Lazy Day…

Workout notes Slept in late, took in a yoga class, then walked for 6 miles outside. The rivertrail had been plowed, but some of the piled up snow had melted and the snow melt had run across the trail and then refroze, making for ice rink like conditions at times.

I then did 4 miles on the track (walking) in 47:45; 13:12, 11:48, 11:45, 10:58, then .5 miles super easy to cool down. Fortunately there was a cute woman in tight spandex pants who was jogging slowly; she kept it interesting until I picked it up and passed her.

I do have sort of a “hot spot” on the outside of my right foot (top where the instep meets the sole).

Social: it matters who says it. Some time ago, we were having a discussion on the Daily Kos. There are a few women’s groups who are trying to pressure women into voting for Hillary Clinton. So I had joked that as a brown guy, I had no one to vote for since Bill Richardson had dropped out of the race. I asked “what is this brown guy supposed to do?” Marcos replied “how about going back to the country that you came from?”

Of course, I am more than willing to take that jibe from Marcos Moulitsas as we share a common heritage; this phrase is a slur that we’ve heard either directed at us or at people who look like us.

So it goes with other things; here an African American blogger discusses the use of the N-word.

Politics: Though Huckabee won the Kansas Republican Caucus (and it’s delegates) it is clear that McCain will be the Republican nominee. So, there are several diaries on the Kos which are going after McCain (here and here). It seems that we are finally getting more interested in attacking the other side than in shooting at ourselves. And the end of this post, I’ll post something from the Romney website (which will be taken down soon, I think).

Yes, frequently attack ads used in the primaries are often co-opted by the other side; the political expert on the Bill Moyer’s show said as much last night.

But expect McCain to spend time pandering to his party’s right wing; they will expect it. And if you are a disgruntled Democrat who is considering McCain, remember the Supreme Court and its decisions, which may well lead to more things like this:

Think about that when you hear stuff like:

Sure, I am going to keep fighting for my candidate and, well, from time to time, I am going to tussle with a Clinton supporter. But I am going to be paying more attention to the Republicans than I have in the past.

Democratic Horse Race I read Electoral Vote.com almost every day. Here is his take today:

Conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks had an interesting piece this week. Brooks claims the divide among the Democrats is not male vs. female or black vs. white, it is the college educated vs. high school grads. He says that when shopping you can go to Safeway or Whole Foods, to Walgreens or to the Body Shop, buy a Windows PC or a Macintosh. In these and other cases, the former represents good products at good prices; the latter tries to sell the experience as much as the product. Clinton is Safeway; Obama is Whole Foods. High school grads want value for money and like Clinton. College grads want to enjoy the experience and go for Obama. While clearly not the whole story, it is indisputably true that Clinton has done much better among voters with lower incomes and education whereas Obama’s core voters are better off and have college degrees (with the addition of black and younger high school grads). In fact a lot has been made about the reluctance of college-educated, high-powered, successful women to flock to Clinton, who after all, is a college-educated, high-powered, successful woman. Gerard Baker of the London Times has a similar column.

The press is finally starting to see the potential trainwreck for the Democrats in August. See, for example, this story in the L.A. Times and this one in the Washington Post. As loyal readers know, this is a topic we have touched on repeatedly in the past month. If Clinton does well in the coming weeks (and this week looks quite bad for her), there will be a lot of pressure on Obama to accept the Veep slot and then run in 2016. If Obama does well in the coming weeks, it is hard to imagine Obama offering the Veep slot or Clinton taking it if offered. His best scenario is to deliver a knockout blow in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

As far as a possible Obama-Clinton ticket or a Clinton-Obama ticket: I say that is highly unlikely. The guest on last night’s Bill Moyer’s show agreed; O and HRC have taken too many zinging shots at each other for that to work.

Obama: person of substance.

So, is Obama really just a rock star; an empty suit who is followed by foolish cultists, college kids and people who don’t do real work?

In fact, even HRC hinted as such, when she was making excuses for her poor showing in caucuses:

From the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/…

But Mrs. Clinton, who has not done as well in the caucus states as Mr. Obama has, winning only two of nine so far, suggested that she did not expect to win in Washington, as many of her supporters would be too busy working to break away from their schedules and spend the time to caucus for her.

Clinton is an excuse a minute, isn’t she?

I suppose it must be irritating to feel that you aren’t getting something that you think is owed to you; that pesky Obama just won’t go away.

Ok, but what about the case for Obama? A history professor is collecting people’s cases for their favorite Democratic candidate.

Here are some people making their cases:

Here is Hilzoy’s.

I came to Obama by an unusual route: as I explained here, I follow some issues pretty closely, and over and over again, Barack Obama kept popping up, doing really good substantive things. There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles. There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called “the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet” — though not as strong as Obama would have liked. Look — he’s over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn’t even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation. And there he was again, introducing a tech plan of which Lawrence Lessig wrote:

“Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency — the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work.

But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn’t just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress’s calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington.

After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I’ve been wildly critical of their sameness (remember “Dems to the Net: Go to hell” which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give.”

Imagine my surprise, then, when I heard people saying that Obama wasn’t “substantive”. It was exactly like my experience in 2004 when, after hearing Wes Clark for the first time, I went and looked up his positions on a whole host of issues of concern to me, and only then started reading media accounts of him in which I “learned” that no one knew what his positions were.

As some of my students would say: I was like, wtf?

Here is Katha Pollitt, who is as big of a feminist as there is:

When Obama won Iowa, I was surprised that I was glad. Much as I would love to pull the lever for a woman president — a pro-choice Democratic woman president, that is –I realized at that moment how deeply unthrilled I was by the prospect of a grim vote-by-vote fight for the 50 percent+1 majority in a campaign that would rehearse all the old, (yes, mostly bogus or exaggerated) scandals and maybe turn up some new ones too. I wasn’t delighted to think success would mean four more years of Bill Clinton either, or might come at the price of downticket losses, as many red-state Democrats fear. Democrats have nominated plenty of dutiful public servants over the years — Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry . They have always lost (or in Gore’s case, not won by enough to not lose). Obama may not be as progressive as we wish over here at The Nation– and maybe someday we can have a serious conversation about why Edwards’ economic populism, promoted for years by important voices at the magazine, was such a bust. But Obama is a candidate in a different mold. He’s a natural politician who connects with people as Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, just doesn’t, and appeals to the better angels of their nature. He sparks an enthusiasm in people–independents, the young, the previously disengaged. An Obama victory could have big positive repercussions for progressive politics.

I usually resist words like “hope” and “change.” But with Supertuesday barely 36 hours away what I think is, let’s go with the charismatic candidate this time. Let’s go with the candidate voters feel some passion about. Let’s say goodbye to the Clintons and have some new people make history.

Plenty of feminists support Obama, by the way. for example Kate Michelman, former head of NARAL, and Ellen Bravo of Nine to Five. I signed a letter from ” New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama.” Other signers include the historians Linda Gordon, Alice Kessler Harris and Ros Baxandall; the sociologist Judith Stacey; the political scientist Ros Petchesky,and writers Margo Jefferson and Meredith Tax. You can read it and, if you are a New York feminist, sign it, here .

Here is something that I like about him: he gives accurate answers to questions instead of the politically expedient ones:

(source of the article)

Though Democrats sound more sensible on many of these issues, the party remains consumed by the fear that it will not come across as tough. Its presidential candidates vie with one another to prove that they are going to be just as macho and militant as the fiercest Republican. In the South Carolina presidential debate, when candidates were asked how they would respond to another terror strike, they promptly vowed to attack, retaliate and blast the hell out of, well, somebody. Barack Obama, the only one to answer differently, quickly realized his political vulnerability and dutifully threatened retaliation as well. After the debate, his opponents leaked furiously that his original response proved he didn’t have the fortitude to be president.

In fact, Obama’s initial response was the right one. He said that the first thing he would do was make sure that the emergency response was effective, then ensure we had the best intelligence possible to figure out who had caused the attack, and then move with allies to dismantle the network responsible.

I loved his first response! Note how he talks about talking with our enemies, talking to the other side to get stuff passed (rather than just trying to ram stuff down someone’s throat) and working together on stuff.

I like his “change from the bottom up” approach. He even runs his campaign that way. They, in general, don’t give our yard signs. Instead, they say that if you want to be part of the campaign, you have to phonebank, go door to door, write letters to the editor, and the like. I’ve done all of those; here is my letter to the editor:

Several months ago, I attended the Peoria Democrats annual dinner. While I was there, I was told something about Sen. Barack Obama by those who had worked with him in the state Senate: “The person you see in public is the same one you get in private; he is the real deal.”

I decided to back his presidential campaign then, and I haven’t been disappointed. I am proud of the way he has conducted his positive, issues-driven campaign.

I’d like to urge all to vote for him in the primary on Feb. 5. While it is true that he has a large lead in the polls, his margin of victory will affect how many of our congressional district delegates he receives. Therefore, it is important to make the margin of victory as large as possible.

Appendix: Romney’s collection of McCain’s “greatest hits”:

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Straight_Talk_Detour_1.5

Saturday, Jan 05, 2008

THE MCCAIN WAY:

ATTACK REPUBLICANS

A Top Ten List …

1. Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX). “Presidential hopeful John McCain – who has been dogged for years by questions about his volcanic temper – erupted in an angry, profanity-laced tirade at a fellow Republican senator, sources told The Post yesterday. In a heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul, McCain screamed, ‘F— you!’ at Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who had been raising concerns about the legislation. ‘This is chickens—stuff,’ McCain snapped at Cornyn, according to several people in the room off the Senate floor Thursday. ‘You’ve always been against this bill, and you’re just trying to derail it.’” (Charles Hurt, “Raising McCain,” New York Post, 5/19/07)

2. In 2000, Sen. McCain Ran An Attack Ad Comparing Then-Gov. George W. Bush To Bill Clinton. SEN. MCCAIN: “I guess it was bound to happen. Governor Bush’s campaign is getting desperate, with a negative ad about me. The fact is, I’ll use the surplus money to fix Social Security, cut your taxes and pay down the debt. Governor Bush uses all of the surplus for tax cuts, with not one new penny for Social Security or the debt. His ad twists the truth like Clinton. We’re all pretty tired of that. As president, I’ll be conservative and always tell you the truth. No matter what.” (McCain 2000, Campaign Ad, 2/9/00; www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoXkCprdL4)

3. Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) An “A**hole”, Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, “I Didn’t Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger.” “Why can’t McCain win the votes of his own colleagues? To explain, a Republican senator tells this story: at a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, ‘Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.’ Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: ‘I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.’ The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. ‘I decided,’ the senator told Newsweek, ‘I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.’” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)

4. Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A “F*cking Jerk.” “Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. ‘Are you calling me stupid?’ Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. ‘No,’ replied McCain, ‘I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!’ (Grassley and McCain had no comment.)” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)

5. In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A “Scuffle” With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor. “In January 1995, McCain was midway through an opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when chairman Strom Thurmond asked, ‘Is the senator about through?’ McCain glared at Thurmond, thanked him for his ‘courtesy’ (translation: buzz off), and continued on. McCain later confronted Thurmond on the Senate floor. A scuffle ensued, and the two didn’t part friends.” (Harry Jaffe, “Senator Hothead,” The Washingtonian, 2/97)

6. Sen. McCain Accused Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Of The “Most Egregious Incident” Of Corruption He Had Seen In The Senate. “It escalated when McCain reiterated the charges Oct. 10 in a cross-examination, calling McConnell’s actions the ‘most egregious incident’ demonstrating the appearance of corruption he has ever seen in his Senate career.” (Amy Keller, “Attacks Escalate In Depositions,” Roll Call, 10/21/02)

7. Sen. McCain Attacked Christian Leaders And Republicans In A Blistering Speech During The 2000 Campaign. MCCAIN: “Unfortunately, Governor Bush is a Pat Robertson Republican who will lose to Al Gore. … The political tactics of division and slander are not our values… They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country. Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks, Virginia Beach, VA, 2/28/00)

8. Sen. McCain Attacked Vice President Cheney. MCCAIN: “The president listened too much to the Vice President … Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense.” (Roger Simon, “McCain Bashes Cheney Over Iraq Policy,” The Politico, 1/24/07)

9. Celebrating His First Senate Election In 1986, Sen. McCain Screamed At And Harassed A Young Republican Volunteer. “It was election night 1986, and John McCain had just been elected to the U.S. Senate for the first time. Even so, he was not in a good mood. McCain was yelling at the top of his lungs and poking the chest of a young Republican volunteer who had set up a lectern that was too tall for the 5-foot-9 politician to be seen to advantage, according to a witness to the outburst. ‘Here this poor guy is thinking he has done a good job, and he gets a new butt ripped because McCain didn’t look good on television,’ Jon Hinz told a reporter Thursday. At the time, Hinz was executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. … Hinz said McCain’s treatment of the young campaign worker in 1986 troubled him for years. ‘There were an awful lot of people in the room,’ Hinz recalled. ‘You’d have to stick cotton in your ears not to hear it. He (McCain) was screaming at him, and he was red in the face. It wasn’t right, and I was very upset at him.’” (Kris Mayes and Charles Kelly, “Stories Surface On Senator’s Demeanor,” The Arizona Republic, 11/5/99)

10. Sen. McCain “Publicly Abused” Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). “[McCain] noted his propensity for passion but insisted that he doesn’t ‘insult anybody or fly off the handle or anything like that.’ This is, quite simply, hogwash. McCain often insults people and flies off the handle… There have been the many times McCain has called reporters ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ when they have had the audacity to ask him unpleasant, but pertinent, questions. McCain once… publicly abused Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama.” (Editorial, “There’s Something About McCain,” The Austin American-Statesman, 1/24/07)