He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Talk about impolitically correct!
I have to hand it to General Clark. Again. He's just saying the truth. How the media spin it is up to them, but what he said was just the truth.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Why Mugabe still has support and how to deal with him
(crossposted at Daily Kos)
Mugabe may be running one of the less effective dictatorships in the world today, but he does have more support among Zimbabweans today than Bush does among Americans. No, this is not some troll diary arguing that we shouldn't really oppose Mugabe because of all the things he and ZANU-PF did to liberate their country or because he is facing a western imperialist conspiracy against the African people. It's not an argument in favor of Mugabe at all. It's just an attempt to explain why he does still have support in Zimbabwe, who his supporters are, and how well-informed policy could more effectively remove him than the kind of ignorant, "speak loudly but carry a small stick" policy currently favored in Washington could. If you're interested in a little reality based background, read on.
Mugabe certainly gets some backing because of his role as leader of the major guerrilla group in the Chimurenga, the war for independence. That support has been eroded by the failure of his recent economic policies, of course, but why doesn't he change them, what is he getting at, and why do a minority of Zimbabweans continue to support him? That was then, this is now, and why does he seem to be such a different person?
First, you have to understand that the Chimurenga war against the Ian Smith led white oligarchy was not fought so much for independence or even an end to racial discrimination as it was fought over the land. Land is a sacred issue to many Africans, the Shona and Ndebele of Zimbabwe included. If you're Irish you may understand that. The Irish didn't have a concept of private land ownership, but they gave up everything (language, culture, everything that constitutes national identity to most nations) to take back their land. The Shona and the Ndebele felt and feel the same way. They may not have had to give up as much, or fight as long as the Irish did, but they still had to fight. Indeed, they were fighting among themselves over the land when Cecil Rhodes came in and changed its name to Southern Rhodesia.
Joshua Nkomo, head of ZAPU, the Zimbabwe African People's Union, who joined with Mugabe during the Chimurenga but fell out with him later, was once asked by a reporter if he intended to nationalize the land. He said that land belonged to society and everyone has a right to land. Confused, the reporter asked if that meant that he did intend to nationalize land. Nkomo replied (quoting from memory here)
Had he been asked the same question, Mugabe would probably have replied "Yes, we are Marxist-Leninist Communists and we intend to nationalize land." I remember watching an official ZANU-PF representative introducing a documentary about the Tanzam Railway to a Maoist group. He finished his introduction by claiming that "We also had this Marxism Leninism Mao Tse-Tung Thought before the Europeans came." I asked him later if he meant that the Shona way of life was based on principles of Dialectical Materialism. The ZANU-PF representative laughed at my question, which was more Socratic than serious, but he did say that the attitude toward land ownership was the same, that land should be the collective property of the community.
Why had I used the term "Shona way of life" in asking the question?
Because even Jesuit missionaries had trouble figuring out Shona religion, and reverted to teaching them "natural religion" before trying to convert them, it is common to refer to "the Shona way of life" rather than "Shona traditional religion."
from an art site:
from a religious site:
If you want to understand how people there feel about it, give up everything you thought you knew and try to look through other people's eyes. This is not a rational fight over economic policy. It is a sacred struggle over land. Mugabe and his backers still care about that, even if Tsvangirai and his mostly modern, urban, working class followers don't.
ZANU-PF was allied with Maoist China during the Chimurenga, and they were armed by the Chinese. This was partly convenience, but partly ideological, since both were peasant based movements. ZANU-PF had an ethnic base among the Shona, while ZAPU had an ethnic base in the Ndebele. Ethnicity is never the whole story in politics, Zimbabwean or American or elsewhere, but it can't be ignored anywhere, either. ZANU-PF was also peasant based, while ZAPU had a strong base in the urban proletariat. Joshua Nkomo was an old union leader of railway workers, and continued to get strong support from the working class, as well as arms and support from the Soviet Union.
Note to anyone who thinks that ZANU-PF was "pro-Chinese" while ZAPU was "pro-Soviet": you have it backwards. The Soviets were backing ZAPU while the Chinese were backing ZANU-PF. The Chimurenga wasn't started by outside Communist agitators. It was started by Africans for their own purposes.
ZANU-PF in power continued to be a peasant based party concerned primarily with the land issue. They ran the country well for the first several years of their rule, and the country developed so rapidly it was held out as proof that an African country didn't immediately collapse or stagnate just because Africans took over the government. Because of that the example of Zimbabwe was important in convincing the South African government to release Nelson Mandela from prison and negotiating an end to apartheid with him. Mandela has spoken out against what has been going on recently but he is refraining from criticizing Mugabe by name, and some interpret his remarks as even-handed criticism of both sides.
Mugabe's very success changed the political ground from under him. Mugabe and ZANU-PF's continued insistence on the centrality of the land issue and the confiscation of white farms was increasingly irrelevant to the urban proletariat that his successful development policies were creating. They didn't care about the land issue any more. They were more modern than that. Once again, Mugabe's main opponent was someone who came out of the union movement, in this case the miners' union. It has been from the working class that most of the support for his Movement for Democratic Change has come.
Mugabe's support still comes in strong in the villages. His party is well organized there and he has support from traditional rulers. Few people there care about the decline of the Zimbabwean dollar as long as they can feed themselves from the land, and international standards of democracy matter less than the Shona way of life that they see Mr. Mugabe defending. Things look very different than they do to a wage worker in a mine or a city. Wage workers in the cities, on the mines and in factories have a more modern, less traditional outlook. They are the ones feeling the brunt of Mugabe's repression and economic mismanagement and they are the ones who most desperately want to get rid of him.
I have read all kinds of conspiracy theories. One was that the Zimbabwe military is led by white generals who are afraid of war crimes trials for their actions during the Chimurenga wars and that they are holding Mugabe hostage. Others usually center around western plots to hold onto stolen land. Neither kind of conspiracy theory is convincing. What's obviously happening here, the simplest possible explanation, is that Zimbabwe is changing too fast for Mugabe and his aging Chimurenga leaders to comprehend. Those who were once tomorrow's people have become yesterday's.
I think it was President Kennedy who said that when we make non-violent change impossible we make violent change inevitable. That's what Mugabe has done, tried to prevent the normal processes of history from working the way they are supposed to. That's why he and his group, formerly progressive but now reactionary, will be swept aside by the forces of history. Marx (or at least the Marxists) may have been wrong about the proletariat bringing socialism, but he was certainly right that the process of economic development creates this working class that then becomes the dominant force in society.
But that sweeping aside of the old peasant-based ZANU-PF rule must not only be done by the Zimbabweans themselves, it must be SEEN to be done by the Zimbabweans themselves, not by Western or other international intervention. Not that the US military is in much condition to intervene anywhere right now. Not that Bush really cares about Zimbabwe any more than he cares about Darfur or Myanmar. They don't have enough oil and no one there tried to kill his daddy. Sanctions have done what they can, but where sanctions served notice on apartheid South Africa that it couldn't expect support from the west, they only convince Mugabe that the west never would let him take back land from the settlers. It seems only a political revolution can bring change to Zimbabwe. It can only be led by the working class. Only the working class has the power and the interest in bringing democracy to Zimbabwe. Only the people themselves can create democracy in a country. We couldn't export it to them even if we wanted to. Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed on a people. It must be learned.
Well, why shouldn't the working class lead the struggle against dictatorship in Zimbabwe? The working class led the collapse of Communism. It is unions that are taking the lead in toppling Mugabe. They have already taken the lead in seeing that he couldn't get more arms from China.
I almost forgot. There was a discussion on DemocracyNow.org you should consider. I particularly recommend the views of Horace Campbell in the discussion.
Mugabe may be running one of the less effective dictatorships in the world today, but he does have more support among Zimbabweans today than Bush does among Americans. No, this is not some troll diary arguing that we shouldn't really oppose Mugabe because of all the things he and ZANU-PF did to liberate their country or because he is facing a western imperialist conspiracy against the African people. It's not an argument in favor of Mugabe at all. It's just an attempt to explain why he does still have support in Zimbabwe, who his supporters are, and how well-informed policy could more effectively remove him than the kind of ignorant, "speak loudly but carry a small stick" policy currently favored in Washington could. If you're interested in a little reality based background, read on.
Mugabe certainly gets some backing because of his role as leader of the major guerrilla group in the Chimurenga, the war for independence. That support has been eroded by the failure of his recent economic policies, of course, but why doesn't he change them, what is he getting at, and why do a minority of Zimbabweans continue to support him? That was then, this is now, and why does he seem to be such a different person?
First, you have to understand that the Chimurenga war against the Ian Smith led white oligarchy was not fought so much for independence or even an end to racial discrimination as it was fought over the land. Land is a sacred issue to many Africans, the Shona and Ndebele of Zimbabwe included. If you're Irish you may understand that. The Irish didn't have a concept of private land ownership, but they gave up everything (language, culture, everything that constitutes national identity to most nations) to take back their land. The Shona and the Ndebele felt and feel the same way. They may not have had to give up as much, or fight as long as the Irish did, but they still had to fight. Indeed, they were fighting among themselves over the land when Cecil Rhodes came in and changed its name to Southern Rhodesia.
Joshua Nkomo, head of ZAPU, the Zimbabwe African People's Union, who joined with Mugabe during the Chimurenga but fell out with him later, was once asked by a reporter if he intended to nationalize the land. He said that land belonged to society and everyone has a right to land. Confused, the reporter asked if that meant that he did intend to nationalize land. Nkomo replied (quoting from memory here)
You may call it "nationalization" if you wish, but land will be normalized.
Had he been asked the same question, Mugabe would probably have replied "Yes, we are Marxist-Leninist Communists and we intend to nationalize land." I remember watching an official ZANU-PF representative introducing a documentary about the Tanzam Railway to a Maoist group. He finished his introduction by claiming that "We also had this Marxism Leninism Mao Tse-Tung Thought before the Europeans came." I asked him later if he meant that the Shona way of life was based on principles of Dialectical Materialism. The ZANU-PF representative laughed at my question, which was more Socratic than serious, but he did say that the attitude toward land ownership was the same, that land should be the collective property of the community.
Why had I used the term "Shona way of life" in asking the question?
Because even Jesuit missionaries had trouble figuring out Shona religion, and reverted to teaching them "natural religion" before trying to convert them, it is common to refer to "the Shona way of life" rather than "Shona traditional religion."
from an art site:
The Shona way of life centers on the family and reflects profoundly spiritual and humanistic values.
from a religious site:
The Shona in large part do not display a sense of being overwhelmed by evil. They do not spend their time calculating the degree of evil in creation nor do they express anger at spiritual forces for permitting the world to crush them so. Rather they have developed a society that is based on values so foreign to our own Western thought that it raises the important issue of whether our Western based theodicies are irretrievably culture-bound. Where I began the study focusing on the inability of Western theodicies to account for the high incidence of evil in the third world, my focus was now changed to look at the irrelevance and incongruence of the values of Western theodicies in relation to the traditional cultures of southern Africa.
If you want to understand how people there feel about it, give up everything you thought you knew and try to look through other people's eyes. This is not a rational fight over economic policy. It is a sacred struggle over land. Mugabe and his backers still care about that, even if Tsvangirai and his mostly modern, urban, working class followers don't.
ZANU-PF was allied with Maoist China during the Chimurenga, and they were armed by the Chinese. This was partly convenience, but partly ideological, since both were peasant based movements. ZANU-PF had an ethnic base among the Shona, while ZAPU had an ethnic base in the Ndebele. Ethnicity is never the whole story in politics, Zimbabwean or American or elsewhere, but it can't be ignored anywhere, either. ZANU-PF was also peasant based, while ZAPU had a strong base in the urban proletariat. Joshua Nkomo was an old union leader of railway workers, and continued to get strong support from the working class, as well as arms and support from the Soviet Union.
Note to anyone who thinks that ZANU-PF was "pro-Chinese" while ZAPU was "pro-Soviet": you have it backwards. The Soviets were backing ZAPU while the Chinese were backing ZANU-PF. The Chimurenga wasn't started by outside Communist agitators. It was started by Africans for their own purposes.
ZANU-PF in power continued to be a peasant based party concerned primarily with the land issue. They ran the country well for the first several years of their rule, and the country developed so rapidly it was held out as proof that an African country didn't immediately collapse or stagnate just because Africans took over the government. Because of that the example of Zimbabwe was important in convincing the South African government to release Nelson Mandela from prison and negotiating an end to apartheid with him. Mandela has spoken out against what has been going on recently but he is refraining from criticizing Mugabe by name, and some interpret his remarks as even-handed criticism of both sides.
Mugabe's very success changed the political ground from under him. Mugabe and ZANU-PF's continued insistence on the centrality of the land issue and the confiscation of white farms was increasingly irrelevant to the urban proletariat that his successful development policies were creating. They didn't care about the land issue any more. They were more modern than that. Once again, Mugabe's main opponent was someone who came out of the union movement, in this case the miners' union. It has been from the working class that most of the support for his Movement for Democratic Change has come.
Mugabe's support still comes in strong in the villages. His party is well organized there and he has support from traditional rulers. Few people there care about the decline of the Zimbabwean dollar as long as they can feed themselves from the land, and international standards of democracy matter less than the Shona way of life that they see Mr. Mugabe defending. Things look very different than they do to a wage worker in a mine or a city. Wage workers in the cities, on the mines and in factories have a more modern, less traditional outlook. They are the ones feeling the brunt of Mugabe's repression and economic mismanagement and they are the ones who most desperately want to get rid of him.
I have read all kinds of conspiracy theories. One was that the Zimbabwe military is led by white generals who are afraid of war crimes trials for their actions during the Chimurenga wars and that they are holding Mugabe hostage. Others usually center around western plots to hold onto stolen land. Neither kind of conspiracy theory is convincing. What's obviously happening here, the simplest possible explanation, is that Zimbabwe is changing too fast for Mugabe and his aging Chimurenga leaders to comprehend. Those who were once tomorrow's people have become yesterday's.
I think it was President Kennedy who said that when we make non-violent change impossible we make violent change inevitable. That's what Mugabe has done, tried to prevent the normal processes of history from working the way they are supposed to. That's why he and his group, formerly progressive but now reactionary, will be swept aside by the forces of history. Marx (or at least the Marxists) may have been wrong about the proletariat bringing socialism, but he was certainly right that the process of economic development creates this working class that then becomes the dominant force in society.
But that sweeping aside of the old peasant-based ZANU-PF rule must not only be done by the Zimbabweans themselves, it must be SEEN to be done by the Zimbabweans themselves, not by Western or other international intervention. Not that the US military is in much condition to intervene anywhere right now. Not that Bush really cares about Zimbabwe any more than he cares about Darfur or Myanmar. They don't have enough oil and no one there tried to kill his daddy. Sanctions have done what they can, but where sanctions served notice on apartheid South Africa that it couldn't expect support from the west, they only convince Mugabe that the west never would let him take back land from the settlers. It seems only a political revolution can bring change to Zimbabwe. It can only be led by the working class. Only the working class has the power and the interest in bringing democracy to Zimbabwe. Only the people themselves can create democracy in a country. We couldn't export it to them even if we wanted to. Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed on a people. It must be learned.
Well, why shouldn't the working class lead the struggle against dictatorship in Zimbabwe? The working class led the collapse of Communism. It is unions that are taking the lead in toppling Mugabe. They have already taken the lead in seeing that he couldn't get more arms from China.
All praise to the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union, which for four days refused to unload a shipment of Chinese arms destined for landlocked Zimbabwe. That was long enough for a South African court to issue a judgment refusing to let the 77 tons of weapons be shipped across the country to Zimbabwe, despite the South African government’s unwillingness to intervene.
I almost forgot. There was a discussion on DemocracyNow.org you should consider. I particularly recommend the views of Horace Campbell in the discussion.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
When will this administration be called to account for its crimes?
from The Los Angeles Times:
Probe finds illegal hiring at Justice Department
Promising lawyers and law students were rejected because of their political and ideological views, internal investigators say.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 25, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Scores of highly credentialed young lawyers and law students were denied interviews for coveted positions at the Justice Department because of an illegal screening process that took political and ideological views and affiliations into account rather than merit, Justice Department investigators concluded in a report released Tuesday.
In 2006, some applicants for sought-after jobs in the department's honors and summer intern programs were rejected because they were members of the American Constitution Society or Planned Parenthood or because they expressed concern about gender discrimination in the military, the report says.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Supreme Court and the Constitution
Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley famously noted that "No matter whether the country follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns." Well, Mr. Dooley never lived long enough to witness the Florida 2000 election. Furthermore, the public hasn't spoken yet about the detention of the prisoners called "unlawful enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We may hear from them in the next presidential election, though.
What's the issue here? The recent Supreme Court decision affirming that the Guantanamo detainees are entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus in civilian courts. Personally I can't even figure out why this is an uncertain point. The Constitution is quite specific about habeas corpus, even mentioning it before the Bill of Rights was added:
There's no rebellion. There hasn't been one, AFAIK, since the Green Corn Rebellion in 1917. There's no invasion either.
SO WTF? How do almost half of the SCOTUS justices justify suspending habeas corpus?
Well, former Attorney General Gonzales said it's a privilege, not a right. OK, that word "privilege" is the word used in the Constitution, but to distinguish privileges from rights is anachronistic. They didn't make that distinction in 1787, and we shouldn't read it back into the Constitution they wrote then. And AAMOF, the SCOTUS doesn't fall for that line of argument.
The dissenting court judges take a different tack. Roberts said it should be left to the legislature and executive. So why do we need courts at all? Scalia said the decision "breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad" as if either aliens have no rights or Guantanamo isn't under US control. Either position is risible. He also says that the ruling places undue burdens on the Commander in Chief, and that it will cause the death of more Americans.
In the decision, Justice Kennedy said:
I don't say the detainees should necessarily go free, but I do say that if there is a reason to hold them it should be produced in public so that we can all see it. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. I'm not saying that these people are necessarily innocent, much less that they are good guys. I am saying that they are entitled to a day in court. Civilian courts are not supposed to be suspended unless they are unable to operate.
If the Commonwealth of Virginia could give Nat Turner his day in court, with a lawyer, the United States can give the Guantanamo detainees their days in court, too. The slavocrats of southeast Virginia were surrounded and outnumbered by slaves who wanted to kill them. They had far more reason than we do to fear for their safety. If they didn't abandon the Constitution when it was only 50 years old, we have no reason to abandon it when it is over 200 years old.
Remember, this is not the Supreme Court that appointed Bush, it is that court amended by several justices whom Bush has appointed. If even this court rejects his arguments, I don't think they should be taken very seriously.
What's the issue here? The recent Supreme Court decision affirming that the Guantanamo detainees are entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus in civilian courts. Personally I can't even figure out why this is an uncertain point. The Constitution is quite specific about habeas corpus, even mentioning it before the Bill of Rights was added:
the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.Article I Section 9
There's no rebellion. There hasn't been one, AFAIK, since the Green Corn Rebellion in 1917. There's no invasion either.
SO WTF? How do almost half of the SCOTUS justices justify suspending habeas corpus?
Well, former Attorney General Gonzales said it's a privilege, not a right. OK, that word "privilege" is the word used in the Constitution, but to distinguish privileges from rights is anachronistic. They didn't make that distinction in 1787, and we shouldn't read it back into the Constitution they wrote then. And AAMOF, the SCOTUS doesn't fall for that line of argument.
The dissenting court judges take a different tack. Roberts said it should be left to the legislature and executive. So why do we need courts at all? Scalia said the decision "breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad" as if either aliens have no rights or Guantanamo isn't under US control. Either position is risible. He also says that the ruling places undue burdens on the Commander in Chief, and that it will cause the death of more Americans.
In the decision, Justice Kennedy said:
Our opinion does not undermine the executive's powers as commander in chief. On the contrary, the exercise of those powers is vindicated, not eroded, when confirmed by the judicial branch. Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the executive to imprison a person.
I don't say the detainees should necessarily go free, but I do say that if there is a reason to hold them it should be produced in public so that we can all see it. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. I'm not saying that these people are necessarily innocent, much less that they are good guys. I am saying that they are entitled to a day in court. Civilian courts are not supposed to be suspended unless they are unable to operate.
If the Commonwealth of Virginia could give Nat Turner his day in court, with a lawyer, the United States can give the Guantanamo detainees their days in court, too. The slavocrats of southeast Virginia were surrounded and outnumbered by slaves who wanted to kill them. They had far more reason than we do to fear for their safety. If they didn't abandon the Constitution when it was only 50 years old, we have no reason to abandon it when it is over 200 years old.
Remember, this is not the Supreme Court that appointed Bush, it is that court amended by several justices whom Bush has appointed. If even this court rejects his arguments, I don't think they should be taken very seriously.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Obama Veepwatch, Vol. 3: Wesley Clark
From Newsweek:
More at the link above.
Odds: Strong--precisely because he's a Clinton loyalist. Actually, on paper Clark may be the only veep candidate who meets every single one of Obama's requirements--*UPDATE: or at least what experts say Obama needs, politically-speaking, in a second fiddle.* He's white. Check. He's Southern. Check. And he has the two kinds of experience Obama most desperately lacks: military and executive. A Vietnam war hero, McCain will hammer his Democratic rival on national security and insist that the Illinois senator, whose foreign policy resume is painfully short, doesn't have necessary gravitas to serve as Commander in Chief; Clark, who served for 34 years at the Department of Defense and retired as Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, provides Obama with an effective counterargument. What's more, while McCain fought in a war (and legislated his way through others), Clark boasts what some voters might see as a more relevant resume point given our current situation in Iraq: he actually ran one. (See: the highly effective U.S. intervention in Kosovo--not to mention the fact the Clark, a Rhodes Scholar, finished first in his class at West Point, and McCain finished fifth from last in his class at Annapolis.) In short, Clark would not only help Obama blunt McCain's major line of attack but also give him a leg up on some key military matters (while adding a dash of administrative competence to boot). And like Obama, Clark was against the Iraq war from the start.
More at the link above.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Clark for VEEP!
Wesley Clark is leading Jim Webb on the D-Kos poll!
Now, it's no secret that I'm a fan of Wes Clark, but why would he be a better choice?
Not just that he would be a better Veep, who could give Obama the kind of serious, useful foreign policy and military expertise that he needs and that General Clark gave Hillary when he was advising her. But because we can't afford to lose that Virginia Senate seat. We only just barely picked it up from Senator Macaca in 2006, when the entire Republican Party seemed to be in free fall. It was a cliff hanger of an election, only decided by overseas votes (which have finally become Democratic. It will likely go Republican again without Jim Webb to defend it. Obama doesn't need to start his first term losing that Senate seat.
Wes Clark's not doing anything that's not indispensable, or that someone else couldn't do just as well. Other than campaigning, that is, and he could do a lot more of that a lot better as a Vice Presidential Candidate. He was also early identified with Hillary and actively campaigned for her. His being on the ticket would not only bring the moderate Democrats and Republicans that Obama needs, it could help reconcile Hillary's supporters to her losing the nomination.
Wes Clark is the no-brainer choice for Obama's running mate. I hope he picks him.
Now, it's no secret that I'm a fan of Wes Clark, but why would he be a better choice?
Not just that he would be a better Veep, who could give Obama the kind of serious, useful foreign policy and military expertise that he needs and that General Clark gave Hillary when he was advising her. But because we can't afford to lose that Virginia Senate seat. We only just barely picked it up from Senator Macaca in 2006, when the entire Republican Party seemed to be in free fall. It was a cliff hanger of an election, only decided by overseas votes (which have finally become Democratic. It will likely go Republican again without Jim Webb to defend it. Obama doesn't need to start his first term losing that Senate seat.
Wes Clark's not doing anything that's not indispensable, or that someone else couldn't do just as well. Other than campaigning, that is, and he could do a lot more of that a lot better as a Vice Presidential Candidate. He was also early identified with Hillary and actively campaigned for her. His being on the ticket would not only bring the moderate Democrats and Republicans that Obama needs, it could help reconcile Hillary's supporters to her losing the nomination.
Wes Clark is the no-brainer choice for Obama's running mate. I hope he picks him.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
The importance of the Vice Presidency, 2008
One of FDR's Vice Presidents, John Nance Garner, likened the Vice Presidency to a warm bucket of spit. It's not always the one way ticket to oblivion it is for most of those who've held the office, though. John Adams and George H. W. Bush rode it into the White House in the next election. Millard Fillmore, John Tyler, Calvin Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Johnson, and Lyndon Johnson (among others) rode their own Vice Presidencies straight to the White House without an intervening election. You never know what's going to happen.
But you can guess. Especially this time.
John McCain will be the oldest president ever inaugurated if he wins. The current holder of that title, Ronald Reagan, got through on a lot of sleep and a "hands off" attitude. One joke from the time went that Jimmy Carter proved anyone could be president and Ronald Reagan proved you didn't really need a president. John McCain isn't like that. He's hyper. He could drop dead or have a stroke any day, even during the campaign. It is unlikely that he could survive a four year term with two wars going on, a fractious country and Congress, and the mess that Bush has made of the world. John McCain's Vice President can't be impeachment insurance, the way Dan Quayle and Spiro Agnew were for George H. W. Bush or Richard Nixon respectively.
What about Obama? He's young, he's healthy, the contrast couldn't be clearer in terms of their likely ability to survive naturally for the next four or eight years. I'm not worried about his suddenly dropping dead in office as much as I am worried about his finding nothing to do after his presidency ends. And I'm even more worried, much more worried, about his not surviving because someone will assassinate him. Maybe I was just too traumatized by the assassinations of the 1960s, but it's always a possibility that any president will be assassinated, and an even greater possibility for the first black president of the United States. Obama's Vice Presidential running mate will be as serious and as important a choice as McCain's.
But you can guess. Especially this time.
John McCain will be the oldest president ever inaugurated if he wins. The current holder of that title, Ronald Reagan, got through on a lot of sleep and a "hands off" attitude. One joke from the time went that Jimmy Carter proved anyone could be president and Ronald Reagan proved you didn't really need a president. John McCain isn't like that. He's hyper. He could drop dead or have a stroke any day, even during the campaign. It is unlikely that he could survive a four year term with two wars going on, a fractious country and Congress, and the mess that Bush has made of the world. John McCain's Vice President can't be impeachment insurance, the way Dan Quayle and Spiro Agnew were for George H. W. Bush or Richard Nixon respectively.
What about Obama? He's young, he's healthy, the contrast couldn't be clearer in terms of their likely ability to survive naturally for the next four or eight years. I'm not worried about his suddenly dropping dead in office as much as I am worried about his finding nothing to do after his presidency ends. And I'm even more worried, much more worried, about his not surviving because someone will assassinate him. Maybe I was just too traumatized by the assassinations of the 1960s, but it's always a possibility that any president will be assassinated, and an even greater possibility for the first black president of the United States. Obama's Vice Presidential running mate will be as serious and as important a choice as McCain's.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Back to the blogosphere!
I didn't realize things had gotten so crazy here. I go on the Clark Community Network and I get flamed as an alleged Obama troll. Now that he has the nomination I'll think about going back. Meanwhile, it's sad that some people have lost all perspective.
Meanwhile back on D-Kos, where there are a lot more people (and a lot more Obama supporters) than there are at the Clark Community, I get myself flamed as racist, but not before being told that I was "offensive" and "arrogant" and several other such epithets by someone who totally lost it. Well, he had reason to be upset, but that's an explanation, not an excuse. I really don't like being misrepresented. Not that he took much time to read what I had written before losing it totally. Oh, well. At least I have my TU status back.
Meanwhile back on D-Kos, where there are a lot more people (and a lot more Obama supporters) than there are at the Clark Community, I get myself flamed as racist, but not before being told that I was "offensive" and "arrogant" and several other such epithets by someone who totally lost it. Well, he had reason to be upset, but that's an explanation, not an excuse. I really don't like being misrepresented. Not that he took much time to read what I had written before losing it totally. Oh, well. At least I have my TU status back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)