Hillary and Barack -- Star-Cross'd Democrats

Watching the Democrats these past weeks in Pennsylvania has been ugly.  There has been none of the exuberance that characterized the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Little of the policy debates we were treated to in California and Nevada.  John McCain has been given a free month-and-a-half to self-correct his economic message blunders and embark on a tour of America's "forgotten places" (forgotten, I suppose, if you're rich and white and have no children in Iraq -- let's just go ahead and call you Republican).  He's spending the week in places like Appalachia, the Lower Ninth in New Orleans and Gee's Bend, Alabama, where white cops beat black demonstrators on the march to Montgomery in 1965.  Whether his Pander Tour bears fruit is yet to be determined -- he spoke to a mostly white crowd in Gee's Bend -- but it certainly won't hurt his chances in November.  Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama have moved into a clinch, trading kidney punches and low blows as they stagger towards the convention in Denver.  On second thought, "ugly" doesn't do this justice.  It's becoming tragic.

Two households, both alike in dignity,

  In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,

        From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

           Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

Shakespeare was setting the stage for Romeo and Juliet, but he could just as easily have been describing primary season in Philadelphia.  Barack and Hillary, two sides of the same left-center coin.  So similar that it takes careful parsing to differentiate most of their policy positions.  It was just eleven weeks ago, at the debate in Los Angeles:

Obama:  I respect Senator Clinton...I'm glad we've been walking on this road together.

Clinton:  I have to agree with everything Barack just said.

At one point, Wolf Blitzer tried to instigate a confrontation between them and their response was:

Clinton:  We're having such a good time.  We are.  We are.  We're having a wonderful time.

Obama:  Yes, absolutely.

Fast-forward a couple of months to Pennsylvania:

Goddamn America -- He would not be my pastor -- I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community -- I remember landing under sniper fire -- We just ran with our heads down -- They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them -- Obama's remarks are elitist and they are out of touch -- I think that they played the race card on me.

It's not iambic pentameter, but if the arc from the Iowa caususes to the Pennsylvania primary isn't tragic, I'll eat my English degree.  By the way, if you want to remind yourself of what a real political debate sounds like, take a moment to review the transcript of that Los Angeles debate.  Compared to the travesty ABC moderated in Philadelphia, it's Lincoln-Douglass.  L.A. was a love-fest, Philly was mud wrestling.

This is what it's come down to:  the Democrats are eating their young.  Black against white, blue collar versus college degree, women against men.  The vision of an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama dream ticket is shrinking rapidly in our rear-view mirror.  Those who argue the party will come together in November against McCain haven't been paying attention.  Pennsylvania exit polls detailed by the New York Times found that 16% of white voters said race matters and only 54% of those said they would support Obama in the general election.  27% said they would vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee and 16% said they would not vote at all.  20% of gun owners and church-goers said they would vote for McCain.  Only 60% of Democratic Catholics said they would vote for Obama in the general, 21% are prepared to vote for McCain.  

How did the Democrats arrive at this point?  Obama is practically the presumptive nominee and Democrats are jumping ship like it's the Caine Mutiny.  Clinton's strategy, stolen from the Atwater/Rove playbook, has been to depress the idealistic optimism of Obama's campaign while sowing seeds of doubt as to his character and electability.  It has worked -- appealing to man's baser instincts generally does.  Obama's overall positives have dropped considerably over the past few weeks.  The thing is, negative campaigning cuts both ways.  Clinton's negatives have risen along with Obama's.  And for what?  The warfare in the Pennsylvania trenches looks to have netted her a 9.2% win in the popular vote and fourteen delegates.  She still has no viable path to victory and refuses to consider an exit strategy.  It's the Iraq surge with cheese steaks.  

                Where be these enemies?  Capulet!  Montague!

         See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,

                         That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.

And I for winking at your discords too

               Have lost a brace of kinsmen:  all are punish'd.

This is beginning to feel ominous.  McCain is running on the Iraq War, tax cuts and bailing out the investment bankers at the expense of those losing their homes.  And he's gaining ground!  Democrats can continue reassuring themselves that the party will reunite in time, pointing to Kennedy/Johnson and Kerry/Edwards, but this is different.  This time the opposing candidates are, for all their similarities, a black man and a white woman.  And it's becoming apparent that all the policy matches in the world can't smooth over that difference for much of the Democratic base.  Especially as they continue firing on each other, accentuating the animosities between the two campaigns and their respective followers.  

Let's hope, given the stakes facing the country, the 2008 election doesn't play as tragedy, to be summed up sometime in the future with a couplet:

                 For never was a story of more bitter drama

   Than this of Hillary and her Obama.

The Hardball College Tour Charade

Watching the Hardball College Tour with Chris Matthews and John McCain last night from Villanova University confirmed what I had suspected after the Obama version a couple of weeks ago.  This isn't hardball.  It isn't softball.  It isn't even beanbag toss.  

It's Midnight Madness.  

For those who aren't college basketball fans, Midnight Madness takes place in October and kicks off the upcoming season.  Schools around the country fill their gyms at 12:01 a.m. of opening day with students to introduce the team and coaches and then run through their first practice.  The band is in full swing, cheerleaders whip the crowd into a frenzy and boosters sit courtside, inspecting their stable of athletes.  Lefty Driesell, the coach at the University of Maryland, started it in 1970 as a way of attracting attention to his program.  It was an instant success and has become a national tradition.  ESPN covers it with nearly the same enthusiasm they show towards the Final Four at season's end.

The only manner in which it differs from the regular season is that there is no real competition.  Everyone is on the same team.  Oh, the shirts might scrimmage against the skins, but they'll all be showering together when the festivities end.

That's the Hardball College Tour.  They pick a college venue guaranteed to be sympathetic to the candidate -- West Chester University for Obama, University at Albany for Hillary in '02 and Villanova, especially Villanova, for McCain -- fill up an auditorium with the March Madness crowd and Matthews proceeds to set balls on a tee for the candidate to knock out of the park.

There are no "hardball" questions.  Matthews warning McCain that a question is going to be tough doesn't make it so.  He led off with, "How will you be different than President Bush?"  A real body blow.  When McCain could only refer specifically to his approach towards climate change, Matthews gently prompted, "You also disagree with him on torture."  

Well played, sir.

As for Villanova, McCain hasn't entertained a group of that many enthusiastic WASPs since his last press corps barbecue at his Sedona ranch.  I'm not saying it's a white school, but their own alumnae refer to it as "Vanillanova."  Suffice it to say that none of the student questioners were lining up to challenge him on his 1983 vote against the MLK holiday.

They did, however, display their true colors proudly.  The first student to pose a question was Matthew Brady, editor emeritus of the Villanova Times.  He chose to spend his fifteen seconds of fame asking McCain if, "you would characterize yourself, as Barack Obama would phrase, as a typical white person."  The next boy, a hint of mischief twinkling in his eye, wanted to know if McCain thought Hillary has, "finally resorted to hitting the sauce," and, "if you would care to join me for a shot after this?"  Ah, the precociousness of youth.  The little dears.  The second kid happened to be Peter Doocy, son of Fox & Friends' anchor, Steve Doocy.  The resemblance is striking.

Even Matthews was struck by the lack of intellectual heft in the room.  He

good-naturedly complained, "We came here hoping for the best and we got two of the most wise-ass questions.  It's such a tribute to the academic rigors of this school."  It had more the feel of a fraternity kegger than a meeting of academia and politics.  Brady and Doocy came off as Eddie Haskells with money, real-life versions of Omega House's Doug Neidermyer and Greg Marmalard of "Animal House" fame.  To so gracefully employ race-baiting and political condescension at such a tender age was really quite impressive.  The Villanova Times heralded their performances today, labeling Brady "hilarious," and declaring the "show was off to a solid start quickly with student interaction."

At least they have an excuse for their attitudes -- they're Republican rich kids.  Matthews, on the other hand, is supposed to know better.  Rather than vamping shamelessly to the audience, it's his job to ask tough questions and demand direct answers.  When he scores a one-on-one, 60-minute interview with a presidential nominee, it would behoove him to cover as many relevant issues as possible:  foreign and domestic policy, traditional values as well as future visions.  Roughly speaking, I'd say they spent 15 minutes yukking it up and pandering to the crowd, 5 minutes on abortion and elitism, and the remaining 40 minutes on Iraq and national security.

Not one question on the economy.  We're on the front edge of a recession, 28 million Americans will soon be on food stamps, and millions are losing their homes while the rest of the country watches their home values plummet.  It's costing about $17 million per hour to keep the war without end chugging along.  As of March, 4.2 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate is 5.1%.  

McCain finally gave an economic speech this week.  He has seen the light at the end of the tunnel leading to the presidency and now strongly favors the Bush tax cuts.  He seems to have misplaced his pledge to balance the budget by the end of his first term.  He wants to suspend the federal gasoline tax for the summer, thereby saving consumers a couple of bucks each time they fill up.  McCain has famously admitted that the economy is not his strong point.  The speech did nothing to refute his position.

Mightn't there be something  here worth talking about, face-to-face, in front of a national television audience?  Certainly, if the college tour was a serious political event.  But it's not -- it's Midnight Madness.

There is talk that Matthews will be leaving MSNBC soon.  Maybe to take over "Face the Nation" at CBS or possibly even to run for office.  It wouldn't have to mean the end of the College Tour, though.  I think ESPN's Dick Vitale is free all summer long.

Can We Handle The Truth?

Here's how bad a week it was for the Democrats:

Hillary had to distance herself from her top strategic advisor when it became apparent he was playing both ends of a trade deal for his own profit.  She was faced with a similar dilemma when the news broke that her husband earned a suitcase full of money for pimping the very same deal.  A deal, by the way, that Hillary opposes.  She would probably further distance herself from Bill too, if she could, but to do so more than she already has would require moving to Europe.  However, if history has taught us anything, it's that she is willing to put up with a certain amount of Bill-induced headaches.  Nevertheless, it raised the question of where her loyalty may actually lie on the Colombian deal if she became president.  As she stumps in Pennsylvania, amongst its shuttered factories and unemployed workers, the last thing she needs to deal with is a perception that she might waffle on the free trade issue.  Throughout the week, most polls showed her lead over Obama narrowing, albeit slowly.

And she had a good week compared to Obama.

He took another major hit, this time when he was covertly taped speaking to wealthy backers at a San Francisco fundraiser and he suggested that Pennsylvanians were bitter over their economic plight and were clinging to guns, religion and antipathy towards others as a result.  This hit the beach just as the Rev. Wright wave of controversy seemed to be rolling back out to sea, its destructive power finally exhausted.

Needless to say, Clinton and McCain were on it like K-9 dogs at a protest rally.  Obama was, "elitist," "condescending," and "out-of-touch."  The attacks were as unimaginative as they were predictable.  The uproar on Hardball and Fox News rose from deafening to hysterical.  Everyone had an opinion and extra chairs were found so that they were all able to share theirs with an anxious nation.  Either the controversy would fail to move the needle much or it would prove a serious problem with legs.  Or somewhere in between.

The only certainties that the campaign has revealed over the past month is that the media doesn't do nuance and that much of America would just as soon not hear the truth.  

The media, for the most part, regardless of which bias they're selling, has chosen to present Wright's sermons and Obama's San Francisco comments as discrete soundbytes.  Taken as such, in 30-second increments, it's a simple matter to conclude that Wright despises the white man and that Obama looks down his nose at rural America. 

"God Damn America" is a powerful, blanket denunciation of an entire nation, unless one chooses to take the time to listen to the complete sermon.  Doing so reveals that Wright is damning America for specific actions -- past mistreatments of blacks, current inequities in the way the American pie is divided between the races, and the killing of thousands of innocent civilians around the world, always in the name of freedom and democracy.  These are all facts -- you could look them up.  But, rather than admit that a black preacher has every right, even a responsibility, to frame these transgressions for his congregants in a socially and politically active church on the south side of Chicago, it's so much easier to reduce a lifetime of sermons to, "God Damn America" and label him a crazy racist.  And cast a suspicious eye Obama's way for not immediately marching up the aisle and out onto West 95th Street in a huff upon hearing such blasphemy.   

Just as it's easy to listen to snippets of what Obama said in San Francisco and conclude that he holds himself above the working-class citizens of middle-America.  Easy, but intellectually dishonest.  Taken in context, Obama is explaining to the wealthy Californian donors why he has had a more difficult time connecting with Pennsylvanians than he has experienced throughout the majority of his campaign.  In point of fact, he's actually defending their tendency to vote on "values" issues like guns and religion and gay rights in lieu of their complete lack of any economic stake in America. 

No candidate speaks in one voice only.  A message tailored to wealthy Democrats in California will necessarily differ from a speech given in a Pennsylvania church basement.  The tone and content of a keynote address at a national convention is inappropriate for a town hall meeting in Scranton.  All politicians try to connect with the audience in front of them.  Take a listen to Hillary's infamous, "Ah don't feel no-ways tahrd" speech in Selma, Alabama.  Or the cowboy accent adopted by Phillips, Yale and Harvard-educated George W. Bush.  

Clinton and Bush aren't disrespecting Alabamans or Texans.  They're trying to make a connection.  The same connection Obama was attempting when he described Pennsylvanians and their guns, religion and mistrust of non-whites to a bunch of Californians, most of whom  probably have no use for God, wouldn't think of owning a shotgun and live in a Pacific Heights mansion with a black family next door and a gay couple across the street.  

Was it unfortunate that he used the word, "cling?"  Sure.  Rural Pennsylvania embraced God and guns long before the economy tanked.  But what's really unfortunate is that much of what Obama, as well as Rev. Wright, said is true.  There is a great deal of bitterness towards the federal government amongst unemployed, blue-collar workers.  To deny that they don't feel a sense of abandonment, thanks to free trade policies and the government's failure to retrain them for new jobs the same government has promised them but failed to produce, is ridiculous.  How could they not, on some level, be bitter?  Do blacks have reason to feel victimized by the history of their treatment at the hands of white America?  And do they have the right to voice their anger and frustration, whether or not white America is comfortable with, and ready for, the conversation?  Painfully, and obviously, yes.

America may not be ready for the truths lying dormant within that debate.  Probably isn't, truth be told.  But that's what this election is going to decide.  The Wright controversy might very well prove Obama's Achilles heel in a general election.  The Republicans will surely revive the issue and he will have to explain his association with Trinity United all over again.  But, ironically, there's a chance that the firestorm could end up becoming his greatest advantage.  If the country is mature enough, the conversation Obama has kick-started, and will necessarily revisit, has the potential to lift him head and shoulders above McCain and partisan bickering and electoral games of gotcha.  As an example of the kind of constructive dialogue Obama's race speech can inspire, watch this conversation between Ross Douthat of the Atlantic Monthly and Debra Dickerson of Mother Jones.  It's as constructive a seventy-two minutes as you're likely to spend anytime soon.

As I said, this is what could happen on a national scale as a by-product of Obama's candidacy.  Could, but I wouldn't bet on it.  Not in a country where "elite" is considered an insult.  

America's Hypocrisy

When it comes to the War on Terror, the Bush administration is cynical almost beyond measure, but it would be difficult to accuse them of hypocrisy, at this point.  They obfuscate, exaggerate, and flat-out lie to further their agenda, whether they be justifying the prosecution of the Iraq War, illegally surveilling American citizens or torturing "enemy combatants" that may or may not be guilty (I hesitate to say, "as charged" -- many prisoners are still waiting, years after they were detained, to learn of their supposed offenses). 

But, if you accept the definition of hypocrisy as, "feigning to be what one is not," then it would be unfair to so insult Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley et al.  They're absolutely up front about who they are and what they're doing.  Bush has his worldview and he's not about to let facts cloud the lenses of his blood red-colored glasses.  As the civil war in Iraq boiled over this past week, he stood in front of an uneasy nation and did his best Richard Pryor imitation, asking, "Who you gonna believe?  Me or your lying eyes?  The surge is working."  Well, he didn't actually face the nation -- he delegated the job to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.  In their hearings in front of the Senate and House committees, they came across as honorable and competent men tasked with an impossible mission.  Make that two impossible missions.  One, to secure Iraq.  And two, to explain and defend current policy to the pack of mangy jackals that is a congressional hearing committee.  How many times can you say, "It will be over when it's over?"  I thought I was listening to "Revolution #9" off the Beatles "White Album."

When the facts or the laws don't fit, the Bushies change them:  

1. Al-Quaida in Iraq, an organization born of our invasion and occupation of the country, is shortened to Al-Quaida, thereby advancing the fiction that it's Bin Laden's group we're battling in Iraq.  (Interestingly, John McCain may be giving a preview of things to come with his repeated "mis-statements" that Al-Quaida is being trained in Iran.  I wouldn't put it past him to be intentionally repeating this lie in an effort to get the country fired up for the War on Terror II.  I don't buy the confusion line.  McCain is old but he's not stupid.)

2. Bush was supposedly unaware until recently that Iran had discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003, thereby clearing him to sound the drums for, wait for it, a second war based on false intelligence.  The prospect is so outrageous that he's even losing the conservatives over it, but if you're expecting a change of W's heart before he leaves office to await history's judgment, I wouldn't hold my breath.  

3. The administration picks and chooses which sections of the Geneva Convention to honor.  Prisoners of war become unlawful enemy combatants and, just like that, the Convention no longer applies.  Torture becomes "enhanced interrogation."  CIA operatives are excepted from the spirit and the rule of the Geneva Convention.  Guantanamo Bay has been ruled to not be US territory and, therefore, not bound by US law.  When, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court found that the Bush military commissions were illegal as they didn't meet the standards of "civilized peoples," Bush sent legislation legalizing his prerogatives to a spineless Congress, who passed it as the Military Commissions Law 2006.  In his article, "The U.S. Has a History of Using Torture," Alfred McCoy details how Bush then transferred top Al-Quaida captives from various CIA prisons to Gitmo where the law "strips detainees of their habeas corpus rights, sanctions endless detention without trial, and allows use of tortured testimony before Guantanamo Military Commissions."  This is in blatant disregard of our own 5th Amendment to the Constitution which reads, in part, "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..."  As if tortured testimony could ever be admissible in a legitimate court of law.

The Bush administration does not even pretend to submit to the same principles and laws expected of the rest of the world.  And, in truth, it's hard to blame them.  They are so rarely held to account for their transgressions by either the media or the American people themselves.  Glenn Greenwald put it succinctly last October when he wrote:

"As a country, we've known undeniably for almost two years now that we have a lawless government and a President who routinely orders our laws to be violated.  His top officials have repeatedly been caught lying outright to Congress on the most critical questions we face.  They have argued out in the open that the "constitutional duty" to defend the country means that nothing -- including our "laws" -- can limit what the President does.

It has long been known that we are torturing, holding detainees in secret prisons beyond the reach of law and civilization, sending detainees to the worst human rights abusers to be tortured, and subjecting them ourselves to all sorts of treatment which both our own laws and the treaties to which we are party plainly prohibit.  None of this is new.

And we have decided, collectively as a country, to do nothing about that."

Nothing, indeed.  And yet, as the Olympic torch arrives upon our shores, we rush to line the streets of San Francisco, along the Embarcadero, in protest of the human rights abuses by the host country of China.  To voice our outrage that we are extending a hand of friendship to the imperial fist that is slowly crushing peace-loving Tibet.  To follow up Paris and London's protests with a little Yankee smackdown of our own.

All fine and good -- the Chinese should be held accountable.  They seem like pretty bad guys, given half a chance.  But where's the public uproar against our own government?  Where is the outcry against the way we present ourselves to the world?  I've written about this before and received many comments to the effect that we're not even in the same league as China and it's ridiculous to compare the two countries.

Really?  The reason for our collective silence is that we're not as bad as China?  Talk about lowering the bar.  Americans, unlike the current administration, are born with the gene of hypocrisy.  Born with it and then our culture nourishes it on a daily basis throughout our lives.  We preach freedom of choice and justice for all, as long as we're designing the menu and manning the scales.  As nearly as I can figure it, because we ended World War Two, landed on the moon and invented cable TV, we believe we really are superior to . . . well, everybody else.  That we should be showered with deference, gratitude and love by the rest of the world.  Like a citizen of the Roman Empire, free to walk the face of the earth without fear of molestation.   

The truth is, that hasn't been the case for some time.  Bush has spent whatever goodwill capital we had remaining over the past few years, running roughshod over international appeals for reason.  Meanwhile, Europe is using America as their own personal Filene's Basement, China continues to collect our IOU's and we send a billion dollars a day to the middle-east for oil to run our country.  The chickens may not be roosting yet, but they're on their way home.

All of which is why Barack Obama is the only candidate who makes sense as our next president.  It's going to take an extraordinary effort by an exceptional leader to rejoin the international community and repair our reputation, savaged by Team Bush.  It will require withdrawing our troops from Iraq, engaging in the fight to save the planet from global warming, strengthening the dollar so we regain our worldwide shopping privileges, righting the trade imbalances that are threatening our domestic productivity and, perhaps most importantly, earning back our position as one of the legitimate  voices for human rights around the world.

We can no longer afford to pick and choose who we will or won't talk with.  Iraq must be stabilized.  Iran must be brought into the international community of nations.  North Korea must be persuaded not to share its nuclear technology with anyone who comes knocking with a blank check in hand.  Cuba is back in play.  Chavez has threatened to stop shipping Venezualian oil to the U.S.

This is no time to be demanding preconditions before we will negotiate with troublesome nations.  For much of the rest of the world, we're a troublesome nation.  We need to sit down at as many tables as we can find a chair to and start convincing the international community that we are back.  We went a little crazy there for awhile but we feel better now and we're ready to get to work.  McCain can't do that.  You know what they say.  You can take the pilot out of the navy but you can't take the navy out of the pilot.  He'll always be a cold-war cowboy.  I could see him staring down Krushchev but I can't picture him at a table with Ahmadinejad  and Al-Assad negotiating America's role in Iraq's future.  And Clinton is adamant in her refusal to lend the prestige of the office to dicey negotiations, too (never mind that the prestige level is at an all-time low).  Desperate times call for a new approach. 

Obama has, from day one, promised to take JFK's advice, "never fear to negotiate," to heart.  He preaches his willingness to sit down with any and all of our adversaries in an attempt to find some common ground.  It's a harbinger of how he views America's role in the future.  We can again lead by example, not solely through coercion and might.  It's no longer possible to walk around with a big stick as the world's policeman.  Bush had nothing but contempt for the United Nations (hence his nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador the the UN).  As the world's sole remaining super-power he believed we should answer to no one.  

Well, we've tried it his way.  How'd that work out?   

Maybe answering to the international community is exactly what is called for right about now.  Thanks, W.  You may go now.  History is waiting.

Just Say No To A Boycott

I'm thinking about visiting Lake George, in upstate New York, this summer.  To do so, I will have to pass through the state capitol of Albany.  Home of the New York State Assembly which just rejected Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan for New York City.  It was a lousy, cowardly move on the legislature's part and they need to be held accountable.  

For my part, I intend to boycott the lunch counter of the Miss Albany Diner on my way through the city.  I'll pack a sandwich instead.  I was inspired to act by the growing clamor against participation in the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, highlighted by Hillary Clinton's call yesterday for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies in protest of China's miserable record on human rights.  

The theory goes that, if China wants to be treated like a big-time, international power, they need to clean up their act and start respecting the rights of their own citizens, as well as Tibetans and Sudanese and anyone else they've dissed over the past six months.  In other words, they need to meet our human rights standards before we will legitimize their government with our presence at the party they're planning.

You've got to be kidding.  That deafening silence you hear coming out of the White House is Bush and his lackeys trying to come up with a response that won't bring down the house over at the United Nations.  Laugh?  It would be greeted like the stateroom scene from "Night At The Opera."  

America demanding respect for civil rights and calling for a government to take responsibility for it's actions?  America, with her history of supporting Somoza in Nicaragua, Mobutu in Zaire, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, who killed 1.5 million in Cambodia, Amin in Uganda, Batista in Cuba, Botha in South Africa, the Duvaliers, who slaughtered 40,000 in Haiti, Doe in Liberia, Franco in Spain, Diehm in South Vietnam, and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, our best friend in the region despite his regime which hangs onto power through the use of torture, amputation and public hangings.  Who punishes female adultry with death by stoning.  That America?

America who financed Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, Trujillo, Suharto and the Shah of Iran?  Who greased the wheels for Ford, GM and Studebaker to sell trucks to Franco's Spain and ITT to provide the phone and radio systems for Nazi Germany?  That America?

The America that brought the world the images of Abu Ghraib, the stories of wrongful detention and torture in Guantanamo Bay and the secret prisons we've set up in Thailand, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe to deal with the really tough nuts to crack?  Well, not to deal with them so much as to disappear them.  

The America that stands with Iran and the Congo as countries who execute juveniles and the mentally ill?  That openly mocked the ideals set forth in her own Constitution by passing the Patriot Act, thereby giving the government the right to spy on its own citizens without demonstrating probable cause?  That responded ( with positively glacial alacrity) to Hurricane Katrina's ravaging of the citizens of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast with police brutality, racial profiling and discrimination?  

The America who showed her respect for the international community and her sense of responsibility for producing 36% of the world's greenhouse emissions while only representing 4.6% of the global population by opting out of the Kyoto Protocol immediately upon George Bush taking office?  Thereby proudly joining Kazakhstan as the only two nations not to ratify the treaty.  That America?

And finally, the America that invaded Iraq to exterminate a tinhorn dictator and settle a family debt and is still there, thousands of lives and millions of refugees and trillions in treasure later?  

Is that really the resume we're supposed to bring with us to the table when we sit down with the Chinese and lecture them on human rights?

George Bush probably doesn't think so.  Tough to sell, globally, that is.  We need to think smaller.  The Opening Ceremonies might be a little awkward.  There was a story in the Times Online a few weeks ago that just might fit the bill.  It seems the US athletes are planning to bring their own food to Beijing, rather than risk trusting the local cuisine.  The Chinese aren't pleased but they're finding it hard to defend their home-cooking, given all the recent public health scares they've endured.  

Yeah, that's right.  It's an Olympic food boycott, similar in many ways to the protest I've planned for my Albany visit.  I think Dana Perino needs to clip that article and trot it right into the Oval Office for the president to see.  Give him something to hang his cowboy hat on here.  

Because, for once, I'm with the administration.  We're in no position to make a big deal out of this human rights thing.   

Superdelegates? I Don't Think So.

Where are we, exactly, in the race for the democratic nomination?  

Obviously, it's a closely contested fight.  Obama has a lead of roughly 700,000 in the popular vote, discounting Michigan and Florida.  For those who have no problem with ignoring the agreed-upon rules and insist upon counting the two states votes as they currently stand, Obama leads by around 75,000 votes.  Or course, they have to get their minds around the pesky fact that Obama didn't campaign in Florida.  (I know, neither did Clinton, but she started this race with a huge lead in Florida, thanks to it's NY snowbirds and other seniors-laden demographics.  Obama would inarguably have closed the gap, as he does in all states, by putting his superior organization on the ground and talking to people face-to-face.)  And his name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.  Along with Biden, Edwards and Richardson, he agreed to forego the state as a result of Michigan's unsanctioned advancement of their primary's date.  Absent her three main competitors, Clinton "won" the primary, defeating "Uncommitted" by 15%.

Delegate counters are as finicky as Maseratis but Obama seems to have a lead of somewhere between 110 and 160 pledged delegates.  That includes 254 pledged superdelegates for Clinton and 216 for Obama.  Since February 5th, Obama has picked up 69 Supers and Clinton has shown a net loss of 2.  Out of 795 total superdelegates, roughly 330 remain publicly up for grabs.  

What do these numbers mean?  Basically, if this were a foot race, Obama has already made up the stagger as they enter the homestretch, Hillary's calf just cramped up and she has begun limping noticeably.  The Mark Penn departure is huge, and may continue to haunt her campaign.  The initial refusal to cut ties with him completely could very well just be postponing the inevitable.  It's hard to see what she gains by having his firm continue to advise the campaign at this point.   

This is not yet another call for her to drop out.  I've argued her right to stay in until she feels she's done for months now.  Hell, forget Clinton -- I've supported Nader's right to run throughout the past three elections.  But my question is this:

What's up with the Superdelegates?  And what master of irony so named them?  

There was a piece a couple of weeks ago by Jonathan Allen of The Congressional Quarterly on Truthout.org.  He says there are 104 superdelegates that are elected officials who have not committed either way yet.  Seventy-nine of them are from districts or states that have already voted, so their constituents' preferences are known, if that is an issue for them.

What the hell are they waiting for?  Susan Davis, representing a San Diego district that went for Obama, is still unwilling to choose:

"I hope we don't (have to influence the election's outcome).  No clear mandate at all in this district, so that makes my job probably tougher, not easier."

What do you mean, you hope you don't?  Then why are you wearing that Superdelegate costume?  Is it just so you can sit on the floor in Denver and rubber-stamp the will of the people?  Maybe land a cameo on The Daily Show?  Any old mortal delegate can do that.  

A Superdelegate is presumably wiser than the hoi polloi and blessed with a deeper insight into the party's future best interests.  Is she telling me that after 80% of the primaries and, what, thirty debates that she hasn't decided who she believes is the Democrats' best hope?  Either she's not coming clean or she's unqualified to call herself a Superdelegate.  She sounds like a wimp to me.  So do the rest of them.

Look, superdelegates were a crappy idea twenty-five years ago and they still are.  Either they vote in tandem with their constituents (in which case they're irrelevant) or they vote their conscience and risk overturning the will of the people.  It's a choice between two bad options.  Susan Davis and Robert Wexler and Corrine Brown and the rest of the undeclareds should go ahead and choose a side.  Clinton can run until August if she so desires.  But the professionals should have made up their minds by now which is the stronger horse.  If they didn't want that responsibility, they shouldn't have accepted the Superdelegate blessing.

Democrats need to stop blaming Hillary.  Criticizing her for not quitting is like castigating the scorpion for stinging the toad.  It's her nature to fight unreasonably.  She will obstinately continue to cling to the fleeting hope that the superdelegates will come to her rescue (and their senses) in the nick of time.  It's who she is.

If you want to blame someone, blame the Superdelegates.  They could end this tomorrow if they had the guts.  

It's Not Only Rock and Roll

I grew up in a house filled with music.  My parents were young, even by those day's standards, when they had my older sister and me so they were still kids themselves while we were children.  Their tastes were eclectic and fairly sophisticated, especially for our sleepy, Midwestern city of Des Moines, Iowa.  There was often classical music (which I liked) or opera (which I didn't) playing.  But just as often there was rock and roll.  I grew up listening to the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin and the Rolling Stones.  Especially the Stones.  The first album I remember falling in love with was "Beatles '65."  But the second was the Stones' "Beggar's Banquet."  The Beatles infatuation ran its course and faded by junior high school.  The Stones never did.

Leslie was born fifteen months before me and our tastes influenced each other throughout adolescence.  She introduced me to David Bowie, Roxy Music and the Sex Pistols.  I gave her Rod Stewart (with the Faces), the Who and Prince.  We agreed to disagree on Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith.  (She leaned towards Robert Plant and I favored Steven Tyler.)

But the one constant, the one thing we accepted as Truth, was that the Rolling Stones were, indeed, the Greatest Rock and Roll Band In the World.  I wanted to be Mick Jagger and she wanted to be with Keith Richards.  We saw our first Stones concert together at the Capital Center outside of Washington, DC in 1972.  We were front row, center when they passed through Hampden, Virginia the summer of '75.  We drank and drugged our way through our teens and twenties, often with "You Can't Always Get What You Want" or "Brown Sugar" playing loud in the background.

Leslie moved to New York City in the late seventies and I followed her, as I so often did, in 1985.  She stayed, got married and became a wonderful chef.  I left in '89 and chased life until I returned to this city last year.  I came, as much as anything else, because New York was Leslie's home and she had passed away in August of 2006 after fighting cancer for years.  Moving back seemed the only way to keep her close.  Sometimes it seems to be working, often it doesn't.  If you've ever lost a sibling or a child you know how it is.  

"Shine a Light," the Rolling Stones concert film by Martin Scorsese opened today in Manhattan.  It documents their 2006 show at the Beacon Theatre in New York and it is being shown on IMAX screens where available.  I haven't seen a Stones show in nearly ten years, since I scalped a ticket and sat in the top tier of FedEx Field, more for curiosity's sake  than anything else.  I still listen to their music but they haven't made a great album since the early seventies, in my opinion.  The FedEx show was pleasant, in a removed kind of way, and they still sounded better than almost anyone out there, but I had seen enough.  The magic was gone. Either they had grown too old or I had.  Maybe both.

So I entered the Lincoln Square Theatre this afternoon with no great expectations.  I'm a Stones fan who is comfortable with the fact that their best work is behind them.  I feel the same about Scorcese.  But he had done a masterful job years ago with "The Last Waltz," his concert film of The Band's last concert, and I was eager to see his work after stepping up in class.  After all, The Band, while a clever enough name, was just another pretty good group; the Rolling Stones were truly The Band.

I sat high up, centered in front of the 60-foot IMAX screen.  The film opens, as these things often do, with footage of the chaos leading up to the show, the black and white image filling perhaps half the screen.  Then, as Keith strikes the first chord of  "Jumpin' Jack Flash," Scorcese cranks the volume and the image explodes into brilliant color across the screen, filling your entire field of vision and then some, given that the IMAX screen is concave and creates a three-dimensional effect of being surrounded.  

I was simultaneously struck by an impression and a sensation, that both only intensified as the film progressed.  First, that the Stones sounded awesome and looked terrific.  Not young, mind you -- they're in their mid-to-late sixties and their faces show every year.  But they are engaged and entertaining and exuberant and . . . happy, I guess is the word.  They are arguably the best in history at doing what they do and, even having lost a step or two, they know how to put on a rock and roll show like nobody's business.

The competing sensation was that of a literally throat-closing grief, of missing my sister.  I watched Mick and Keith play songs that we had listened to over and over and over again as we grew up together.  Memories came back that were so sharp as to seem like almost yesterday, some thirty years later.  Of whispered conversations upstairs in her room about our first crushes.  Of driving around DC in my convertible with the top down when she'd come to visit in the summer, singing along with Mick and the Boys at the top of our lungs.  Of sitting at Jack's Bar in Brooklyn, after she had found me an apartment as part of the price of getting me to follow her to New York, listening to the old-timers reminisce about the good old days and bitch about the present.  Of quitting drinking and holding on tight through the bad patches.  

And of being with her through the last few years, after it became tough for  her to get out and about as much.  It brought us together as a family, my parents, my younger sister, Leslie and her husband.  The only one of us who faced that fucking poison growing inside of her without ever taking a step back, without ever giving in to the pain and sorrow of what was coming to an end in front of our eyes, was Leslie.  She fought it as long as she could and then, somehow, she knew when it was time to give up the battle gracefully, which she did, holding the family together until she left us.  It was the most painful, as well as the most inspirational, time of my life.

The memories and feelings came over me in waves as I watched the Stones perform our favorite songs -- hers was "Sympathy For the Devil" and mine was "Tumblin' Dice."  I sat there in my seat with a lump in my throat and a silly grin on my face.  Experiencing, larger than life, our past.  The Rolling Stones were our youth.  

In one of the interview snippets throughout the film, Keith attributes their longevity to the simple fact that they love what they're doing.  And it shines throughout this film, their love affair with being on stage, basking in the adulation of their fans and reciprocating by kicking out rock and roll like nobody else has ever done.  The Stones are unique and completely comfortable in their skins.  For years, throughout the eighties and nineties, they flirted with caricature.  They were the rhythm and blues version of Dorian Gray's portrait.  Having sold their souls (and whatever else they could get their hands on) to the devil, they were destined to live forever as the "world's greatest band," playing "Satisfaction" over and over until there was no one left to listen.  But they passed through that and they are, in a weird way, almost metamorphosed into the best there ever was.  Again.

You can see the joy on their faces as they connect with the audience, as they've been doing for 45 years now.  It's as if they realize they have hit the lottery, again and again and again.  They know they've worked for it and that they deserve it but, damn, life is good.  Imagine getting to be Mick Jagger and getting paid hundreds of millions to do it as a bonus.

Well, I was inspired.  And inspiration is something that's been pretty hit or miss since my sister died.  Her passing, and the grace with which she handled it -- and allowed everyone else to handle it -- showed me what it means to live with courage.  It's easy to lose track of that as time passes and real life comes at you.  But I was reminded again today of the inspiration that I had promised myself I'd take away from her abbreviated life.  I was nearly overcome with a resurgence of the pain as well as that strength as I watched the film.  But what shone through brightest of all was the inspiration to find a way to love what you do and to make that your life.  Anything less is just killing time.  

Anyway, it seems to me that that's what the Rolling Stones have accomplished and Scorcese has been able to capture.  They've been living their dream since the day they were able to articulate it.  We should all be so fortunate. 

I'm not sure how to rate "Shine a Light."  I'm far from an objective observer.  For the right person, at the right time, it's an excellent film, maybe a great film.  If you're a Stones fan, you need to see it.  Likewise if you're a Scorcese fan.  If you've reached an age where college students look like children, you need to see it.  And, if you're still trying to figure out how to age gracefully without casting aside the dreams of your youth entirely, most definitely go see this film.

I loved it.

Leslie, you should have been there.  They were singing to you.

Obama Is Wrong

Obama pissed me off last night.  I'm curled up on the couch, eating popcorn and pizza, watching Chris Matthew's Hardball College Tour, starring Barack Obama.  The West Chester University band is playing, the cheerleaders are hopping around, doing all the silly things cheerleaders do, Matthews is dropping Pennsylvania pols names like a kid from Jersey trying to get into the Limelight.  Plus he's serving up softballs for his guy, Senator Obama, for the full  60 minutes.  I'm a happy guy.

A few students were allowed to step to the microphone and ask questions.  Which, by the way, were generally more informed and certainly more nuanced than the pros have come up with at the couple of hundred debates they've held so far.  A young man asked him where he stood on gay marriage.  And he said, "I'm not in favor of gay marriage but I'm in favor of a very strong civil union."  Say what?

It just felt wrong.  As the National Journal's most liberal senator of 2007, with a score of 95.5, it wasn't the answer I expected.  I expected him to endorse a policy more along the lines of, "Ask me to the wedding, tell me where it's at."  What's the point of being the most liberal if your position on equal treatment for gays is basically indistinguishable from John McCain's?

I must confess, I'm a little embarrassed that this blind-sided me like it did.  I like to think I keep pretty up-to-date on where the candidates stand.  I guess I had just assumed Obama was as forward-thinking and inclusive on gay marriage as he seems to be on most everything else.  

I checked his website.  No mention whatsoever of gay marriage.  Not a peep.

In answer to the kid's question, Obama went on to say that "it's very important that the state make sure that they are not denying the same kinds of rights that have historically been denied..."  Hey, Barack, if I wanted to vote for state's rights, I would have voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980.  The irony of the moment hit me like a ball peen hammer:  Obama was arguing for state's rights as he ran for president outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, twenty-eight years after Reagan kicked off his presidential bid with a speech endorsing state's rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi.  Reagan was giving a not-so-subtle nod to the conservative wing of the party at the time, Philadelphia, Mississippi being the town where three young civil rights workers were slain in 1964 while registering blacks to vote.  

I thought, surely Obama should be toeing the party line on this one.  So I checked the Democratic National Committee's official stance.  To my further surprise, I discovered that they also think marriage is an issue that should be left to the states, taking no position on whether states should marry same-sex couples.  

Oh, everybody's against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.  Obama, Clinton, even McCain.  They're lining up to vote against that one.  But support gay marriage?  Not so much.

I expected more from Obama.  He writes that, "marriage is between a man and a woman" but he remains "open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support marriage is misguided . . . I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God."   

Well, I am not impressed, Senator.  You trumpet your keen judgement and how it differentiates  you from your opponents.  We are continuously assured that you will be right from Day One.  Yet, on one of the diciest of social issues -- one that separates young from old, liberal from conservative, right from wrong -- you want to have it both ways.  You believe one thing but you admit to the possibility of the other.  That society and the Church may have swayed your opinion.  Good thing you didn't grow up in Kansas -- I'd hate to think where you would come down on creation/evolution.

He told the West Chester University student that, "young people are way ahead of the curve on this issue and I think it's important for the rest of the country to catch up."  

Just not him, evidently.

The Streets of New York

I've often thought that "Roman Holiday" could use an update and that I was just the man for the job.  You remember the 1953 film:  newspaperman Gregory Peck buzzes around Rome on a Vespa scooter with princess Audrey Hepburn on the back, giving her a glimpse of the real world before she returns to her rarified and sterile life of privilege and duty.  I'd move it to New York City, make the newspaperman a blogger, the princess an heiress to a New York real estate fortune and eliminate the thirteen-year gap in the two characters' ages (mostly because my girlfriend and I are the same age).  I'd grunge it up some and add an edgy soundtrack. What I'd like to keep is the Vespa.  They're so cool.  

Unfortunately, it wouldn't work.  I wouldn't last the weekend on a scooter in Manhattan -- I'd get killed.  

Traffic in midtown and downtown is out of control.  There are two conditions:  total gridlock, in which traffic grinds to a standstill and it can take an hour to travel a mile and a half crosstown, or total frenzy, where, given any room to maneuver at all, cars take off from red lights like corks escaping from champagne bottles, reaching speeds of 60 mph within the block.  They are then obliged to slam on the brakes for the next red light two blocks ahead, as the signals aren't sychronized for drag racing.  There is no in between -- these are the two states of NYC traffic.

And so, Manhattan drivers are insane.  The stress level is such that road rage is the normative psychological state.  You either operate your vehicle in a hyper-aggressive manner (cabbies, delivery drivers and owners of cars built before 1998) or you drive super-cautiously (seniors, diplomats, tourists and doctors in Porsches and Beemers).  A day trip into the city is like setting off on the Crusades -- you can't be sure when you'll be back or what shape you'll be in.  

And that's just driving.  Don't get me started on biking or walking.  Between the traffic, the noise pollution and air the quality of Charles Dickens' London, strolling through the streets of New York has become an exercise in masochism.  You'd think, someday, the people would rise up collectively and take back New York, the most exciting city in the world without an Eiffel Tower.

Well, the future just may be now.  The New York City Council voted Monday, 30-20, to approve Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing measure.  As described in the New York Times:

"The congestion pricing plan...would charge drivers with an E-ZPass $8 a day to enter Manhattan below 60th Street on weekdays from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.  Those drivers would also receive a credit for bridge or tunnel tolls they paid on the same day.  Drivers without an E-ZPass would pay $9 and would not receive credit for tolls."

The plan would generate some $500 million per year to be applied to mass transit improvements, that is, buses, subways and trains.  The U.S. Department of Transportation has pledged $354 million in federal grants to help fund the program.  Now the plan just needs to get past the New York State Legislature, a very long way from a done deal.

This is not a new idea -- it's just new to Americans.  Singapore has had congestion pricing since 1975.  It has reduced traffic by 45%, traffic accidents by 25% and increased public transportation usage by 20%, all while Singapore's population and economy have continued to grow.  Stockholm, Sweden initiated congestion pricing in its central city in 2006.  It has already resulted in a 15% reduction in traffic and a 10-14% drop in carbon dioxide emissions.  London began a congestion pricing program in 2003.  They've seen a 30% drop in congestion, 20% decrease in fossil fuel consumption and a 37% increase in traffic speed in the city.  And, it generated $241 million for the city.  Although Londoners were skeptical initially, now 78% of those who pay the fees are satisfied with the system.  Germany, Italy and Norway are all experimenting with variations.  

But it just hasn't passed the smell test in America, for the most part.  We have this perverse love affair with our cars.  We like them big and we like them fast.  We'd prefer a four-door to a coupe, and an SUV to a sedan.  An inline-six is nice but what would really make us happy would be eight, or even twelve, cylinders.  Gas is at $3.50 a gallon and we're ready to storm the palace.  (Never mind that it's over eight bucks a gallon in the U.K. and more than $8.50 in Germany.)  It is our Manifest Destiny to live atop a two-car garage in the suburbs and ignore the HOV lanes on our commute into work each morning. 

Critics of the plan argue that it will function as a regressive tax because poor and working class folks are less able to afford the daily fee.  Well, all things being equal, aren't all taxes basically regressive?  The wealthy are always affected less than the poor -- it's the whole point of being wealthy.  But, to the critics' point, the poor and working classes already use public transportation in disproportionate numbers in large cities.  This plan will affect a smaller percentage of them than any other demographic.  If anything, the additional mass transit funding will improve their quality of life.

Critics also worry that small businesses will be hurt by the higher costs of transporting goods into and out of the city under the plan.  Fair enough.  However, the Partnership for New York City recently estimated that the current congestion is costing New Yorkers over $13 billion a year in late deliveries, wasted fuel and extra transport time.  It all depends which side of the coin you want to look at.

Which is the point, really.  We, as a country, insist upon measuring everything in dollars and cents.  We constantly confuse quality of life with standard of living.  We take our two weeks of vacation each year in Mexico or Italy and delight in the relaxed pace of life, complete with siesta and passeggiata.  We promise ourselves we will reprioritize our own lives.  But invariably, within a few weeks of returning home, we are back to working 10-12 hours, 6-7 days each week.  

The thing is, it's not all about the money.  It's not even all about quality of life.  It's about saving the planet.  Not for the next generation, if that doesn't move you.  For this generation.

An ice shelf seven times the size of the island of Manhattan -- about 160 square miles in area -- collapsed into the sea off Antarctica this month as a direct result of global warming.  Which, unless you're a liar or an idiot or both, you'd have to admit is inarguably a result, in part, of the greenhouse gases created by sitting in a 5:00 traffic jam in New York City.  So is the fact that lobsters are dying out as their waters warm.  And Pacific salmon.  As is the increase in hurricanes, floods and fires.  The list is long and you can read it here.

This is not a catastrophe waiting to happen.  It's happening.  Politicians used to argue that we had an obligation to turn over a healthy planet to our children.   The hell with them -- the water's rising now.  Money has to be spent now.  Sacrifices need to be made now.  

It's not what we're used to doing, sacrifice.  No one is going to confuse the baby boomers with the Greatest Generation.  Nor Bush with FDR.  The only sacrifice we've been urged to make to help support the war in Iraq, for instance, is to get out there and shop.  

Al Gore is kicking off a $300 million, three-year ad campaign to sell us on the concept that we're destroying the earth and we need to stop now.  Coincidentally, an amount similar to the $300 million and change that the DOT is planning to give New York City to start clearing the streets.  People make a big deal out of those numbers.  Such an investment, such a sacrifice.  

$300 million is what we spend every eighteen hours on the Iraq War.  So don't tell me that a few hundred million is too much to spend on a cleaner, healthier, safer, saner New York City.

It won't be "Roman Holiday," however.  My girlfriend will never get on a scooter.