good blog post...

From Brian Leiter on the Democratic convention...

I guess this is a case study in the decadence of empires in decline. For the first time, I'm living somewhere that has basic cable TV, so have been watching, for amusement, bits and pieces of the Prudent Wing of the Republocrat Party's annual convention in Denver on C-SPAN. It really is an amazingly substance-free zone, in which people are packaged by advertising pros like new automobiles, and talentless speaker follows talentless speaker. Last night featured former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, who has the dubious distinction of sounding even more like a total fake than Senator Clinton. Meanwhile, Senator Clinton was celebrated as a great feminist trailblazer without any mention of the most relevant fact about why she's a Senator, let alone a national candidate, namely, her husband. (There are some actual feminist trailblazers in the Prudent Wing of the Republocrat Party, one can only imagine what they were thinking watching this spin job.) I am told that the speech of the Iowa Republican Jim Leach, who is pro-Obama, is already being marketed by sleep disorder specialists for those suffering chronic insomnia. The one bright spot was the funny, and unpolished, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who delivered a few good populist punches that were otherwise sorely missing. But overall, the whole thing was so bland and dreary that one almost wishes they'd retain George Galloway to deliver a thirty-minute address to say something substantive about the war criminals in Washington, D.C., and their annointed successor, Senator McCain.

go read the whole thing... very nice, very nice.


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

THE MEDIA KEEP FALSE SIMPLICITIES GOING, WHILE COMPLEXITIES DROP OUT

One example of a false simplicity that returns front and center and there persists after the underlying complexities get a brief hearing is Obama’s supposed refusal to visit wounded troops. The charge, made in an ad by the McCain campaign, that Obama passed up a chance to visit the wounded in Germany because he wanted to go to the gym instead was quickly shown to be false, as was the alternative charge that he didn’t make the visit because he wasn’t going to be allowed to bring photographers. I believe the ad, not widely shown to begin with, has been withdrawn. However, the explanation of why he didn’t go is a little complicated and it will not be remembered. What will be remembered, and this may well have been the effect aimed at with the advertisement, was that Obama for some reason or other passed up a chance to visit the wounded. A more important example of a false simplicity holding on front and center is the issue of whether the Surge succeeded. Even those who claim that it did, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, readily agree, at least when questioned, that other factors operated to bring about the reduction of violence in Baghdad – including former Sunni militants becoming allies of the present Iraqi government; the main Shiite militia standing down at least for the moment. Would these factors have operated without the Surge? How did the Surge affect them? Sorting out the answers to these questions would take time that the media did not take; but it would have been helpful at least just to have the public bear in mind that the questions needed to be looked into before judging just what the success of the Surge amounts to. The public has not been encouraged to bear this in mind. On the contrary, the debate has reverted to the simple issue of whether the violence diminished after the Surge, which invites the fallacy that if it did it was because of the Surge.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Why the Clinton era needs to be over...

From TPM's Greg Sargent

But here's the real point: When it comes to the Clintons, many pundits have simply stopped requiring themselves to adhere to the most basic evidentiary standards. It has become acceptable, even normal, to say whatever the hell you want about the Clintons, and if you insist on anything approaching real evidence, you're just a party-pooper. The "Clinton rules" governing punditry about them are that there are no rules.

his point is that the Clinton's aren't getting a fair shake. And I agree. I don't have time to dig in... but on an issue by issue frame of Clinton vs. Obama many say Clinton is more progressive, liberal... and well gosh wise. That Obama is the "feel good" candidate for a bunch of kids and middle of the road people who know nothing about politics or what it takes to make things happen. And to that too I agree. Would Clinton make a better President? Possibly.

But like Pyschoanalyist DW Winnicot talked about being and having the "good enough mother" I think its a case of Obama being the "good enough candidate" for my policy diferences I can say I'd much rather have Obama than another Republican. And some are saying Obama is just plain old fashion beating the Clintons at their own game: winning

The Big League...
As I said, it's only the fact that Barack Obama is a superb candidate running a superb campaign that is keeping Hillary Rodham Clinton's good campaign from being good enough...

True as it may be the important thing is Clinton and the Clintons as an entity aren't given a fair shake by even Democrats at this point. The Conservative media machine of think tanks and radio hosts bombarding middle america with hobgolins and hit pieces has made it so.

Is it fair... no. Its is creating a situation where a Clinton victory is impossible... no. Do I feel the need to beat Republicans with what they hate most... inspiring conservatives to vote in local elections in droves even if they don't like McCain and then having Conservatives do everything in their power to spend the next 4 years blocking everything the President does cause their name is Clinton... no thank you.

Lets win in Nov and use some of the resources and fight we'd need to get Clinton elected and put it towards organizing for the toughest day in politics: the day after you win and actually have to start implementing the policy you advocated.

Health Care coverage... now thats gonnna be a fight!

I'm not on an ego trip to beat Conservatives so that I can feel better--which I sometimes feel some Clinton supporters are wanting. I want health care for my next door neighbor... I want books for our schools... I want good enough policy (if not always the best). I want middle America to be able to hear what the Democratic Party is saying again. I understand the frustration from some insiders and polico's they were in the midst of the 90's taking the brunt of Conservative politic attacks. And they did an amazing job of holding things together when you start digging around the history of Conservative efforts...

But Obama gives us a chance--a chance to talk about issues. The Clinton era needs to be over. If Obama is another Jimmy Carter it'll be as much our fault(I'm saying this to fellow active Democrats) than to Obama or his band of inspired supporters.

But ladies and gentlemen: we have inspired supporters again and a chance to make it about issues again! Knowing conservatives it won't last long... lets not waste it.

As an Edwards supporter I am actually proud to say "Obama 2008!" and you know what? I mean it too!

interesting comment on republican youtube debate...

Turns out Republicans don't like the youtube debate

But here was an interesting comment as to why... from a TPM comments section

For the Democratic debates, most of the issues that are on the table are pretty mainstream, like healthcare and Iraq and poverty and global warming, and thus its pretty difficult for the standard rank-and-file member of the democratic base to ask them in an amusing viral format like Youtube and still come out as looking too bizarre (unless they happen to be a talking snowman). As far as issues like illegal immigration and "coercive interrogation techniques" go, how does one ask questions like this in a Youtube format in an amusing way? The differences between the GOP base and the political mainstream can seem less extreme when asked by someone like Wolf Blitzer, but if presented from the standard GOP rank-and-file member of the base, it seemed like a great way to show how unhinged the GOP has become on some of these issues.

Factcheck.org on the last Republican debate...

Debating once again, Republican candidates miscast some facts and get others flat wrong.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney committed the biggest factual fouls of the night, misleadingly asserting:

That we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors to come in
That there's an ocean of difference between his Massachusetts health plan and those "government takeover" plans of "every Democrat" running for president and

That Russia's income from oil exports is vastly larger than it actually is.

The Husseine one really made me mad during the debate. But the health care one is the important one to clarify and reassert to the public because this is going to be a line of attack on Democrats...

Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney tried to distance his state’s universal health insurance plan from the proposals of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Romney: Every Democrat up there’s talking about a form of socialized medicine, government takeover, massive tax increase…. I’m the guy who actually tackled this issue. We get all of our citizens insured. We get people that were uninsured with private health insurance. We have to stand up and say the market works. Personal responsibility works.

There are two problems with Romney’s characterization: One, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate to propose a single-payer, wholly government-funded health care plan. And two, Romney’s Massachusetts universal insurance system bears a striking resemblance to the health care proposals of the Democratic front-runners.

We first took a look at the Romney-backed health insurance plan after the May 3 Republican presidential debate, when the candidate said it was not a government takeover and juxtaposed his plan with "HillaryCare." We pointed out that while the plan is not government-administered health insurance, it includes government mandates and subsidies, minimum coverage requirements and fines for noncompliance. The Massachusetts plan is clearly not a complete government takeover; it builds on the private insurance industry – as do the proposals of Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, and the health care initiative spearheaded by Hillary Clinton in the early ’90s.

Kenneth E. Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory University, has analyzed the costs of the Edwards and Obama plans. In reading those and the Massachusetts plans, the similarities are clear, and Thorpe says the Obama and Romney plans are “virtually identical.” Both call for an insurance exchange (an entity that would offer various private insurance plans to the public), and they offer financial assistance to low-income people. Edwards’ proposal differs in that he uses health care plans in the federal employee program, rather than a national exchange. “That’s an implementation difference,” says Thorpe. “The real important part of it, they’re both building on the private insurance industry.”

Sen. Clinton has not released a formal proposal, but when she does, it's highly unlikely to be a wholly government funded proposal.

Politicians will debate how much government involvement in health insurance regulation is acceptable and how much is stepping on the toes of private insurance companies. But in our view, the term “government takeover” could only be applied to Rep. Kucinich’s proposal. Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel calls for a federal voucher program, but Kucinich, in fact, brags on his Web site that he’s the only candidate advocating a universal not-for-profit health care system.

last nights debate....

From Dodds campaign...



Its a chart showing how much time each candidate (and the moderator) used during the debate.

Republican Debate -- Evolution

3 hands went up.

Republican Debate 5-15-07 - Ron Paul vs. Rudy Giuliani

Superb response to the attack from Giuliani by Ron Paul!