Bush-hatred -- the new new thing

A thoughtful email correspondent of mine confusingly named Michael, even though he is neither my father, Mickey, nor Michael Isikoff (who we are not, as we state in our header...), sent me links to a pair of point-counterpoint articles (nope, not the kind The Onion runs) at the Washington Post about Bush hatred:

Bush-Hatred: Fearful Loathing . . .
. . . Or a Rational Response?

Michael agrees with the "Fearful Loathing" article, which has the following concern about self-proclaimed Bush-haters:

If "hate" were used loosely (as in, say, "kids hate spinach"), the word choice would be harmless. But people who claim to hate really mean it, and that's serious. It signifies that you've gone beyond discussion, compromise or even (to some extent) coexistence. The differences are too basic to be bridged. Genuine political hatred is usually reserved for true tyrants, whose unspeakable acts of brutality justify nothing less.

More than the language is butchered. Once disagreement turns into self-proclaimed hate, it becomes blinding. You can see only one all-encompassing truth, which is your villain's deceit, stupidity, selfishness or evil. This was true of Clinton haters, and it's increasingly true of Bush haters.

Talking about an emotion like hate, though, is different from talking about ideas. In my earlier post about hating Bush, I quoted Jonathan Chait's Bush-hatred article to combat the accusation that Bush-hatred was a sign of irrationality. Chait argued that it was perfectly rational for some people to hate Bush. At the time, I agreed, but I see now that I fell prey to some logical error that I don't know enough about logical reasoning to name properly (anyone, anyone?). In fact, all emotions are essentially irrational to the extent that they are not governed by the intellect. But to admit that one has an irrational emotion is not to admit that one is, fundamentally, irrational. If that were the case, no one would be capable of rational debate, since we all experience emotions. (Yes, some people seem not to experience emotions as the rest of us do, but we don't ordinarily find that they function more rationally in the world than the rest of us. In fact, they usually appear irrational, since much of what we commonly think of as rational behavior is actually mediated by our emotions. And yes, I did just string together a bunch of ideas from popular science writers to make that argument, but I still think it's basically sound.)

Okay, back to Bush-hatred. It ain't rational, but it is understandable.

Hence, admitting to Bush-hatred does not automatically mean that "you've gone beyond discussion, compromise, or ... coexistence", nor is hate automatically blinding. Actually, I'd argue that those of us who can admit to the emotion and understand its sources have a better chance of coming to a reasonable accommodation with the hated than those of us who feel hate but do not acknowledge it.

So there's my response to those articles, Michael from Fairfax, and thanks for pointing them out to me. I hate Bush, but it doesn't mean I am incapable of appreciating his chocolate-chip cookies.

Bursting my 'liberal media bubble'

The Dean-o-phobe recently noted that many Dean supporters seem to exist in a bubble:

THE DEAN BUBBLE: One of the most disturbing things about Dean and his hard-core supporters is that they give the impression that they know nothing at all of why President Bush is successful, and therefore what it takes to beat him. Read the pro-Dean blogs, and the you come away with the view that Bush is strong because he's ruthless and has lots of money, and therefore if the Democrats are also ruthless and raise lots of money, they can beat him. This ignorance is compounded by the fact that many Deanies seem to exist in a isolated cultural milieu in which everybody is secular, socially liberal, and antiwar. They can't fathom why those things might hurt Dean in a general election because they don't ever talk to or read anybody who thinks differently. Dean's Internet networking--which has had lots of positive effects on American politics--has probably intensified this cloistering, by creating intellectual ghettos on the web where true believers can interact, undisturbed by those who don't share their faith.

This criticism of Dean people strangely echoes right-wing pundits who complain about a 'liberal media bubble' (See, for example, this charming article from NewsMax on the topic) as the obnoxious conservative bloggerPolipundit points out.

This got me thinking. Maybe I do live in a liberal media bubble, of sorts. Much of my raw news I get from the AP, just like everyone else (only that's the problem, isn't it? Everyone else doesn't get their news from the AP...). But most of the commentary and editorial stuff I read is, if not liberal, can certainly not be called conservative, as many conversatives today seem to understand the word.

I dispute the common conservative accusation that, for example, the New York Times is a radically left-wing publication, (You want radically left-wing, check out The Socialist Worker. And no, despite having referred to myself as a "Clark Socialist" in some previous post I'm too lazy to link to at the moment, I am not a regular reader of that particular rag.) However, I can refuse to buy into the 'liberal media bias' notion and still recognize that my own inclinations have not led me to spend a lot of time carefully studying the policy papers of the Heritage Foundation, et. al., and trying to understand conservatism as a movement.

As a result, it's true that I am often baffled by conservative viewpoints on things. I grew up in Titusville, Florida, a place that is definitely not your Jewish Grandparents' Sunshine State, so I'm not quite as baffled, as, say, someone who grew up on Park Avenue and then moved to Vermont might be. [Or, for that matter, as baffled as someone who grew up in Newton, Massachusetts, and now lives in Brookline. -- Max] I mean, I spent my childhood trying to explain to my Southern Baptist friends that I really didn't need converting, thanks anyway. (And this is starting to sound like a "I have plenty of xxx-type friends" defensiveness thing, so I'll shut up about my outsider childhood in rural Florida now.) Still, I don't go back to my hometown much anymore, and now I live in a place where my U.S. Congressional Rep is Barney Frank (and a biiiig shoutout to you Mr. Frank!), so it's fair to say I live now in a bit of a bubble.

Therefore, I've decided to expand my horizons a bit. Now, I'll tell you right now I'm not interested in Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and their ilk. I'd like to understand reasonable, thoughtful conservatives. Because frankly lately I've been feeling that the current administration isn't really making them happy either, so maybe if I offered a good-faith attempt to understand what it is they want out of government, really, then I can convince them that Bush is not the way to get it.

Anyway, this begins my researches into the world of conservative political and policy thinking. At my local used bookstore I picked up a copy of The Concise Conservative Encyclopedia as a starting point. Amazon seems to also suggest I read The Conservative Mind, so I guess I'll see if I can order a copy from the library. Suggestions from conservative readers about well-thought-out conservative publications (not blogs at this point, the blogverse is way too big, I want to start with stuff that has to go through editors first...) are welcome.

In between agitating for Clark (whose candidacy, I remain convinced, can bridge the gap between thinking conservatives and liberals in the country) and against Dean, I will keep everyone updated on my research into the conservative mind.

Straight talking Howard

Howard Dean has portrayed himself as the straight talking nonpolitician of the primary season and asked us to support him on that basis. He has said he doesn't tailor his speeches to his audiences, but tells it like it is to each and every one. Well many can and will dispute that and there are certainly numerous examples one could use to make the point. (His changing views on Nafta, social security, and medicare are but three examples). But the latest example takes my breath away. Dean recently told the Boston Globe that as the campaign moves South he will start talking more about the role of Jesus in his life. This statement is idiotic on two levels. One that he's a straight talker who doesn't change his message to please his audience. If this isn't changing one' s message please tell me what it is? To be fair nearly all politicians do this to at least some degree. But Dean has based a good part of his campaign on the fact that he isn't the typical Washington insider and that he doesn't pander to the masses. So he should be held to higher standard.

The more ridiculous aspect of this statement is that he made it at all. What was he thinking??? If you are going to pander go ahead and do it but don't point it out for all to see. That's like the bank robber calling the police and telling them he's going to rob such and such bank at two p.m. Not a real smart move on his part. Discuss it in-house. Strategize about it, but for pete's sake don't announce it in the papers. One must assume this is another example of Dean's mouth outrunning his brain. I can't believe his campaign advisors knew that he was going to say that.

This again brings up a point that I have suggested in previous posts. Is this man qualified to be president? Have we now reached a critical mass of missstatements and contradictions such that the candidate is no longer viable? Certainly the majority of his supporters would say no. They love him for his contradictions. "That's just Dean being Dean " they say. But the rest of us out here-- good Democrats all, charter members of the ABB club -- are beginning to have serious doubts. When my dear wife looks at Dean on television making one of his belligerent or whiny statements and says "I don't think I can vote for this man," then we are all in big trouble.

TNR gives expression to hating Bush

Wow, I just read the Jonathan Chait article that Amy cited below. I encourage anybody who can't stand Bush to read it; though it doesn't really make me feel any better (it ends with "There. That feels better") it gives expression to precisely why this guy is such a fraud who needs to be turned out posthaste.

And, in keeping with the spirit of this blog, I am increasingly convinced that Wes Clark, not Howard Dean, is the one to do it.

Clarification to Previous Post

In my last post, I said "Insulting me isn't going to make me vote for you, Dr. Dean." Some readers took this to mean that I might not vote for Dean in the general election, even if he were the Democratic party nominee. This was emphatically not my meaning, although I could see how it might appear that way. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'll support, with money, effort, and my vote, whoever the Democratic nominee is.

Dean Threatens to Go Nader; Methinks his Supporters Should Protest

Many commentators like to argue that Howard Dean is doing something called 'Rebuilding the Democratic Base" and that this is a good and necessary thing.

How, then, do they explain his continued threats that his supporters will bail if he doesn't win the nomination?

Howard Dean said Sunday that the hundreds of thousands of people drawn to politics by his campaign may stay home if he doesn't win the Democratic presidential nomination, dooming the Democratic Party in the fall campaign against President Bush.

"If I don't win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they're going to go?" he said during a meeting with reporters. "I don't know where they're going to go. They're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician."

Now, I thought the party base, by definition, was supposed to turn out to vote for the party. What good is it if it can't be depended upon to do that?

Further, I dispute the idea that Dean's got some kind of lock on the 'party base'. What am I, chopped liver?

Also, could he quit with that "conventional Washington insider" crap? As I've said before, he's as much as calling non-Dean Dems 'squares', blindly supporting the 'Establishment'. Insulting me isn't going to make me vote for you, Dr. Dean. And, as my father has pointed out, if the non-Dean party base (we do exist!) can't get it up for him, how are we going to convince those all-important swing and non-voters to do so?

In any case, the candidate I support is not a 'conventional Washington insider', even if he is assumed to be the Clinton favorite.

And finally, maybe Dean should let his supporters speak for themselves. They might not be as eager for another four years of Bush as he seems to believe....

Clarification: It's not that I hate all Republicans, just President Bush

Lest my Republican readers (have I got any?) accuse me of vicious partisanship (and after I said I'd play nice and everything...) I'd like to clarify my previous post.

I really hate Bush. I hate him so much that he sometimes appears in my dreams, trying to make me like him. Last night in a dream he came over to our apartment and baked me chocolate-chip cookies so that I wouldn't hate him so much. These are great cookies, I thought. It's true what people say, you seem like a very charming guy. But I still hate your guts. Then I woke up.

For those who believe that my Bush hatred is a sign of irrationality, I refer you to Jonathan Chait's essay on the matter.

But, although Bush hatred can result in irrationality, it's not the product of irrationality. Indeed, for those not ideologically or personally committed to Bush's success, hatred for Bush is a logical response to the events of the last few years. It is not the slightest bit mystifying that liberals despise Bush. It would be mystifying if we did not.

But Amy, you protest, you did say you wanted to elevate political discourse in the country, didn't you? Why talk about your hatred?

Because it's there. And to pretend otherwise would be awfully duplicitous.

It's not that I hate all Republicans...

The Times has an editorial this morning about "The New Republicans". The premise of the article is not particularly new -- ever since the Republican Party allied itself with the Religious Right it has steadily lost philosophical coherence. Republicans used to be about hands-off government, fiscal conservatism, and anti-federalism.

This Republican administration, says The Times, is changing all that. These are not your father's Republicans. Says the Times:

This, it appears, is what compassionate conservatism really means. The conservative part is a stern and sometimes intrusive government to regulate the citizenry, but with a hands-off attitude toward business. The compassionate end involves some large federal programs combined with unending sympathy for the demands of special interests. If only it all added up.

I suppose the Times Editorial page was too timid to suggest this, but there is is a way in which it all adds up:

The current administration's domestic policies are incoherent because they do not, strictly speaking, have domestic policies at all. Their domestic policies are little more than a means to advance their political goals: winning, and winning big.

Bear with me here, I'm about to unearth some ancient (year-old) history. Remember John DiIulio, the squeaky-clean super-smart guy the administration tapped to run its faith-based initiatives program? Remember the flap last year about his on-the-record contributions to an Esquire article written about Karl Rove? Here's a man who wrote a detailed, seven-page, on-the-record memo blasting the Bush administration for having absolutely no interest in policy whatsoever.

Let's review some of the things he said:

[Circumstances] gave rise to what you might call Mayberry Machiavellis -- staff, senior and junior, who consistently talked and acted as if the height of political sophistication consisted in reducing every issue to its simplest, black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible. These folks have their predecessors in previous administrations (left and right, Democrat and Republican), but, in the Bush administration, they were particularly unfettered.

And

Translating good impulses into good policy proposals requires more than whatever somebody thinks up in the eleventh hour before a speech is to be delivered, or whatever symbolic politics plan -- "communities of character" and such -- gets generated by the communications, political strategy, and other political shops.

The letter is that of a disappointed but hardly vindictive man who was truly concerned about the Administration. DiIulio later issued an apology for having written the letter (I'm quoting the National Review's article on the subject, believe it or not..):

Shortly afterward, in the face of a deep-freeze reaction from the White House, DiIulio went into full retreat. "My criticisms were groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples," he said in a statement. "I sincerely apologize and I am deeply remorseful. I will not be offering any further comment, or speaking or writing further on any aspect of my limited and unrepresentative White House experience or any matters or persons related thereto. I regret any and all misimpressions. In this season of fellowship and forgiveness, I pray the same."

The National Review does not attempt to defend the White House against DiIulio's criticisms. It instead points out that "DiIulio's White House experience was quite a long time ago...and that's the problem with his confessions to Esquire."

The White House has since made efforts to paint itself as heavy-on-policy, thank-you-very-much. But I'm not buying.
From where I'm sitting, it still appears that the White House's main interest in domestic policy is using it to hand out favors to those who finance the re-election campaign and throw bones to the radical right's radical agenda.

If you can add it up some other way, please do let me know.

Further Dean Thoughts From Mickey

After reading my daughter's blog entry for this morning about elevating the political discourse in the country, I felt it necessary to amplify my earlier post, which might appear to be a digression into a discussion of personalities rather than issues. That's not to say that personalities aren't important. As I said before, many people vote for better or for worse on whom they would prefer to have a beer with.

But my problems with Howard Dean go well beyond personality. His flip-flopping on issues has been well-documented. His denial of this flip-flopping in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary raises issues of integrity. Two examples: his argument with the Washington Post and their story about his flipflopping on issues; his argument with George Stephanoupolous about his support of NAFTA.

Yet Dean and his supporters claim he is a straight-shooter who tells it like it is, not the typical politician at all. His supporters seem to have a blind spot when it comes to their own candidate.

His recounting of a rumor that Bush had been forewarned by the Saudis of the 9/11 attack was bizarre and irresponsible, as is his refusal to retract or back away from it. The confederate flag flap is another case in point. It took him forever to admit what everybody but him knew, that this was not a good image to use to make an otherwise valid point. Such episodes suggest not only a loose lip, but a stubborness and lack of judgment that could prove dangerous in a president.

I am also bothered by the fight over the offer of the vice presidency to Clark, which Dean vehemently denies making (see Amy's previous posts, here, and here on this issue). Dean has admitted his weakness in foreign policy and his need to add a VP to plug that hole. For months there have been newspaper reports about a possible Dean-Clark ticket, none of which were ever denied by Dean. He obviously felt it was to his benefit to have these rumors out there, but now that Clark has become a formidable challenger he has in effect labeled him a liar. Well, someone is lying and I don't think it's Clark.

So, my problems with Dean go well beyond issues of personality although they certainly started there. His pugnacious and combative style may work well in the primaries to energize the base but the general election will not be won without a core of likability, which Dean is incapable of projecting. He can move to the center on issues but he can't change his personality. [And if he does, he will no doubt be accused, as Al Gore was, of attempting an image makeover and not being genuine -Amy.] As I have tried to address above, however, there are issues with his personality and judgement that have a direct bearing on his fitness to govern and these need be addressed by the electorate before it's to late.

[posted by Amy on Dec 27 but written by her technology-challenged Dad, Mickey, on Dec 26. Amy has altered the post date to reflect her father's time of writing. Amy thinks her father should learn to post his own stuff though...]

thought for the day for my fellow bloggers

Paul Krugman (bless his little heart) has a nice op-ed today. He's talking to reporters, but I think what he says applies to us amateurs following the elections as well. This is serious business. Will bloggers, in our ever-increasing chatter, merely add to the cacophony of the traditional media to which we are supposed to be an alternative? Shall the blogverse become the talk radio of the internet set, as candidates' supporters troll one another's blogs, game Google for cheap amusement ('miserable failure'), shout each other down, and in general contribute to the decline of reason in politics?

I quote here Krugman's last line:


"But history will not forgive us if we allow laziness and personal pettiness to shape this crucial election."



Our blogverse, at its best, shows that ordinary citizens with busy lives do not have to leave politics to the experts: the politicians and the pundits. Ordinary citizens can argue thoughtfully about what we want for our country and how best to make that happen. The more our pundits, journalists, and politicians abandon reasoned argument based on efforts to understand the facts, the more we must counter their unreason with actual discussion.

I cannot make Ted Koppel see that asking candidates to spend their debate time talking about whether they think Howard Dean can win the general election is detrimental to the practice of democracy. But I can refuse to follow his descent into vapidity. I can instead talk honestly about what I see and understand to be happening in the world and respond thoughtfully to those who disagree. We bloggers must believe that words still have content.

Let us try not to pollute the internet with the garbage of thoughtless language and pointless pseudo-debate. Let us be generous to one another. Let us fill the blogverse with the kind of dissent that does protect democracy, not the kind that erodes it. Let us reclaim our right to think. No one else will do it for us.

Confession

Today I will come clean. I have been beating around this bush for several weeks now without coming right out and saying it. Today I will. I don't like Dean. I tried, I really did after all we are both physicians. Early on I was intrigued by him, but as his campaign has progressed my feelings moved from unease to discomfort to frank dislike.

It's not because of his politics, much of which I agree with. I have never felt this way about a Democrat before. In addition to believing he will take the party to a crushing defeat I simply don't like him. It has a lot to do with his cockiness, which borders on arrogance. His stubborn refusal to admit when he's wrong and his sometimes bizarre statements don't help either.

I had a discussion recently with one of his supporters and when I mentioned these issues he agreed with me and said "That's why we love him, he gives the Republicans hell and never backs down." "Great but what about the general election?" I asked. "No problem," he said, "the country will love him." Well, if I can't even like him and I agree with him on many things, how is the country going to love him? Ultimately if he's nominated he will be defeated because of his grating personality. Karl Rove won't have to paint him as a draft-dodging peacenik tax raising liberal, the country will ultimately reject him because he's the last man on earth they would want to have a beer with.

And sad as it is to say that's often what people vote on.

[posted by Amy on Dec 27 but written by her technology-challenged Dad, Mickey, on Dec 25. Amy has altered the post date to reflect her father's time of writing. Amy thinks her father should learn to post his own stuff though...]

Safire tells horror stories; here's why he's wrong

Mr. Safire, who I wish would stick to elucidating word origins in his eminently skippable Times Magazine column, gives voice to the secret nightmare of non-Dean dems everywhere in his Op-Ed today: If Dean doesn't get the nomination, he'll go Nader on us and, as Safire puts it, "That split of opposition would be a bonanza for Bush. In a two-man race, the odds are that he would beat Dean comfortably, but in a three-party race, Bush would surely waltz in with the greatest of ease."

Safire doesn't want this to happen because "landslides lead to tyrannous majorities and big trouble. "

Now, I agree that a three-party race would be a disaster, and that it's only in Bizarro-world that Bush wouldn't win. But I dispute Safire's nightmare for several reasons.

First of all, if Bush would beat Dean only 'comfortably' in a two-man race, why would a three-man race lead to a 'landslide'? People who would vote for Dean no matter what would still vote for Dean, people who would vote Dem no matter what would still vote for the Dem candidate, and disaffected Republicans and Independents who, in a Bush-Dean race, would hold their noses and vote for Bush, would have the opportunity to hold their noses and vote for the centrist Dem instead. Bush might win, but very likely with less of the popular vote than he would have garnered in a two-man race.

Second, Bush's installation as President in 2001 was not the result of a clear victory at all, much less a landslide, and his administration has still behaved as a 'tyrannous majority'. Safire imagines big trouble in the future ; I invite him to wake up and smell the big trouble that is the present. Things will undoubtedly be worse if Bush manages (I won't say 'wins') a second term, but I'm not sure it matters whether he gets by comfortably, in a landslide, or with a little help from his friends. 1984, here we come!

Third, I am so sick of hearing about the fractured Democratic party and how it's split between the DLC old Washington Dems and the Internet revolutionary Dean-dems. It's insulting to call those of us who support candidates other than Dean 'Washington Dems'. Why don't you just call us 'squares' and get it over with?

Wait, you say, it's not like Safire made that split up, he's just reporting it. Clark and Dean are calling each other liars, and their supporters are viciously attacking one another, as evidenced by your own pro-Clark anti-Dean blog! Such a family feud can't possibly be resolved in time to present a unified front for the general election. It's getting far too brutal. Sure, those square DLC dems will rally round no matter who wins the nomination, but those Dean people won't.

I voiced the very same worry in a previous blog post, quoting the Doctor himself as evidence. Let us all remember, however, that the scenario presented is only one possibility. There are other possible futures, and as Dean likes to tell his audiences, we've got the power here. Not Mr. Safire, not Mr. Gore, not the DLC, the DNC, or the GOP. I'm all for imagining the worst, but let's do a little risk management and plan for it too.

So here's the scenario: Clark wins the Dem nomination. Dean and his supporters decide to have themselves a little third-party party. Heaven only knows what little Ralphie Nader is up to. Karl Rove is gloating, John Ashcroft is preparing to re-anoint himself in Crisco while going after those who have found more creative uses for shortening, and our soldiers are still dying. But wait! What's this? Those DLC squares have some internet geeks too? They've got grassroots? They've got cash? And what are they doing? They're fanning out across the country, with their blogs and their flyers. Reagan Dems like my dad do intensive outreach to those disaffected Republicans and Independents in the so-called Red states. Clark socialists like me party with the Deaniacs and thin their ranks. Little-d democrats come out of the woodwork in unlikely places, found at soldiers' funerals, in unemployment lines, even at church socials. Suddenly Karl Rove is popping tranquilizers and the race looks not-at-all-assured.

Bizarro-world? Maybe. But maybe what we're living in right now is the bizarro-world.

And anyway, it's Christmas Eve. And even though it's not a holiday I celebrate, even though I'm the perpetual pessimist, today I feel hopeful.

Today, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

Continuing Saga of Clark-Dean scuffle over VP...

Earlier today I wrote "I'm guessing Dean did in fact offer the VP spot to Clark, but obliquely enough that he could plausibly deny having done so. Dean can feel comfortable saying he did not offer the spot to Clark, since he probably never said something like "Hey, support me, and you can be my veep." And Clark is not lying when he says the idea was "dangled". He's simply answering honestly about the implicit content of a meeting that was no doubt full of ambiguity."

Clark confirms this in an interview with Judy Woodruff of CNN:

WOODRUFF: General Clark, you're obviously in South Carolina campaigning for the presidency. But I want to clarify something about this vice presidential offer, so-called. You have said that Howard Dean offered you the slot as his running mate. He today is saying he never did that. Set us straight. What happened? Did he or didn't he?

CLARK: Well, we had a private meeting. And I told him that the key thing for me was to decide whether I was going to run for the presidency or not. He said, Well don't you want to know what the alternatives are?

And at first I said, No. And then I said, OK, well fine, go ahead and tell me but that's not going to affect my decision. He said, Well I'm thinking, you know, the vice presidency, and that kind of thing. It wasn't like, sign on the dotted line.

But it was discussed, it was discussed by him. It was brought up by him in a very positive fashion. And it's not something I've ever seriously considered.

But I think the point here is that his campaign has used this for some time as an effort to sort of buttress his national security flank by saying I might be his running mate. My point is, I'm running to be president of the United States, not to be his vice president. And I'm getting a lot of traction on that.

WOODRUFF: Just to be clear, then, he didn't formally offer you the job or the post as running mate, as his vice presidential running mate, if he gets the nomination?

CLARK: No. But just to be clear, he made the offer. Nobody's going to formally offer that position until the whole process is gone through. But let's put it this way, as I said yesterday, it was dangled out there and discussed. I mean it was offered as much as it could have been, I think.

I love the way Clark refuses to be bullied into saying Dean didn't really make the offer.

Okay, I have a sleeping baby pressing down on my carpal tunnel as I'm typing, so I think it's time to quit my obsessive blogging for the day...

Canvassing in Florida: Implications for the General Election

In the 2000 general election the presidency was decided by 500 or so votes in Florida. It would therefore be instructive to look at the current situation in Florida and the strength and weaknesses of the various candidates. The polls tell little about the most important issue for the Democrats in this election: who is the strongest candidate to take on Bush? Many of the poll respondents don't know much about most of the Democratic candidates, while Bush is well known. Moreover, the polls have fluctuated wildly in the last few months, with some polls showing Bush defeated by an unnamed candidate and others showing a landslide for the incumbent. If the Democrats can win Florida, this will go a long way toward winning the White House.

For the last few weeks I have been canvassing extensively for Clark in Titusville, Florida, a town of 35,000 on the east coast, near Kennedy Space Center. This is an extremely Republican part of the state. My canvassing found few registered Democrats, but several thinking Republicans and Independents. Many of the Republicans expressed great admiration for the president and had no problem with his policies. However a significant percentage -- about twenty percent in this unscientific poll -- had grave reservations about Bush, centered around his policy in Iraq and the large deficit. Still others were concerned about the future makeup of the Supreme Court if Bush were re-elected. The problem these Republicans and Independents faced was finding someone on the Democratic side with whom they were compatible and could vote for. They were concerned about national security, the deficit and the fracturing of the American electorate under the current president. They unequivocally rejected Howard Dean as an alternative, and for the most part were not comfortable with any of the other candidates except for Wes Clark. They were drawn to him because of his military background and foreign policy experience -- powerful issues for many Republicans. The Florida Coordinator for Clark tells me that 20 to 30 percent of Clark volunteers are Republicans, which tallies with my own experience. If we write these voters off, as Dean's campaign would like to, we effectively are writing off Florida and other swing states. This is a recipe for disaster. There are few new voters in my state that Dean can mobilize to offset those that he will lose.

Winning the general election by ceding the entire South to the Republicans and focusing on other regions, as some have suggested, is an iffy strategy at best. Certainly Florida is winnable with the right candidate. But this candidate must appeal to Independents and at least some Republicans, and based on my experience the only candidate who can do this is Wes Clark.

[posted by Amy but written by her technology-challenged Dad, Mickey]

I found a Wesley Clark t-shirt that I like...

Earlier I complained about the Clark campaign's lack of t-shirts that appeal to me. I did find a shirt I liked, although it's not from the 'official campaign store,' but from the Wesley Clark Weblog store at Cafe Press.

Anyway, here it is, and I've ordered it. Yay.

A nice Clark-supporter story...

on a Clark campaign blog

My husband Will had a great time in the grocery store parking lot this weekend. He was about to pull out of the parking space when an older gentleman knocked on his window and said, "Bush in 04!!" (He had no doubt spied my husband's "Clark in 04" bumper sticker.) Will rolled down his window and said, "I can't do that - I love my country too much." To which the man responded, "Well, if you'd spent any time in the military, you would probably think differently!" To which Will responded, "I won the National Defense Medal in Desert Storm." The startled man sputtered, "Oh, well, good for you," and quickly walked off . . . .

Did Dean offer Clark the VP spot? And what's it all about?

As the race for the Dem nomination rapidly becomes a Dean-Clark one-on-one, the campaigns and candidates are seen to, uh, clash. Latest dispute is about whether Howard Dean offered Wes Clark a spot on his ticket as VP. And it's getting ugly...

First, Clark says tells ABC News that the vice president's slot "was sort of discussed ... and dangled before I made the decision to run" in a meeting he had with Dean in September.

Then, Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, following Clark on the same ABC News program, denies that the issue was discussed.

Then Matt Bennett, Clark Campaign Communications Director, issued a brief, snippy statement:

"Joe Trippi may want to check in with his candidate before talking. Howard Dean did in fact offer Wes Clark a place on the ticket in a one-on-one meeting that Trippi did not attend. Joe Trippi shouldn't comment on meetings he wasn't invited to."

Finally, Reuters called up Dean himself and asked if he had offered the spot to Clark.

"No, I did not," Dean told Reuters in a telephone interview. "I think Wes is a good guy. I think he'd be a good running mate, but I think it would be highly foolish of me to offer anybody the running mate spot."

Is someone lying? Probably not. I'm guessing Dean did in fact offer the VP spot to Clark, but obliquely enough that he could plausibly deny having done so. Dean can feel comfortable saying he did not offer the spot to Clark, since he probably never said something like "Hey, support me, and you can be my veep." And Clark is not lying when he says the idea was "dangled". He's simply answering honestly about the implicit content of a meeting that was no doubt full of ambiguity.

It is disingenuous of Dean to claim that he hasn't thought about his VP spot at all. Given that he and Clark did meet in September, what the hell else could they have been discussing?

Dean Admits To Lack of Foreign Policy Experience; Bush Team Prepares for Landslide Victory In Wartime Election

Yesterday Howard Dean admitted that he had a hole in his resume with regard to foreign policy, one that he hoped to plug with his vice presidential nominee. This is not a good place to have a hole given the current state of the world. Five years ago it may not have been so important, but today it's critical. We have already seen what on-the- job training in foreign affairs cam be like; as well as leaving this area of responsibility to one's vice-president. Neither seems to work very well, at least in Republican hands.

But the larger issue is not so much the lack of hands-on expertise in this area, although this is important, but rather what Karl Rove and company will do with this "hole". THEY WILL DRIVE A SHERMAN TANK THROUGH IT. If Bush and company could destroy Max Cleland, don't you think that they are salivating about getting their hands on Howard Dean with his "slightly deficient resume"? We are at war, and they will play that for all it is worth. No, it is not a good time to run a candidate with no foreign policy experience, especially one who, after being declared unfit for military service, spent the year skiing in Aspen.

This election all good Democrats who want to win and not just make a statement should remember that the republicans have a 200 million dollar war chest and they have experts who know how to use it. So let's not make it any easier for them than it already is. Let's nominate a candidate who can't easily be called a traitor or draft dodger. Let's nominate Wes Clark.

[posted by Amy but written by her technology-challenged Dad, Mickey]

Wherein Amy admits to Dean campaign envy

Culturally speaking I'd probably be happier in the Dean campaign. Lots of Clark campaigners seem to be military or ex-military, and that's not the milieu in which I feel most comfortable. I remember once my freshman year of college my friend Brian in ROTC had to go to some kind of ROTC formal, and he had to bring a date, cause that's what you did, so he took me with him. There was a long receiving line that we had to go through to meet all the higher-ups and their wives, and the whole thing was this surreal experience....I felt any second like someone there was going to call me out "You! Hippie girl! Give me 20!"

I have much the same feeling in the Clark campaign.

In some ways this is a good thing. We need to get over the culture wars, and one way to do that is to hang out with people with whom we are otherwise not likely to hang out. It's less fun, because bridging those gaps in experience is pretty hard work.

The Dean campaign makes citizenship look easy and fun. I could go to parties with other young people for whom college was a blur of cultural studies classes and really good bud and student actions in support of university service worker strikes. You can get Dean buttons in colors other than red, white, and blue, and spaghetti strap Dean t-shirts (not that anyone would see me in a spaghetti strap t-shirt this time of year anyway...). The Clark campaign offers a "Clark 04 Running Bib". I didn't even know there was something called a running bib. I certainly don't want to wear one. And the t-shirts are of the ordinary type, which don't fit well on women with big breasts. (They just make you look fat and dumpy, not pleasantly busty...) I am not above using the words "Clark for President" stretched across my bust in a tight-fitting baby-doll t-shirt to attract men on the street to take a flyer from me. (Sorry to gross you out, Dad...)

Anyway, I'm sure I'm stereotyping the Dean campaign, just as I'm sure I'm stereotyping the Clark campaign. But I'm trying to explain a certain wistfulness I have. It usually goes by the name nostalgia. It is nostalgia that attracts me to the Dean campaign, a half-dreamt memory of easy community. My nostalgia falls over me in waves of unease -- what if I made the wrong decision? What if I'd really be happier in the Dean campaign? Did I pick the wrong club after all?

But campaigns are not candidates. One does not support a candidate because his merchandise is better or the people look like more fun, or somehow seem more like my kind of people. A campaign is an organization that exists to further a goal, and doesn't have much to do, it seems, with what happens after that goal has been either reached or abandoned. The ability to throw good parties as a campaign does not translate into the ability to lead a country of citizens who are very different from one another. Americans don't need to be able to party together in peace and harmony. We need to be able to work together, respect each other, use our differences to our advantage, come together to meet common goals despite those differences. We need to be able to be citizens together.

And no one ever said that would be easy or fun.

Wes Clark makes the word "Patriot" sound like something I could call myself with a straight face...

I think a lot of us lefty-types (I speak of Max and myself here, I don't think anyone would call my dad a lefty-type --although maybe he'll correct me?) have a hard time with the sound of the word "patriotism" in our mouths. After 9/11 we all felt pretty patriotic, but then John Ashcroft started telling me that criticizing the government was giving aid to the terrorists, and patriotism started feeling like jingoism again.

I love my country. But I'm not sentimental about it. So many people who are patriotic in a saccharine way are certain we live in the best place in the world, but having never left the country nor learned much about anyplace else, they really have nothing against which to compare. I've seen what's out there, at least some of it, in the rest of the world -- the crappy roads, the legless beggars, and the shantytowns. But I've also seen far better public transport, higher quality food, more respect for workers, and universal health care.

We enjoy staggering wealth and freedom here, and that's something to be happy about. But we're not perfect. Saying that shouldn't make me un-American.

And then comes along General Clark, and he says:

The New American Patriotism I've talked about is emerging strongly around the country. These are people who want to pitch in and help, not just wave flags. And these patriots also understand that what we're protecting isn't just our borders against an invasion but also our rights and ideals against their compromise. That's why one of the strongest reactions I get is in pointing out that in a democracy in time of war, dialogue and debate, disagreement and dissension are the essence of patriotism - not a failure but a celebration of who we are as a nation! No Administration has the right to say that if you disagree, it's unpatriotic!

Wait! You mean, I can be a patriot even if I---

• like France and buy their cheese
  
• Don't like going to Fourth of July picnics and don't get teary-eyed at the Boston Pops rendition of the 1812 overture...
  
• Don't like waving a flag
  
• Think socialized medicine is a good idea
  
• Hate a lot of things about American consumer 'culture'
  
• don't particularly like the look of red, white, and blue together (too primary for me)
  
• vacation regularly in other countries

Hey, maybe loving your country is kinda like loving your family: you love 'em, you hate 'em, you complain to your shrink about 'em, you wish you didn't have to deal with them, you think they're crazy, why'd they do that? remember when they did such-and-such and how terrible that turned out? but in the end you're stuck with them, and when you look at other peoples' families you realize yours is actually pretty good after all, and you're proud to be a member of your family, for about three seconds until something else about them ticks you off and there you are again, complaining.

Some of us are just complainers. It doesn't mean we don't love that about which we complain so heartily...

Hey, maybe I'm a patriot after all....

For Republicans suffering a crisis of conscience...

here's a very nice essay posted on the Georgia for Clark site about crossing party lines for Clark

Give now to Clark for President

To those of you who read this blog and have been convinced that Clark is the best candidate to win back the White House in 2004: time is running out. The race at this point is judged by who has raised the most money, and Clark needs every dollar he can get before the end of this fundraising quarter. Please give whatever you can now! For those of you who still have jobs and can afford to give more than 250 dollars please divide it and give under two names {husband, wife, significant other, etc.} so that Clark can receive the maximum in Federal matching funds ($250 per donor).

Dr. Dean and the Rebel Gang

I should be a Dean supporter. My demographics are almost right for it. I am young, white, and liberally educated. Many of my old friends are Deaniacs. I went to Phish concerts in college. I could be hanging around Vermont right now, coding with the best of them, dreaming of an internet-politics revolution.

But you see, I've got this 8-month-old son. And I'm the treasurer of my condo association, and I've gotta file some form with the IRS about how we are not a for-profit business, but just three apartments who have to pay a man named Schlomo Pincus to pay a snowplow to plow his parking lot. And my husband just got laid off. And after years of expensive psychiatry, I no longer hate my parents.

So, and there isn't any way to say this without sounding obnoxious and alienating Dean supporters reading this, but I'm a grownup now, and I don't have time for the rebellion that drives the Dean campaign. Dean has admirably mobilized an army of activists of my generation (whatever the marketers are calling us these days). He and his supporters claim that this mobilization is proof enough that he can win the general election. I think they're wrong, in that stubborn wrong-headed way that rebellion always is.

When Dr. Dean shouts "I don't want to listen to fundamentalist preachers anymore" to a crowd of Californians, he gets roaring applause in response. But when I hear this, I hear a generation of kids with their hands over their ears, screaming "nah nah nah I'm not listening." Dr. Dean wants to take the Democratic party back. Any appeal to the center, his supporters argue, moves us all further to the right, allowing the Republicans to frame the terms of the national debate. In their view, we are in a tug-of-war, red-vs.-blue states, and the only way to win is to pull harder. It's like the Color Wars that so many of us played in camp. Again, I don't think this is a very grownup view of politics, and I don't think it takes the long-term into account.

I'm not going to say Dr. Dean cannot win the general election. If, despite the efforts of the supporters of other candidates, Dr. Dean is the Democratic nominee, I want to be able to give my energies wholeheartedly to his campaign. If I'm sure he can't win, I'll have a hard time doing that.

So: Dr. Dean could win the general election. But it would be chancy, it would be dirty, and it would be close. Very, very close.

I don't want a close election. Dean supporters want to forget the South. Mobilize the base, screw the center, we're sick of being told what to do by the careful grownups running our party. Al Gore, who was a careful grownup and ended up adrift, is having his own personal midlife crisis by supporting the kids.

We can't forget the red states, and the biggest reason is the Senate.
What good will it do to win the White House and lose the Senate so badly that the President can get nothing done?
What good will it do to win the White House and drive the political wedge in deeper, so that the other half of the electorate becomes the angry half, and we lose again in 2008?

I admire the fervor of the Deaniacs, and I hope, whether or not Dr. Dean wins the nomination, they will stay involved with the Democratic party. But Dean himself has said he doesn't think they will:

I mean, we've already got 39,000 people working for us all around the country ... I really do believe--and I think about this--I want to get this nomination, and if I don't ... these kids are not transferrable. I can't just go out and say, "Okay, so I didn't win the nomination, so go ahead and vote for the Democrats." They're not going to suddenly just go away. That's not gonna happen.

For a candidate to say something like that, for this election, an election that is not about Democratics and Republicans but about democracy and authoritarianism, is both childish and dangerous. If Dean wins the nomination, he'll get my money, my efforts, and my vote, but I won't be happy about it.

I'd rather vote for a grownup. I'd rather vote for someone who is running for president because he understands exactly how important this election is. Who entered the race at the urging of others, not for self-aggrandizement. Someone who has a deep knowledge of foreign policy, genuine patriotism, and an expansive view of freedom. I'd rather vote for a man who is not interested in partisan battles, because he recognizes that this election is not about partisanship but about whether our elections continue to count at all. Our current President is an authoritarian father figure, and he has scared the nation into submission with his stories about the big bad wolf just outside our borders. Shall we run a teenager against him, a kid who tells us he doesn't believe in the big bad wolf, it's just a story daddy uses to keep us docile? Or shall we run a man who has faced the wolf down, seen the evil the wolf has done, brought the wolf to justice, and lived to tell the tale?

I'd rather vote for Wesley Clark. And my bet is that there are a lot of other grownups out there who'd rather vote for him too.

Essential Clark Reading for Inveterate Lefties

Ex-Deaniacs For Clark Even if you are not a Deaniac, this site is chock-full of Clark info from people who never ever thought they'd support a general for President.

The best Fox-News clip ever (Description and link courtesy of Ex-Deaniacs For Clark): Clark Owns a Fox News Clown*
11/17/03 Classic. With all Clark's criticism of the President's handling of Iraq, a Faux flunky insinuates he's unsupportive of the troops. Poor fool never knew what hit him.

Well, okay, his campaign site.

And finally, here is an excellent quote on Clark's domestic policies, courtesy of a great article by Andrew Sabl about why he supports Clark:

Remember that the Army is Biosphere II: a piece of Sweden stuck inside a country that's becoming Brazil.

If Clark seems to lack opinions on domestic policy, it's because he's spent his life in a place that's seceded from domestic policy.... The Army has people with low incomes, but ensures basic living standards and adequate opportunities for all. Clark's book convincingly articulates a case for making the rest of the country like that. . .

A Hanukkah Message Supporting Wes Clark for President

The first night of Hanukkah is coming up. The festival of lights is a celebration of hope.

I have never been one for group holiday messages. I beg your indulgence as I send one this year.

I am writing you to endorse Wesley Clark for President, to explain my endorsement, to ask you to do likewise, and to urge you to throw your efforts behind his campaign for the Democratic nomination.

Some of you haven't thought about the Democratic primaries yet.
Some of you may support other candidates.
Some of you may like Clark but not know how to show your support.
And some of you may be so discouraged that you despair of making a difference, whatever you do, and are researching moving to Canada.

Yesterday I was leafletting for Clark in Coolidge Corner. A man stopped to talk to me. "I appreciate what you are trying to do," he said, "but I'm afraid that our party is intent on sabotaging itself."

"No," I said, "There's still hope. Clark can do it! He's a winner."

"From your mouth to G-d's ears," he said, shaking his head and walking off down the block.

It's hard to fight off the gloom of pessimism, especially at this time of year, when the world itself is dark. But will we say "There is not enough oil for even one night!" or shall we say, "Let us light the lamp, despite the shortage!"

The current administration wants permanent and total control over the government. They do not seek merely to eliminate the Democratic Party, or the left wing of the Democratic Party, but to lead us away from democracy and freedom, to stifle all dissent, and to hide the workings of government behind closed doors.

Will we stand by as our country is taken away from us? When those now in control have fully consolidated their power, to which country shall we flee? There is no place in the world untouched by American power. The most powerful nation in the world cannot fall to authoritarianism. We must therefore stay and fight.

The focus of our fight should now be on defeating the current administration in the 2004 Presidential election. If we lose this fight, next year I will write a different message, for we will need a different strategy. But for now, we must choose a candidate who is able to defeat George Bush and to lead our country in the right direction again.

I believe that candidate is General Wesley Clark.

I believe that General Clark can be the Judah Maccabee of our time.

George Bush ran for President claiming he was "a uniter, not a divider." We have had three years to see how he has divided our country even further. All Americans want freedom and democracy, yet many Americans have become convinced that some Americans want something else. After 9/11, we saw that this was not true, that there are good people everywhere in our country, that we share the same fundamental values. We came to a sense of national unity through our shared tragedy, and then we saw the administration squander it. We are again a house divided.

We need a candidate for President who can represent us all: everyone who is for freedom and democracy and against the rise of authoritarianism in our nation and the world. The candidate must appeal to Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and everyone else. General Wesley Clark is that candidate. He is a little-d democrat first and foremost: an advocate of democracy.

We cannot win the election with a candidate who appeals only to big-D Democrats. This battle is too important for such partisanship.

Our foreign relations are in a shambles. We need a candidate for President who can repair our relationships with other countries and with the UN. We need a candidate who can confidently wield our enormous economic, diplomatic, and military power in a responsible way. We need a candidate who can successfully prosecute the war on terror, repair the damage in Iraq and bring our troops safely home when it is possible to do so. General Clark will stabilize the situation in Iraq, and insist that the Saudis take a leading role in the war on terror and on Al Qaeda. He will ensure that domestic security is not compromised by foreign wars tangential to the war on terror.

As Jews, we need a candidate who has seen genocide firsthand, as General Clark has, during the war in Kosovo. We need a candidate who understands that the Middle East peace process requires that the Arab nations recognize Israel's right to exist, and who will pressure those nations to normalize relations with Israel, in addition to pressuring Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate a lasting peace.

We need a candidate who understands that war is an absolute last resort, because he has been there and seen war firsthand. But we also need a candidate who understands that sometimes you get down to the last resort, and that when you go to war, you should know how to win it. General Clark has that experience. No other candidate does.

We need a candidate whose patriotism cannot be questioned, and who believes passionately that dissent is patriotic. General Clark has said "Nothing is more American; nothing is more patriotic than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable."

We need a candidate who understands that minority rights must be protected in a democratic nation. Clark is against discrimination of any type. He says: "I fought for the right of privacy, I fought for freedom from government intrusion of our personal lives. I fought for the belief that every American is a human being who is worthy of respect and who should be treated fairly and equally, regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation or any other discriminating factor."

At first I supported General Clark only because I thought he had the best chance of beating Bush in a general election. As I have learned more about him, however, I changed my mind. I now believe he has the best chance of beating Bush in a general election because he is the best candidate for the job.

The other candidates are good people. But none of them is the right candidate for the current state of the nation.

If you have not yet decided who to support, I urge you to take the time now to research all the candidates. This is too important to wait and see how things play out in the primaries.

If you already support a candidate other than Clark, I urge you to reconsider. Learn more about Clark. Can the candidate you support win the general election? Can that candidate confidently wield American military and diplomatic power? Has that candidate seen evil in the form of genocide and war, so that he or she can truly say they understand what war is? What freedom is? Can that candidate appeal to all Americans unhappy with the direction of the country, or only to an active, angry minority?

If you would vote for Clark but have not gotten involved in supporting him, then do so. Give gelt! Give money to his campaign before the end of the year. Donate to the campaign in lieu of exchanging Hanukkah gifts. Educate your friends, families, and strangers on the street about Clark, and convince them to support him too. Write your own "Hanukkah message" email, or forward this one. Volunteer for the campaign.

If you think, like that man on the street, that there is nothing you can do, that the fight has already been lost, then do not bother to light your menorah this year. Hanukkah is not a holiday for the hopeless.