Obsidian Wings

Poetry: Open Thread

by hilzoy

"Nature's first green is gold

Her hardest hue to hold.

Her early leaf's a flower;

But only so an hour.

Then leaf subsides to leaf.

So Eden sank to grief,

So dawn goes down to day.

Nothing gold can stay."

Robert Frost

I sent that to Andy once, and he wrote back to say that it was his second favorite poem ever. The first:

"Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'

We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strike, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

Tennyson, 'Ulysses'

I'm in Colorado Springs; I should be back tomorrow.

Open thread.

Six Degrees of Richard Cohen

by publius

Richard Cohen:

Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan.

Richard Cohen will probably catch some heat for this op-ed, but I think (as usual) he’s on to something here. He’s right that Obama’s got some real answering to do. And not just about Farrakhan.

My sources report that Obama has seen the movie Brokeback Mountain, starring Jack Gyllenhaal. As you may recall, that movie also included Heath Ledger. Ledger, in turn, appeared with Mel Gibson in The Patriot. Gibson, in turn, worked with Julia Roberts in Conspiracy Theory. Roberts, in turn, appeared in Flatliners with . . . [dramatic chord] KEVIN BACON.

Bacon, of course, is a well-known Communist and terrorist sympathizer. Obama’s got a real problem here.

Politics As Usual: Who Engages In Voter Supression Again?

One of the strongest objections to the Clinton candidacy is that it represents an unhealthy continuation of politics as usual.  Clinton's supporters in Nevada exhibit this in their recently filed lawsuit in which they attempt to destroy a voting procedure they helped create once it becomes apparent that it won't help Clinton.  In a process worked on since March, the Democratic party designed a number of at-large caucus locations on the Las Vegas Strip. 

A lawsuit filed late Friday in federal court seeks to stop the Democratic Party from holding caucus meetings at nine Strip hotels, which would diminish the influence of casino workers and hamper Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign.

The complaint, with the state teachers union and some party activists as plaintiffs, came as Obama accepted the endorsement of the Culinary Union. The timing seemed designed to cloud the good buzz from his campaign, which could only help Sen. Hillary Clinton’s efforts in the state.

The lawsuit claims that those voting in at-large precincts being held on the Strip would have too much weight compared with those voting at their polling places, violating the equal protection law of the U.S. Constitution. It also claims the at-large precincts violate state statute in the way they were drawn.

State Democratic Party officials disputed the lawsuit’s contentions.

“This has been a fully transparent process,” party spokeswoman Kirsten Searer said. “These rules have been approved by the Democratic National Committee and the campaigns have been fully informed throughout this process, which started in May.”

The party decided to set up polling places at the nine casinos to accommodate those working on the Strip.

But Lynn Warne, president of the Nevada State Education Association, noted that janitors who have to open schools in which caucus meetings take place will be unable to participate if that is not their polling place.

“Why are extraordinary accommodations being made for people on Strip but not the other workers?” she said.

She acknowledged that she did not approach the state party about the problem.

“We’re approaching them now,” she said.

The Nevada State Education Association has not endorsed any candidate, Warne said.

The other plaintiffs are Dwayne Chesnut, John Cahill, Vicky and John Birkland, and Patricia Montgomery.

Some of them were active backers of Sen. Dina Titus’ 2006 bid for governor. Titus, of Las Vegas, has endorsed Clinton.

Mark Ferrario, the attorney who filed the lawsuit, would not comment on how he got the clients, other than to say they care about the fairness of the caucus process.

--Las Vegas Sun

The institutional plaintiff is the  Nevada State Education Association.  It has committed to not formally endorse any candidate, but its high level members have endorsed Clinton.  The NSEA's deputy executive director--Debbie Cahill--formed Clinton's Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.  Her husband, John Cahill is an individual plaintiff in the suit. 

The rules for the at-large locations were agreed to unanimously by the delegates to the Nevada Democratic Party on 3/31/2007.  Four of the six named plaintiffs (Vicki Birkland, John Birkland, Dwayne Chesnut and John Cahill) attended that meeting and voted for the plan.  The suit was filed only two days after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama. 

The campaign's official response can be found here:

Hillary Clinton's Nevada chairman Rory Reid traveled to Reno with her today. Asked what he knew about the lawsuit before it was filed, he simply said he'd heard chatter about people being angry at the unfairness of the at-large precincts. But he denied the Clinton campaign had anything to do with its filing.

"Nevada is a small state and sometimes people are inclined to always try and connect the dots," he said. "But this shouldn't be a process story. It should be a story about whether the process is fair."

Reid said the campaign hasn't read the lawsuit, but that the campaign will follow whatever the judge decides.

Asked about the lawsuit Clinton said:

"I know about the lawsuit. I hope it can be resolved by the courts and by the state party. Obviously, we want as many people as possible to participate."

In a later interview, I asked Clinton again about the lawsuit. She repeated her criticism of the caucus process, that it leaves too many people out and said she wants as many people as possible to participate. Does she support the lawsuit?

"I have no opinion on the lawsuit."

Does she have an opinion on the at-large precincts as a way to make the process more fair?

"I don't. I just don't know."

Essentially, this is yet another example of why election decisions absolutely have to be made before you know exactly who the rules are going to help and hurt.  The plaintiffs were perfectly fine with the rules when they thought it would help Clinton.  Now that it looks to help Obama, they are going to court to destroy the procedure they themselves helped create.   Pure slime, which is to say: politics as usual.   

 

"One Of Us"

by hilzoy

I just couldn't let this delightful comment by Kathryn Lopez at NRO pass unremarked. She's talking about John McCain:

" I’m second to none in praising him on his surge leadership. But on a whole host of issues — including water boarding, tax cuts, and the freedom of speech — he’s not one of us."

Like von, I favor Obama among the Democrats, and McCain among the Republicans. And one of the reasons for that is that, leaving aside the odious Ron Paul, while all the Republican candidates seem to be in favor of prolonging the war in Iraq indefinitely, McCain is the only one [UPDATE: except for Huckabee, oops] who is not "one of us" on waterboarding. He hasn't come out against torture nearly as much as I would like, nor has he been a champion of civil liberties, but at least he seems to recognize that there's a problem there, which is more than I can say for the rest of them.

The Kool Kidz in the Republican Party might think that support for torture is a prerequisite for entry into their little club. That just shows how far the supposed party of moral values and limited government has fallen.

Playing To Win

by hilzoy

As many of you know, I haven't been following political coverage for the past week or so. While this presents some problems for me as a blogger, it does have a few advantages, and one of them is: having missed all the coverage of Hillary's Tears, I do not need to wonder whether I am being unduly affected by it. (I did see the video of The Tears themselves, and failed to see what all the fuss was about.)

My main concern about Hillary Clinton has always concerned foreign policy. On the domestic side, I think that the proposals of the three main Democratic candidates are pretty close to one another, close enough that their differences will be swamped by whatever changes have to be made to them in order to get them adopted. On foreign policy, however, I think that she and Obama are quite different, for reasons I hope to explain later. Moreover, as Matt Yglesias and Tom Schaller (see also Ari Berman) have pointed out, her advisors tended to support the war in Iraq, while Obama's tended to oppose it, and this worries me a great deal.

Most of all, though, there is her vote on the Iraq war. Whether she voted as she did because she thought it was right or because she thought that George W. Bush was trustworthy enough that Congress could authorize him to go to war confident in the knowledge that he would not abuse that power, that vote, the most important she cast as a Senator, was disastrously wrong. Moreover, she didn't just vote for the Iraq War Resolution; she voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have required Bush to go back to the UN for authorization to use military force. And she cast this vote without having bothered to read the relevant National Intelligence Estimate. Which is to say: she took the decision whether or not to go to war -- to invade another country, and to put both Iraqi citizens and members of our military in harm's way -- without bothering to do her homework first.

Given a choice between Clinton and any intelligent, well-informed, basically sane candidate who inhabits some recognizable corner of the reality-based community, and who did not support the decision to go to war, Clinton's vote for the Iraq War resolution, especially in light of her vote against the Levin Amendment and her failure to inform herself adequately, is a dealbreaker for me.

All this started out as a preface to my main point, which concerns the political effects that nominating Clinton would have. Briefly: while my main reasons for opposing Clinton involve policy (see above), I also think that to nominate her would be to throw away a political opportunity that comes along once in a generation. I'll put my arguments for that point below the fold.

Red State Weathervanes

by publius

I generally don’t put much stock in endorsements. But Obama’s recent wave of red state Senator endorsements (plus Gov. Napolitano) seems significant. These include Senators Nelson (NE), Johnson (SD), and McCaskill (MO).

My take is that these endorsements stem not so much from love for Obama, but from a perceived political need to distance themselves from Clinton in their home states. Admittedly, Clinton (both Clintons) have been unfairly tarred and maligned over the years. Thus, much of the animosity towards the Clintons is undeserved.

But it’s there. The truth is that Clinton will be a drag to Dem candidates in purple to red areas. She will be on the ticket everywhere because the GOP will put her front and center. I realize of course that the GOP will attempt to attack any nominee and then tie him or her with the local candidate. But some efforts will prove more successful than others. And even if it’s unfair, Clinton will be a political liability in these states, as evidenced by these endorsements.

The Kerry endorsement, by contrast, is different. He obviously doesn’t have the same home state concerns. Instead, my take is that he – and the Kennedy wing more generally – know they will be on the outside under a Clinton restoration. Since he’s out of the loop anyway, why not gain some chits with the rival.

Obama Christ, Superstar

by publius

Book of John 1:1, 14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us[.]

Ezra Klein:

[Obama] is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.

Eric Martin has hit upon the most persuasive argument against Obama – namely, that there’s just not much substance after you scrape away the pretty words. In light of New Hampshire, I’ve been giving this argument more thought. In particular, the meddlesome Martin has made me skeptical of my own Obama loyalties, which are often similar in spirit to Klein’s. After all, great substantive me would never be taken in by pretty surfaces, right? Perhaps, but the more I think about it, the more it seems that support for Obama has taken on religious dimensions. And that’s not good.

Last night, I caught most of The Last King of Scotland (awesome), beginning with the demagogic speech and rally. I was struck by the similarities to Huey Long, and to All The King’s Men more generally (the book, not the wretched movie). Both works are studies in the art of the charismatic demagogue. And both characters adopt similar rhetorical strategies. They play on resentment (British/big money), but – crucially – they are also both populists. That is, both leaders promise reforms that are desperately needed by their crushingly poor audiences – e.g., schools, hospitals, bridges, etc.

Turning to Obama, I agree that some of his speeches are high on rhetoric but short on delicious policy meat. What then is it about those speeches that so moves us? And by “us,” I mean secular progressives, particularly younger ones. Frankly, I think religion is playing a role. Progressives have a strange relationship with religion. Many are (at least privately) contemptuous of it, but the depths of hostility often betrays a lingering, if subconscious, jealousy of those who believe. Religion, after all, provides a sense of togetherness and a sense of belonging to something higher. In short, a purpose.

These desires themselves, however, are not confined to the religious, but are quite universal. Perhaps they are the evolutionary byproduct of communal living (i.e., evolution rewarded humans who lived communally, and these instincts expanded into more abstract realms). Others might cite the embedded desires as evidence of the divine spark. But regardless, they're there. And just like any evangelical, secular progressives want to fulfill them – not necessarily with God, but with something higher and more noble. They want to fill the void with purpose.

Indeed, many modern movements – from socialism to New Age philosophy (i.e., liberal fascism) – can be seen as attempts to fill the void that the death of God left behind. After all, whatever its practical flaws (and there are many), there is something profoundly religious animating the theory of communism, which is far closer to the tenets of Christianity than capitalism.

Here then is where Obama comes in. Obama seems to be filling a spiritual void that many modern secular progressives (like all humans) tend to develop. Whether the enthusiasm stems from youth’s susceptibility to romantic idealism, or instead from the longing caused by the slow lonely grind of professional life, something is causing these people to see in Obama something more than politics. They’re seeing – and feeling – something higher.

On this note, it’s interesting that Klein would use the particular allusion I quoted above (an allusion to the infamous opening of the Book of John) in describing Obama’s rhetorical power. Quite simply, Klein's language is the language of religion, not politics. And he’s far from alone in using this language. (And I’m not picking on him – I understand the sentiment, as I noted in a previous post).

But that said, it’s the religious dimension that’s giving me the most pause. Frankly, I’m disturbed by the implications if the Obama campaign has indeed become a secular religion to many progressives. (If you disagree with that premise, then obviously you’re going to disagree with the rest of this).

Most disturbingly, it illustrates that secular progressives – you know, cynical rational substantive geniuses that we are – are little different from the crowds cheering on Huey Long. Like them, we are responding to emotional populist appeals – just different types of appeals. They aren’t about schools and bridges, because we don’t lack those – we’ve been lucky on that front. Instead, Obama is offering something we often don’t have, but that we similarly crave and need – a higher purpose, a sense of connectedness and community. In short, Obama is providing a secular religion. More cynically, it’s wine-track demagoguery.

Although I remain an Obama supporter, I do fear that I’m allowing myself to be enchanted in an intellectually juvenile way. Of course, like you I suspect, I think of myself as more sophisticated than the crowds that vacillated mindlessly from Brutus to Marc Antony. But the truth is that I’m not all that different. I too am all too human, and thus susceptible to the same types of appeals, even if they come dressed in different clothes.

None of this is necessarily an argument for abandoning Obama, but it is an argument for snapping out of the spell and concentrating harder on the meat.

AT&T's New Love for Copyright

by publius

Late last year, the FCC invited a new round of comments on net neutrality (and broadband access competition more generally). Somewhat strangely, NBC jumped into the fray, arguing that network providers should be required to monitor their networks for digital copyright violations. Somewhat less strangely, AT&T representatives at a big industry forum this week said “the time was right to start filtering for copyrighted content at the network level.”* (At the time of NBC’s original comments, Art Brodsky rightly ridiculed their claims that copyright violations were hurting America’s corn farmers).

What we’re seeing is a classic marriage of convenience between NBC and network operators like AT&T – a convergence of interests. AT&T wants to avoid net neutrality regulations, and needs every good excuse it can think of to justify managing “their” network as they see fit. Enter NBC. Those crazy kids are stealing all their content, and NBC wants to stop it. Starving corn farmers and all.

The point is that NBC’s copyright concerns gives AT&T an excellent pretext for the right to monitor packets – and more importantly, to structure the network in a way to facilitate access tiering, which is really what the net neutrality battle is about.

I’ll go out on a limb and speculate that copyright violations aren’t really keeping AT&T executives awake at night. They just want to kill net neutrality. NBC, by contrast, sincerely wants the copyright infringements to stop. If that requires signing on to oppose net neutrality, so be it.

*Note that I'm quoting the NYT blog description -- that's not an actual quote from an industry representative.

Gender and New Hampshire - Part I

by publius

As an Obama guy, I’m obviously disappointed. But given how insanely unpredictable things have been, I’ll pass tonight on predicting what it all means. My first thought was that it’s a body blow for Obama given that Clinton is the establishment candidate. But that’s probably premature – as several commenters in the last thread have reminded me.

Instead, I want to focus on the gender backlash theory that’s gaining traction as the explanation for Clinton’s win. The nickel version is that women went overwhelmingly (and seemingly suddenly) for Clinton in response to the excessive HRC-bashing following Iowa, and more specifically, following the tears. These specific events, in turn, took place against the larger backdrop of frustration that many women have felt about Clinton’s media treatment throughout the election. The theory may be rubbish, but I’m assuming the theory is correct for purposes of this post (and, frankly, I think it is correct).

With that disclaimer, one positive result of Clinton’s victory is that it will force the media (and me) to pay more attention to women’s grievances about the election coverage. For this very reason, I’ve been reflecting tonight on why exactly I oppose Clinton in the primary. Frankly, I wanted to make sure I opposed her for the right reasons, and that I wasn’t holding her to unfair standards. And for reasons I’ll explain, I sincerely believe that I am doing it for the right reasons.

I fully concede that sexism (perhaps subconsciously) is playing a role in her wretched media coverage. This many women this angry can’t all be wrong. There’s definitely some there there – some “there” that I wasn’t seeing (or perhaps ignoring).

But that said, I personally find that a lot of my opposition to Clinton has less to do with her than with an emotional attachment to Obama. Against my better judgment perhaps, I truly believe that Obama could be a game-changer. Ezra Klein caught some crap for it, but I understand the emotions that led him to write those words.

Coming of political age in the Gingrich/late Clinton era, I’ve never really been inspired by any politician. It’s been a mix of outrage and ironic detachment from ’94 on. So you should forgive Ezra – and our generation more generally – if we use some flowing rhetoric from time to time. It’s a newfangled thing for us – and we’re not that good at it. It’s like getting drunk for the first time. You may utter some stupid stuff, but it’s still fun, so you don’t really care.

When the primary fumes pass, we’ll all come around to Clinton, especially compared to the GOP monstrosities. But with Clinton, my perception is that none of this inspired future is possible. Hers will be a competent, moderate, K Street-friendly administration. But I want more – and I think the nation could get more. Thus, my frustration with Clinton’s victory probably has less to do with her personally, than with the fact that I see a very different sort of future slipping away if she wins (or if Edwards wins for that matter). Sure, I’m probably overestimating Obama’s potential energy, but so what. I think it’s just as possible that people are underestimating it. I’m with Andrew Sullivan on that point.

But even putting Obama aside, I want to emphasize that my opposition to Clinton herself is policy-based rather than personality-based.* The problem is that the specific types of policy disagreements I have with Clinton are ones that generate strong emotions. Thus, it’s easy to mistake emotional-yet-ultimately-policy-based critiques with unfair sexism (though I’m not denying that sexism plays a role for many opponents). Here then is a brief rundown of those policy disagreements.

Ugh

by publius

This is not looking good at all. Even if Obama pulls it out, it's enough to trigger the "Comeback Kid" narrative. Plus, McCain is now very viable. Not a great night thus far.

UPDATE: Hmm... Clinton apparently won among women 47-34. That's a lot. Maybe there was a backlash to the post-Iowa bashing. Maybe Gloria Steinem was channeling the Zeitgeist.

UPDATE 2: Josh Marshall provides more anecdotal evidence of a gender-based backlash to the post-Iowa coverage.

UPDATE 3: In the last thread, commenter Redstocking also took strong offense at the perceived sexism of the election. In particular, she focuses on the reaction to Clinton's choked-up moment. Perhaps the reaction to that has also galvanized women - the last straw perhaps. Anyway, here's what Redstocking had to say:

I was a radical feminist in the late 60s and 70s. The blatant sexism of this election has radicalized me once again at age 62. . . . Whatever you think of Clinton's politics, she is a brilliant woman who has devoted most of her life to public service. I can't think of any political figure who has been attacked as vituperatively as she has. At the very least you should admire her courage. Women should realize that it is not just happening to her; it is happening to them. For 15 years she has been derided as a cold, unemotional robot. She allows herself one moment of vulnerability and suddenly she is unfit to be commander in chief or she faked the emotions to manipulate the voters. Clinton is portrayed as losing it because she got pissed and emotional in the same week. Its only her age that saves her from PMS attacks.

It is perfectly possible to oppose Clinton for president, but speak out against the revolting sexism manifested in this campaign. The first serious woman presidential candidate should not have to laugh off signs that say, "Iron my shirt" without anyone else raising the issue. That bitch was left off the sign is hardly a feminist milestone.

Why isn't this an important issue? More to the point, why aren't women of all ages demanding that it become an important issue. I am afraid most women are too exhausted by their personal and work lives to have any energy for feminist protest.

This is clearly something that demands more attention. And obviously, the post title bears no relation to this point, which I only became aware of after my initial post.

UPDATE 4: For the record, if Obama loses, I think it's devastating for his candidacy. Not over, but it's very bad. The "comeback" is going to dominate coverage -- drowning even McCain.

UPDATE 5: Called for Clinton. Wow. Thoughts later tonight.