Josh Marshall offers a standard on-the-one-hand, on-the-other analysis of the question whether Hillary would or should accept an offer of the VP slot on the Democratic ticket: she’d have to wait 8 long years, and be 69 years old, before she could run for Pres. again, and she may have more influence in the Senate; but it would be an unprecedented achievement and a chance to be right at the center of power once more. He concludes she’d be better off in the Senate, where the Democrats are likely to be the majority and she’ll accrue enough seniority to really get things done.
Most people who accept the vice presidency do so either because they believe it will line them up to succeed to the presidency or because it brings them to a level of power and honor their careers held little prospect of bringing them otherwise. But neither applies to Hillary Clinton. She’s already of the stature and standing to run for president. She’s a genuinely historic figure. And she’s already been heavily involved in a successful two term administration.
Remember too that the recent trend for greater vice presidential involvement in key administration decision-making has brought with it a flat requirement that vice presidents be strictly loyal and politically subservient to the president. Quite simply, the vice presidency is beneath Hillary’s stature. It’s not clear to me why Hillary would want to spend four or eight years in a position that I think would actually diminish her stature for the possibility of running for president again almost a decade from now.
As it goes, it’s not an unreasonable analysis. And, as he notes, there is a serious question whether Obama can overcome the bitterness of the campaign to trust her as VP, or even see her as the best choice. But I think there is a way to swing the deal that would work tremendous benefits for both of them and the country.
May 8th, 2008
|
General, Politics, News & Current Events |
12 comments
Brooklynite, one of our sometime commenters here, has been working on a great essay on white anti-racism - the work that white people are obligated to do to reduce the impact of racism on society, and the difference between that - being actively anti-racist - and being “non-racist”. He’ll be posting it soon, so keep an eye out. But it has prompted some counter-revolutionary thinking on my part, which has caught me predictable amounts of shit over on his blog. Even so, something that occurs to me off and on about the question of the “obligation to activism” - the idea that we are all morally required to put effort into making the world better for the oppressed - has been triggered by that discussion, as well as by the recent furor in the feminist/person-of-color blogosphere over perceived white indifference to POC issues. I never know quite how to express this thought, or what significance it has given the world we actually do live in, but I’ll try it out here in the hope that no one will notice.
What occurs to me is this: anti-oppression activism of all kinds is a kind of contingent undertaking - a reaction to conditions as they are (and should not be) that seeks to achieve conditions as they are not (but should be). It is in a way Utopian, in that it seeks what in practical terms is unlikely, but more to the point in that it is reactive to conditions that simply should not be allowed to exist and conceivably might not if the world were a better place, or if we succeed in making it one in the future. In other words, action against inequality seeks to put itself out of business - to eliminate the conditions that make it necessary. The fact that it is currently necessary is a failure of those living today to undertake the work of eliminating it. To the extent that each of us has not adopted the anti-racist mindset, racism persists; to the extent that we do successfully spread anti-racism, racism will die, and with it the need for and practice of anti-racism. If this is true, the lack of engagement in activism against oppression may be a sign, in some cases, not of anti-progressive attitudes, but of overly optimistic, and progressive, ones.
May 3rd, 2008
|
General, Politics, Culture |
8 comments
A friend of mine, and occasional Lean Left commenter, Angus Johnston, has started a blog focused on US student activism: studentactivism.net. Angus is completing his PhD in History this semester; his dissertation is on the history of student activist groups from the 60s. He is also currently hooked into nationwide student activist groups as they exist today, and has acted in an advisory role for some of them. (He was, you won’t be surprised to hear, more or less the Megaphone Mark of his own campus as an undergrad.) He comes to his subject with considerable experience and academic expertise.
studentactivism.net covers current controversies involving students or colleges, as well as student organizing, activism, and rights issues. Given the high representation of the academic world in the blogosphere, and the increasing politicization of campuses and the educational experience, it’s a valuable resource for anyone interested in what’s happening with campuses today, and the generations of young citizens they are turning out. Check it out!
April 30th, 2008
|
General, Politics, Bloggin, School, Culture, Education |
no comments
Democrats in the Senate held hearings on contracting abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a woefully under-reported topic in our media. Some of the companies operating in Iraq have a deplorable record of over-charging the government, providing sub-standard and possibly even dangerous services to our soldiers, and abusing Iraqi civilians. Some of these companies make the war profiteers form the Second World War and the Civil War look like pikers by comparison.
The video for the hearings can be found here.
April 29th, 2008
|
General, Politics, Economics, Iraq, How Capitalism Will Ruin You |
no comments
Tonight, PBS is re-playing the Frontline special on the politics of Global Warming. I strongly recommend that you watch it, record it, TiVo it, or otherwise check it out.
UPDATE: If you missed it, you can watch the whole program on-line here.
April 22nd, 2008
|
Politics, Science, Climate Change |
one comment
I have hardly ever agreed with McCain on the issues, but I don’t think I have every held him in contempt. Until now
Disappointingly, Sen. John McCain, presumptive Republican candidate for president, so far declines to back the measure. He seems to be responding to concerns of the military brass that enhanced educational opportunities could negatively affect retention rates. Not only is it wrong to want people to stay in the military because they have no alternatives, but such thinking ignores the advantages enhanced educational benefits offer in recruitment. To meet recruitment goals, the military has offered bonuses and lowered some of its standards. Imagine being able instead to promise possible recruits a first-class college education.
these are combat veterans we are talking about. We owe these men and women every bit of help adjusting back to civilian life we can possibly give them and we certainly owe them the chance to improve their station in life. Unlike McCain, not every vet is going to be able to marry an heiress. But McCain doesn’t support this bill? Why: becasue he thinks it will hurt retention. McCain is afraid that if we actually reward soldiers who have risked their lives in the service of their country that they wont have any incentive to stay for extra tours.
McCain is afraid, at the end of the day, that if we treat our veterans with the decency they deserve and provide them with the opportunities due them from a grateful nation that he won’t have enough soldiers left to stay in Iraq for a hundred years or fight the wars he apparently confuses with “national greatness”. And so tough luck boys and girls: Johnny McCain needs you back on the front lines, not home with your families and certainly to in a college classroom backing a better life for you and yours.
April 21st, 2008
|
Politics |
one comment
My Lord, that was awful. The first hour contained not a single question on any matter of policy. Not one. They asked about flag pins for crying out loud. They asked no questions, as far as I could tell, about the torture memos, about FISA, about health care, about deregulation, about the housing mortgage crisis, the world food crisis, global warming, al Qaeda or Pakistan. Not only did Gibson frame is economic question entirely in the terms of the discredit supply-side economics, he then argued with the candidates about their answers! They gave each person one minute to talk about gas prices! This was the worst debate I can remember watching. It was a complete travesty, a two hour object lesson in the complete and utter collapse of American media.
April 16th, 2008
|
General, Politics |
3 comments
Geoff Davis, Republican from Kentucky, callled Obama a boy:
“I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”
Then, when the furor erupted, he “apologized”:
My poor choice of words is regrettable and was in no way meant to impugn you or your integrity. I offer my sincere apology to you and ask for your forgiveness.
Though we may disagree on many issues, I know that we share the goal of a prosperous, secure future for our nation. My comment has detracted from the dialogue that we should all be having on legitimate policy differences and in no way reflects the personal and professional respect I have for you.
Notice what is missing? An apology for calling Obama “boy”. Boy, in that context, is a racist remark, period. Boy is what people in the South say when they want to say n*gger but don’t want to get called on it. It is as racist as it is possible to be, and yet Davis did not apologize for it. Lee Atwater would have been proud: not only did Davis blow the dog whistle but he then refused to mute it by apologizing for it.
This is going to be an ugly campaign. The GOP clearly intends to yell “n*gger, n*gger” or “b*tch, b*tch” for the entire campaign in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the complete mess they have made of the country. If they did not, McCain wouldn’t have chuckled when the a questioner called Clinton a b*tch. If they did not, McCain would have fired the staffer that spread the email rumors about Obama instead of just suspending him/her. If they did not, Davis would have actually apologized for his use of racist terminology. But none of that happened.
Expect it tog et worse, folks. This kind of base “us and them” destructiveness is all they have left and they obviously feel no shame in using it.
April 15th, 2008
|
General, Politics, Culture |
82 comments
Today is tax day, and that means that we’re bound to be “treated” to all sorts of anti-tax libertarian blog posts today about how horrible it is that the government rapes us, steals our money at gunpoint, takes “half” our money, etc., etc., whine whine whine, bitch bitch bitch. Now the part that these taxophobes don’t ever want to talk about is that while everyone hates paying taxes, people generally like most of the things that taxes pay for (unpopular wars aside). But I’ll let someone else write about that aspect. What I want to talk about, instead, is how horribly the anti-tax crowd exaggerates how much we’re actually taxed.
To counter that, without revealing too many personal details, I’m going to post a summary of my tax situation, and challenge the anti-tax folks to do the same. No specific numbers, just the generalities that I’m listing here.
To that end, for the tax year 2007: (Below the fold)
April 15th, 2008
|
Politics, Economics, Libertarian Problem Solving |
29 comments
I did not see all of the forum, so I something may have happened that would change this opinion, but I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the “compassion forum” CNN held last night. It seemed to me that the quality of the answers, if not necessarily the questions, was much, much better than during a normal debate. Debates have denigrated into a series of stupid “gotcha” questions and talking point regurgitation that very often have little to do with the actual issues facing the country. I think the format allowed for much more detailed, thoughtful responses that you usually find in a political setting. Yes, it did seem at times that Clinton was filibustering, but there did seem to be less pre-canned responses and fewer talking points. I would really like to see a couple more of these kids of discussion on different topics. I think a forum like this on foreign affairs, science, and the economy could be very useful.
April 14th, 2008
|
General, Politics |
3 comments
That was horribly depressing testimony yesterday. Crocker and Petraeus might have tried to put a sunny spin on the matter, but at the the end of the day the only thing you conclude was that the US is fighting in the wrong place and doesn’t have the first clue how to get itself out of this mess.
When Ambassador Crocker was asked which Al Qaeda group he would consider most important to eliminate, the real Al Qaeda or the splinter group Al Qaeda in Iraq, he choose the real Al Qaeda in Pakistan:
SEN. BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, is Al Qaeda a greater threat to US interests in Iraq, or in the Afghan-Pakistan border region?
AMB. CROCKER: Mr. Chairman, Al Qaeda is a strategic threat to the United States wherever it is, in my view–
SEN. BIDEN: Where is most of it? If you could take it out? You had a choice: Lord almighty came down and sat in the middle of the table there and said ‘Mr. Ambassador you can eliminate every Al Qaeda source in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or every Al Qaeda personnel in Iraq,’ which would you pick?
AMB. CROCKER: Well given the progress that has been made again Al Qaeda in Iraq, the significant decrease in its capabilities, the fact that it is solidly on the defensive, and not in a position of–
SEN. BIDEN: Which would you pick, Mr. Ambassador?
AMB. CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.
SEN BIDEN: That would be a smart choice.
Crocker tried to make it seem as if we have struck a massive blow against Al Qaeda in Iraq and so we could now turn our attention to Pakistan/Afghanistan. Some war defenders may rush to use that hedging as support for the notion that even if Crocker admits that iraq is not the central front in the war against Al Qaeda that it once was. That, of course, is nonsense. Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until we invaded so it could not have been an important front in the fight against Al Qaeda until our own stupidity allowed Al Qaeda the opportunity to make it so. And if Crocker is right, if we have had significant enough success against Al Qaeda in Iraq that we are free to turn our attention to Pakistan, why, precisely, is there still so much violence in Iraq? It must be because of other factions, factions that have nothing to do with Al Qaeda in Iraq. But both Crocker and Patreaus said we cannot leave Iraq, so, by Crocker’s own words, Iraq is a colossal distraction from the real fight: Al Qaeda.
Crocker admitting that Iraq is preventing us form dealign with and defeating Al Qaeda is bad enough, but Petraeus and Crocker had even worse news In essence, they have no idea what victory would look like. When Asked by Senator Clinton what victory would look like, General Petraeus gave this rambling answer:
With respect to the conditions, Senator, what we have is a number of factors that we will consider by area as we look at where we can make recommendations for further reductions beyond the reduction of the surge forces that will be complete in July. These factors are fairly clear. There’s obviously an enemy situation factor, there’s a friendly situation factor with respect to Iraqi forces, local governance, even economic and political dynamics, all of which are considered as the factors in making recommendations on further reductions.
Having said that, I have to say that again it’s not a mathematical exercise. There’s not an equation in which you have co- efficients in front of each of these factors. It’s not as mechanical as that. At the end of the day, it really involves commanders sitting down, also with their Iraqi counterparts and leaders in a particular area, and assessing where it is that you can reduce your forces so you can, again, make a recommendation to make further reductions.
And that’s the process, again.
He cannot say what conditions would trigger a draw down of troops — apparently his field commanders would just one day magically know that everything was friendship and light and flowering ponies and they could all go home. Saying now what that magical land of happy-happy would look like is, apparently, impossible. Just trust in the Mighty Power of the Patraeus and He will come down from the mountain and present us with the Ten Dates For Withdrawal.
Crocker was just as bad. When asked by Senator Obama what constituted success, Crocker replied:
CROCKER: And that’s because, Senator, is a — I mean, I don’t like to sound like a broken record, but this is hard and this is complicated.
I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.
But that’s not where we are now.
Again the double talk: we will leave when things are good but we cannot tell you right now how things will look when things look good. Success in Iraq is just like pornography: it is whatever Republicans are pointing to when they say “victory”.
But it gets even worse. When Senator Levin specifically asked Petraeus what the number of troops would be at the end of the year if everything goes according to his plan, Petraeus could not answer:
LEVIN: Now, next question, if all goes well — if all goes well, what would be the approximate number of our troops there at the end of the year?
Let’s assume conditions permitted things to move quickly. What, in your estimate, would be the approximate number of American troops there at the end of the year?
Can you give us a — just say if you can’t give us an estimate.
PETRAEUS: Sir, I can’t — I can’t give you an estimate on that.
LEVIN: All right. You’re not going to give us an estimate on that.
They don’t have a plan beyond hope. If they had areal plan, they would be trumpeting it and would take every opportunity to tell a disgusted and worried American public “here, here is what the end looks like and here is how we intend to get there.” Crocker and Petraeus bobbed and weaved like Ali in his prime every time someone tried to get them define success and victory. People who know where they are going aren’t afraid of questions about the destination. Clearly, all they have is the vague hope that if they hang around long enough, things will somehow sort themselves out.
By the end of the day Crocker and Petraeus had made it clear that the war in Iraq was not keeping the country safer, they don’t really have any idea what they are trying to accomplish in Iraq but we cannot leave no matter the cost until they have accomplished the accomplishment that they cnanot define.
April 9th, 2008
|
General, Politics, Iraq, Terrorism, Iran |
10 comments
The “evidence” for this was always rather weak and now the very mechanism by which it was supposed to happen has been pretty strongly shown to be incorrect:
The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth.
That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate.
The planet warms up when the Sun’s output is strong.
Professor Sloan’s team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.
“For example; sometimes the Sun ‘burps’ - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles,” he explained to BBC News.
“So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing.”
Over the course of one of the Sun’s natural 11-year cycles, there was a weak correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover - but cosmic ray variability could at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness.
And for the following cycle, no correlation was found.
The kicker? It never made any bloody sense to begin with:
The Svensmark hypothesis has also been attacked in recent months by Mike Lockwood from the UK’s Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory.He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.
New rationalization for ignoring human created climate change coming in 5 ..4 …3 …
April 3rd, 2008
|
General, Politics, Climate Change |
26 comments
The Bush Administration apparently believed that the 4th amendment did not apply to military operations inside the country:
“Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,” the footnote states, referring to a document titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.”
So, once again, the Bush Administration decided that they could ignore the Constitution as long as they took some minor, cosmetic step. Here is the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I don’t notice any qualification about which branch of the government people are supposed to be secure in their persons from. Again, the Bush Administration has chosen to steal powers from another branch of the government for the express purpose of making you less free. They hold democracy in contempt and seem to truly believe that they were elected as a Royal Court, able to do whatever struck their fancy. Defending them is simply not possible if one actually cares about things like liberty and democracy and personal freedom.
Someone should ask McCain exactly what he thinks of these memos. Let’s find out if his “National Greatness” means a monarch in the White House.
April 3rd, 2008
|
Politics, Legal Issues |
3 comments
That is what the GOP thinks the President really is:
The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president’s ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.
The notion that the President can ignore any law, break any treaty, abandon any restraint as long as he claims he is doing it in the name of national defense is repugnant to the conscience of any decent person and completely at odds with the foundational principles of democracy, liberty and our government. Defending this marks one as the most servile of men, so far gone in fear and hatred and the need for an illusionary father-figure to protect you from the dangers of the world as to render your opinion on how to handle anything more dangerous than a housefly meaningless. Alternately, I suppose you could just be a monster, a person who so revels in the notion of causing others pain that he would throw away three centuries of hard-earned wisdom about the nature of governments and power and freedom to ensure that he could go to bed a night assured that someone was being tortured on his his behalf somewhere.
And save your pixels if you wish to inform me that I am being mean or contemptuous. I am being mean and contemptuous. Contempt is the least of what is owed people who order such practices and people who defend such practices. One of the clearest lessons of history is that unchecked, unsupervised, unaccountable power is the death of individual liberty and personal freedom. Our Revolution was fought over the exercise of just such unchecked powers and our constitution was specifically designed to prevent anyone from accruing unchecked powers under any circumstances. But the Bush Administration and its disgusting little toadies like John Yoo are perfectly content to throw away all of that accumulated wisdom and the modern conservative movement is perfectly willing to defend them. Why, Dear God, am I supposed to treat this frontal assault on the core principles of democracy with respect?
These people have declared war on the very underpinnings of freedom and democracy. They have advocated a legal regime that would have made George III and Pinochet nod their heads in approval. They argue that a President can do anything he wants to anyone one he wants anywhere in the world he wants as long as he says the magic words “national security” first. They want to elevate the President to a kind of elected dictator and give him powers that would make a 17th century European Monarch giggle with glee. When I call these people servile, disgusting, and enemies of justice, morality, decency and democracy I am not insulting them. I am describing them.
April 2nd, 2008
|
General, Politics, Legal Issues, Torture |
24 comments
After much deliberation, we here at Lean Left have decided to endorse John McCain for president in 2008. He’s the most experienced candidate, he’s one of only two to have passed the “commander-in-chief” threshold, and he’s the only one who doesn’t want to cut and run. I know it seems odd that we would endorse a Republican, but anyone who listens to right-wing talk radio can tell you, he’s not really a conservative. In fact, he’s just a liberal in disguise. I mean, he’s half of McCain-Feingold, right?
So show your support, everyone. McCain in 08!
April 1st, 2008
|
Politics |
2 comments
Imagine a man on vacation, riding an ordinary bus on his way to the ordinary airport where and ordinary airplane is waiting to take him back to his ordinary life. Imagine that the bus tops, short of the ordinary airport, and this man is taken off the bus by an ordinary police officer. But the ordinary police officer has an extra-ordinary reason for taking the man: a cash bonus for every “terrorist” he turns in. Imagine the ordinary man riding, in chains, on a quite extraordinary airplane to a prison where he is kept outside, in the freezing cold and asked daily about things no ordinary man knows of. Where are the terrorists? What are their plans? Who do you know and what are you training to do?
Imagine that our ordinary friend is tortured on a regular basis, so that the torture becomes ordinary. Hung from his arms for days at a time. Beaten with his head underwater so that he is forced to inhale water. Electrocuted so that his body went numb. All to find out the extraordinary things our ordinary man does not and could never have known.
Imagine being sent to another prison, where the ordinary rules of justice and decency don’t apply. Imagine the very extraordinary notion of not being allowed to talk to a lawyer, of never being charged with a crime, of being beaten and deprived of sleep and human company on a regular basis. Imagine police forces — three of them — outside the walls of the prison doing the very ordinary investigations and coming to the unanimous conclusion that our ordinary man is, indeed, an ordinary man with no connection to terrorism at all. Imagine our ordinary man kept in that extraordinary prison, where they beat and freeze and mistreat him to find the answers to questions the police already know he cannot answer, for three and one half years after the police have made that determination. Imagine being let go only after the head of the man’s government personally asked for his release. Imagine the ordinary man being asked to sign a confession stating that he is, indeed, a terrorist as he is being escorted home.
When Kafka wrote about a man caught in a court system that would not tell him what he was imprisoned for an did not give him an opportunity to defend himself against the charges, they called him a surrealist and turned his name into an adjective to describe the peculiar horror he wrote about. Today, that horror is an every day part of the official policy of the government of the United States of America. The government, egged on by people who, in their fear or their racism or their innate viciousness, apologized for torture and threw away concepts like innocent until proven guilty and habeas corpus and independent oversight, abused its power. Imagine that.
March 31st, 2008
|
Politics, Legal Issues, Torture |
4 comments
Black Americans were a founding population. Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That’s not a very pretty reality of our founding. . . .
Descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that. . . .
That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today.
Wow - pretty radical words. Must have been some sort of angry, hateful, anti-white, black nationalist, racist, fear-mongering, Malcolm X-wannabe who spewed that kind of anti-American garbage.
Oh, wait. It was Condi Rice, unindicted Iraqi Occupation co-conspirator, vestigial Secretary of State, and fever-dream GOP Vice-Presidential possible who claims that the United States suffers from a “birth defect” relating to its treatment of blacks and that that history still matters. So I guess we’re not going to be hearing anything about how “angry”, “hateful”, or “anti-American” she is, because . . . IOKIYA(B)R.
March 28th, 2008
|
General, Politics, Culture, Media, News & Current Events, Race |
13 comments
With respect to the Rev. Wright flap, Josh Marshall wonders aloud:
Here’s one other point I want to raise about Wright. Having watched the full sermons that his sound bites were grabbed out of, it’s pretty clear to me that the snippets running on Youtube were taken out of context and heavily distorted. (But that’s life, to a degree — political hits don’t usually come packaged with extenuating context) I’m also not going to get into the business of full-scale defenses of someone who has apparently suggested that the US government had some role in “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”
But in the debate about Wright, which Sen. Clinton has just reignited, it seems to be spoken of now as an unquestioned assumption that Wright traffics in racist rhetoric or hate speech. But is that really true? I’ve seen some stuff that strikes me as whacky. I’ve heard soundbites that critics would not have much trouble spinning as anti-American. But are there really quotes that justify the charge of racism? I’m not saying that purely as a rhetorical question. I have not made myself a full Wrightologist. But I do get the sense that a lot of people believe he’s so radioactive that it makes no sense to point out when others are treating as granted claims that appear demonstrably false.
I’ve wondered the same thing. I’m sure I at least commented to that effect, if I haven’t actually blogged it.
March 26th, 2008
|
Politics, Race |
27 comments
If I were a blogger I would do a piece on this, pointing out how it is a prime example of how large donors expect something in return for their money.
They explicitly state that in the last paragraph of the letter:
We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.
WTF. In a letter where the donors talk about the voters being heard and not diminishing the importance of their votes, they also state that since they, the letterwriters, are major donors (donors to Clinton that is) Pelosi should be responsive to them - and by responsive they mean Pelosi should actively enhance the possibility that a handful of party bigwigs will overturn the results of a nationwide primary (minus two states that couldn’t meet the pre-determined criteria for participation).
That’s chutzpah.
March 26th, 2008
|
Politics |
no comments
— Next Page »
