American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, And Borrowed Money in the 21st Century
I have been working for several days in several ways on reviewing Kevin Phillip's fantastic book, the title of which can be found just above. I ultimately found that there was just no way for me to deal with the information contained within this text in an "academic" or "serious" fashion, for to attempt such an elaboration would surely bring me to tears.
Thus, I have decided to eschew the strict disciplinary regime that I have imposed upon discursive offerings to this point. Instead, I will allow myself free play with language. I must admit, once I give my writing entirely over to unconscious processes, the results are anything but conventional. Nonetheless, I love to jsut let go and write in such a way every so often, and I hope that you will enjoy a break from soberity yourself.
So, I would say by Monday there will be a posting the tone and style of which will be quite foreign to my general approach. I hope that you will enjoy this elaboration of lunacy, which, after all, will constitute nothing more than a mirror of the lunacy of the material with which I am dealing.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Okay, I am now freely preparing myself to eat crow. For there is no doubt that my prognostication of Dec. 30, 2007 was incorrect. In fact, Mike Huckabee will not quite have things sown up the nomination in SC on the 19th. Instead, there will be a heated battle between he and Senator McCain for the delegates here.
One advantage possessed by McCain is that he has the endorsement SC senior Sen., Lindsey Graham, who has been a steadfast supporter of his since the 2000 race. Also, SC is one state in which there remains some support for the Iraq intervention. What is the main concern of likely GOP Primary voters here? It is illegal immigration: insightful. (In fact, McCain flooded the state with a mass mailing yesterday, which defends his record on immigration, primarily from attacks leveled at him by non-candidate Romney.) No doubt, illegal aliens, as opposed to the accidental aliens who continue to be studied in Area 51, are the most significant menace to our great country, which commits so much money to support these lazy foreigners that it is becoming more and more difficult to commit the "necessary" $8 billion a month that we send to Iraq.
Nonetheless, the Governor of Arkansas is certainly not entirely out of the running. A full 60% of likely Primary voters identify themselves as evangelical Christians: hence the abundance of Christian goodwill extended to the meek. After all, evangelicals are not concerned with inheriting the earth. Their goal is to take over Heaven so as to impose right thinking from above, as Pres. Bush has attempted to do but failed-his is just not quite high enough on the hierarchical chain. Moreover, in spite of the enormous amount of coverage concerning the dirty (a euphemism if there ever was one) tricks employed by the Bush camp in the last days prior the the 2000 primary, there are likely many here who continue to be scandalized by the fact that Sen. McCain has two black children. In a state where the "Confederate", actually VA, battle flag remains on the State House grounds, this is an offense that overrides any consideration of Christian charity. In the last analysis, McCain is simply not conservative enough, in spite of the fact that he did agree to speak at Bob Jones University last year, something which he refused, on principle, to do in 2000. This was yet another decisive factor in SC, where churches exert an inordinate role over how their congregations vote.
With Romney pulling all of his media buys from the state and not even bothering to campaign here, placing all his eggs in the MI basket, Huckabee is assured a 2nd place showing, at the very least. This will allow him to continue to raise the false idol of political campaigns, money. Thus, he will be able to saturate many of the states that will vote on Feb. 5 with ads, concentrating no doubt on the 5 within the Bible Belt, which would give him 239 additional delegates, upon the reasonable assumption that he carry them all. In short, the race is far from over.
A final note on the Democratic Primary in NH. While Sen. Obama was "upset" by his colleague Clinton, the final delegate tally was Hillary 12, Barack 11: hardly a resounding defeat for him. Far more important is not the fact that he picked up Kerry's endorsement here, in Charleston, yesterday but that he now has in his possession the list of approximately 3 million donors to the Kerry campaign of 4 years ago. This is an invaluable stack of papers. Can Obama still be the ultimate nominee? Yes, he can.
One advantage possessed by McCain is that he has the endorsement SC senior Sen., Lindsey Graham, who has been a steadfast supporter of his since the 2000 race. Also, SC is one state in which there remains some support for the Iraq intervention. What is the main concern of likely GOP Primary voters here? It is illegal immigration: insightful. (In fact, McCain flooded the state with a mass mailing yesterday, which defends his record on immigration, primarily from attacks leveled at him by non-candidate Romney.) No doubt, illegal aliens, as opposed to the accidental aliens who continue to be studied in Area 51, are the most significant menace to our great country, which commits so much money to support these lazy foreigners that it is becoming more and more difficult to commit the "necessary" $8 billion a month that we send to Iraq.
Nonetheless, the Governor of Arkansas is certainly not entirely out of the running. A full 60% of likely Primary voters identify themselves as evangelical Christians: hence the abundance of Christian goodwill extended to the meek. After all, evangelicals are not concerned with inheriting the earth. Their goal is to take over Heaven so as to impose right thinking from above, as Pres. Bush has attempted to do but failed-his is just not quite high enough on the hierarchical chain. Moreover, in spite of the enormous amount of coverage concerning the dirty (a euphemism if there ever was one) tricks employed by the Bush camp in the last days prior the the 2000 primary, there are likely many here who continue to be scandalized by the fact that Sen. McCain has two black children. In a state where the "Confederate", actually VA, battle flag remains on the State House grounds, this is an offense that overrides any consideration of Christian charity. In the last analysis, McCain is simply not conservative enough, in spite of the fact that he did agree to speak at Bob Jones University last year, something which he refused, on principle, to do in 2000. This was yet another decisive factor in SC, where churches exert an inordinate role over how their congregations vote.
With Romney pulling all of his media buys from the state and not even bothering to campaign here, placing all his eggs in the MI basket, Huckabee is assured a 2nd place showing, at the very least. This will allow him to continue to raise the false idol of political campaigns, money. Thus, he will be able to saturate many of the states that will vote on Feb. 5 with ads, concentrating no doubt on the 5 within the Bible Belt, which would give him 239 additional delegates, upon the reasonable assumption that he carry them all. In short, the race is far from over.
A final note on the Democratic Primary in NH. While Sen. Obama was "upset" by his colleague Clinton, the final delegate tally was Hillary 12, Barack 11: hardly a resounding defeat for him. Far more important is not the fact that he picked up Kerry's endorsement here, in Charleston, yesterday but that he now has in his possession the list of approximately 3 million donors to the Kerry campaign of 4 years ago. This is an invaluable stack of papers. Can Obama still be the ultimate nominee? Yes, he can.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
The Consequences of New Hampshire
Since 10:00 or so last night, my friends have been blowing up my phone to solicit my reevaluation of the eventual Democratic ticket in November; frankly, their mouth’s were watering over what they were sure would be a crow eating session on my part. Alas, I was compelled to disappoint them. There will be no consumption of crow on my part: there need not be any on the part of the Obama campaign either. Instead, Sen. Obama’s Presidential bid was offered a perfect opportunity to learn a valuable political lesson as a result of last night’s surprising “upset.” My friends are becoming acquainted with my less persistent companion: incredulity.
“How, they demanded to know, were the results in NH not a terrible blow for the Obama organization? What is this vaunted political lesson of which you speak?” To begin with, Sen. Obama placed second in the voting in New Hampshire, having been “defeated” by a scant two percentage points. His position is perfectly in order with historical trends, which show that the most likely eventual nominee leave NH in either first or second place. The gift offered by his placement is that a candidate whose victory is “assured” by the polls should never assume a defensive, let us simply stay in our corner and enjoy the victory, position even if predictive mechanisms indicate that one enjoys a 50% advantage over one’s opponent. In short, the mistake made by Obama’s campaign was to have disengaged from the people so as to prevent a possible damaging move on the candidate’s part. The factor that makes this minor trip-up appear to be so egregious is that Obama’s strength is his incredible connection, akin to a gravitational force, that he seems to make with potential voters with whom he comes in contact.
Sen. Obama is a very smart man; certainly, he now understands that a candidate should never offer his opponent any outlet whatsoever for an alleviation of the pressure that his presence imposes. I would lay odds on the fact that were he to find himself in a similar situation, for example, in SC on January 26 that his activities will become exponentially more frenetic: understanding this last term not in the pejorative sense of panicked commotion, but as signifying a substantial increase in participation with the voters up to the very last second available to him.
Moreover, in his speech congratulating Sen. Clinton, neither his demeanor nor his message bore even a hint of resemblance to a man having just suffered a crushing blow. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to submit that the message he delivered last evening placed him in a position to receive a “bounce” in the upcoming primaries, prior to February 5 (Super Tuesday). Bill Clinton was an exceptionally charismatic man. If one compares the force of Barack Obama’s rhetorical displays with the former President's, however, the latter's magnetism a fraction less compelling than Before Barack (BB). I have been an avid student of American politics for close to three decades now, and I have never heard of any politician’s discursive prowess being compared to that of JFK or Martin Luther King, Jr. so often as has been the case with Obama.
This is not to say that Hillary is not a formidable opponent and a brilliant political tactician, especially given the additional acumen that is contributed by our 42nd President. One of my favorite aphorisms by Nietzsche wisely cautions that “Convictions are greater enemies of truth than are lies.” It is certainly within the realm of possibilities that the conviction with which I desire an Obama Presidency makes me somewhat myopic. Sen. Clinton undoubtedly made a decisive adjustment in the five days between Iowa and New Hampshire. She vigorously pursued the 25-39 year old age group amongst women in NH, which had the result of draining part of one of the constituencies that played such a vital role in Sen. Obama’s Iowa victory. Whereas Obama carried that particular group of voters by a large margin in Iowa, Hillary’s efforts eliminated that margin. They essentially split the votes of women in the age range of 25-39 last night.
Perhaps more significantly, her message last night was clearly not one that she appropriated from some consultant’s play book. While I am not inclined to go so far as some have in declaring Clinton’s emotional display as the prime mover of the momentum that she carried into yesterday’s victory, her overall demeanor displayed an aspect of her personality—I am tempted to say her humanity—that heretofore has not been in evidence. Last night her comportment was diametrically opposed to the shallow characterization of her as an automaton programmed to head unconsciously in the direction of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. On the contrary, she came across as a candidate who truly believes that she is the best person to lead this country forward, to transform the ubiquitous perception of a country bereft of any positive potential for the future. Yesterday we glimpsed candidate Clinton who truly believes that she can forestall even the most egregious of the potential catastrophes, which appear as specters haunting America from coast to coast.
Ultimately, it can only be a good thing for the Democratic candidates to push one another to the very limits of their political and emotional capacities. The outcome of such a contest is bound to prepare the eventual victor for the rigors of both the Primary Election and the eventual role of the leader of the free world. The exhaustive give and take that seems inevitable between Senators Clinton and Obama in the next month, to Super Tuesday, or perhaps even longer, can only serve to endow the winner with the formidable strength that will be required to revive our country—for which we would all like to claim a feeling of inestimable pride—from it’s current decrepit state. Can we regain for America and her citizen’s the pride and prestige for which we cannot help but to be nostalgic? Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
Since 10:00 or so last night, my friends have been blowing up my phone to solicit my reevaluation of the eventual Democratic ticket in November; frankly, their mouth’s were watering over what they were sure would be a crow eating session on my part. Alas, I was compelled to disappoint them. There will be no consumption of crow on my part: there need not be any on the part of the Obama campaign either. Instead, Sen. Obama’s Presidential bid was offered a perfect opportunity to learn a valuable political lesson as a result of last night’s surprising “upset.” My friends are becoming acquainted with my less persistent companion: incredulity.
“How, they demanded to know, were the results in NH not a terrible blow for the Obama organization? What is this vaunted political lesson of which you speak?” To begin with, Sen. Obama placed second in the voting in New Hampshire, having been “defeated” by a scant two percentage points. His position is perfectly in order with historical trends, which show that the most likely eventual nominee leave NH in either first or second place. The gift offered by his placement is that a candidate whose victory is “assured” by the polls should never assume a defensive, let us simply stay in our corner and enjoy the victory, position even if predictive mechanisms indicate that one enjoys a 50% advantage over one’s opponent. In short, the mistake made by Obama’s campaign was to have disengaged from the people so as to prevent a possible damaging move on the candidate’s part. The factor that makes this minor trip-up appear to be so egregious is that Obama’s strength is his incredible connection, akin to a gravitational force, that he seems to make with potential voters with whom he comes in contact.
Sen. Obama is a very smart man; certainly, he now understands that a candidate should never offer his opponent any outlet whatsoever for an alleviation of the pressure that his presence imposes. I would lay odds on the fact that were he to find himself in a similar situation, for example, in SC on January 26 that his activities will become exponentially more frenetic: understanding this last term not in the pejorative sense of panicked commotion, but as signifying a substantial increase in participation with the voters up to the very last second available to him.
Moreover, in his speech congratulating Sen. Clinton, neither his demeanor nor his message bore even a hint of resemblance to a man having just suffered a crushing blow. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to submit that the message he delivered last evening placed him in a position to receive a “bounce” in the upcoming primaries, prior to February 5 (Super Tuesday). Bill Clinton was an exceptionally charismatic man. If one compares the force of Barack Obama’s rhetorical displays with the former President's, however, the latter's magnetism a fraction less compelling than Before Barack (BB). I have been an avid student of American politics for close to three decades now, and I have never heard of any politician’s discursive prowess being compared to that of JFK or Martin Luther King, Jr. so often as has been the case with Obama.
This is not to say that Hillary is not a formidable opponent and a brilliant political tactician, especially given the additional acumen that is contributed by our 42nd President. One of my favorite aphorisms by Nietzsche wisely cautions that “Convictions are greater enemies of truth than are lies.” It is certainly within the realm of possibilities that the conviction with which I desire an Obama Presidency makes me somewhat myopic. Sen. Clinton undoubtedly made a decisive adjustment in the five days between Iowa and New Hampshire. She vigorously pursued the 25-39 year old age group amongst women in NH, which had the result of draining part of one of the constituencies that played such a vital role in Sen. Obama’s Iowa victory. Whereas Obama carried that particular group of voters by a large margin in Iowa, Hillary’s efforts eliminated that margin. They essentially split the votes of women in the age range of 25-39 last night.
Perhaps more significantly, her message last night was clearly not one that she appropriated from some consultant’s play book. While I am not inclined to go so far as some have in declaring Clinton’s emotional display as the prime mover of the momentum that she carried into yesterday’s victory, her overall demeanor displayed an aspect of her personality—I am tempted to say her humanity—that heretofore has not been in evidence. Last night her comportment was diametrically opposed to the shallow characterization of her as an automaton programmed to head unconsciously in the direction of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. On the contrary, she came across as a candidate who truly believes that she is the best person to lead this country forward, to transform the ubiquitous perception of a country bereft of any positive potential for the future. Yesterday we glimpsed candidate Clinton who truly believes that she can forestall even the most egregious of the potential catastrophes, which appear as specters haunting America from coast to coast.
Ultimately, it can only be a good thing for the Democratic candidates to push one another to the very limits of their political and emotional capacities. The outcome of such a contest is bound to prepare the eventual victor for the rigors of both the Primary Election and the eventual role of the leader of the free world. The exhaustive give and take that seems inevitable between Senators Clinton and Obama in the next month, to Super Tuesday, or perhaps even longer, can only serve to endow the winner with the formidable strength that will be required to revive our country—for which we would all like to claim a feeling of inestimable pride—from it’s current decrepit state. Can we regain for America and her citizen’s the pride and prestige for which we cannot help but to be nostalgic? Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
What We Can Tell By Analyzing Contributions: a Comparison in Fund Raising Between Hillary and Barack
While not quite prepared to elaborate my public campaign funding ideas, which are really nothing new, I would like to share some interesting information about the various sources from which Clinton and Obama have raised their money: all numbers in the millions rounded to nearest $100,000:
Clinton: Total= $90.9 million
Under $200= $9.5 mil
$200-2,999= $23.5 mil
$2,300 (max)= $46.7 mil
PAC= $750,000
Obama: Total= $80.3 million
Under $200= $20.9 mil
$200-2,999= $25.6 mil
$2,300= $32.9 mil
PAC= $25 (no thousands, only one zero, rather than 5)
Upon examining the numbers elaborated above, there are two comparative numbers, which all but scream for our attention. First, Obama has received over twice what Clinton has in donations under $200, which clearly indicates that his message has resonated with "the people." Also, my own experience as a campaign staffer has indicated that a large number of individuals who contribute in such small donations come from one of two groups. On the one hand, those people who, while they may participate in the process (i.e., they are part of the pathetically small 51% of the voting age population, who in that most pivotal of years, 2000, actually discharged their duty to vote), nevertheless do not generally consider themselves to be "political". The second group, on the other hand, is primarily composed of those who are having their first ever real political experiences, i.e., those who do not generally participate in any politics other than those at the office. Such individuals are often quite pleased that they are not required lie to themselves so as to rationalize the choice not to be involved. The myriad rationalizations offered for their apathy are, almost without exception, prima fascia cynical fabrications. My final comment on this issue is perhaps the most important; SMALL GIVERS ARE BIG SUPPORTERS. People who tithe are generally not those who show up only for Easter and Christmas.
The second set of numbers, which veritably leap from the page are those related to PAC money, Hillary has exactly 30,000 times—yes, that is multiplication and do not imagine the $¾ of a million comes cheaply. In one of the starkest contrasts I have seen between the two candidates to this point. Perhaps Obama will go in quarters on a barrel of oil with some of his buddies with his $25.
I am not in any way trying to suggest that Sen. Clinton is dishonest or could be bought. Nonetheless, this provides us with a powerful motivation to Think about what these numbers mean in terms of a true commitment to transforming our currently decrepit country; does it tell you anything important? If not, I am sorry but you have failed to THINK.
While not quite prepared to elaborate my public campaign funding ideas, which are really nothing new, I would like to share some interesting information about the various sources from which Clinton and Obama have raised their money: all numbers in the millions rounded to nearest $100,000:
Clinton: Total= $90.9 million
Under $200= $9.5 mil
$200-2,999= $23.5 mil
$2,300 (max)= $46.7 mil
PAC= $750,000
Obama: Total= $80.3 million
Under $200= $20.9 mil
$200-2,999= $25.6 mil
$2,300= $32.9 mil
PAC= $25 (no thousands, only one zero, rather than 5)
Upon examining the numbers elaborated above, there are two comparative numbers, which all but scream for our attention. First, Obama has received over twice what Clinton has in donations under $200, which clearly indicates that his message has resonated with "the people." Also, my own experience as a campaign staffer has indicated that a large number of individuals who contribute in such small donations come from one of two groups. On the one hand, those people who, while they may participate in the process (i.e., they are part of the pathetically small 51% of the voting age population, who in that most pivotal of years, 2000, actually discharged their duty to vote), nevertheless do not generally consider themselves to be "political". The second group, on the other hand, is primarily composed of those who are having their first ever real political experiences, i.e., those who do not generally participate in any politics other than those at the office. Such individuals are often quite pleased that they are not required lie to themselves so as to rationalize the choice not to be involved. The myriad rationalizations offered for their apathy are, almost without exception, prima fascia cynical fabrications. My final comment on this issue is perhaps the most important; SMALL GIVERS ARE BIG SUPPORTERS. People who tithe are generally not those who show up only for Easter and Christmas.
The second set of numbers, which veritably leap from the page are those related to PAC money, Hillary has exactly 30,000 times—yes, that is multiplication and do not imagine the $¾ of a million comes cheaply. In one of the starkest contrasts I have seen between the two candidates to this point. Perhaps Obama will go in quarters on a barrel of oil with some of his buddies with his $25.
I am not in any way trying to suggest that Sen. Clinton is dishonest or could be bought. Nonetheless, this provides us with a powerful motivation to Think about what these numbers mean in terms of a true commitment to transforming our currently decrepit country; does it tell you anything important? If not, I am sorry but you have failed to THINK.
A Warm Hand Please for the Nominee's Choice for Vice President
Here we go, New Hampshire is tomorrow: actually, later today. There are plenty of topics to pick from: Hillary seems to have been coronated just a wee bit too soon, independents seem to be coming out in droves; lovable, even sensible, McCain is getting a boost when just a month ago it seemed as though he had pulled a Giuliani (I know, he is waiting until Feb. 5 to officially hang himself.), albeit in his own "maverick" McCain fashion. Yet, there is something else on my mind on this early morning. In fact, lack of sleep is making me feel somewhat foolhardy.
Thus it is that I am going to jump ahead and lay out the perfect, and eventual, Democratic ticket: Barack Obama and Gov. Bill Richardson. Oh, don't be so incredulous; after all, that is my job. I am quite serious. I know that John Edwards covets that second place on the ticket again. There is, however, very little upside to an Obama/Edwards matching.
First, I will deal with Edwards, then I will make the case for Richardson. For all of his charm and passion--indeed, my initial dream ticket was Edwards/Obama. The fact of the matter is, notwithstanding McCain's noble effort to reform campaign financing, the eventual candidate of each party will require truck loads of money. (One could suggest putting a month's worth of Iraq expenditures back and lending $4 billion to each party's nominee. Rrright!) Alas, in spite of Dean's love affair with internet fund raising at $11.50 a head, we'll take it, but that will not do it. The question on this issue becomes, can Edwards back off of his rhetoric to a sufficient extent as to actually help solicit those who he has thrown into the river, Eastern Promises style, and not seem like a total hypocrite? I fear that the answer there is no. Any rival worth the name would destroy him in a V.P. debate. "Yeah, the man who has pledged not to forget his roots in Seneca, SC, where his parents worked in a textile mill, has suddenly forgotten that the corporate machine that supports Democrats is the source of all evils. (Don't get me wrong, the former Sen. from North Carolina is absolutely right, even if he has not chosen the most expedient platform from which to express his views. I have seen this up close and personal in the Congressional campaigns in which I have been involved. The single most significant way--perhaps the only effective way--for our political culture to be radically transformed is to mandate public funding of campaigns. Least you lose your heads, I will outline a viable plan for this proposal in an upcoming entry. I submit that such a metamorphosis--imagine all of the politicians struggling a la Gregor Samsa to get out of bed without having to solicit money for 3 hours a day--would empower regular citizens, you and I, to require accountability on the part of our representatives. Then again, I am not John Edwards.)
Secondly, there is very little to be gained politically from such a pairing. John Kennedy did not choose LBJ because of the Hill Country Texan's mild demeanor and their close personal relationship. A Vice President should be able to either level the ticket somewhat, as Edwards did 8 years ago by off-setting the perception that the country would be run by an honest to God MA Liberal. Or, he/she should bring along some key electoral votes. Something that Edwards is simply not in a position to do given his placement in the fire-engine red deep south. Finally, a running mate should give the perception of gravitas to a nominee who may be conceived as somewhat lacking in experience, for example, though Bush43 could not name a country in Africa, Darth Cheney certainly could. Sorry, John, three strikes: you are out.
On the other hand, Gov. Richardson could enhance the Democratic ticket in ways that should make any progressive's mouth water. One could even argue, assuming an Obama nomination, that Richardson is the apotheosis of what a running-mate should be: how about 3 out of 3? Sen. Obama has not been branded with the capital L: yet, scarlet letter of reactionary ditto-heads and compassionate conservatives as it is. The key here is the "yet." After all, this is the fall-back position of any Republican operative who can think of nothing more substantive with which to charge an opponent. Upon the arrival of this inevitable moment, enter Bill Richardson known proselytizer of Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which was the former President's attempt to eschew the aforementioned scarlet letter and show that all good Democrats were actually centrists at heart. I cannot imagine that Gov. Richardson has missed a single trip to Hilton Head Island's Renaissance Weekend, the intellectual hajj of the DLC. The way in which Richardson would expand the Democrat's electoral base should be obvious enough; he is the Governor of a Western state, New Mexico. While NM possesses a measly 38 electoral votes, it borders Colorado (71), Nevada (33), and the big-daddy of them all, California, Richardson's native state, with 471 coveted electors. Thus, the topographical calculus offers a strong argument for an Obama/Richardson pairing. Finally, according to our short list of the one or more strengths that should be inherited from a VP candidate, there is the issue of experience. This is the single strongest argument for an Obama/Richardson pairing. Let us take a brief look at the Governor's resume, shall we?
First, it is worth mentioning that in his current role as Gov. of NM, Richardson actually balanced the budget of his state, which is not to say that he could affect a similar role as VP, or even the head deity of budgets in the solar system, given our current fantasmagoric deficit, speak of a Kafkaesque undertaking. His career in government began as Rep. Richardson, a title that he carried for 14 years. As a member of the lower chamber of Congress he served on the Commerce, Resources, and importantly the Intelligence committees. Moreover, he did not leave the House of Representatives involuntarily; he did so in order to serve as the first Hispanic ambassador from the US to the United Nations. In this capacity, he played crucial roles, ironically, in negotiating problems to some of Africa's more intractable political issues. In fact, his diplomatic skills and the demonstrative results achieved by his employment of them earned him three nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. Following his stint at the UN, he was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Energy for 3 years. Surprise! He was no less effective in that role than he was in his former post. As Sec. of Energy, Richardson was a strong advocate for nature conservation (How about some Green votes?. In addition, he helped to keep the notion of a $100 barrel of oil in the realm of the inconceivable (On the conceivable reality [Bushism] of this latter, please share my incredulity.), and he was active in pursuing a policy of ridding our communities and natural habitats of radioactive waste, notably by pushing to remove that strange glow from the Colorado river.
I therefore ask: is there any other Democrat out there who could lend more in terms of putting to rest the concern of certain members of the electorate that Sen. Obama lacks the necessary experience to be our next President? Of course there are the Joe Bidens and Christopher Dodds out there, but they can play other roles; perhaps Secretary of State and Defense respectively, not to get too far ahead of ourselves.
I will invoke one additional and quite substantial contribution, which Gov. Richardson could make as a candidate for VP. For the few who have failed to notice, Mr. Richardson is Hispanic. What's more, he is Hispanic, and he is not an "alien." In fact, he is a red-blooded American (as opposed to the few and the proud blue-blooded Republicans). Indeed, as a native of California, born after the United State's first war of foreign aggression whereby our country's great destiny was manifested, he is just as American as the various and sundry grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Irish Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans,who are now THE Americans acting as the standard bearers to protect our great land from "aliens" hailing from far and near, Chinese imports notwithstanding. This is just one more constituency that Richardson could help deliver to the Democratic ticket, which is not to say that there is a homogeneous voting block that can be denominated "Hispanic."
As I conclude my somewhat early (read, hopefully rash) "call" of the Democratic ticket, I actually find myself somewhat optimistic. Imagine, an African-American--even if he is, incomprehensibly, not quite African-American enough, a statement that pushes my incredulity towards the infinite--President and a Hispanic American Vice President! If, given the arguments I have just laid out regarding the competency of just one of the pair, such a combination is not enough to galvanize the Democratic/progressive base, then we are a country even more hopelessly adrift than I often fear. Indeed, to wager one further prognostication, I would imagine that this ticket would result in the most significant voter turn-out in two or three generations. I cannot help but to leave you with a smile. Obama/Richardson '08: a bumper sticker that I will not be forced to pledge will remain on my car until we are released from the clutches of an "evil empire" of an administration. Rather, it will stay firmly affixed as a matter of pride and hope.
Here we go, New Hampshire is tomorrow: actually, later today. There are plenty of topics to pick from: Hillary seems to have been coronated just a wee bit too soon, independents seem to be coming out in droves; lovable, even sensible, McCain is getting a boost when just a month ago it seemed as though he had pulled a Giuliani (I know, he is waiting until Feb. 5 to officially hang himself.), albeit in his own "maverick" McCain fashion. Yet, there is something else on my mind on this early morning. In fact, lack of sleep is making me feel somewhat foolhardy.
Thus it is that I am going to jump ahead and lay out the perfect, and eventual, Democratic ticket: Barack Obama and Gov. Bill Richardson. Oh, don't be so incredulous; after all, that is my job. I am quite serious. I know that John Edwards covets that second place on the ticket again. There is, however, very little upside to an Obama/Edwards matching.
First, I will deal with Edwards, then I will make the case for Richardson. For all of his charm and passion--indeed, my initial dream ticket was Edwards/Obama. The fact of the matter is, notwithstanding McCain's noble effort to reform campaign financing, the eventual candidate of each party will require truck loads of money. (One could suggest putting a month's worth of Iraq expenditures back and lending $4 billion to each party's nominee. Rrright!) Alas, in spite of Dean's love affair with internet fund raising at $11.50 a head, we'll take it, but that will not do it. The question on this issue becomes, can Edwards back off of his rhetoric to a sufficient extent as to actually help solicit those who he has thrown into the river, Eastern Promises style, and not seem like a total hypocrite? I fear that the answer there is no. Any rival worth the name would destroy him in a V.P. debate. "Yeah, the man who has pledged not to forget his roots in Seneca, SC, where his parents worked in a textile mill, has suddenly forgotten that the corporate machine that supports Democrats is the source of all evils. (Don't get me wrong, the former Sen. from North Carolina is absolutely right, even if he has not chosen the most expedient platform from which to express his views. I have seen this up close and personal in the Congressional campaigns in which I have been involved. The single most significant way--perhaps the only effective way--for our political culture to be radically transformed is to mandate public funding of campaigns. Least you lose your heads, I will outline a viable plan for this proposal in an upcoming entry. I submit that such a metamorphosis--imagine all of the politicians struggling a la Gregor Samsa to get out of bed without having to solicit money for 3 hours a day--would empower regular citizens, you and I, to require accountability on the part of our representatives. Then again, I am not John Edwards.)
Secondly, there is very little to be gained politically from such a pairing. John Kennedy did not choose LBJ because of the Hill Country Texan's mild demeanor and their close personal relationship. A Vice President should be able to either level the ticket somewhat, as Edwards did 8 years ago by off-setting the perception that the country would be run by an honest to God MA Liberal. Or, he/she should bring along some key electoral votes. Something that Edwards is simply not in a position to do given his placement in the fire-engine red deep south. Finally, a running mate should give the perception of gravitas to a nominee who may be conceived as somewhat lacking in experience, for example, though Bush43 could not name a country in Africa, Darth Cheney certainly could. Sorry, John, three strikes: you are out.
On the other hand, Gov. Richardson could enhance the Democratic ticket in ways that should make any progressive's mouth water. One could even argue, assuming an Obama nomination, that Richardson is the apotheosis of what a running-mate should be: how about 3 out of 3? Sen. Obama has not been branded with the capital L: yet, scarlet letter of reactionary ditto-heads and compassionate conservatives as it is. The key here is the "yet." After all, this is the fall-back position of any Republican operative who can think of nothing more substantive with which to charge an opponent. Upon the arrival of this inevitable moment, enter Bill Richardson known proselytizer of Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which was the former President's attempt to eschew the aforementioned scarlet letter and show that all good Democrats were actually centrists at heart. I cannot imagine that Gov. Richardson has missed a single trip to Hilton Head Island's Renaissance Weekend, the intellectual hajj of the DLC. The way in which Richardson would expand the Democrat's electoral base should be obvious enough; he is the Governor of a Western state, New Mexico. While NM possesses a measly 38 electoral votes, it borders Colorado (71), Nevada (33), and the big-daddy of them all, California, Richardson's native state, with 471 coveted electors. Thus, the topographical calculus offers a strong argument for an Obama/Richardson pairing. Finally, according to our short list of the one or more strengths that should be inherited from a VP candidate, there is the issue of experience. This is the single strongest argument for an Obama/Richardson pairing. Let us take a brief look at the Governor's resume, shall we?
First, it is worth mentioning that in his current role as Gov. of NM, Richardson actually balanced the budget of his state, which is not to say that he could affect a similar role as VP, or even the head deity of budgets in the solar system, given our current fantasmagoric deficit, speak of a Kafkaesque undertaking. His career in government began as Rep. Richardson, a title that he carried for 14 years. As a member of the lower chamber of Congress he served on the Commerce, Resources, and importantly the Intelligence committees. Moreover, he did not leave the House of Representatives involuntarily; he did so in order to serve as the first Hispanic ambassador from the US to the United Nations. In this capacity, he played crucial roles, ironically, in negotiating problems to some of Africa's more intractable political issues. In fact, his diplomatic skills and the demonstrative results achieved by his employment of them earned him three nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. Following his stint at the UN, he was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Energy for 3 years. Surprise! He was no less effective in that role than he was in his former post. As Sec. of Energy, Richardson was a strong advocate for nature conservation (How about some Green votes?. In addition, he helped to keep the notion of a $100 barrel of oil in the realm of the inconceivable (On the conceivable reality [Bushism] of this latter, please share my incredulity.), and he was active in pursuing a policy of ridding our communities and natural habitats of radioactive waste, notably by pushing to remove that strange glow from the Colorado river.
I therefore ask: is there any other Democrat out there who could lend more in terms of putting to rest the concern of certain members of the electorate that Sen. Obama lacks the necessary experience to be our next President? Of course there are the Joe Bidens and Christopher Dodds out there, but they can play other roles; perhaps Secretary of State and Defense respectively, not to get too far ahead of ourselves.
I will invoke one additional and quite substantial contribution, which Gov. Richardson could make as a candidate for VP. For the few who have failed to notice, Mr. Richardson is Hispanic. What's more, he is Hispanic, and he is not an "alien." In fact, he is a red-blooded American (as opposed to the few and the proud blue-blooded Republicans). Indeed, as a native of California, born after the United State's first war of foreign aggression whereby our country's great destiny was manifested, he is just as American as the various and sundry grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Irish Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans,who are now THE Americans acting as the standard bearers to protect our great land from "aliens" hailing from far and near, Chinese imports notwithstanding. This is just one more constituency that Richardson could help deliver to the Democratic ticket, which is not to say that there is a homogeneous voting block that can be denominated "Hispanic."
As I conclude my somewhat early (read, hopefully rash) "call" of the Democratic ticket, I actually find myself somewhat optimistic. Imagine, an African-American--even if he is, incomprehensibly, not quite African-American enough, a statement that pushes my incredulity towards the infinite--President and a Hispanic American Vice President! If, given the arguments I have just laid out regarding the competency of just one of the pair, such a combination is not enough to galvanize the Democratic/progressive base, then we are a country even more hopelessly adrift than I often fear. Indeed, to wager one further prognostication, I would imagine that this ticket would result in the most significant voter turn-out in two or three generations. I cannot help but to leave you with a smile. Obama/Richardson '08: a bumper sticker that I will not be forced to pledge will remain on my car until we are released from the clutches of an "evil empire" of an administration. Rather, it will stay firmly affixed as a matter of pride and hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)