Liberal Impulses

Tad Devine, in a New York Times op-ed, gives us this oh-so encouraging piece of super delegate history:

Many party leaders felt that the delegates would actually be more representative of all Democratic voters if we had more elected officials on the convention floor to offset the more liberal impulses of party activists.

I don’t know much about how super delegates originally came about, so Devine’s piece is informative. But what should be clear – and is clear looking at the nature of the super delegate system – is that it is a mechanism that ensures some level of check outside the democratic process by the party elites. Whether it bears out this way or not, in the 1980s this was something that reduced the strength of liberal activists.

Again, I’m sure I’ll get to read more about super delegates in the coming weeks and months, but I hope those defending the autonomy of these delegates to do whatever they want with no clear directive, recall this passage from Devine and recognize that the mechanism exists to prevent the Democratic Party from becoming more liberal than its elite members want it to be.

Super Delegates

LGS at The Seminal gets to the nub of the potential super delegate fiasco:

After such a tremendous turnout in the primaries, it’d be a shame to see an undemocratic process decide the nominee. The voters deserve to have their voices heard — that’s the point of democracy– and the actions of super delegates across the country will reveal whether or not they agree with that statement.

Nothing in the rules says that super delegates must vote for the winner of the plurality of pledged delegates nationally, nor the majority of pledged delegates from their state. But the rules also don’t specify that they must keep their votes with the person they said they’d vote for before their state’s election or any other point in time between now and the convention. They have complete authority to do what they want. The right thing would be to support the winner of a plurality of pledged delegates in recognition of what the Democratic voters have asked for.

When this is all over, Democrats need to change the rules for the nominating process. I have a longer version of this in the works, but for now let me just say:

  1. No more super delegates;
  2. No more caucuses;
  3. A set calendar that is decided well in advance of the primary season.

I don’t think any of those things are particularly complicated and the key underlying principle should be one person, one vote, in secret and in an accountable and observable fashion.

Not Working

BAGHDAD – A suicide car bomber targeted U.S.-allied fighters north of Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least eight civilians and wounding 20, Iraqi security officials said.

Police and members of an anti-al-Qaida group opened fire as the attacker sped toward a joint checkpoint. But the bomber managed to detonate his explosives near some stores about 20 yards away.

Via Bob Cesca.

The war isn’t over. The surge isn’t working. There is no political progress. And no amount of 3, 6 or 12 month increments of continued American escalation will assure an end to the war or political progress necessary to allow us to claim “victory” and come home.

McCain wants us there for 100 years. Clinton and Obama are somewhat better – with our presence possibly ending by the time they run for re-election. I’m starting to think the main predictable virtue of a Democrat in the White House when it comes to our military involvement in the Middle East is that while we may remain in Iraq at high levels, we won’t end up in Iran. A McCain administration would guarantee war with Iran, and who knows, maybe Syria and a few others for good measure.

So sad.

Allegedly Anti-War Democrats Haven’t Ended the War

Matt Taibbi, aka the poor man’s Leonard Pierce, has a powerful article in Rolling Stone attacking the anti-war movement’s embrace of Democratic political interests while Congressional Democrats for fail to move to end the war in Iraq. The article includes some undoubtedly controversial descriptions of how one of the leading anti-war coalitions, Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq, has ties to centrist parts of the Democratic Party, I’m more concerned with how Taibbi pins blame on the failures of those elected to end the war.

The really tragic thing about the Democratic surrender on Iraq is that it’s now all but guaranteed that the war will be off the table during the presidential campaign. Once again — it happened in 2002, 2004 and 2006 — the Democrats have essentially decided to rely on the voters to give them credit for being anti-war, despite the fact that, for all the noise they’ve made to the contrary, in the end they’ve done nothing but vote for war and cough up every dime they’ve been asked to give, every step of the way….

But the war is where they showed their real mettle. Before the 2006 elections, Democrats told us we could expect more specifics on their war plans after Election Day. Nearly two years have passed since then, and now they are once again telling us to wait until after an election to see real action to stop the war. In the meantime, of course, we’re to remember that they’re the good guys, the Republicans are the real enemy, and, well, go Hillary! Semper fi! Yay, team!

How much of this bullshit are we going to take? How long are we supposed to give the Reids and Pelosis and Hillarys of the world credit for wanting, deep down in their moldy hearts, to do the right thing?

Look, fuck your hearts, OK? Just get it done. Because if you don’t, sooner or later this con is going to run dry. It may not be in ’08, but it’ll be soon. Even Americans can’t be fooled forever.

Taibbi’s ending brings me back to this infamous quote from Harry Reid on the floor of the Senate this past May.

Watching this video, it’s clear that Harry Reid simply doesn’t know the meaning of the word “never.” His use of anti-war rhetoric is about as discomforting to watch as Mitt Romney singing the Baha Men, with the notable difference that while Romney was unable to talk to black youths, Reid has ensured the continuation of a war that’s claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

Democrats have utterly failed to legislate with the political will handed to them by the 2006 elections. The majority came through politicians wage anti-war campaigns around the country. The leadership in the Senate is, naturally, comprised of incumbents who were elevated by anti-war sentiment, but bore no electoral connection to it. Perhaps this is an explanation for their failure to legislate the end of the war through the congressional power of the purse. Or perhaps these people – Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, and Hoyer – just don’t believe the same things we believe.

Taibbi’s article cites Reid as saying that they haven’t had enough time to end the war because of the presidential campaign.

Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party’s energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn’t fit Iraq into his busy schedule. “We have the presidential election,” Reid said recently. “Our time is really squeezed.”

If presidential politics are any limiting factor in Congress’ efforts to stop the war, it’s that Reid doesn’t want to let the legislative process force Obama and Clinton to follow it along to the left. He doesn’t want to require them to make any controversial votes – preferring to let people like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold be alone in efforts to cut off funding for the war. Ending the war by cutting its funds remains a fringe idea in the Senate precisely because people like Reid, Schumer, Clinton, and Obama have refused to legitimize it and make it the primary course of action for the Senate on the war.

Congress has punted the war in Iraq. I wish I had a better understanding of why they’ve refused to stand up to the President on the continuation of the war. Democrats have funded hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq. For better or worse, this Congress is responsible for the continuation of the war and nothing they have done, nor even the promises of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates, give me hope that we can expect a quick end to the war following the election of a Democrat to the White House.

Update:

T.Party suggests that our hopes to end the war were effectively ended in December 2006 (before we even seated the Democratic majority in the 110th Congress) when Nancy Pelosi said, “We will not cut off funding for the troops…Absolutely not.”

It’s hard to end the war when you, you know, rule out using the only means to ending the war.

Also note that Pelosi describes the congressional power of the purse along a right wing frame. Double whammy.

More Problems with China’s Olympics

I can’t say my greatest concerns with having the 2008 summer Olympics in Beijing are with the athletes who will compete there, but this is just gross.

When a caterer working for the United States Olympic Committee went to a supermarket in China last year, he encountered a piece of chicken — half of a breast — that measured 14 inches. “Enough to feed a family of eight,” said Frank Puleo, a caterer from Staten Island who has traveled to China to handle food-related issues.

“We had it tested and it was so full of steroids that we never could have given it to athletes. They all would have tested positive.”

As a result the USOC will import over 25,000 pounds of protein-heavy foods into China to feed American athletes during the Olympics.

So, to recap, thanks to Beijing’s horrendous air pollution, athletes will hardly be able to breathe and thanks to steroid-laden, insecticide-heavy food, athletes won’t be able to eat local food. Is there any upside, anywhere in the IOC’s decision to send the Olympics to China? Not that I see…

When Presidential Campaigns Flex Their Muscle

I’ve spent a great deal of time over the last four and a half months trying to pressure the major Democratic presidential candidates – Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – to use their platform as the two most important, most listened to Democrats in the country to speak out forcefully against retroactive immunity for telecom companies and the expansion of executive powers sought by the Bush administration in FISA reform legislation. These efforts have at times been met by skepticism – what makes these two senators so much more important that the other ninety-eight?

Leadership from these candidates could set the tone of the FISA debate and could raise retroactive immunity to the level of presidential politics in a way that Chris Dodd’s outspoken, persistent efforts never succeeded in doing. While the blogs and key progressive advocacy groups were drawn to Dodd’s use of his somewhat-larger than usual microphone afforded a second-tier presidential candidate, the traditional media never credited Dodd nor even the issue as being particularly important.

The last two days have provided us with a pointed example of the power a presidential campaign possesses to impact the media.

On Thursday night, MSNBC’s David Shuster uttered a shocking, sexist comment about Chelsea Clinton’s role as a surrogate in her mother’s campaign: “Doesn’t it seem like Chelsea is being pimped in some weird sort of way?”

The response from the Clinton campaign was swift, with spokesman Howard Wolfson blasting Shushter in a conference call (full statement via email):

I’m not aware that they’ve apologized. I haven’t received any phone call. I’m not aware that Senator Clinton or Chelsea Clinton has received any phone calls so I’m not familiar with any apology. Look, I think that the comment is disgusting. It’s beneath contempt. And it’s the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network. There was an apology by another NBC news personality last month on air. I’m not aware that that person ever apologized to the Senator for anything he had said. And I think at some point you really have to question whether or not there is a pattern here at this particular network where you have comments being made and then apologies given. Is this part of a pattern? Is there something that folks are encouraged to do or not do? I don’t know, but the comment was beneath contempt and I think any fair-minded person would see it that way.

Wolfson went on to drop a major hit on MSNBC – the Clinton campaign will no longer take part in any debates on their network:

I’ll say this. We’ve done a number of debates on that network. We had agreed yesterday to do a debate on that network. And I at this point can’t envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network given the comments that were made and have been made.

The Clinton campaign pushed back as hard as they could and made sure that MSNBC got the message. Many bloggers picked up on the story, giving it wide traffic in yesterday’s news cycle.

On Friday NBC News responded and suspended Shuster.

On Thursday’s “Tucker” on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.

The Clinton campaign won a victory against media sexism because they pushed back hard and didn’t look the other way when they were subject to biased, poor coverage.

It’s possible that the growing sexism in the media had primed the pump for a strong push back from the Clinton campaign, that they had already reached a point where the next objectionable utterance by any talking head would be met by the full force of a presidential candidate, campaign, and former President. Media Matters documented a long string of sexist remarks by NBC and MSNBC talking heads. And Bob Cesca makes a good case that Shuster was paying the price of this history: “This was NBC apologizing to the Clintons for all of it. Sacrificing their best reporter for the good of establishing a detente with Team Clinton.”

I could be wrong. It’s possible that the Clinton campaign only found such success because this was an overt instance of sexism belittling the actions not of Senator Clinton, but her grown daughter. But even if that’s the case, the campaign, bloggers, and supporters responded in a way that demanded the news outlet listen to them.

Sexism is a blight on our society. Discourse in the media on the Clinton campaign has been deeply tinged with sexist language and sentiments. But what would it look like to see the Clinton campaign put on a full court press to get the traditional media to recognize the critical importance of what is happening in the Senate? What if in addition to fighting sexism in the media, the Clinton campaign started to demand the media report on the state of the Constitution and the rule of law?

This obviously isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison of situations of a campaign interacting with the media. In the Shuster case, the Clinton campaign is reacting to sexism; in the case of retroactive immunity, their engagement would have to be proactive. Moreover, issues of gender and sexism have been ever present in the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign and Hillary Clinton’s role as the long standing frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. I’m not saying it would be easy, just that the last day and a half has shown how much power the campaign has to set out and change coverage. Taylor Marsh notes that after Shuster apologized last night, MSNBC had only women on air for fifteen minutes. The simple lesson is that media outlets respond to pressure from presidential campaigns.

Clinton and Obama have come around to be opponents of retroactive immunity and expanded eavesdropping powers, but they have been effectively absent from the Senate’s debate over the last two and a half months. An opportunity for them to change the debate is present and they are both missing it. It may not be as easy to change the media’s coverage of the Constitution as it is when you’re trying to change their coverage of your entire campaign in response to sexist or racist attacks, but is it any less important?

Lastly, it’s likely that instances like Shuster’s will be instructive for the media. When they foul up their work with sexism or racism, they are getting hit by these presidential campaigns. In the long run, I think these efforts to push back and stop sexist and racist coverage will result in better discourse that doesn’t turn towards bigotry and misogyny when describing, well, anyone. The same could go for a campaign that was shaped by a serious discussion of the Constitution and what legislation like the Intelligence bill granting retroactive immunity for telecom companies that helped the Bush administration spy on Americans means to the health of the rule of law.

Senator Clinton has missed three votes on amendments to improve the SSCI bill. Senator Obama has missed two out of three of those votes. Neither has stood on the floor of the Senate and spoke out against retroactive immunity during this fight. Worse, neither has dedicated a speech on the campaign trail, a major media push, or a television ad to this issue. I hear that Senator Obama enjoys joking about naming his next two kids Habeas and Corpus, while noting that it’s always his best applause line. Well, just as necessary as it is for these two candidates to use the full weight of their campaigns and their standing in the country to stop sexism and racism against them, it’s time for them to flex their muscle and use their elevated platforms to demand coverage of the warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity.

Hillary’s Leaving the Band

This is probably my favorite Clinton video of the cycle. It’s really well done, it’s not celebrity driven, and it’s pretty hilarious. I’ll be curious to see if it actually succeeds in gaining traction with young people online, which I’m sure is at least part of the Clinton campaign’s goal, or if it’s merely picked up by Beltway pundits as Clinton trying to be casual. For what it’s worth, I found it via Dana Goldstein at TAPPED and looking at YouTube, the only link trackbacks it’s received are from Politico, Real Clear Politics, a comment in a DailyKos open thread, and a MyDD diary. It has over 180,000 views in a little over a week.

Also, is it just me or does it sound like Death Cab for Cutie’s “Transatlanticism” piano intro is playing in the background the somber part of the video?

Stop Fighting

D-Day makes a plea for his parents the blogosphere to stop fighting. The use of strike through text aside, I think he’s raising a valid concern here:

The tactics are eerily reminiscent of our friends on the right, and how they use character assassination to discredit our candidates. I don’t understand the circular firing squad here. The candidates are generally as decent as a couple of cautious, centrist politicians can be. They were pushed to the left by John Edwards, and garnered massive followings that can be mobilized to hold them accountable. Either way it’ll be up to us in the end to facilitate that mobilization. Do we really want half the ‘sphere to react to some capitulation by the next President with a bunch of I-told-you-so’s? To say nothing of the possible nightmare scenario of a brokered convention and superdelegates picking the nominee.

I don’t know if there’s a way to stop this; the snowball is rapidly moving downhill. But there ought to be something. The primary itself is not negative; online it’s a sewer, however. And the movement isn’t old and robust enough to already be cracking at the seams.

I’m no fan of pie fights, but I would say that for the most part my impression is that they aren’t taking place in the way  that D-Day fears in a systemic way by bloggers. Rather, they seem to be more perpetrated (or perpetuated?) by diarists and commenters. While D-Day picks out a number of instances where respected bloggers delve into the muck when talking about the presidential candidates, that’s hardly representative of the bulk of the coverage.

Moreover, while I think Clinton and Obama are both acceptable candidates that most Democrats, online and offline, will be content with, there’s no reason for the online community to hold fire when they do stupid things like accept debates on Fox News or skip key votes on the Constitution.

So yes, while I do wish the discourse in some corners of the blogosphere about the candidates was less rancorous, I’m not terribly concerned about it being as systemic as D-Day. That said, please stop.