BODY: Gene Robinson's Prayer.

Borrowed from Pastor Dan.

Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next president.

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will...

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic "answers" we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be "fixed" anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

AMEN.

Event: Letter from the UAW.

This email arrived in my Inbox this morning (four days late). I pass it along in the interest of promoting a respondible loan to the Big Three through congress. Please consider writing a short letter. My thoughts and qualifications are here.

---

Dear Connor Coyne,

Please respond right away to this urgent request by calling your
Senators or Representative through this toll-free number: (877)
331-1223. Or send an e-mail:
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/autojobs

The auto industry needs help in Congress right away -- and if we
don't get it, the jobs and benefits of hundreds of thousands of
our active and retired members and millions of other Americans
are at risk.

Next week the House and Senate are expected to vote on
legislation to provide an emergency $25 billion bridge loan to
GM, Ford and Chrysler to help weather the current severe credit
and economic crises. Without this assistance, there is a real
danger that the three companies will run out of cash and be
forced to cease all manufacturing and business operations in the
near future.

The collapse of these companies would be devastating:

-- In addition to the hundreds of thousands of Big Three workers
who would lose their jobs, up to 3 million other workers could
see their jobs disappear at dealers, suppliers of components and
materials, and other businesses that depend on the auto
industry.

-- Almost 1 million retirees and their spouses and dependents
could suffer cuts in their pension benefits and the loss of
health insurance coverage.

-- The federal pension guarantee program could be saddled with
enormous liabilities, jeopardizing its ability to protect
benefits for millions of other workers.

-- Because of the importance of the auto industry to our entire
economy, the collapse of the Big Three auto companies would
aggravate the current recession, creating further hardships for
working families and communities across the United States.

-- Revenues to federal, state and local governments would be
sharply reduced, forcing drastic cuts in vital social services
at the time they are most needed.

Congress can prevent these devastating consequences. The federal
government has already stepped forward to provide assistance to
Wall Street and financial institutions. It is now time for
Congress to help Main Street by providing urgently needed help
for the auto companies.

You have probably seen or heard some commentators who are trying
to blame you and your fellow UAW members for the current
situation of the companies by attacking our "overly rich" wages
and benefits. We need to rebut these false charges, and make it
clear that active and retired UAW members have already made
enormous sacrifices in the 2005 and 2007 collective bargaining
agreements.

Other commentators have tried to blame the Big Three for their
current situation by saying it is attributable to their
insistence on producing "gas guzzling" vehicles. This overlooks
the major progress the companies are making in bringing forward
more fuel efficient vehicles. More importantly, it ignores the
fact that the current crisis is due to the huge drop in overall
auto sales that has been caused by the larger credit and
economic crises that have engulfed our entire nation.

Auto sales in October were a mere 10.8 million on an annualized
basis, the lowest level in 25 years. All automakers reported
steep declines in their sales. The problem is not that consumers
don't want to buy the quality products that GM, Ford and
Chrysler are making. The problem is that consumers have stopped
buying vehicles from any companies.

Please call your Representative and Senators now. Urge them to
vote for legislation to provide an immediate $25 billion bridge
loan to the Big Three auto companies. Tell them this is
essential to prevent the liquidation of these companies and
devastating consequences for millions of workers and retirees
and for our entire economy.

You can use the following toll-free number to call your
Representative and Senators: (877) 331-1223. Or send an e-mail:
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/autojobs

The legislation to provide assistance to the auto industry will
likely be taken up by the House and Senate sometime next week.
So please call or e-mail right away!

--------------------------------------------------

Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.

http://www.unionvoice.org/join-forward.html?domain=Uawire&r=p1AD3mEqTS5H

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for
UAWire at:

http://www.unionvoice.org/Uawire/join.html?r=p1AD3mEqTS5HE

---

UPDATE: Here is the letter I sent to Jan Schakowsky, Dick Durbin, and Barack Obama.

Dear Senator Durbin and Congresswoman Schakowsky,

I know you're getting a ton of mail on this subject right now, and are well-versed in the pros and cons. I will try to be succinct.

I strongly opposed you both on your support for the Wall Street bailout because I saw it passed with what I saw as a lack of discretion. I registered protest votes due to this (something I haven't done since 1996), because I do think that congress should be penalizing any corporate interest that relies on the taxpayers to save them from bankruptsy. In practice, they are essentially holding the economy ransom to get what they need to continue.

This loan to the auto industry seems more sound to me than the other bailout. It is a much smaller amount (not that billions are anything to sneeze at), and I understand the myriad ways that the automotive industry impacts the American economy at large.

Here's the thing: you shouldn't have to write a blank check in order to help the auto industry. The Big Three have taken some steps in necessary retooling and restructuring; demand that they take more. Eliminate what fluff you can, and pass a bill with stringent requirements. You win with the Big Three for giving them breathing room. You win with the public for representing their interest. And with me, I will both happily and enthusiastically vote for you, because I expect my senators and representatives to fight for me, and I am proud when they do so.

I know that this sort of middle-road and straightforward approach is often taken off the table (and for all the wrong reasons); you cannot help the the environment in which you are debating this issue. But this is a straightforward case, and this is the most reasonable solution.

Sincerely,

Connor Coyne

Event: Election Post-Mortem.

I couldn't post yesterday; I was just too exhausted. I won't post tomorrow either; I need at least a brief break. On election night we hosted a breakfast-at-dinnertime party while the results came in, drank orange juice and ate sausage and potatoes. A loud sound went up at Pennsylvania, then Ohio, and then, when Obama passed 270, everyone freaked out. It was like crowds at the Super Bowl or Lollapalooza, only bigger and better. The champagne flowed and we all went out into the streets, and the news was all about people running into the streets.

* * * * *

Yesterday I was nursing a hangover all day long, but by evening I felt better. I met up with some friends at Metropolis, and we all took a walk. Just to take a walk. To enjoy the unexpected late fine weather and to muse on just how big and momentous this week has been.

So this, then, is my election post-mortem.

It is good that Obama won the election so decisively. Already, this one move has served to bolster our status in the world. The breadth of Obama's support has opened up states that have not been in play to Democrats in decades. The Great Lakes region was united behind a presidential candidate for the first time since 1972. The press has been quick to point out the significance of this election as a civil rights victory; they are right to do so. We should not forget that it is also a victory for Democrats, who have been resurgent since 2006, for the Left, which will (presumably) be better represented by Obama than by it would have been by Hillary Clinton, and most importantly, as an emphatic refutation of Bush-era policies of division and marginalization.
And yet... concessions are already being made and it would seem that there is little time to rest on our laurels.

It is also good that the Democrats picked up seats in congress; it would have been better if they had picked up a supermajority. I've commented to a few people in the last several days that whenever one party achieves dominance, things start to go south for them pretty quickly, and I suspect it's because interal rigor and discipline become a liability in a rush to fast action. I believe this argument, and yet it is meant to be a qualification of, not a dissent from, victory as a unilateral Democratic majority.
In the first place, the U.S. is too sheltered from the effects we have on our neighbors and the world at large. There is a pendulum in U.S. politics, but it's motion is strictly determined by a relative understanding of what is "liberal" and what is "conservative." It is fine to consider these differences meaningful, but we needn't consider them objective. While I don't believe the U.S. is definitionally a center-right nation, it functionally is at this time. Our policy needs to move to the left in general to accomodate crises that can only be addressed through action that is both democratically and collectively determined.
In the second place, the horrific damage rendered under the Bush administration, propogated by Republicans and sometime abetted by Democrats in congress over the last 14 years, and often upheld by an inconsistent judiciary, are huge in magnitude and can must be addressed by broad and sweeping executive and legislative action. Given the abysmal performance of our congressional Democratic leaders (we're all thinking of Reid and Pelosi), we need a sufficient "vote cusion" to make action possible. In our current crises, action is necessary, and therefore, Democrats and Independents should hope to see more Democrats in office.
In the third place: The Republican Party of the 2000s is much like the Democratic Party of the 1850s: it is broken. While it still stands upright, it only wreaks damage on itself and those it represents. Today's Republican Party represents not a free market but a fanged market; it represents not American patriotism but American nationalism. The riven Democratic party of the 1800s recovered, and I believe that the Republicans will as well. But first they have to be broken. They have to reconstitute themselves along their original premise of individual liberties upheld at the expense of collective prerogative, of a correspondent expectation of individual sacrifice, and of a government that tries to excise unnecessary intervention. That Republican party, a party recognizeable to Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater, can contribute to our political landscape. But this Republican party, hateful, angry, alienating, divisive, invasive, unscrupulous, and increasingly regional: it is walking around broken. It is wounded and wounding, and as such, this broken party needs to be further broken. It needs to be crushed. Only then can it recover.
Now the Democrats didn't get a supermajority, but they picked up enough support to pursue an agressive progressive agenda with executive support. I do hope they use that strength with rigor and discipline. But make no mistakes: I hope that they sustain and increase it, and above all else, use it.

Finally, it is good that some good ballot amendments passed: I'm thinking most fondly on Michigan's Proposal 2, which allows research on embryonic stem cells, and California approved a bullet train, which is pretty cool, and which may in the long run offset the two other environmental proposals the state rejected. Sadly, the success of Proposition 8 in Califoria would seem to trump many progresses made around the country, as it revoked marriage rights in one of only two states where gays and lesbians can truly enjoy marriage equality. Beneath the hubbub over California, similar amendments passed in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. And yet... amid all this... the challenges have begun, and they are built upon firm constitutional ground.

* * * * *

It is deceptive of the graveness of our times to pretend that this election was an unmitigated vitory; in fact there is more to worry about now than ever. It is equally deceptive to underestimate the genuine power, the profound importance of what was declared last Tuesday; as Tom Brokaw said on election night, "just over 150 years ago, Mr. Obama could have been owned, as a black man." The emphasis is mine, but the emphasis is what gives this often unspoken statement its force. I think that Clay Bennett said it even better.

To fall back on a common declaration these days, yes, we can. Yes, we did. Yes, we will.

Be delirious.

Be deliriously happy.

Take a day, a week, a month to feel this happiness, and as you do, use that energy to infect and infest your labor and your conversation.

We just lived through a big thing and it was good ...

and ...

... it has foreshadowed some of the hardest work our nation will ever have to do.

END OF POST.

Event: What Is Socialism? Is Obama a Socialist?

If this issue is going to be brought up in debate and discussion, we owe it to each other to confront the issue up front. College profs have a tendency to make it complicated, but as for the disputes dominating the news today, the discussion needn't be particularly complicated.

I write this as a socialist, who votes center Democrat 90% of the time, and makes occasional "fringe" comments that diminish my popularity. I consider myself a socialist because I believe that the socialist premise is correct and will ultimately lead the most stable, sane, humane, and productive society. I vote Democrat because of the two major parties their goals are closer to compatible with mine. The socialist premise demands popular support, and that this is a long-term game; one that requires generations on generations of social and cultural evolution, and I believe that compromise and consensus are the only valid means of achieving this goal, even if it comes after many tiny steps and innumerable setbacks. (I wonder if that would make me a Toynbee Socialist).

I strongly support Obama.

However, I will say this emphatically: he does not buy the socialist premise. He is not a socialist, nor a marxist, nor a communist, nor a social democrat. It is only reasonable to call someone an "-ist" or associate them with an "-ism" if 1) those terms mean something and 2) the person in question behaves accordingly.

Fortunately, these terms all mean something, and that something can be succinctly distilled.

Karl Marx was a German scholar (historian, economist, and philosopher) whose career spanned the second half of the 19th century. His argument, expounded in collaboration with Friedrich Engels, argued that history is a series of class struggles over control of the means of production. Capitalism, he argues, that is, our system of selling and trading, is based on fundamental inequality of resources that can only compound over time. Eventually the extremity of inequality will become so aggrivated that the disadvantaged masses will rise up and assume control, bringing about a classless state in which material resources are collectively owned. This is, in a nutshell, what Marx and Engels argue, and "marxism" is a term connoting a basic agreement with this premise.

"Communism" is a more-or-less direct offshoot of Marxism. It generally involves an revolutionary interpretation of Marxism developed by Vladimir Lenin prior to the Russian Revolution. Communism goes beyond predicting a revolution and outlines a specifically military answer to bring about the end of class warfare. Ironically, because communism empowers a military elite, the Soviet-style communist states of the later 20th century all involved a ruling elite with repressive controls over the press, education, the military, and so forth. This can also be said of non-Soviet style communist states such as Cuba or the People's Republic of China. They all have dismal economies and even dismaller human rights records, which is part of the reason why the Right likes to associate Democrats with Communists. Communism is not the same as Socialism, and as I said before, Obama is neither a Communist nor a Socialist.

"Socialism" predates Marxism as a social philosophy, but was heavily influenced by his writing (Marx drew on earlier examples of Socialist states, and his influence promoted the ideal of socialism internationally). In its simplest form, Socialism is a philosophy advocating collective ownership. It need not predicate itself on a fundamental premise of class warfare, and it certainly not resort to violent revolution. A number of modern nations have attempted socialism to varying degrees and with mixed-success. Socialist states in Latin America have a spotty record, although there appears to be a trend toward stability over time. Scandinavian states approach socialism with more unambiguous success, which is reflected in high taxes, low income inequality, and extraordinarily high standards-of-living.

"Social Democracy" is hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism, although in its theory it cleaves somewhat closer to Capitalism. Private enterprise is sanctioned and legally protected, but institutions deemed too important to the national well-being (such as health-care) or too powerful and influential to operate on their own (in many nations, banking systems) are either managed or heavily regulated by the government. When we think of Social Democracies the most emblematic examples are wealthy and progressive Western European states like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. They have assertive economies dominated by some big players, but they also allow a much higher level of government intervention than we do in the U.S. But...

... here's the rub ...

... from a certain, and very fair, perspective all governments are, definitionally socialist to some extent. To socialize something is to compel collective ownership via a vis the government. The United States has a socialized postal service (though this is rarely controversial), socialized public education, and a socialized military. At times, prominent politicians (typically Republicans) argue to socialize military service: that's right, folks, the draft is socialism! This is why so many progressives roll their eyes at McCain's charge that Obama is a socialist: the recent take over of financial institutions by the White House is one of the most strident socialist acts in American history, and it was initiated and executed by Republicans!

* * * * *

In sum, capitalists argue that the latent potential in and initiative encouraged by markets trump the potential benefits of socialization. Socialists argue in response that the inequities of market systems will always poliferate, creating a society that is inherently unbalanced, unstable, and injust.

This is my attempt to overview the differences between the two philosophies in a neutral and unbiased manner.

I hope you can tell, at a glance, and in consideration of these observations, that Obama is not a socialist of any stripe. He does favor a few limited socializations. I say a "few" because only one of his initiatives -- health care -- will involve this on a large scale. I say "limited" because his health care plan does not dissolve insurance agencies or health care coverage (which would be a feature of any authentic socialist system) but instead provides a government alternative, much as the USPS is an alternative to FedEx or the UPS.

In the past, the Republican Party could honestly claim to be "less socialist" than the Democratic Party, given that they generally believed in less regulation by government. It was Reagan who put an end to this, with his massive expansion of the military and his embrace/invocation of a Religious Right that has been attempting to socialize religion in a very real way. Look at attempts to legislate marriage on the national level as the most conspicuous example; contrary to many on the Right there is little precedent for this in American history, with the possible exception of Prohibition. We all remember how that went.
The only remnants of the "small government" policies of the Republican Party are their continual provisions for repealing progressive taxation (ie. taxation that draws more heavily from the rich than the poor) and some areas of (typically economic) deregulation. Their governments are nevertheless at least as cumbersome, expansive, and socialized as those of the Democrats.

For those who assume socialism is an insult, a derogation, I'm posting this in part to show that it isn't. It is, like all systems of economics and government (including capitalism) neutral. It can only be evaluated by what it enables people to do and what it prevents them from doing. As such, it ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Cuba makes socialism look pretty bad; Sweden makes it look pretty good.

But Independents and Republicans and Democrats who stiffen at the notion of Socialism in general should take comfort: Barack Obama is no socialist. His support for the Wall Street bailout (like McCain's) is predicated on the assumption that markets are a workable premise, and this assumption fuel his plans to give a tax break to the middle class, to expand education as an incentive to global competition, to promotion of clean energy as an economic motivator.

Socialism isn't bad.

More: There's no reason to consider Obama a socialist.

Event: Information. Where to Get It and How to Use It.

EVENT

Information on National and Local Races.

ILLINOIS - COOK COUNTY
MICHIGAN - GENESEE COUNTY
NEW YORK - KINGS COUNTY

Congress.org: My races.

This website is a great, nonpartisan tool; it contains each candidates' statements of their own positions. Input your address and zip code and it will tell you which races are contested in the executive and legislative branches. Illinois residents can learn about their judicial candidates here.

Michigan voters should also consult the well-edited and comprehensive League of Women Voters guide.

Newspaper endorsements can be great as well. They have the benefit of knowing both the candidates and their immediate public thoroughly. Still, take a few minutes to scrutinize how they back up their assessments. Many editorial boards have at least a subtle partisan bent; it is telling this cycle that so many Republican-leaning rags have voiced support for Obama.

---

I personally, believe that it is very telling when a candidate won't provide a direct statement to surveys such as these; this is as close as we can get to direct, concise policy statements. It speaks volumes for a candidate to remain silent.

Additionally, each candidate deserves scrutiny on the basis of not only the particular office and policy positions they will hold, but on the political baggage they will bring to the position. Don't get me wrong; personality is important in any elected office. But in positions of national prominence, such as countrywide, congressional, or statewide posts, we should consider very carefully what a candidate's affiliations are, where their campaign money comes from, and who they are likely to appoint. These are at least as important as how likeable or reliable or even responsible the candidate is.

More locally, a small number of votes are more likely to make a big difference, and the cost of campaigning is low enough that it doesn't require candidates to take as many favors with strings attached. Often at this level personality is more important and party affiliation is less. Judicial races, city/township/town/village and county positions, school board governorships and so forth are all ideal for independent votes. They can give third parties and independent candidates a chance to assert and argue for their platforms without undermining a progressive coalition nationally, and liberation of such votes from compromise reduces the level of unnecessary baggage politicians tend to pick up early in their careers.

If you want to cast a protest vote in a national level race (I will be doing so, voting Green for Illinois' 9th congressional district), that can be effective, but please do so in an uncompetitive race. We need to acquire a large Democratic majority in this cycle.

If you consider yourself Independent, but want to vote Republican in a national level race, I urge you to consider very carefully why you are doing so. Parties change with time, and the last twenty years has made the Republican Party into a much uglier and more unfriendly entity than it has been in decades. These are not the Republicans who will cut your taxes or help small businesses, and they are certainly not the Republicans who will keep government out of your dining room and bedroom. Policy-wise, Eisenhower has more in common with Clinton and Obama than with Bush or McCain, and Gerald Ford spent the last several years of his life appalled at the behavior of his own party's leadership. An Independent who believes that extremes in government are destructive, and that policy-decision dictated by ideology and not a sober assessment of human nature and the world is an independent that should vote for Democrats this cycle.

Finally, it is a truism that when one party dominates government, it leads to a mess. However, the Republican party has pushed the U.S. so far to the right, and has drawn so much of the left towards center, that we need a Democratic supermajority in the senate and a large majority in the House to pass the needed changes. We will have to hold these Democrats accountable and make sure that they behave responsibly and answer to their constituencies, but there is a lack of both credibility and policy soundness in the Republican Party that cannot enjoy rational and reasoned discourse.

This doesn't mean that we should call off discourse; conversation with friends and enemies is essential, to paraphrase one of our presidential candidates in a different context.

But we shold be honest in confronting politicians and their organizations for what they are and how they have behaved.

The Republican Party does not deserved to be called sound or responsible this decade.

It deserves to be treated for the radical, reactionary, xenophobic position it has staked out in the world.

In this election, in national races, we need to look to the Democratic Party for leadership.

EVENT: Indulgent Gushing About the New York Times.

We all knew that the New York Times was going to endorse Obama.

They've endorsed Democrats since 1960, including such uphill candidates as Walter Mondale and George McGovern. And good on them for doing so. We might even say that the Chicago Trib's Obama endorsement is more significant in the grand scheme of things. They haven't endorsed a Democrat in their 160 years history, predating the Civil War.

But while the Trib endorsement is both a worthy tribute to a hometown hero and a sober assessment of the world we live in, it was really the Times' endorsement that made me a little teary-eyed today. Because here it was, the most recognized newpaper in the world, a home to Nobel Prize winning economists and the most effective political cartoonists alive, endorsing the candidate we have hoped and striven for during the dark days of the last decade.

And no, Obama isn't perfect. Some of my more conservative friends say, "well, we have reservations." I can honestly say, "what would you hope for?" "Who more could you ask for?" Was FDR perfect? Was JFK perfect? My favorite Democrat is LBJ, and he certainly wasn't perfect. Perfection isn't the issue. Having someone who hears you and recognizes you, who hears and recognizes the complexity of the world, and wrings the best of the world... having this person is the issue. And the New York Times stood up tonight and spoke emphatically where too many in the media have been inclined to hedge and qualify.

"Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries."

"Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing."

"After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States."

Thank you, New York Times. We didn't require your endorsement to understand the cost of the last decade or the promise of the next; the fact that our worst presidents shred the promise of an ambitious nation while the best define such ambition from the stuff of human flesh and soul.

But your words are correct, and simple, and direct, and eloquent.

They remind me that we were right about this stuff, this mess, this ache, the past, the hope and promise of the future.

This is our time, and it is a time I look forward to telling my children about.

More political caffeine to get us through the rough and tumble of the next two weeks...

Event: The Chicago Tribune has Endorsed a Democrat for President for the First Time Since it was Founded.

Daily Kos: Chicago Tribune endorses Obama.

By "first time since it was founded," we're going back to the year 1847.

Chicago Tribune: Tribune Endorsement: Barack Obama for president.

Event: The Executive Branch is a Committee, with an Economic Example of Why it Matters.

Thesis: Stop thinking about whether they are likeable or not... there will be time enough for that later.
As much as the presidency is a person, it is also an institution, and we would more accurately make responsible decisions in presidential elections by thinking of the office as a very powerful and ideally coordinated committee, with the ballot in the chairmanship. The vice-presidency, members of the cabinet, and appointees to other governmental position can have as much stake as the office-holder him or herself.

Which is why, unlike the claims of the McCain campaign, there is no responsible way to make a choice here based strictly on the personality and temparament of the choice. Candidates' views on the issues are of paramount importance, because this will determine the appointments they make.

Consider, for example, the following:

New York Times: In Candidates, 2 Approaches to Wall Street.

Event: The Current Republican Thesis Is That We Won't Mind Being Made Fools Of.

New York Times | Paul Krugman: Blizzard of Lies.

I hope we are not put in a position to see whether Krugman's thesis that McCain/Palin would be worse than Bush/Cheney is true or not. However I am reminded of something I witnessed in college. Under President Hugo Sonnenschein, a sometimes intimidating presence from the dreaded Econ department a number of controversial changes were made to the core curriculum, housing system, and admissions process at the University. During my fourth year, he was replaced with Don Randal, a lovable looking medieval musicologist from romantic Ithaca, New York. Something very interesting happened: the controversy died. A very vigorous student and faculty opposition to the changes enacted by Sonnenschein (really at the behest of the trustees) had put all of their passion into the person. But when Sonnenschein was gone, the trustees remained, and so did the policies.

I won't belabor this comparison to my fears of the McCain/Palin ticket, and we're too thick in the trees to see how deep this forest really is. But these are real apprehensions. We're not scaremongering. This could really happen. Yes it could.

Event: Sarah Palin Episode II

I wasn't going to blog at all this week, but the conversation has been too great. It's wonderful; fresh air and water. Here's Gemma's most recent post: Palin(g) in Comparison, Part the Second

Here are my thoughts:

Okay, I think that I understand what you're saying a bit better now, and I'm behind now... I'm going to watch these speeches, but I'm going to spend my first vacation since last Christmas watching them! :)

Anyway, I still am skeptical of Palin's chances to propel McCain to success... as the New York Times pointed out (oops, there go my liberal media tendencies, although the media as a whole has been far from liberal for quite some time) that was a Republican audience and that was a speech that Palin delivered after having been secluded from the press for days.

Ultimately I feel that she may have been an effective governor, or at least have had the background and skills commensurate with the demands of that position. During the first half of the primary, when I was leaning toward Clinton, it *was* Obama's lack of experience that concerned me most... as it turns out, Obama's experience is comparable to plenty of our less-experiences presidents, some who have gone on to be our truly great presidents. So experience is not the great equalizer. But there is a threshold of concern. I'm a smart guy, but I wouldn't make a great president, and many of us will willingly acknowledge this fact about ourselves. If Obama's slow and steady progress from community activism through the state senate through the U.S. senate has subjected him to justified scrutiny, concern is absolutely warranted for someone with political experience that is practically transparent at this point. The town Palin governed is smaller than the suburb where I went to high school; the population of Alaska is scarcely larger than Greater Flint.

The thing that encourages me in this election is the tone of the campaigns; which party is playing into its stereotypes and which is transcending them. Four years ago we saw a democratic party that, for all the narrowness of the race, seemed destined to lose: it was a passive, quiet, submissive party that seemed to collapse under the pressure it felt from an angry and untractable America. But this year we are confronted by images of Republicans in a big and dark room, a party that looks smaller and less diverse - less vigorous - than it did before, and still as angry. Still just shouting and insulting as if that was their only technique.

It's a party on the defensive.

In pretty much every election I've ever seen, whoever is on the defensive at this point is going to have a hard time winning.

It isn't that the McCain campaign is or isn't taking a risk. It's that the political ground has shifted. The risks that would have worked four years ago are not working now.

I think you're making very good points, and there is good cause for concern. But I also think that the concerns of America are very different from those at the Republican Convention right now, and are, at least at once and finally, more closely aligned with those of the Democratic party.

EVENT: Palin is a footnote; Clinton is a chapter.

Gemma is one of my most trenchant and honest friends, which is why I mix it up with her in detail... I'm posting here a comment in response to Gemma's post Palin(g) in Comparison. Here's what I think:

Hm. Well, I was evidently off in the last comment that I posted, and I agree with you that we are presented with an opportunity to "appreciate" Palin. I mean, we can appreciate her place in this election as the first woman on a major ticket; that is something to be proud of and to acnowledge. And finally, you did post this on 8/29, and the last 4 days have been extremely eventful.

But I disagree with most of the rest of what you have said about her. Politically she seems to be the worst of bad candidates: a high likelihood of corruption, a dogmatically closed-minded view of the world, no *particular* evidence of political saavy, and a lack of experience that likens Obama's to McCain's.

If part of considering her nomination to have been an achievement of the Left (which I do not necessarily disagree with, although it maybe gives the Right a lame excuse to have owned women's lib more than they deserve) then it is also appropriate to evaluate her resume on the same terms as I would evaluate her positions on issues, as well as the same terms as I would evaluate a male candidate or the democratic ticket VP candidate: that she seems to combine in one person the worst qualities of George W. Bush and Dan Quayle. She's belligerant, uncompromising, uninformed on the issues she'd be presiding over, lacks relevant experience, and has evidently been chosen for political expedience over any chemistry or cooperative spirit with her teammate.

I also strongly disagree that this is going to help the McCain campaign one bit, and I felt that way on Saturday morning before the revelations about her affiliation with the Alaskan Independence movement, her daughter's pregnancy (something I don't care about, but which the Right will) and all the other drama. The fundamental reason why so many women were drawn to Clinton was that she was an eminently qualified candidate, and that allowed her to own her historical role in ways that other candidates have not. I think (and some sources like Rasumussen are starting to suggest: here) that most women will reject this choice overall, and not simply on ideological grounds.

To suggest that "any woman will do" for women, which is not so subtly what the McCain campaign is saying with this choice, implies that women are desperate and are willing to accept a symbolic gesture (granted to a numerically significant voting bloc) as opposed to equal status in the marketplace of ideas. Palin offers the former, but Clinton actually obtained the latter. I'm sure McCain/Palin will draw some of the crossover vote they seek, but I think they will be disproportionately punished by both independent voters and women for making a sharp tack to the right and for an (accurately) perceived disingenuousness.

Event: Who I'm looking for in the Democratic National Convention.

I'm hosting company this week and Urbantasm research (in the form of the Chicago Jazz Festival) will be intruding into watching live coverage of the Democratic National Convention. Which is a shame, because I'd really like to see it as it happens.

Here's who I will be trying to check out, in the moment or after the fact:

MONDAY, AUGUST 25TH
- Michelle Obama
- Maya Soetero-Ng (B. Obama's sister)
- Craig Robinson (M. Obama's brother)
- Jerry Kellman
- Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.
- NEA President Reg Weaver
- AFT President Randi Weingarten
- IL Atty Gen Lisa Madigan

TUESDAY, AUGUST 26TH
- Hillary Clinton
- KS Gov Kathleen Sibelius
- AZ Gov Janet Napolitano
- PN Sen Bob Casey Jr.
- AFL-CIO President John Sweeney

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27TH
- Joe Biden
- Bill Clinton
- NM Gov Bill Richardson
- MA Gov John Kerry
- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley

THURSDAY, AUGUST 28TH
- Barack Obama accepting the nomination.

There's more than enough food for conversation as it is...

Event: Oh, Caucus.

The first batch of comments are better than the actual article. But you'll have to read the article to make sense of the comments. This was nice.

Event: Dot Dot Dot.

Image from mosesfreeman.

---

To Rome said Nero: "If to smoke you turn
I shall not cease to fiddle while you burn."
To Nero Rome replied: "Pray do your worst,
'Tis my excuse that you were fiddling first."

- Orm Pludge

Five Years Later...

Wow. They finally admitted it.

THE PRESIDENT:      You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing,

Isn't that remarkable? The little things that just slip out, inexplicably?

THE PRESIDENT:      except for it's part of --

Here it comes.

THE PRESIDENT:      -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a --

Excuse me? (Note. A Philadelphia lawyer has just informed me that the word "ordered" is operative here. That way Bush can deny earlier attempts to link bin Laden with Hussein, and then point to a technicality if he's called on it).

THE PRESIDENT:      the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize

To paraphrase Eminem:

THE PRESIDENT:      Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Terrorism

And so we're back to more of the same old same old. As a well-known Wall Street Journal editorialist recently opined, with some people "progress is always just beyond the horizon."

And yet, for one tiny moment, didn't that just feel great? That

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing,

It kind of opens the chest up so you can fill your lungs with air!

Good riddance.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Karl Rove has left the building.

Event: The Emphasis? Emphatic.

One of my perennial complaints against the Democratic Party at large is that they play a defensive game. Not in terms of their foreign policy, but in terms of their political strategy. They are too caught up in number crunching and trying to out-tough the Republicans to actually hold their ground against the Republicans in issues in which progressives have the advantage.

Not wanting to make the same mistake, and to be thereby hypocritical, I'm going to deal with something upfront, possibly over-reacting (after all, it seemed like a blogbomb, and I don't know if the guy's even going to come back and hear about how his comment was received), but at least I can make an articulated case for the political agenda that Blue Skies Falling has promoted from the beginning.

---

Today, on my post Freedom House Rankings I received the following comment from Chris whose blog is here. His comment ran as follows:

United States gets a top ranking. Yet this country continues to be demonized and called the evil empire. If people spent as much time trying to bring about freedom for others as the amount of time they do hating America, perhaps more people in this world would have a chance to live freer lives as they should.

I wrote the following back:

I don't usually delete comments, Chris, but your point only connects with the post by the barest thread. And your point is vague and generalizing and (most likely) simple Republican sloganeering. Though you can correct me if I'm wrong. And you don't offer any evidence to back your claim up.

Sometimes it's hard not to delete comments, but often it's very easy, becase when you post something as carelessly and hastily written as this, you're only making yourself look foolish.

Then I was worried that I might be sticking my foot down my throat. I went to Chris' blog, and after just a few minutes of scanning I found the following directed against that figurehead of irresponsible revolutionary action, Eddie Vedder:

Eddie seems to be of the All Things Bush Are Bad camp, the very same camp who would say, if they found out that they and Bush liked the same music, they'd say he listens to it the wrong way, the moron. This is the group of people who completely shun a Pro-Democracy In Iraq, Let The Troops Win The War point of view. This is the same group that wants a cowardly exit from Iraq, to let the Freedom Fighters win and for the illegally occupying U.S. troops to leave in shame. Shame! When Eddie brings this into a concert then it ruins it and it's dangerous 'cause it poisons the minds of impressionable listeners. Why should the U.S. pack and leave as quickly as possible? If it could happen in three days, wouldn't that be great, Eddie? Allow Iran to take over Iraq. Allow Iraq to become a Free Zone for al Qaida, to live and thrive and train and plan to kill me... and to kill you... and your family.

Now I don't want to be a total prick. To be fair, Chris does link to a large number of (seemingly) non-partisan charities; they're actually his most prominent links. His blog isn't strictly political, and I do think he's well intentioned. But I have to say that I really hate comments like his. I hate them. They're almost as bad as spam. They involve practically no effort to understand or respond to the subject posted, they offer almost nothing by way of a supportable argument or reasonable alternative, and ultimately, they're disrespectful. If I have the audacity to go onto a conservative blog (and I do sometimes) and send up some vibes against its author and readers, you sure as Hell better expect that I

1) understand the argument they're making and how mine applies,
2) have something worthwhile to say, and
3) say it respectfully.

So I don't feel too bad about calling Chris out today. He's basically just supplying me with straw men anyway. As for his comments, both in response to my post and on his own blog, it doesn't even really take much work.

I'd ask Chris first if he thought that Clinton was unreasonably and prejudicially attacked as a result of the Starr investigation. If he doesn't think so, then I think it's easy to prove a level of hypocrisy, since Clinton's tribulations were essentially confined to titillating scandal, whereas Bush has largely subverted the rule of law governing the Executive Branch. After all, Clinton didn't override judicial restraints on wiretaps, didn't flout congressional oversight, and he certainly didn't legalize torture. Which all ought to make Bush problematic to Chris, since he cares about the freedom and civil liberties of Iraqis.

With regards to people "hating America" (and I can only assume that Chris means his fellow Americans' "hate" for America) and the absurd argument supplied for staying in Iraq, I'm going to post, in its entirety, a speech Barack Obama had the foresight to write back in October, 2002. And no, I'm not saying this as a diehard Obama supporter. I haven't haven't decided yet who I support; I have reservations with all of our (nevertheless inordinately qualified (relative to Republican options)) Democratic candidates. Regardless, it's impressive that Obama could say in 2002 what some people are having a difficult time admitting today.

---

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.