public plan to kick in if private insurers don’t expand coverage fast enough, a top administration official told POLITICO. It’s also sign Obama is interested in maintaining a sense of bipartisanship around the health reform plan.

At that meeting, Obama did not sign on to a plan being floated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to include a different variation of the public option in the Senate bill — a plan that would create a national public plan but allow states to “opt out.” Reid now believes he can get 60 votes to bring a bill with that plan to the floor by breaking an expected GOP filibuster — and then secure the 51 votes needed to pass it.

To that last paragraph, then do it Reid. Harry, you are the majority leader of the Senate. Lead! But Reid needs Obama's support in his upcoming reelection campaign, so it's whatever his cash cow wants.

One step closer to the disappearance of those detainee photos

The Senate passed the Homeland Security appropriations bill (with the Lieberman amendment that will usurp Congress's power to hold prerogative over detainee abuse photos, giving it to the Defense secretary.) by a margin of 79 to 19 yesterday.

And of course, I have to read about this on the Web site of The Reporters Committee of Freedom of the Press. No disrespect for them, but when RCFP and the ACLU are the only voices pushing against this, it's a sad state of affairs in the press. RCFP:

In a letter to Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the ACLU urged him to "not invoke your new and discretionary authority to suppress images of abuse."

[...]

"We are deeply disappointed that Congress has voted to give the Defense Department the authority to hide evidence of its own misconduct,” said the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer in a release. “Secretary Gates should be guided by the importance of transparency to the democratic process, the extraordinary importance of these photos to the ongoing debate about the treatment of prisoners and the likelihood that the suppression of these photos would ultimately be far more damaging to national security than their disclosure.”

I wonder what Republicans think of such executive power, something they suddenly rail about after supporting unprecedented presidential power for George W. Bush? I wonder how Democrats feel, being the majority and all, exposing themselves once again as frauds and hypocrites after railing against Bush's similar excesses while they were a minority? I can't imagine Gates doing what Obama doesn't want. And Obama seems to want to suppress this proof of American war crimes. Torture and murder of detainees is not America. But Dick Cheney made it the centerpiece of our global policy. Or at least that's how our "friends and enemies" see it. Now Barack Obama covers it up. I don't know how the Cheneyites could have it any better than complicity, cover up and a blind eye.

A Smattering of Links

- This piece on ABC World News was pretty pathetic:

Is Obama 'Too Nice' to Make Tough Decisions?

With problems for the president in Afghanistan, health care and unemployment, some critics on both the left and right are asking: Is the president essentially "too nice" to make the important decisions?

The National Journal magazine asks in a just-out edition, "Is He Tough Enough?"

"Be decisive," says Tom Tradewell, the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Even liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd says the president will have to "break some eggs" to cook up a more perfect union.

[...]

"I think he has been plenty tough. I think people want toughness, but they also want to have thoughtful leadership. And that -- and that requires reviewing these issues, thinking them through clearly, and bringing people along, and that's what he's doing," senior adviser David Axelrod said.

But the White House is angering its own party by declaring today a public option is not a necessity in a health care bill.

"He's not demanding that it's in there," said senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. "He thinks it's the best possible choice."

White House officials say all this talk about "is he tough enough" is only a matter of style -- the president is trying to build consensus. But that effort is also leading to the criticism, they say.

[...]

"The president has reached a tipping point whether deliberation is starting to look like hesitation," said Republican strategist Kevin Madden. "One of the biggest risks there, the American public begins to question whether or not you have the leadership skills."

I'm not one to shelter Obama, but this is typical mainstream media bullshit. He doesn't express joy in sending troops into a sinkhole war, so all of the sudden he's a pussy. I agree with them that showing little resolve in demanding a robust public option in health care is pretty spineless, but I question whether it means he's not tough or whether he ever really wanted to spend that rotten, vanity-laced thing we call political capital on a public option. I hope he can end up in the right place. Nevertheless, this storyline from Washington media is typical and sad journalism.

(And I loved how this ABC World News broadcast ended with this teaser for tomorrow: "And coming up tomorrow: What if the U.S. doesn't have enough swine flu vaccine? Tune in tomorrow for that." Your modern media.)

- Speaking of unfair assessments of President Obama, here's another one, via HBO documentary, though this one is more outdated than unfair. It has a Nobel Prize eight months later feel to it. It's called "By the People." I just saw a preview, but it looks to be about an array of campaign workers and volunteers throughout the country busting their ass to get him elected. Why they stood behind I'm sure is a fascinating study from person to person. It was a great moment that I'm glad is being documented, now frozen in time for history to revisit.

But seeing anything like that right now is pretty bitter to me. Again, it feels highly outdated and completely at odds with what many on the Left feel about him right now. I get it, it's a year later. But still....

I'm sure I'll watch if given the chance, but I probably should wait for a few years. I think it will sting right now. (I'll give my usual disclaimer: I never believed he would live up to the lofty hype surrounding him at times during the campaign. But I never expected him to be the George W. Bush Jr. Varsity squad.) It might lessen the real impact and sense of relief-turned-joy of November 4, 2008.

- Apparently the DC rap scene is up and coming. I had no idea. But it's a fascinating read for anyone interested in how a scene -- for any kind of music I imagine -- originates and lasts somewhere. DC's rap banner-carrier? A guy named Wale. I wish them luck.

- I'm morbidly excited for Washington Redskins hand-wringing the next few days. I caught some of the postgame from today's loss to the awful KC Chiefs. One commentator named Doc Walker, supposedly a Redskin great, looked directly into the camera and said, "Either you get it done or you surrender!" about head coach Jim Zorn. I then pissed myself. And I think former player Brian Mitchell was near tears rambling about how the current Redskins roster is tarnishing the storied history of the team, including Mitchell's many ... kick returns. They're serious around here.

Mirror on the Wall, Show Me Where Those Bombs Will Fall

I'm so proud of the congressman in my native district in Missouri. Rep. Ike Skelton has teamed up with fellow hawkish Democrat Joe "Elmer Fudd" Lieberman (By the way, that Elmer Fudd nickname is fucking nice compared to what liberals should call him.) to write an impressive, if not predictable, drumbeat column calling for WAR! WAR! WAR! in today's Washington Post. The pair argue that Obama should give McChrystal whatever he wants so we can "win" and control extremism. The new Republicans:

Don't Settle for a Stalemate

Other critics justify opposition to a properly resourced counterinsurgency by pointing to other problems and priorities in the region that also require attention. But exactly how would sending fewer forces to Afghanistan put us in a stronger position to persuade the Afghan government to crack down on corruption and reform? Or persuade reconcilable elements of the Taliban to abandon insurgency and come over to our side? Or get nuclear-armed Pakistan to tackle the extremist threat on its own territory?

Failure to provide Gen. McChrystal with the military resources he needs to reverse the insurgency's momentum would make all these challenges harder to manage by reinforcing doubts throughout the region about our commitment to this fight and our capacity to prevail in it. But if we can roll back the Taliban and establish basic security in key population centers, as a properly resourced counterinsurgency will allow us to do, it will put us in a position of far greater strength and credibility from which to convince Afghans and others throughout the region that it is in their interest and worth the risk to work with us.

[...[

Here at home, we must stabilize public support by convincing an increasingly skeptical American people that the Afghan war is in fact winnable. This will happen when Americans begin to see the kind of visible gains that only a properly resourced counterinsurgency campaign can achieve through the use of additional troops to establish security and additional civilian resources to aid governmental reform and economic growth. On the other hand, if we send too few troops to regain the initiative from the insurgency and too few civilian resources to help cement those hard-won gains, public support will likely collapse.

There should be no confusion about what is at stake in this fight. The last time they were in power, the Taliban not only brutally suppressed the human rights of their own people, they also welcomed Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network into Afghanistan, refusing to give them up even after Sept. 11, 2001. Allowing the Taliban to return to power would represent a major victory for extremist forces throughout the world, tilt the balance of power in South Asia in their favor and further endanger America's homeland security from terrorists trained there.

The president was right to call the war in Afghanistan "a war of necessity." Now it is time to treat it as such and commit the decisive force that will allow Gen. McChrystal to break the Taliban's momentum as quickly as possible.

(Emphasis mine)

To sum up: Cracking down militarily is the only way victory, whatever that is or whatever we say it is, can be attained. The Afghan people should help us, not help themselves. The American public should be convinced that we can win, as if winning is the end all be all, and this war is worth American and Afghan lives. "Beating" the Taliban and extremism is the way we can stay safe; a re-examination, or reflection, of our foreign policy is not needed.

I know Skelton gets by being a Democrat only because he's ready to play the military card pretty quickly. He has a major base, Ft. Leonard Wood, plus Whiteman Air Force Base in his district. The district is ripe for a warmongering conservative Republican to set up shop for decades, just as Skelton has.

Different party, same lines.