Bring It On! Election 2008

I have no particular axe to grind with Andrew Sullivan…except for noting the inconsistencies in the many axes he grinds ad nauseam. His latest obsession is Bill and Hillary Clinton (of course focused on Hillary’s presidential aspirations).

Frankly, given his persistent efforts to negatively link Hillary to every “ism” he’s ever pondered, it’s hard too imagine that he hasn’t ground his axe down to a rudimentary toothpick with which to extract the last shard of evidence…from her teeth…for his relentless indictment.

Suffice it to say that in this latest instance, Sullivan has fast become the epitome of “The lady doth protest too much”…and my apologies to good ladies everywhere. Sullivan now argues, by virtue of quoting the following from Faye Wattleton (transcribed by a reader and sent to him) who observed her appearance on Hardball with Chris Mathews (think mainstream media misogynist).

Chris Matthews: Faye, you first, you know Hillary Clinton, you know Bill Clinton. What’s Bill’s role in this thing, is it a good role or a bad role?

Faye Wattleton: Well, I think that Bill Clinton’s role is that of the spouses of all the candidates, he’s participating as a surrogate for his wife who is running. And I think that its entirely consistent with the ascension of other women to the top offices in their country; they come about it as the result of the president being their spouse or being members of prominent families. So I don’t think that we should be so upset and agitated about Mr. Clinton’s participation - we should continue to focus on the issues that the people want to hear about…these other matters are really side issues.

From these remarks, Sullivan intuits that the Clinton’s are comfortable to conflate nepotism and feminism in order to achieve their objectives…thereby corrupting feminism and “everything they touch”. So let me summarize the trajectory of Andrew’s conclusion…one of Andrew’s readers sends him a transcription of Faye Wattleton’s comments on Hardball and he agrees with it such that it proves the Clinton’s have corrupted feminism? Well there you have it…case closed.

Regardless of one’s opinion on the Clinton’s and Hillary’s aspirations, Sullivan’s argument is the equivalent of entering a vacuous room that has been hermetically sealed and is devoid of any light…with a camera that lacks a flash mechanism…in order to take the quintessential picture of darkness. Unless random chance results in his capturing the definitive number of angels able to dance on the head of a pin, I’m similarly at a loss to recognize the Earth shattering nature of Sullivan’s latest Clintonian hypothesis.

To my knowledge, Hillary Clinton is not only the first woman candidate with a chance to win the presidency; she is also the first spouse of a prior president to seek the office. Concluding that her candidacy must be a willful act, by the Clinton’s, to conflate nepotism and feminism…and thus corrupt feminism…in order to win…is simply painting the unprecedented as presciently predictable. The fact that a president’s legacy is rarely static suggests that asserting an understanding of this novel event is undoubtedly unbridled arrogance.

Yes, the Clinton candidacy turns political convention on its head…but concluding this candidacy is more lacking in ideological purity…or more willing to defile the grand order of “isms”…than those that have preceded it could just as easily be interpreted as a misogynistic projection intended to assure the status quo. At the very least, Newton’s notion that for every action (force), there is an equal and opposite reaction (opposing force) seems an appropriate consideration.

Clearly the Clinton’s are ambitious…and likely to a fault. However, they aren’t the first political family to exhibit as much. They’re not even the first political cabal willing to exploit the advantages they perceive to be available. I suspect we have an example of one in the White House at this very moment. Yes, the Clinton candidacy is unique in its structure…but it isn’t unique in its execution. Looking to view the efforts of the Clinton’s as a unique aberration or a full-scale deviation from established politicking is to ignore history.

Attempting to attach pejorative narratives in order to defeat them is nothing new either…and those who seek to paint the Clinton strategy as particularly distasteful are nonetheless politically motivated.

Sullivan’s vast body of words betrays his effort to portray the Clinton’s as unacceptable outliers. His frequent protestations with the narrow mindedness of the Catholic Church and his incessant lamentations on the state of conservatism demonstrate his own willingness to champion efforts to undo years of status quo while still remaining a card carrying conscript.

Are his efforts a corruption of those “isms” or merely the acts of an individual who hopes to alter them? Couldn’t the established arbiters of the Catholic Church and the GOP establishment view Sullivan’s actions to be the equivalent of the Clinton’s? One can easily make the argument that his actions are intended to undermine their long-established order and their theoretical tenets.

Sullivan’s efforts to reshape Catholicism to accept homosexuality can just as easily be viewed as an attempt to corrupt it. The same can be stated with regards to his displeasure with the current iteration of GOP conservatism. He may not believe that social issues should dominate the Republican landscape, but those who imagine themselves to be the party’s purist guardians would no doubt beg to differ. Wouldn’t both groups be justified in assailing Sullivan’s “perversion” of both?

The presumption that feminism can be narrowly defined…or that it has been what it always was and will be what its always been is merely an attempt to erect an argument to further “sully” the Clinton’s.

Sullivan contends he is a feminist. He also argues that he is a conservative and a Catholic. The truth of the matter is that he is these things…but clearly only to the extent that he defines them.

Sullivan is entitled to support the candidate of his choice. However, his ongoing efforts to disguise his justification as an adherence to ideological purity, is simply superficial subterfuge.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

When I signed up to work my first campaign I honestly had no idea what I was getting myself into. I knew that it was time to quit blogging about the poor state of government and to start trying to take a more active roll in fixing it. As fate would have it, I happened to dumb-luck into knowing the perfect Progressive candidate running in my district and offered to help. That’s how I became the Netroots Coordinator for the Alan Grayson campaign in Florida’s 8th district.

People ask me what a Netroots coordinator does and sometimes I have to tell you I have no idea. I write a lot obviously. My address list is getting larger and I spend more time begging people on that list to take five minutes out of their day to volunteer their time, talents or money Every chance I take to promote Alan I do, because I feel that he is the kind of candidate that the country should rally around. He doesn’t just talk progressive, he is progressive. He is a pro-peace, pro-choice, pro-union candidate in an area ripe for that kind of message and a country who needs that kind of leadership.

Wrong.

Still, it has been daunting. There is always this sense that maybe I’m in over my head or that I won’t be able to convey what kind of candidate Alan really is to my friends and peers in the blogging world. I know I want to wax on and on about Alan’s accomplishments, and he has many. That doesn’t mean anyone else cares. After all, it is just one race out of hundreds and most people won’t bother to get involved right?

What amazes me about working for Alan is that people around the country do care. They are rallying to help. It’s not always easy getting your foot in the door, but once I have people have responded well. Perhaps nothing illustrates that better than Alan being selected for the Crooks & Liars, Firedoglake, Digby, Down With Tyranny joint ActBlue project, BlueAmerica.

I originally wrote to the respective blogs that make up BlueAmerica to introduce Alan to them. I was nervous. That’s actually an understatement, I was scared of rejection. I also had pretty low expectations (I’ve sent enough blog articles to all of them to know not to get my hopes up *G*).

Within hours Jane from FDL, John from C&L and Howie Klein from Down with Tyranny all wrote me back. All of them were positive. All of them wanted to know more.

I felt like I had just aced my SAT’s.

I’ve spent the last month working with Howie to answer his questions about Alan. I have to say, he asks some hard questions. Non-progressive Democrats need not apply. In the end, we must have passed muster because today Alan is the special guest at Firedog Lake (2PM EST, 11AM PST). It’s your chance to meet Alan and see first-hand why I think he is an exceptional candidate an an exceptional person. Take the time to see why some of the biggest voices in our community are excited by Alan. If you do, if you take a few minutes out of your day to just give him a listen, I know you will come away impressed.

I know I did. That’s why I’m volunteering on the campaign. I know BlueAmerica did, that’s why they are putting their reputations behind him. I have to think you will too.

PS - I still feel over my head way to often in this job. It’s also the most rewarding thing I’ve done. Standing up to make a difference in the way our country is run is an experience I’ll remember forever. You should try it someday if you haven’t. I’m happy I did.

I’ve been stewing on last evening’s debate for the better part of the day. Generally speaking, I found it to be rather disquieting. It took me until this evening to discern the source of my anxiety…and my belief that it was little more than a quid pro quo demonstration of status quo politicking. My first instinct was to be angry with the candidates…and then I began to reconsider. That would have been the easy conclusion…but it would have also been an exercise in self-deception.

I’ll now attempt a reasoned explanation of my newfound hypothesis; that being that despite reading and listening to the many protestations that Senators Clinton and Obama engaged in petty bickering…and the fact that they did…both candidates simply provided the stick that most voters are seeking with which to unleash their own particular bias…upon the candidate they oppose…regardless of the actual facts.

Think about it for a moment. Logic should tell us that candidates engage in such tactics because they have been proven to be effective. Therefore, logic should also tell us that they are effective because it is what we the voters accept, want, and expect. Here’s the thing. As the election process unfolds and we each select the candidate we prefer, we then pivot in search of the means to discredit the candidates we reject.

So what does that mean with regards to my hypothesis? Two things. One, we select for the truth we prefer; not the truth we ascertain or uncover. Two, once a candidate speaks the truth we prefer, we’re willing to accept untruths about the other candidates in order to bolster our own biased beliefs.

Hence, as with Pavlov’s dogs, our actions train candidates to perform the deeds and actions that result in the positive rewards they seek…our votes. Here’s how it works. Over time, voters make known to candidates their beliefs and expectations which is then transformed into a subtle but certain acquiescing to the assaults upon the enemy in order to obtain the power that we believe will allow us to reinforce (legislate) our shared beliefs. In the end, this process succeeds in conditioning politicians to launch the spurious attacks upon their opponents in order to receive the primary benefit they desire…an Election Day victory.

Here’s the disconnect. Pavlov’s dogs began to salivate at the sound of a bell once it was linked with being fed. Politicians also begin to link negative campaigns with Election Day votes. Once this happens, the quest for satiation on the part of the candidate and the voter (victory for the candidate and power for the voter) sets aside what ought to be the ongoing prioritization of truth. Thus the affirmation of our shared truth (the goal)…the truths (beliefs) we prefer…the truths (or lack thereof) that achieves the goal (reward) we seek…becomes the acceptable and/or preferred stimulus-response construct.

Once this model is cemented into the collective psyche, winning is the objective and the pursuit of truth…a truth that is just…not just the truth we like…is no longer the relevant priority. Our own particular bias becomes the driving force and all actions are viewed through this skewed prism…including a willingness to discount the truths of the opponent and to accept the attachment of untruths to the enemy if they have the potential to succeed in sullying and defeating that enemy. Simultaneously, we’re outraged at the similar tactics of the opposition…though fully in denial as to the inevitable tit-for-tat reality.

Looking specifically at last evening’s debate, we begin to see the pull of this deeply ingrained construct. Let’s assume Obama had intended to conduct the campaign he initially outlined…one that focused upon bringing unity…or at the very least a shared respect for the truth we can mutually agree upon as opposed to the truth we can impose. However, following his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada…coupled with indications the Clinton attacks may be resonating with voters…he is forced to reconsider.

I believe he feels forced to do this because the strategy he has employed seems to be failing to overcome the established expectations. In essence, the long-standing stimulus-reward conditioning prevents voters from properly attributing his actions. His hesitation, or refusal to participate in the process as it is designed, leads voters to conclude his truths mustn’t be valid or, at the very least, his convictions about his beliefs aren’t all that strong (see also Fred Thompson). The problem is that the prevailing mind set posits that all parties share the same goal and those unwilling to do what it takes to achieve those goals must lack the conviction (or the truth) to do what is necessary to win the reward (the power to impose that truth).

I suspect Obama’s original strategy was premised upon the notion that the truth he would support when elected would first be as much of the truth as he had already espoused…but it wouldn’t stop there. He believed he would also endeavor to get more or most voters to coalesce around a shared truth. Unfortunately, in the existing stimulus-reward system, that proposed outcome would often seem insufficient to the highly conditioned voter. It feels like the glass would be half-empty rather than half-full…and that is apt to fall short of satisfactory.

This results in what we saw last night…a skirmish fully adorned with the trappings that have become all too familiar…and by and large…demanded by the voters.

In the end, Obama has presumably realized the need to engage the negativity despite his dislike for such a system. The open question is whether he can muster the motivation to participate in the existing dynamic in order to win the opportunity to change it…assuming I’ve ascertained his actual goal. It’s possible his objective is no different than that of his opponents and that he has, to this point, simply attempted a novel strategy.

Regardless, as long as the public’s objective remains the attainment of the power necessary to implement our own coalitions (tribe) selective truths, the execution and the outcome of our political process will remain the same. We can continue to feign our disgust at what transpires while signaling our acceptance…or we can begin to abridge our bias and forego the fabrications and falsifications we have institutionalized in favor of a rational and reasoned reality.

Until such time as we make that choice, we’ll continue our self-sustaining system of salivating each and every time someone succeeds in repackaging the same old rancid red meat. I’m of the opinion that we need to end our dogged dependence on this tired old trick.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

An interesting and potentially problematic phenomenon is emerging in the process to select a Democratic candidate for the presidency…as well as our next president. A preview of the issue began with anecdotal televised images from a caucus room on the Las Vegas strip. My growing concerns were validated in an analysis of the actual votes.

Before the votes were tallied, I took note of an interesting dynamic. For the most part, African American Obama supporters and Hispanic Clinton backers were chanting slogans for their respective candidates from opposite sides of the room. At first blush, I was inspired by the enthusiasm…and rightly so. The mood was animated, but by no means did it appear to be hostile. Regardless, it forced me to begin thinking about the mechanics of opportunity.

These particular caucus locations were created to make it possible for Culinary Workers Union members to participate. By and large, the union is made up of lower income ethnic voters…groups that have often felt neglected and inclined to believe many politicians treat them as an afterthought.

I suspect the focus on providing targeted caucus locations coupled with the fact that a woman and an African American are the leading Democratic candidates created a growing sense of opportunity in these overlooked and underappreciated groups. That’s an encouraging development.

At the same time, opportunity is an odd creature. Strange as it may seem, its absence often brings passive acceptance, as the flames of hope aren’t strong enough to fuel the fires that light the way to a better place. On the other hand, the emergence of opportunity is often accompanied by chaos and conflict as the downtrodden sense the possibility to transcend the certainty of a lesser lot in life.

Once opportunity rears its head on the distant horizon, the dim light that allows us to see its outline is apt to ignite dreams of better days that have long been kept in check. Simply stated, when opportunity is nowhere to be found, the certainty of status brings complacency; and conversely, when opportunity is palpable, the promise of progress often promotes impassioned participation.

As I pondered the fact that African American voters broke overwhelmingly for Senator Obama and Hispanic voters chose Senator Clinton by wide margins, I couldn’t help but consider the heinous nature of ethnic immobility and its propensity to divide rather than unite those who fight each day for a tiny share of a shrinking pie.

I suspect poverty brings clarity…and little else. Let me attempt an explanation.

Those who live each day like the one before…struggling to make ends meet…are undoubtedly forced to be cognizant of their limited resources as well as the need to jump to seize the scarce supply of opportunities that rarely appear. They know too well the large numbers of those who watch each day for a glimmer of hope…a chance to break the chains that bind and grab the rope that can deliver them from their darkened destiny…one clenched hand over another…hanging perilously above the pull of gravity that seeks to return them to the depths of despair.

Hence the chance to cast a vote of consequence is bound to inspire…and incite. With history as the point of reference, the knowledge of limited resources is, of course, the logical source of strife.

As we nominate a Democratic candidate and prepare for the 2008 presidential election, we needn’t and mustn’t allow the powers that be to portray the passions of hope as a reminder of racism. Rather, this process must be a rejoinder of our refusal to ignore the plight of the poor.

For far too long we have asked the least of us to be patient…to endure…to remain silent and satisfied with what little they receive. To be shocked when we witness a groundswell of emotion and the inevitable enmity that has become inured in those who know they are not welcome at the table is to ignore our part in setting too few place settings at that table.

We can make this election cycle about what separates us, or we can make it about what we choose to do to put an end to the dynamics that have long been allowed to divide us.

These simmering conflicts need not be evidence of the Democratic Party’s or this country’s inability to coalesce around one candidate. Rather, it should be fair notice that the Democratic Party will no longer accept the premise that the least of us need not be relevant or respected. I believe the voices of dissention are simply the sounds of destiny calling us to a new awareness.

Instead of silencing the voices of those who have yearned for change…and may now have the courage to demand it…we must add our voices to their clamor and grasp this opportunity to signal that we will no longer turn our heads to the plight of the have nots.

This is a moment that can either transform us or further fragment us. Instead of giving lip service to America’s greatness, it is time we once again demonstrate it. If we love this country we will. If we continue the trend of simply loving ourselves at the expense of the underrepresented, I suspect we’ll continue down the path of carelessly severing what’s left of the threads that so carefully created the cloth we call these United States.

Isn’t it time we put down our cynical and self-serving scissors and begin the hard work of stitching together a tapestry big enough to bring shelter and solace to all?

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

I want to see Mitt Romney’s dictionary. Given his frequent reliance on third tier definitions to justify his many inaccurate remarks, it has to be awfully ragged. In the following video, reporter Glen Johnson confronts Romney on his assertion that he doesn’t have lobbyists running his campaign. Mitt attempts to nuance the definition of “running his campaign” with regards to Ron Kaufman, a Romney operative who is a well-known and well-connected lobbyist.

If this were the only incident of Romney mincing words, one might be inclined to disregard this latest episode. However, one would have to be blind to miss that the well-heeled and carefully coifed candidate has done so on numerous occasions; not to mention the fact that he recently unveiled his umpteenth stump strategy as a non-establishment, change agent, Washington outsider. While the former governor is adept at covering his tracks, I suspect these tactics are wearing thin and appear far too coy for a number of voters.

I’m reminded of the GOP’s frequent efforts to pejoratively peg Democratic candidates. They labeled John Kerry a “flip flopper” and they spent years attaching “Slick Willie” to President Clinton. With that in mind, I think its time to tag Romney with an appropriate alias.

A number of pundits have referred to Romney by his actual first name, Willard, and others have taken to calling the GOP candidate Mittens (think here kitty, kitty). Nonetheless, the existing choices just don’t seem to capture Romney’s political essence.

I think a concerted effort is warranted to help accurately identify and appropriately describe candidate Romney. In looking for a starting point, I couldn’t help but recall Jon Lovitz’ Saturday Night Live character, “Tommy Flanagan…The Pathological Liar”.

Feel free to offer your suggestions in the comments and maybe we can start a list and have readers pick a favorite.

Also, don’t hesitate to propose some new versions of existing words that define Romney’s willingness to finesse the truth. The one that immediately came to mind is a “mittrepresentation”…which could easily be substituted for misrepresentation. Obviously, this would also work for misinformation, resulting in the word “mittinformation”.

Romney Confrontation At Staples

Cross-posted at Thought Theater