Campaigning vs. Governing

So now we have our full tickets: Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin. And they are very revealing about the nature of this election and the dynamics of the partisan landscape these days.
The most important revelation here further clarifies that Obama is running his campaign in a manner that sets him up to govern effectively, while McCain is simply running to win, governance be damned.

Okay, raise your hand if you'd heard of Sarah Palin before she became the VP nominee. Right. The buzz said Palin was a potentially smart pick because it shored up support for McCain among social conservatives and may be able to pick up some disaffected Hillary supporters because she is a woman. Which may be true. But the fact is, how the hell does she in any way pass the "commander-in-chief" test? This is the person who John McCain wants to take over the country should anything happen to him (he is a health risk after all)?! She is just over a year into her term as governor of a state with fewer people than Fort Worth, TX and a fantasyland welfare system driven by massive oil profits. In terms of governing preparedness and helpfulness to a potential McCain Administration, Sarah Palin is an absolute zero.

Whereas with Joe Biden, Obama has added perhaps the foremost foreign policy expert in Washington to his team. It would be very difficult to say this pair is not capable of handling a crisis of foreign affairs (although Rove & Co will try). Biden is also extremely well respected on Capitol Hill and will help build unlikely alliances to shepherd through his boss's agenda. In short, this is a VP selection that will help with electoral politics, but even more so with effective governance.

This episode is further evidence that Barack Obama is not just trying to get into the Oval Office, but clearly wants to be a highly capable leader once there. We have seen that in the way Obama handled the primary debates, not seeking to sow hatred against fellow Democrats at any point even while his rival chose to take a different path. We have seen that in the ways Obama has handled rolling out his policy platform, refraining from ambitious policy proposals that he does not believe he can deliver. When pressed for specifics, he has stuck to the core aspects of his agenda and refused to pander to the base just to win an election. That is not "running away from his base", it's preparing for honest governance. As for those that say he is not providing specifics, I believe they are either partisan agents aiming to deliberately misinform low-information voters, or being played by those smear merchants.

John McCain, on the other hand, seems not to care all that much about governing; he is attempting to be all things to all people. I can't think of an issue (except arguably Iraq) where he has maintained the same position he held in 2000, when he ran as an actual "maverick". Abortion, tax cuts, immigration, torture, campaign finance....the list goes on and on. Furthermore, he has betrayed over the course of the campaign a fundamental lack of understanding of the key issues facing the nation today. He gets Sunnis and Shiites confused, or confuses them on purpose to make a warmongering talking point possible. He still says "everybody knows" that tax cuts raise revenues. He calls a salary of anything under $5 million "middle class". He has consistently opposed funding health care and body armor for the troops he continues to send into harm's way, supposedly claiming it abandons principles of fiscal responsibility while billions of taxpayer dollars go "missing" in Iraq and not a peep is uttered. He calls his wife a cunt and offers her services for a strip show but thinks feminist women will support him because Barack Obama is....smug? Worst of all, while jumping aboard the mantle of reform, he continues to staff his campaign heavily with corporate lobbying interests and disciples of the vermin that populated the vaunted Bush PR machine.

Talking points aside, it seems McCain really is running to continue the legacy of George W. Bush and the legacy of fundamentalist Republicanism, much to America's detriment. More politics over policy. That, above all, is why we cannot allow him the opportunity to pretend to govern.

The media is making itself a political issue

Media bias has been an increasingly important topic among progressive activists. The right wing has learned over many years how to manipulate the traditional media outlets into supporting their agenda. By continuously asserting a "liberal" bias and putting major pressure on any pro-Democratic or liberal coverage (real or perceived), the major corporate news networks have been trained to adopt and promote conservative frames while suppressing liberal ones.

Usually this phenomenon exhibits itself subtly. For instance, the Talking Heads continually refer to the estate tax as the much more nefarious-sounding "death tax" or refuse to critique a Republican's pronounced issue stances against their past legislative votes. And of course one can point out the myriad ways in which the corporate media has kowtowed to John McCain.

But every so often, an example of media bias comes along that is so blatant, so egregious and so misleading that it renders the "liberal media" canard utterly indefensible. Yesterday, Olbermann exposed a shockingly obvious whitewashing of a potentially self-damaging McCain quote by CBS.

From their exclusive interview:

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

It just so happens that McCain's depiction of this "matter of history" is flat-out false. The Anbar Awakening happened months before the surge. Here's some clarification by EquationDoc at DailyKos:

The colonel was Colonel Sean McFarland, the head of 1st Brigade, 1st Division. They were redeployed to Iraq in January, 2006, in Nineveh province. In May, 2006 they were transferred south to Ramadi, in Al Anbar province, the site of the "Anbar Awakening." The 1st Brigade, 1st Division was redeployed out of Iraq in mid-February, 2007.

That is, the unit McCain is referring to left Iraq approximately one month after Bush announced the surge on January 10, 2007 (troop surge timeline). A month later, on March 20, troop strength was up from 132,000 (in January) to 152,000. Additional commitments to the surge would eventually bring the total to 168,000, in September, 2007.

The Anbar Awakening, or Anbar Salvation Council, was founded by Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi in September, 2006, again, long before Bush's January 10, 2007 announcement of the surge. And ironically, at the same time troop surge levels peaked and US casualties were in the process of declining, al-Rishawi was killed in September, 2007 by a roadside bomb in Ramadi. It's even more ironic when considered in the context of McSame's claims that we were "able to go out and protect that sheik and others."

In making a statement such as this, either McCain has memory issues or he is simply lying. An editor at CBS likely recognized the inaccuracy of his statement. Thus, CBS chose to scrub out these words and replace them with another, much more on-message answer from earlier in the interview:

Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.

I dare Marlowe and any other McSame apologists out there to give me an explanation for this switcheroo other than that which I contend: pro-McCain and pro-Republican media bias.

We can see here why those in the traditional press are so condescending towards bloggers and the internet in general: We are a direct threat to their ability to control the narrative. I, for one, hope they keep it up. It will only lead us to shine a greater spotlight on their fatal flaws and ultimately expose corporate newsrooms as the largely charlatan operations that they have become. And when the chickens finally come home to roost, it must be acknowledged that this failing industry will have wrought its own demise by shilling for the followers of a failed ideology.

UPDATE:Here is the segment where Keith Olbermann exposes the story:

Response to a conservative friend

I got this message on my Facebook wall today from a friend:

didnt realize youre an obama guy. doesnt the fact that he hates america bother you? he wont wear an american flag pin on his lapel, wont put his hand on his heart to sing the national anthem, and his wife isnt proud of her country, they go to a church where a leftwing demagogic nutjob says traitorous, antiamerican, and highly unpatriotic statements, spreading lies and distortions about his country and Israel. All of that is ok with you? Or perhaps you dislike America too?

Here is my response:

Wow, that came from nowhere. Mine was a civil gesture towards playful political banter, and I get a frothing-at-the-mouth response! Now, I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your tirade was indeed a playful taunt. I think you’re smarter than to actually believe much of what you said. But the suggestion that I “dislike America too” struck a nerve, so please bear with me as I respond with a raw reaction.

I actually appreciate your giving me this opportunity to practice exposing your talking points as the worthless piles of horse manure that they are. It actually amuses me that your heroes are so devoid of policy ideas that you have nothing to campaign on except to reflexively fall back on your tired old smears. That aside, you’ve got some fucking nerve questioning my patriotism. I’m sorry to inform you, but the right wing and the American Empire faction in particular DO NOT OWN PATRIOTISM. I certainly love this country, as do many of my fellow progressives. The Constitution after over two centuries remains unparalleled among governing documents in protecting fundamental liberty. The American people have an independent spirit and a moral resilience that is truly extraordinary. As a nation, we have demonstrated a remarkable and persistent ability to recognize our past sins and take painful steps to right those wrongs. But right now I feel that we are lacking in this introspective ability. Right now, I’m pretty damned ashamed of the American government. I worry that a dominant faction of the American political community, ironically those that claim be the true patriots, are unwittingly destroying the very fabric of what we know as America.

Many in the conservative movement and the Republican Party it has co-opted have lost touch with what has made America great. Their reflexive contempt for public sector activity and worship (note: word chosen very deliberately) of the free market is highly ignorant of the economic booms fostered primarily by direct government intervention in the economic realm. I know you’re rolling your eyes, but keep in mind that the greatest periods of economic success in the past century – the Roaring Twenties, the Postwar Boom and the Dot-Com Era – all were preceded by Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Reforms, the New Deal safety net and the massive military investment in communications infrastructure, respectively. On the other hand, the greatest economic scares – the 1929 stock market crash and bank run, the S&L crisis of the mid-late 1980s and the recent/current housing market woes - have followed periods of aggressive de-regulation by hyper-capitalist ideologue Republicans.

But it goes beyond economic policy. Conservative leaders seem to have decided that America can be a bully to the world and countries we occupy should throw rose petals at our feet. Conservative public appointees testify before Congress that they “swore an oath to the President”, not the Constitution. They treat the Earth as a garbage can and think it can go on this way forever. And worst of all, their political operatives have decided that it is an eminently preferred tactic to divide, distract and slander their way into power. They have become scarily efficient at demonizing certain segments of the population for political gain. That is a textbook characteristic of fascism.With that in mind, let us address the particular slanders of Barack Obama that you choose to highlight in your note.

Obama hates America? Show me the proof. Since when has the President of the Harvard Law Review chosen not to make a pile of money and instead serve his country in public life and, before that, as an educator? To me, that demonstrates patriotism. For that matter, since when does blue-blooded Harvard Law choose anyone but a man of impeccable moral credentials to lead its most prestigious journal? Are you saying they hate America too, or they’re just too stupid to see a Manchurian Candidate when they see one?

Obama doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin? I direct your attention to super-patriot John McCain.











But…w-wait, there’s something missing. Is it possible that McCain HIMSELF isn’t wearing a flag lapel pin? Why does John McCain hate America? You can see how silly that one is.

He won’t put his hand on his heart for the national anthem? That reminds me of a similar line, that he doesn’t know the Pledge of Allegiance. Funny, he sure seemed to know the Pledge and put his hand on his heart when he led the U.S. Senate in both Pledge and Anthem numerous times.

Michelle Obama isn’t proud of her country? Yes, I can buy that. Based on one cherry-picked statement out of everything she has said over the course of two years. Her comment, discovered by a campaign intern given the specific task of searching for attack material, separated from all contextual meaning and trumped up into a blanket statement completely removed from reason, clearly is quite telling despite the lack of any further evidence in Ms. Obama’s words or actions. Ah, the classic anatomy of a smear.

That brings us to Reverend Wright. Needless to say, this instance also follows the classic smear etymology quite nicely. But I actually don’t see what’s that different about the Reverend from other prominent pastors. Demagogic? Nutjob? Okay, and that’s different from evangelical preachers - John Hagee, for example….how? Hagee is the guy who called the Catholic Church “The Great Whore”. Left-wing? Seems like a compliment to me! And please don’t try to tell me you’ve agreed with everything your EVER said. But you probably never left your over such disagreements. (note: specifics of religion generalized to protect identity of friend).

So why is Wright different? Could it be because he fits the stereotype of the Angry Black Man?!?! Do you really want to go down that road? Oh, right…. subtle racial identity politics is a proven winning political strategy for conservatives. But hell, you guys have demographics on your side; why would you bother with the wimpy pussyfooting? I say come out fully in support of White Power, that uppity Negro Obama needs to be stopped! McCain will win in a landslide!

Whatever. Regardless, Obama has made clear since before it was politically convenient that his draw to the Trinity United Church of Christ was based on its incredible ability to foster community and bring people of different backgrounds together in harmony. Yup, that church must have been led by a divisive, radical bigot in Rev. Wright. It’s amazing how successful slander seems to have this dramatic effect of utterly obliterating reason in the minds of its believers.

To be honest, I’m just happy you didn’t call him a Muslim. That would’ve really got me going.

Finally, although I didn’t feel like getting into exactly why I am an “Obama guy” here, definitely feel free to ask me why if you legitimately care.

Why I'm not worried about Obama (part 2)

From the now-famous "A More Perfect Union" speech delivered last Tuesday:

We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

This passage is nothing short of kryptonite for conservatives. There's a reason I turned to my co-worker right after watching Obama's post-Iowa speech and said, "this man is our next president." The rhetorical tactics he uses are utterly brilliant, in polar opposition to the bland old talking points of other Democratic leaders. He manages to speak controversial truths while maintaining his low-key, folksy tone, and this enables him to subtly pull down the curtain of the conservative worldview, exposing the inherent inconsistencies of the Reagan/Bush coalition.

Here are a few of the main points that do so:

1) You can be patriotic and still wish to improve upon the status quo.

This is a crucial frame to advance in legitimizing progressive ideology to the country as a whole. It is the initial step in obliterating the "liberals hate America" smear, and makes people look past knee-jerk partisan identification to evaluate proposals. As many of my readers will agree, progressives have better proposals on most issues.

2) Regulating large corporations in the public interest is necessary to make capitalism function smoothly.

This is an extremely tough argument to make in today's political climate, and I'm not sure Obama is fully prepared to make it a central campaign issue. However, he is heading in the right direction by placing the blame for many of America's problems where it belongs: the overreach of unchecked corporate greed. In enumerating the things he believes we should focus on "this time", he is implying that his administration will not value the "profits over all" mentality over the public interest. Hence the heartfelt anger emanating from the Limbaugh faction following the speech.

3) Hate is not an acceptable campaign tactic.

By appealing directly to the more benign aspects of human nature, Obama is regaining the upper hand in the national debate. He knows that the ugly smears will come, even nastier than we have already seen. By preemptively defining all such attacks (especially coded racism) as dirty politics compensating for a lack of effective policy ideas, he will be then able to deflect them with a simple "here we go again." Not this time. Almost effortlessly, he jumps back in control of the conversation.

4) Faith does not belong exclusively to the merchants of hate.

While not directly mentioned in the above passage, Obama addresses the issue of faith in this speech with a sophistication unique to modern American politicians. In discussing his connection to Rev. Wright, he implies, "Sure my pastor said some things I disagree with, but hasn't yours?". First, kiss goodbye to the Muslim smear. Second, and more subtly, he is driving a neat wedge into the Christian community, isolating the fundies from the more moderate churchgoers that represent a vast majority of the Christian faith. If Obama and his ideological allies can neutralize the party identification gap among non-extremist churchgoers, the GOP is dead meat for a generation.

Update (sunday evening): Sure enough, the Yahoo front page features this headline: Religious vote fragmenting in U.S. presidential election. The fourth point that I mentioned may already be proving important to the dynamics of this election season.