© Misty Pfeil | Dreamstime.com

Words fail me. But the electorate didn’t.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

© Kevin Renes | Dreamstime.com

The last debate.

Three weeks to go.

Got me to reminisce about my early exposure to politics.

The first presidential debate I ever watched was the first modern presidential debate: Nixon v. Kennedy, 1960.

I was a kid, growing up in a very political household. My dad had been a precinct captain, and was soon to become Democratic township committeeman of our (before he took over) rock-ribbed Republican suburb.

My mother was the brains of the outfit, who had helped my dad go door to door to elect a Democratic congressman whose name was always gold in their house, even 40 years later, Barratt O’Hara.

The first television we had was purchased not to watch Uncle Miltie and the antics of Lucy and Desi, but rather was acquired to watch the conventions of 1952.

In late 1959, my parents began an impossibly quixotic quest: from our family room they created a national campaign to nominate Chester Bowles of Connecticut for president. Where this cockamamie idea came from I have no idea to this day. A very distinguished progressive politician. Before that, a phenomenally successful advertising executive. Once and future ambassador to India and Under Secretary of State.

Way too qualified for the presidency.

Yr (justifiably) humble svt spent many a weekend that year and through mid-1960 stuffing, addressing and stamping envelopes.

It was a simpler time. Stuffing envelopes in support of a national presidential campaign by hand, indeed.

My parents were crushed when they arrived in Los Angeles for the Democratic convention only to find the fix was in, and Jack Kennedy the landslide nominee.

They left, and took a much needed vacation to San Francisco. But, staying with my grandmother, my siblings and I watched that convention, and the Republican one.

So, aged 12, I accompanied my parents to the nearby Unitarian church, where several large screen TVs were set up for the local Democratic party faithful to watch the proceedings. Of course, this being 1960, the large screen TVs were maybe 25-inch.

But it made an impression.

Nixon: tricky,  in need of a shave for his five-o’clock shadow, not trustworthy.

Kennedy: youthful, dynamic, eloquent.

There was no doubt in my young mind who would win the election.

Fast forward 48 years. (O. M. G.)

Watched the debates (all four of them, start to finish) on MUDGElet No. 3′s 50-inch high definition TV, currently harbored (as is he) in our humble abode.

Can’t hide anything from high definition.

Tonight’s final McCain-Obama debate was the best one of their three, I think. McCain finally seemed to be prepared. Askew, but prepared. Way too focused on plumbers for some reason. Maybe it was something he ate.

And Obama seemed, as always, to have command of the facts and was typically imperturbable in the face of the odd grimaces and all too expected character attacks. Does anyone even slightly to the left of Attila the Hun really care about Bill Ayers?

McCain: Ancient, snarling, reptilian.

Obama: Knowledgeable, calm, reassuring.

As more than one observer has noted tonight, it seems inconceivable that one would willingly invite the former into your living room for the next four years. Jarring. Discordant. Discomforting.

Whereas Senator Obama … well, we’ve been listening to and watching him for many, many months now.

Cool under fire. Thoughtful. Capable.

The choice we citizens face November 4 — now, actually for the many states that are allowing early voting — has never seemed so strikingly clear.

The ugly past v. the handsome future.

And their looks have absolutely nothing to do with that comparison.

It’s it for now. Thanks.

–MUDGE

© Carbouval | Dreamstime.com

So it’s been pretty tough this week, as Faithful Reader might imagine, and we’re dipping our toes gingerly back into the blogging sea tonight.

Nevertheless, we’re all about doing the right thing here at Left-Handed Complement, and in that spirit we’re recycling some of yr (justifiably) humble svt‘s favorite electrons. And, with nearly 470 fresh daily posts in the past 16+ months, the recycling process has an exceptionally rich vein to mine.

I hereby stop apologizing for resuming our observance of the prime directive of blogging: Thou Shalt Blog Daily!

And, I’m guessing that most of you weren’t here nine months ago. As one of my favorite paper publications used to say as they flogged unsold back issues: “If you haven’t read it yet, it’s new for you!”

Blast from the Past!

A post we really, really loved to write, and read, and re-read…

From last fall, originally posted November 13, 2007, and with a woman vice presidential candidate, more germane than ever, titled “mm193: Fuel without oil, or corn.”

MUDGE’S Musings

It’s been an ongoing theme (here, here and here) at Left-Handed Complement: the pandering, wrong-headed concentration on corn derived ethanol as the U.S. main alternative to Saudi (and Nigerian, Gulf of Mexico and North Slope) petroleum to fuel our transportation system.

This past weekend, the NYTimes featured a fascinating look at non-corn alternatives to powering our SUVs.

For years, scientists have known that the building blocks in plant matter — not just corn kernels, but also corn stalks, wood chips, straw and even some household garbage — constituted an immense potential resource that could, in theory, help fill the gasoline tanks of America’s cars and trucks.

Mostly, they have focused on biology as a way to do it, tinkering with bacteria or fungi that could digest the plant material, known as biomass, and extract sugar that could be fermented into ethanol. But now, nipping at the heels of various companies using biological methods, is a new group of entrepreneurs, including Mr. Mandich, who favor chemistry.

The conceptual problem with ethanol from corn has always rested in the strong suspicion that the energy required to process corn to burn in one’s automobile exceeds the yield of energy so created.

Ethanol from corn is a political hot button, especially for all of the presidential campaigners prostrating themselves before Iowa’s farmers — isn’t it high time to divest this country from its inappropriate emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire in the primary process?

You don’t see Georgia influencing election trends, and yet:

In Georgia alone, enough waste wood is available to make two billion gallons of ethanol a year, Mr. Mandich said. If all that material could be captured and converted to fuel, it could replace about 1 percent of the nation’s gasoline consumption.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Fuel Without the Fossil – New York Times

Obviously, there are some very bright people working hard at solutions, made increasingly economically attractive as the baseline of comparison to petroleum-based fuels persists in climbing inexorably toward $4/gallon.

And, corn-based or not, it looks like ethanol is going to be the end result of all of this chemical creativity, since it’s ethanol that has the Congressionally mandated tax credit.

MUDGE used to believe that the fuel cell guys had the answer, but what with the way the real world works, I can’t see corner hydrogen pumps popping up in many neighborhoods in my lifetime. So chemically derived ethanol will have to do.

Good to see U.S. innovation persists. Like the current IBM advertisements proclaim, it’s easy to say, and so very much more difficult to actually do.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

© Kandasamy M | Dreamstime.com

Events, continue to conspire, making it unacceptably late to start a fresh project, but hey, recycling is IN, right? We’re all about doing the right thing here at Left-Handed Complement, and in that spirit we’re recycling some of yr (justifiably) humble svt‘s favorite electrons.

I hereby stop apologizing for observing the prime directive of blogging: Thou Shalt Blog Daily!

And, I’m guessing that most of you weren’t here nine months ago. As one of my favorite paper publications used to say as they flogged unsold back issues: “If you haven’t read it yet, it’s new for you!”

Blast from the Past!

A post we really, really loved to write, and read, and re-read…

From last fall, and, unfortunately, still all too timely, originally posted November 6, 2007, and titled “mm186: War with Iran: Inevitable?”

MUDGE’S Musings

The potential catastrophe of Iran just keeps scaling up. William Arkin, the Washington Post‘s excellent commentator on military affairs updated us Nov. 2 in his Early Warning blog:

The presidential campaigns can’t get enough of talk about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the Bush administration’s eagerness to go to war. Thirty U.S. senators, including Hillary Clinton, sent a letter to President Bush yesterday, reminding him that “no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action in Iran.” Meanwhile, Barack Obama submitted a Senate resolution, also emphasizing that congress must explicitly authorize military action, and that, in regards to Iran, it hasn’t done that so far.

Let me say now, based on my discussions with Pentagon insiders and observers and more than 30 years following the military: We are not going to war with Iran. At least we are not going to start a war now or any time soon. At least not intentionally [emphasis MUDGE].

Can’t help but land hard on that sentence. How much tragedy has the present administration caused, both intentionally and not, over the past nearly seven years?

Way too much, and one can’t help believing that for all of the hidden agendas, the sweetheart procurement deals on a $trillion scale, and the subversion of the workings of government to religious extremism (we’re still talking the U.S. here, folks, we haven’t started in on Iran!), much of the ongoing catastrophe has been the result of inattention and a view of the geopolitical world seemingly so narrow as to be detectable only with an electron microscope.

So, Iran. Maker’s of world class mischief in Syria and Lebanon, interfering almost overtly in Iraq, chief exporter of Islamofascism and terrorism to the western world, and working hard to launch a nuke into Tel Aviv.

It’s symmetry: Now we’re talking about subversion of the Iranian government to religious extremism, a process that the U.S. made inevitable during nearly 30 years of lavish support of the corrupt Shah they illegally put in place. The U.S. has many decades of petrodiplomacy to answer for.

Arkin’s take on the election rhetoric is that the candidates’ words and deeds on the subject of Iran are only making Iran more nervous about U.S. intentions, and that can’t help anything.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Keep It Down – Early Warning

Mr. Arkin, everyone is supposed to quiet down so that we don’t provoke Iran into doing sooner what they seem to have every intention of doing eventually?

Everyone is supposed to quiet down so that the cooler military heads (compared to the raving maniacs of the administration) can remain coolly overwhelmed by the two official wars that the administration has tasked them with?

It’s a great idea but I just don’t see the candidates of either party letting such a juicy rhetorical target go by, with 440 days of 24-hour campaigning still to be filled.

It’s a great idea, but I just don’t know that Iran will wait for a new, somewhat more diplomatic and worldly U.S. administration.

And I have to reluctantly venture the fear that I don’t know whether Israel can afford to wait.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

© Michaeljung | Dreamstime.com

MUDGE’s Musings

We observe the first anniversary of the tragic collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis (August 1, 2007) with some sadness, and furious anger.

Sadness due to the thirteen lives lost, and 100+ injured.

Anger because the danger embodied in this country’s aging and dilapidated bridges, highways, levees and schools is criminally no closer to alleviation than 366 days ago.

Meanwhile, the economy is faltering: banks are failing, foreclosures are at record highs (three million empty houses!), the ranks of under- and unemployed growing apace.

What is it going to take to repair this country’s infrastructure osteoporosis?

What is it going to take to kick start the economy, to get people working and once again able to meet their mortgage obligations, perhaps even afford that $4.299/gallon gasoline?

It’s going to take a liberal quantity of bold.

I wasn’t there (my parents were young children) but this country faced a disturbingly similar crisis 76 years ago. Banks had failed by the thousands (defenestration became a popular Wall Street exit strategy). Millions of able bodied workers had no work.

The country, whose industrial and military might had tipped the balance and ended the bloody stalemate of the Great War, turned inward, closing off immigration, its historic lifeblood, and barricading trade, sending the entire globe into economic free fall.

The incumbent party (would you be surprised if I revealed that it was the Republican party?) wrung its hands and was the picture of abject futility.

A well-spoken and charismatic graduate of Harvard University stepped forward with some fresh ideas, promising a New Deal for the American people, and declaring that “the only thing to fear is fear itself.”

That New Deal served the country well for nearly 60 years. Hundreds of thousands were put to work to build highways, bridges, schools and dams. Labor and racial justice became the law of the land. Once again, this country’s industrial and military might prevailed in an even larger scale global war, the prelude to an economic and cultural explosion that became the envy of the world.

In many ways, it’s 1932 again. Bankrupted by pointless, and even worse, corruptly mismanaged war; hollowed out by energy policies set in Texas and Saudi Arabia for the benefit of the president’s oilmen sponsors; crumbling because the plutocrats have bamboozled citizens into believing that all taxes are bad, especially the ones that would make the plutocrats pay their fair share.

It’s going to take vision to fix the moral, the physical, the spiritual disrepair.

Hell, it’s going to take vision to recognize the mess in the first place, and vision to reach out for good plans from wherever they come (some of Roosevelt’s first programs, after all, were muscled up continuations of Hoover initiatives).

It’s going to take a liberal quantity of bold.

So, which party has the candidate with vision, who speaks with clarity, and seems to effortlessly engender inspiration and enthusiasm?

And which party has, despite its sober promises, begun swift boating and Rove-ing its way toward November?

So, where should our new president begin on January 20, 2009? That futile war needs to be contained, and ended, but that won’t happen overnight.

Al Gore and Boone Pickens won’t be severing our addiction to Middle Eastern petroleum in an instant, or even soon.

But those deteriorating bridges and roads, schools and levees: that’s an initiative that could begin Day One.

Put people to work, in the spirit of the reNEWed DEAL, rebuilding those highways and bridges.

Put people to work, in the spirit of the reNEWed DEAL, finishing with alacrity what the derelict administration of George III has disgracefully left incomplete, the restoration of New Orleans and its levees.

Put people to work, albeit with some training, in the spirit of the reNEWed DEAL, in those schools with too few teachers and too many underserved students, burying forever the lip service cynicism of “No Child Left Behind” and insisting that our children learn what they need to know, not what they need to pass dumbed down tests.

All this costs. Start by restoring equitable taxation on those of the plutocracy who have had a tax holiday for too many years. Ending that money pit called the Iraq Occupation, and getting smarter about resources and targets in Afghanistan will free up $zillions.

It’s going to take a liberal quantity of bold.

I believe I know from where bold might come from. I absolutely know from where it most definitely won’t.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

© Joshua Wanyama | Dreamstime.com

MUDGE’S Musings

A bit lost in the top of the week media frenzy: the failure and resulting run on IndyMac Bank; serious troubles at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; extreme umbrage over the satirical The New Yorker cover; a certain presidential candidate delivered a compelling essay on national topic 1a, Iraq.

This pointless and criminally mismanaged war in Iraq was, for several agonizing years, national topic 1, until the not quite official recession took over honors as the new leading source of voter anxiety.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama has taken some heat from what one writer last week described as the “Republic of Portland,” the extreme left wing of his party, concerned about a candidacy that, once the primaries were completed, seemed to veer toward the center.

Time then to begin to flesh out a keystone promise, to “left” the ship, as it were: ending the U.S. war in Iraq.

My Plan for Iraq

Op-Ed Contributor | By BARACK OBAMA | Published: July 14, 2008

CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

Senator Obama is no knee-jerk peacenik, unlike many denizens of his party’s extreme left wing. He is open minded enough to recognize that this nation has military responsibilities that require a military response; unfortunately, our involvement in Iraq is impeding our ability to so respond.

So he has a plan, quite different from his opponent in this election campaign, superannuated Senator McCain.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

If you can tear yourself away from bank failures and umbrage-taking, take a look at the Senator’s specifics.

Op-Ed Contributor – Barack Obama – Op-Ed – My Plan for Iraq – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com

The man makes sense. At the end of the day, that’s what this nation needs, sense, not criminality. Clear thinking and reasoned decisions, not thoughtless attachment to the policies of a defiled administration.

January 20, 2009 can’t come soon enough.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would reject public financing for his campaign, after claiming this primary season that he would follow the lead of his Republican opponent. McCain had already announced (he had no choice, that well is pretty dried up for him) that he would rely on public campaign finance for the general election.

Obama is taking much heat from all sides for this change of position. For example,

The Two Obamas

Op-Ed Columnist | By DAVID BROOKS | Published: June 20, 2008

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson….

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

Idealist Democrats have been losing presidential elections since Jimmy Carter’s attempt for a second term in 1980. In the intervening 28 years, only the world’s American champion of pragmatism, not to say political weasalism, Bill Clinton, has won election as a Democrat. Those other guys thought that the playing field was level, that their opponents the Republican party would do the honorable thing. They staked out the moral high ground. And lost. Every last time.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Op-Ed Columnist – The Two Obamas – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com

Now, Barack Obama, Harvard educated, articulate in a way that this country has grown unaccustomed to in its national leadership, just plain smart, has shown that he can play in the political big leagues.

He’s raised unprecedented amounts of campaign funding, through zillions of small, individual contributions. He’s in a position to outspend the Republicans, for the first time in forever. Even now, the Republican National Committee, the covert source of so much of the sleazy campaign initiatives like the Swift Boaters, has $54 million to the Democratic National Committee’s $4 million.

Obama knows that the Republicans will throw up the slander and innuendo in industrial strength quantity, and that the only way to counter this is NOT to ignore it.

In this country, idealists ignore gossip and slander, and lose. Every last time.

Senator Obama will use his funding to do as he’s recently done, establish a web site designed to counteract the worst of the calumnies, and even put up expensive television advertising where necessary to take the battle to the guys who have made an art of serving up the slime.

Already he’s advertising in states in which the Democrats have not for many years nationally advertised, long since having resignedly conceded them to the foe.

Not this year.

So, what changed between primary season and now, where so many hand-wringers are so concerned about the pragmatic about face?

Bunches of campaign $millions changed his mind.

Yr (justifiably) humble svt will concur with another commentator who is pleased with the revelation that a Democrat, indeed any politician of any stripe, is capable of reevaluating a long-held position based on new information.

In this frighteningly fast-changing world, isn’t that a desirable capacity for the leader of his nation? Especially after eight years of an administration that has not let reality change its skewed, distorted and disturbed mind-set one nanometer.

Barry, fund-raise like a demon. Spend like crazy. End. The. Madness.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Paul Krugman has appeared in this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere© quite frequently; he’s an economist, and an insightful writer, and a lot of news lately has been about our economy, and cries out for insight.

Since so much of the U.S. economy is driven by consumers, and has been, I’m imagining, since the end of World War II, when the bomber factories returned to stamping out annual cosmetic freshenings of shiny Fords, Plymouths and Hudsons to an eager population that couldn’t wait to “See the U.S.A in your Chevrolet,” consumer perceptions are a key indicator of economic health.

It’s no accident, I’m thinking, that the annual survey Krugman quotes, the Consumer Sentiment Index, comes out of the University of Michigan. Its Ann Arbor campus is nigh to the heart of that same automobile industry, and very little drives the economy like the sale of automobiles.

Pity that Detroit has taken so long to remember how to build a good car, but that’s a discussion for another time, or place.

Meanwhile, even Toyota sales are off… I’d say the consumer is downright depressed.

Crisis of Confidence

By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: April 14, 2008

The Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan has been tracking American economic perceptions since the 1950s. On Friday the center released its latest estimate of the consumer sentiment index — and it was a stunner. Americans are more pessimistic about their situation than they have been for more than a quarter century….

Why are we feeling so down?

Our bleakness partly reflects the fact that most Americans are doing considerably worse than the usual economic measures let on. The official unemployment rate may be relatively low — but the percentage of prime-working-age Americans without jobs, which isn’t the same thing, is historically high. Gross domestic product is up, but the inflation-adjusted income of the median family is probably lower than it was in 2000.

Beyond that, perceptions of the current economy are strongly influenced by the public’s sense of the larger pattern.

Larger pattern. Let’s see: investment bank bail-outs. Foreclosures in a cul-de-sac near you. $zillion dollar payouts to executives who apparently couldn’t manage risk better than the sap plunging $50 his family needs for groceries on this week’s mega lottery. [Need I link to the quote? Not necessary. The lottery is a tax on people who failed to learn math.]

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Crisis of Confidence – New York Times

Mr. Krugman has been rather unimpressed over this presidential primary season with the candidates’ statements and position papers on the economy, and what they plan to do should the depressed public choose them come November.

The good news: should a Democrat win (and how odd it is to have to place this in the conditional), there could possibly be changes along the lines Krugman suggests: regulation with sincerity (mainly a joke these past 8 years); policies favoring labor (small ‘L’), perhaps ending some of the attractiveness of outsourcing and raising the minimum wage. Such steps could jolt us out of our doldrums, perceived and real.

Meanwhile, 300,000,000 doses of Wellbutrin, stat!

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

Can’t help it! It’s like a tennis match, this run-up to the Democratic convention.

Ooh, she hit a good one!

Swack! He got her good on that one!

Etc.

And, the happiest tennis fan in the stadium is John McCain, who sees the Democrats doing the heavy lifting for he and the until recently hapless Republican party. They’ve gotta be figuring that Clinton and Obama are dealing each other unrecoverable blows; they’ll be too exhausted to put up a defense against him come the general election, and McCain and the Republicans must be taking notes on what stroke aimed where is the most effective.

End of the tennis allusion; never my game, actually. (I was left-handed before left-handed tennis was glamorous.) But, you see its appropriateness.

He’s winning; she and her staff are working at fever pitch to stop him. Kind of ugly out there.

And the professional commentariat notices (as, of course, do we modestly talented amateurs):

Hillary or Nobody?

By MAUREEN DOWD | Published: March 26, 2008

While the cool cat’s away, the Hillary mice will play.

As Barack Obama was floating in the pool with his daughters the last few days in St. Thomas, some Clinton disciples were floating the idea of St. Hillary as his vice president.

She can’t win without him, said one Hillary adviser, and he can’t win without her.

They’re stuck with each other.

It’s one of my favorite movie formulas, driving the dynamics in such classics as “A Few Good Men,” “The Big Easy” and “Guys and Dolls”: Charming, glib guy spars and quarrels with no-nonsense, driven girl, until they team up in the last reel. He spices up her life, and she stiffens his spine. And soon they hear the pitter-patter of little superdelegate feet, who are thrilled not to be pulled in two directions anymore.

And everybody’s happy. Or are they?

Dowd sees a downright Machiavellian twist: beat up Obama, let McCain win, and…

Even some Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill — which continued Tuesday when Hillary tried to drag Rev. Wright back into the spotlight — is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain.

If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.

Plausible, in an “inside the beltway” sort of analysis. Ugly though.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Hillary or Nobody? – New York Times

So, if this was just Maureen Dowd, one could chalk it up to “how am I going to fill the column inches today?” and move on.

Exhibit 2, from the day before:

The Long Defeat

By DAVID BROOKS | Published: March 25, 2008

Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.

It seems fairly clear from Brooks’ reading of the tea leaves, that Clinton can most likely not gain the nomination. Her chances now?

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent.

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

And here’s the cruelest quote of all:

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Brooks thinks she should do the right thing, wait for the right moment (but a soon moment), and withdraw.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

The Long Defeat – New York Times

Now to Exhibit 3:

Obama has not only out-campaigned her, she’s also done an excellent job of stabbing herself in the eyeball.

This from one of our favorite writers at Slate, Emily Yoffe, posting in Slate’s “The XX Factor” blog:

Experience?

By Emily Yoffe | Published Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:05 PM

One of Hillary Clinton’s rationales for staying in the race when she was getting battered in a string of defeats was that she was so much more experienced than Barack Obama, that over time his inexperience would cause him to stumble. That would leave Clinton, having been so gruelingly tested over so many years, ultimately victorious. But isn’t it ironic that now a central Clinton claim on the presidency—her experience—is making her look foolish.

One “exaggeration” after another, all that experience. “First Lady” is a very polite title; but it’s not “Vice President” for heaven’s sake!

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

The XX Factor : Experience?

So, let’s put these “mis-remembered” incidents into context. As the video that outed Mrs. Clinton this week shows, there are people who were there, and remember what was happening in Bosnia with, let’s just say, more certain accuracy.

Exhibit 4:

Imagined Snipers, Real Challenges

By ROGER COHEN | Published: March 27, 2008

Here’s some news for Hillary Clinton: the Bosnian war was over in 1996.

Those of us, like myself, who first went to Bosnia at the start of the war in 1992 and then, in 1994 and 1995, endured President Bill Clinton’s circumlocutions as we sat in an encircled Sarajevo watching pregnant women getting blown away by shelling from Serbian gunners, know that…

So, yes, the war was well and truly over when Hillary Clinton arrived in the northeastern Bosnian town of Tuzla on March 25, 1996. It was over, although she recently recalled “landing under sniper fire.” It was over when “we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

So what’s this all about, these lies about experience? Seems straightforward to me: it’s SOP today to distort, or lie outright on one’s résumé. For a journalist to make up quotes if the real ones are too inconvenient to acquire. For autobiographers to totally invent a colorful past. CEO’s invent college credentials. It’s a trend, folks, an ugly trend, and if it’s unseemly for our journalists, our autobiographers, our television stars, it’s absolutely outrageous for this nation’s leaders. Cohen says,

Clinton made up Bosnian sniper fire in an attempt to show that she’s tougher than Barack Obama; that she’s a hardened, seasoned, putative commander in chief ready to respond to crisis when the “red phone” of her fear-mongering ad rings.

John McCain’s own recent “misspeaking” about Iran, placing (Sunni) Al Qaeda in (Shiite) Iran, also smacked of muscle-flexing: he wanted to signal toughness to the mullahs in Tehran, where Obama has suggested he’d seek dialogue.

Cohen’s point: this country needs reflection, not reflexive reaction. This country needs intellect; we’ve had quite enough macho cowboy “shoot first and ask questions later” to last us forever.

The obvious contrast to shrill Hillary, and past his prime McCain? Erudite, reflective, Barack Obama, the anti-cowboy.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Imagined Snipers, Real Challenges – New York Times

Yr (justifiably) humble svt has only written at length regarding Hillary Clinton’s candidacy once before, about six weeks ago before the recent unpleasantness that has put a grin on the face of John McCain and the Republicans, who thought they might never smile again.

Here’s some of what I said then:

mm284: A vote against Hillary is NOT a vote against women in high office

… Thus, I have absolutely no trouble with the concept of a woman ascending to the office of President of the United States of America. Long overdue.

But.

I’ve had trouble from Day 1 with the actuality of the particular woman who seeks that office this year.

And it’s not about her gender whatsoever.

Maureen Dowd in today’s NYTimes finally expressed out loud what many of us of the progressive persuasion have not expressed out loud, although perhaps it has been manifested in polling places for the past six weeks. Because, after all, it doesn’t seem very progressive, or very feminist, to be against a woman running for president.

It’s about this woman….

So, wife, daughter, mothers, bosses, please understand how sincere I am.

This country is more than ready for a strong competent leader.

If that strong competent leader is of a progressive frame of mind, so much the better.

If that progressive strong competent leader happens to be a black man, or Hispanic, or a self-made billionaire mayor, or a woman, well, it’s about time.

But this woman?

Sorry, can’t do it.

Even less now, than then.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

It wasn’t just this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere© and the NYTimes editorial board who were impressed with Tuesday’s Philadelphia declaration.

Obama Offers a Progressive Vision of Patriotism

By Drew Westen, Huffington Post. Posted March 21, 2008.

Obama’s brilliant discussion of race, class and patriotism shows substance unlike any politician in recent history.

I watched Barack Obama’s speech Tuesday morning intently. The “pre-game show” of cable commentators predicted a somewhat grim outcome. What could Obama say that could possibly overcome his association with the words of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Would he throw his pastor on the train tracks? And even if he did, would he still suffer from guilt by association?

But then, for 45 minutes, I saw a man who for days had appeared somewhat at sea, buffeted by waves that relentlessly pushed him off course, seem to find his compass and chart a course directly into the eye of the storm. I saw a man with the inner confidence, and the steadiness of a captain who knew he was sailing on uncharted waters but needed to go there anyway, take the nation with him and land them safely on the shore.

In our 24-hour news network world, analysis is instant, and is offered like the play-by-play of a football game, almost always with less insight.

Will they be writing books about Obama’s Philadelphia speech the way they’ve done for Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address for 145 years? Perhaps not. But, Obama crafted and delivered an extraordinary (overused, sorry, but in this case appropriate) and eloquent statement that deserves the appreciation it has already received.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Obama Offers a Progressive Vision of Patriotism | Election 2008 | AlterNet

Yr (justifiably) humble svt wants to believe that objectivity on his part about people in public life is possible. I am the same guy who, pitying Barry Goldwater as a laughingstock after his ignominious campaign and defeat by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, mustered tremendous respect for the statesman senator from Arizona who, 9 years later, stepped up to call his party’s president to account when he knew the Constitution had been wilfully violated by that president.

I am the same guy who has been intrigued for an entire year by the possible presidential aspiration (okay, probable, it’s only the campaign that was possible) of Michael Bloomberg.

Objectively, Tuesday, I was moved, and have been more than once over the past few years, by the deeds and words of Barack Obama. The man is presidential in a way that far outstrips the “current occupant,” recent occupants, and this year’s competing aspirants, active or retired.

He expresses a vision that, in these all too troubled times, is inspirational. If we’re to make this tossed salad bowl of a nation a melting pot once again, it will take the likes of Barack Obama to get us there, or at least to start getting us there.

A start that is 145 years overdue, at least.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Note!: the link to Amazon.com used above is for the convenience of faithful reader and represents no commercial relationship whatsoever. Left-Handed Complement should be so fortunate as to ever collect remuneration of any kind for this endeavor, and in any event it’s against WordPress.com’s rules. I can link, so I link. It’s technology. It’s cool. It’s an artifact of Sequitur Service©. Deal with it.

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

A defining moment in history? Please judge for yourself.

I had a difficult, tiring, news-free day today. Dragged myself home. Dealt with a clogged toilet. Ugh.

Thought I would “phone it in” as far as the blog was concerned.

Then, I encountered today’s speech, Barack Obama’s response to his pastor’s inflammatory sermons that have raised such a hullabaloo of late. Doesn’t seem to matter that McCain’s endorsements from Evangelical wingnuts are glossed over without comment.

The NYTimes was impressed, as you’ll see.

But, please click the “continue reading” link; I’ve posted the speech in full (YouTube version, thus in 4 parts).

Dare to invest the time, as I did. It will repay your 38 minutes.

Part 1/4

Part 2/4

Part 3/4

Part 4/4

Editorial

Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage

Published: March 19, 2008

There are moments — increasingly rare in risk-abhorrent modern campaigns — when politicians are called upon to bare their fundamental beliefs. In the best of these moments, the speaker does not just salve the current political wound, but also illuminates larger, troubling issues that the nation is wrestling with.

Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion, with its enduring vision of the separation between church and state. Senator Barack Obama, who has not faced such tests of character this year, faced one on Tuesday. It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better.

Mr. Obama had to address race and religion, the two most toxic subjects in politics. He was as powerful and frank as Mitt Romney was weak and calculating earlier this year in his attempt to persuade the religious right that his Mormonism is Christian enough for them.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage – New York Times

We can’t solve this nation’s problems in one day, one year, one or two presidential terms. But we have to start.

Maybe, just maybe, today, we did.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

Independent nonpartisanship has a flexible definition for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

A frequent subject at this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere©, we’ve been intrigued for most of a year with his potential independent candidacy for U.S. president.

See below for a list of links.

Bloomberg left the Republican party last year, many believed in preparation for a run at the presidency as an independent.

Apparently, though, the Republican party in New York State is still close to his heart, or his wallet.

Bloomberg Steps In to Help G.O.P. in Albany Fight

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ |Published: March 1, 2008

While declaring his commitment to nonpartisanship, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is quietly injecting himself — and his money — into one of the most explosive partisan battles in decades in New York.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg quit the Republican Party in June.

Several weeks ago, the mayor wrote a $500,000 check to help keep the dwindling and increasingly imperiled State Senate Republicans from losing their grip on power, according to an official with direct knowledge of the donation.

The Democrats are seeking to gain control of the Senate for the first time in 40 years, and the race is growing personal and bitter.

Here’s that list of stories, including a couple of quite recent ones. Once again, it’s been a popular topic here, so I would guess that a few others share my fascination.

Independence assumes the ability to decide to support whomever one pleases. Nonpartisanship would seem to mean no support, or at least equal support.

But that’s not what’s happening in New York State. No evidence exists that the man is funneling money to the state’s Democrats, who see a historic opportunity to take back the State Senate after 40 years.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Bloomberg Steps In to Help G.O.P. in Albany Fight – New York Times

Mike, your “third way” includes support for the forces in New York State who diametrically oppose your positions on abortion rights and gay marriage?

I guess I’m not surprised that you have shown us again that pragmatic politicians are all the same after all.

Just disappointed at business as always.

And this space officially ends its support for Michael Bloomberg as vice president on the Obama ticket.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

2008′s presidential election promises to have the largest turnout in many years.

An engaged electorate. That’s the good news.

The bad news? The need to accommodate the influx of voters who are galvanized:

• by the issues;
• by the desperate need to get the past eight dysfunctional years behind them;
• by the opportunity to cast a vote for a candidate from a group (women? people of color?) not previously available on a presidential ballot;

all these have created something of a perfect storm for election officials nationwide.

Turnout prompts concerns for Nov.

Election officials ask for more machines

By Richard Wolf | USA TODAY

Record turnout in this year’s presidential primaries has election officials worried about possible shortages of machines, ballots and poll workers in November.

In 17 of the 24 primaries held so far, turnouts were larger than any in the past 40 years, the result of competitive Democratic and Republican contests and earlier primaries. Paper ballots ran out from California to the District of Columbia, more poll workers were needed in Arizona and an electronic voter registration database crashed in Connecticut.

“The biggest problem during the primary season has been too many voters,” says Doug Chapin, director of electionline.org, which tracks voting issues. “Time and time again, the problem has been turnout being up higher than even the most optimistic projection.”

Now officials from Virginia to Texas are warning that they will need more voting machines in the fall to avoid long lines. It’s not clear if county or state officials will pay for additional machines.

And, of even more concern to yr (justifiably) humble svt is the danger of electoral fraud. California and Colorado, as noted in this USA Today story, are returning to paper ballots as a result.

The combination of eliminating technology (where the votes’ provenance might be doubted, thanks to the criminals who have, like all criminals, stolen what they couldn’t earn legitimately) in a time of increasing traffic does not bode well for enabling every energized voter to cast her ballot.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

USATODAY.com

This nanocorner of the ‘Sphere© has noted with concern this all too real possibility of electoral felony here, and here, for example.

The Texas and Ohio primaries this week should provide an excellent test. Both possess large, excited populations of voters; should the electoral infrastructure prove unequal to the challenge, the crisis would become top of mind for everyone.

There are eight months until the general election to come up with solutions. The candidates who are raising funds in such obscene amounts should think hard about earmarking a useful portion to protecting the interests of the voters they are working so hard to influence.

It is clear that every aspect of our national government has been so tainted with partisanship and incompetence that there can be no expectation that the Federal Election Commission, whose mission in any event is campaign finance and not vote assurance, would have escaped the infection.

The people are going to have to see to the provenance of their own votes. A bipartisan foundation to assure fair elections shouldn’t be necessary in the U.S., but our bitter experience in 2000 and 2004, as well as the overwhelming increase in expected voting makes it imperative to act now.

Funded by the candidates of both parties, such a body established immediately would be a timely means of beefing up local election resources to handle the crowds while creating mechanisms that will make this election free from felonious assault.

Shouldn’t really be that expensive, if Rivest and Smith can be believed.

Candidates: eschew a week of television, and assure a fair and honest tally.

FEF: Fair Election Foundation. What a concept!

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

Last post, Michael Bloomberg told us that no, he is not a candidate for the presidency in 2008.

Today, some interesting commentary.

Declining to Enter Field, Mayor Eyes Sideline Role

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and DIANE CARDWELL | Published: February 29, 2008

For more than two years, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg had the ultimate presidential campaign that wasn’t. Aides spent hundreds of hours and untold dollars plotting out a route to the White House. But the prospects for his maybe-I-will, maybe-I-won’t campaign were never tested in the quiet of a voting booth.

This week, as Mr. Bloomberg officially ended his flirtation with a presidential campaign, he said he would seek other ways to influence national politics and spread his gospel of “independent, nonpartisan” politics, perhaps to whoever takes up residence in the White House next year.

One almost feels that it’s embarrassing overkill should we repeat the list of articles we’ve pursued over the past months. Almost.

Just too intriguing to stay away.

But, our fantasy of an Obama-Bloomberg ticket? Vigorous and inspiring poetry at the top; universe-class accomplishment at second chair. What’s not to love?

Mr. Bloomberg on Thursday dismissed the possibility of running for vice president. But he clearly yearns for a prominent role, and the person involved with the discussions about his future suggested he could become treasury secretary or another cabinet member someday.

Sorry, MUDGE, the answer is no. Bloomberg in the cabinet? Done deal, whomever, of whatever party wins.

But he’s a big picture guy and shouldn’t settle.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Declining to Enter Field, Mayor Eyes Sideline Role – New York Times

Mayor Bloomberg wants to be influential, help set the agenda, make an endorsement.

Only, endorsements don’t count for much anymore.

After all, our dreadfully uninformed populace never heard of most of the endorsers, including Mayor Mike.

When he figures this out, maybe he’ll change his mind about the vice presidency. It’s that national stage he belongs on.

One can dream.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

It’s only fitting, for mm300, to return to a most intriguing topic here at this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere©, the potential independent presidential ambitions of Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City.

Faithful reader won’t mind being reminded of some of our previous posts that consider Mr. Bloomberg’s elaborate dance over the past several months.

Indeed, mm066 is the single most hit post on this site.

Obviously, he intrigues many of you as much as he does yr (justifiably) humble svt.

So Mayor Mike wrote an opinion piece in today’s NYTimes.

I’m Not Running for President, but …

By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG | Published: February 28, 2008

WATCHING the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge. And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them.

He makes a case that the issues facing this country defy simplistic solutions and sound bites. The American people must transcend parties and think independently.

MUDGE has tried very diligently over the years to be independent of parties, though his heritage is very strongly Democratic party. Occasionally, I’ve found a Republican who is actually preferable to his Democratic opponent; not often. Fingers of one hand, in nearly four decades of voting. But that’s them, not me.

Another problem: talking to a good friend this week who is a registered Independent — who knew one could do that? Certainly not in my state. Of course, this means he is unable to vote in the primary elections, where he has to declare a party. The entire point of being an independent voter is so that you don’t have to declare. So he finds himself disenfranchised until the general elections.

Back to Mr. Bloomberg. He makes a strong case for an urban agenda, independent of the traditional party positions.

But, here it is in black and white, folks. Read it and weep (or at least gnash your teeth):

I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.

So, Michael, you’ve really decided that the means at your disposal do not include running as an independent?

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

I’m Not Running for President, but … – New York Times

Seems to this observer that, he still is leaving the door to a candidacy ajar. He wants to influence the conversation, and I for one would love to hear more from him. His city isn’t perfect by any means, but his common sense approach has certainly been successful in many of the important measures.

So, I return once again (in that a couple of the posts in the above link list refer to it) to Jon Taplin’s proposal of a couple of months ago, an Obama-Bloomberg ticket. Makes more sense than ever, especially considering the stunning progress Obama has achieved since Taplin wrote in early January pulling in front of Mrs. Clinton.

Now, an Obama-Bloomberg slate (and remember, the once-Democrat Bloomberg resigned from the Republican party last year) answers all of the criticism regarding substance within the eloquent packaging.

Speak hopefully, and carry a big stick. I’m liking this a lot.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!