Losing the Moral High Ground
By Jerome Grossman
Last week Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spent three days in Pakistan defending U.S. Policy before a variety of groups. Some of the audiences were blunt and combative, reflecting the dramatic decline in popularity of U. S. policy. The Pakistani criticisms include U.S. interference in Pakistan's internal affairs, U.S. failure to allow Pakistani textiles into American markets in desired quotas, and the growing U.S. relationship with India particularly on nuclear matters.
But the issue that drew the most attention and anger is the U.S. use of unmanned drone airplanes to kill people in Pakistan, a program guided offshore by civilians from as far away as western United States. Some Pakistanis told Clinton that the program amounted to “execution without trial”. Others asked Clinton if she viewed these drone attacks as terrorism. “No, I do not”, she replied, but refused to comment further.
This CIA program is aimed at terrorism suspects around the world including countries where U.S. troops are not based. The program was initiated in the Bush administration, continued by Obama, and is now one of the fastest-growing programs of the U.S. military. After September 11, Bush signed a secret memorandum of notification giving the CIA the right to kill members of Al Qaeda and confederates virtually anywhere in the world.
Targeted killing has become official U.S. policy although the U.S. has a law forbidding assassination. The CIA furnishes the intelligence and selection of victims. It depends on the quality of the intelligence and whether cash bounties to informers and personal revenge influence the execution decisions. Errors in targeting have led to civilian deaths of innocents especially members of families of the targeted.
The CIA keeps broadening categories of the condemned, from Al Qaeda to Taliban to insurgents. Opponents of the program say that it is more effective `to arrest suspects than to kill-in order to obtain intelligence from them. Dead men tell no tales.
The CIA has farmed out the killing to commercial contractors who hire and train civilians to make the life and death decisions under pressure, a system that makes many uneasy. Other critics point out that the drone is not a decisive weapon but its use is likely to inspire hatred of America and even create more enemies seeking revenge. And as Clinton found out in Pakistan, a longtime U.S. ally, the drone program could cause America to lose the moral high ground, from time immemorial an important asset in rallying the nation, attracting allies, and deterring rivals.
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table
Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table
By Jerome Grossman
On January 13 and 14, Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the confirmation process for her nomination to be Secretary of State. She was approved by the committee 16 -1 and is sure to win confirmation in the Senate.
While the office has undergone many changes since it was established in 1789, for several generations the State Department has concentrated on diplomacy in all aspects of foreign-policy. However, in her testimony before the committee, Clinton said she would use “smart power” including “diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” To some, the inclusion of “military power” as though it were within her authority, was a surprise. Further, she went on to specify that “military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort.”
Clinton's “last resort” became clear when she discussed relations with Iran saying “We are not taking any option off the table at all.” That is breathtaking and frightening. For more than a year, the US has been openly threatening to bomb Iran and one of the options is the use of nuclear weapons. “All options are on the table”, said President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and most of the candidates in the 2008 presidential race.
Such threats are irresponsible and dangerous. Eight other countries have nuclear weapons and they all have real or perceived potential enemies. The weapons are on hair trigger alert as the controlling military scan potential enemies for indications of a possible nuclear strike. Threats, direct or indirect, as in “all weapons are on the table”, set up unstable situations that might lead to their use through error or faulty intelligence. Take them off the table.
All nations should publicly pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons-or threaten to use them. United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 4, states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” When the US Congress ratified the Charter and the President signed it, the Charter became United States law. Any threat violates American law.
President Obama: tell your appointees to stop saying “All options are on the table.” The world knows this threatens the use of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction that would unleash a hell on earth that might destroy civilization. Please stop it now: Yes. you can
By Jerome Grossman
On January 13 and 14, Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the confirmation process for her nomination to be Secretary of State. She was approved by the committee 16 -1 and is sure to win confirmation in the Senate.
While the office has undergone many changes since it was established in 1789, for several generations the State Department has concentrated on diplomacy in all aspects of foreign-policy. However, in her testimony before the committee, Clinton said she would use “smart power” including “diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” To some, the inclusion of “military power” as though it were within her authority, was a surprise. Further, she went on to specify that “military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort.”
Clinton's “last resort” became clear when she discussed relations with Iran saying “We are not taking any option off the table at all.” That is breathtaking and frightening. For more than a year, the US has been openly threatening to bomb Iran and one of the options is the use of nuclear weapons. “All options are on the table”, said President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and most of the candidates in the 2008 presidential race.
Such threats are irresponsible and dangerous. Eight other countries have nuclear weapons and they all have real or perceived potential enemies. The weapons are on hair trigger alert as the controlling military scan potential enemies for indications of a possible nuclear strike. Threats, direct or indirect, as in “all weapons are on the table”, set up unstable situations that might lead to their use through error or faulty intelligence. Take them off the table.
All nations should publicly pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons-or threaten to use them. United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 4, states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” When the US Congress ratified the Charter and the President signed it, the Charter became United States law. Any threat violates American law.
President Obama: tell your appointees to stop saying “All options are on the table.” The world knows this threatens the use of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction that would unleash a hell on earth that might destroy civilization. Please stop it now: Yes. you can
Monday, June 9, 2008
Why Hillary Lost
Why Hillary Lost
By Jerome Grossman
Many wondered why Hillary put up with Bill’s numerous infidelities. In addition to the authentic personal relationship, this marriage was a full partnership of two brilliant minds, politically ambitious, organized to help both achieve their lofty goals.
By Bill’s second term, Hillary's run for the White House had been determined and planned. Formal experience was to be obtained in the U.S. Senate, not from the byway of Arkansas, but in the Big Apple, the world center of media and finance, for maximum personal publicity and proximity to Wall Street wealth.
During the Clinton presidency, the military gained significant power over the civilian leadership, using the president's lack of military service and draft evasion to get its way on the military budget and procurement policies. Bill’s aversion to foreign military adventure was overcome by framing intervention for humanitarian reasons. At a cabinet meeting, Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the United Nations, asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, during a discussion of intervention in Bosnia, “What is the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about, if we can't use it?”
Like Clinton, Powell had his doubts, but the so-called humanitarian military interventions were carried out in Bosnia, Serbia, Haiti, Somalia and four days of intensive bombing of Iraq. The intellectual and political groundwork for ignoring the lessons of Vietnam had been established.
And the nation approved. In Congress, there was virtually no opposition, no legislative authorization, and no declaration of war, in the streets, no demonstrations. The stabilization of the former Yugoslavia and the expansion of NATO to the Black Sea were accepted as indications that the Balkan interventions were in the national interest.
Hillary got the message. Upon election to the Senate, she used all the influence she could muster to obtain appointment to the Armed Services Committee, where she acquired detailed knowledge and cooperated with the military brass.
Nevertheless, Hillary believed that her biggest problem in her drive for the presidency would be whether the voters would accept a woman as Commander- in -Chief in time of war. Would a woman, even Hillary, be tough enough, resolute enough, to make decisions that will cause loss of life and limb, to attack, to command, as men do?
So when on October 10, 2002 the resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq came before the Senate, Hillary voted for it, as did 75 other senators, including her main rivals for the Democratic nomination for president, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd and John Edwards. It was an easy decision - another humanitarian intervention to overthrow Saddam Hussein that had proved so popular during Bill’s terms.
When the presidential campaign began in 2007, the mood of the voters had shifted dramatically on the Iraq War. The insurgency was causing all sorts of trouble. American dead and wounded was increasing, the dollar cost was enormous, and the war was generally regarded as an unsuccessful mistake. The policy of humanitarian intervention had been discredited.
Only one major candidate, Senator Barack Obama, had the record of opposition to the war and the resources to tell his story to the nation. Most voters did not know that Obama had not been in the Senate to vote on the war authorization, but that did not make a difference. They welcomed and honored his local opposition in Illinois. When the voters appraised Obama, they found a compelling personality, an accomplished orator, with an efficient organization to carry his message. The opponents of the war swarmed to support Obama. Instead of the traditional anti-war demonstrations, they gave their money, their energies and their votes to Obama as a way to stop the war. Luckily for Obama, the first political test was in Iowa, a bastion of anti-war sentiment, where Obama won the caucuses and Hillary ran a poor third. At the time of the Iowa caucuses, anti Iraq War sentiment was at its peak, dominating the news and political sentiment. The voters met Obama and were charmed by his talent and stimulated by his message. Hillary had become irrelevant on the war.
Hillary did make a comeback in the last 10 primaries, winning a majority of them. By late spring, the mood of the nation had changed. The Iraq war was no longer leading the news; the country was wrapped into domestic affairs: the recession, the price of gasoline, the cost of health care, etc.issues that did not inspire big turnouts for Obama. The pocketbook issues favored Hillary.
But it was too late for Hillary. Obama had captured the soul of the Democratic Party, was the certain nominee and the likely president. Hillary had applied the lessons learned in an earlier decade, had made a political decision using conventional wisdom, failing to anticipate the roaring change in her party and the nation.
By Jerome Grossman
Many wondered why Hillary put up with Bill’s numerous infidelities. In addition to the authentic personal relationship, this marriage was a full partnership of two brilliant minds, politically ambitious, organized to help both achieve their lofty goals.
By Bill’s second term, Hillary's run for the White House had been determined and planned. Formal experience was to be obtained in the U.S. Senate, not from the byway of Arkansas, but in the Big Apple, the world center of media and finance, for maximum personal publicity and proximity to Wall Street wealth.
During the Clinton presidency, the military gained significant power over the civilian leadership, using the president's lack of military service and draft evasion to get its way on the military budget and procurement policies. Bill’s aversion to foreign military adventure was overcome by framing intervention for humanitarian reasons. At a cabinet meeting, Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the United Nations, asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, during a discussion of intervention in Bosnia, “What is the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about, if we can't use it?”
Like Clinton, Powell had his doubts, but the so-called humanitarian military interventions were carried out in Bosnia, Serbia, Haiti, Somalia and four days of intensive bombing of Iraq. The intellectual and political groundwork for ignoring the lessons of Vietnam had been established.
And the nation approved. In Congress, there was virtually no opposition, no legislative authorization, and no declaration of war, in the streets, no demonstrations. The stabilization of the former Yugoslavia and the expansion of NATO to the Black Sea were accepted as indications that the Balkan interventions were in the national interest.
Hillary got the message. Upon election to the Senate, she used all the influence she could muster to obtain appointment to the Armed Services Committee, where she acquired detailed knowledge and cooperated with the military brass.
Nevertheless, Hillary believed that her biggest problem in her drive for the presidency would be whether the voters would accept a woman as Commander- in -Chief in time of war. Would a woman, even Hillary, be tough enough, resolute enough, to make decisions that will cause loss of life and limb, to attack, to command, as men do?
So when on October 10, 2002 the resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq came before the Senate, Hillary voted for it, as did 75 other senators, including her main rivals for the Democratic nomination for president, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd and John Edwards. It was an easy decision - another humanitarian intervention to overthrow Saddam Hussein that had proved so popular during Bill’s terms.
When the presidential campaign began in 2007, the mood of the voters had shifted dramatically on the Iraq War. The insurgency was causing all sorts of trouble. American dead and wounded was increasing, the dollar cost was enormous, and the war was generally regarded as an unsuccessful mistake. The policy of humanitarian intervention had been discredited.
Only one major candidate, Senator Barack Obama, had the record of opposition to the war and the resources to tell his story to the nation. Most voters did not know that Obama had not been in the Senate to vote on the war authorization, but that did not make a difference. They welcomed and honored his local opposition in Illinois. When the voters appraised Obama, they found a compelling personality, an accomplished orator, with an efficient organization to carry his message. The opponents of the war swarmed to support Obama. Instead of the traditional anti-war demonstrations, they gave their money, their energies and their votes to Obama as a way to stop the war. Luckily for Obama, the first political test was in Iowa, a bastion of anti-war sentiment, where Obama won the caucuses and Hillary ran a poor third. At the time of the Iowa caucuses, anti Iraq War sentiment was at its peak, dominating the news and political sentiment. The voters met Obama and were charmed by his talent and stimulated by his message. Hillary had become irrelevant on the war.
Hillary did make a comeback in the last 10 primaries, winning a majority of them. By late spring, the mood of the nation had changed. The Iraq war was no longer leading the news; the country was wrapped into domestic affairs: the recession, the price of gasoline, the cost of health care, etc.issues that did not inspire big turnouts for Obama. The pocketbook issues favored Hillary.
But it was too late for Hillary. Obama had captured the soul of the Democratic Party, was the certain nominee and the likely president. Hillary had applied the lessons learned in an earlier decade, had made a political decision using conventional wisdom, failing to anticipate the roaring change in her party and the nation.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Yes, We Can Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Yes, We Can Abolish Nuclear Weapons
By Jerome Grossman
A major disappointment in the presidential race has been the failure of the three surviving candidates to address nuclear weapons, the greatest existential threat to planet Earth, to the human race itself, and of course, by extension to the United States of America.
The failure is extraordinary because the abolition of nuclear weapons has been raised recently and repeatedly by some of the most respected and powerful personages in the U.S. military, the federal government, and corporate America. How could a serious election virtually ignore this powerful initiative?
A January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn and former Secretary of Defense William Perry called for a “world free of nuclear weapons” and urged the United States to lead an international effort to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles. They argued for a multilateral verifiable plan with strong enforcement mechanisms. They stated: “Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”
Last month, in response to a question about her reaction to Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton said that she would “obliterate” Iran in that eventuality. In a later interview she again threatened “massive retaliation.”
Her remarks were unwise and destabilizing, echoing the irresponsible statements of President Ahmadinejad of Iran who has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and then tried to modify the statement. Hillary knows not to answer a hypothetical question, particularly when Iran does not have nuclear weapons according to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that stated that Iran ended its unsuccessful program to build them in 2003. Clinton should have used the question to rally support for stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the reduction of nuclear arsenals that exist in eight countries. She might have pointed out that such an attack was unlikely because Israel deters other countries with its own nukes, some of them on submarines constantly patrolling the Mediterranean.
Overt threats like those by Ahmadinejad and Clinton to use nuclear weapons are dangerous because they initiate a process that might become uncontrollable. Nuclear war must never happen and even to contemplate it weakens international inhibitions of their use.
Most importantly, Clinton wasted an opportunity to rally support behind the well-documented and responsible proposal to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons. That is the crucial issue for the survival of America. Will the next president accept the challenge?
By Jerome Grossman
A major disappointment in the presidential race has been the failure of the three surviving candidates to address nuclear weapons, the greatest existential threat to planet Earth, to the human race itself, and of course, by extension to the United States of America.
The failure is extraordinary because the abolition of nuclear weapons has been raised recently and repeatedly by some of the most respected and powerful personages in the U.S. military, the federal government, and corporate America. How could a serious election virtually ignore this powerful initiative?
A January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn and former Secretary of Defense William Perry called for a “world free of nuclear weapons” and urged the United States to lead an international effort to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles. They argued for a multilateral verifiable plan with strong enforcement mechanisms. They stated: “Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”
Last month, in response to a question about her reaction to Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton said that she would “obliterate” Iran in that eventuality. In a later interview she again threatened “massive retaliation.”
Her remarks were unwise and destabilizing, echoing the irresponsible statements of President Ahmadinejad of Iran who has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and then tried to modify the statement. Hillary knows not to answer a hypothetical question, particularly when Iran does not have nuclear weapons according to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that stated that Iran ended its unsuccessful program to build them in 2003. Clinton should have used the question to rally support for stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the reduction of nuclear arsenals that exist in eight countries. She might have pointed out that such an attack was unlikely because Israel deters other countries with its own nukes, some of them on submarines constantly patrolling the Mediterranean.
Overt threats like those by Ahmadinejad and Clinton to use nuclear weapons are dangerous because they initiate a process that might become uncontrollable. Nuclear war must never happen and even to contemplate it weakens international inhibitions of their use.
Most importantly, Clinton wasted an opportunity to rally support behind the well-documented and responsible proposal to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons. That is the crucial issue for the survival of America. Will the next president accept the challenge?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Unity Ticket: Obama and Hillary
The Unity Ticket: Obama and Hillary
By Jerome Grossman
Traveling serenely down Pennsylvania Avenue on his way to the White House, Barack Obama had an accident that he should have anticipated. If anybody knew of Jeremiah Wright's opinions and meanness and self-centeredness, it was Obama, whose twenty year association with the pastor included close family relationships as well as significant political cooperation. However, Obama tried to repudiate Wright when he excluded him from the presidential campaign but Jeremiah refused to be excluded. He had messages, many hateful messages, to be delivered to the world and nothing was going to stop him from using this rare opportunity.
Obama has been hurt and his campaign will suffer in the nomination struggle and in the general election in November. How important was Wright in the beginning of Obama's political career? Why did the association last for 20 years? Why did it take so long for Obama to renounce his pastor and denounce his opinions?
Obama remains the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, damaged but viable. Perhaps it was better for the Wright explosion to have happened in April than in October. Better to give Hillary a leg up now than to give McCain an advantage just before the election. There is no doubt that the controversy would have exploded whether or not Hillary was in the race. Wright could not have been contained and is still on the prowl. Hopefully, the story will be old news by Election Day.
Now, Barack and Hillary need each other to put a Democrat in the White House. Party unity is in serious danger. On both sides strong feelings and even hatreds are erupting in public and in private. Not about issues: both are hopelessly centrist, offering virtually identical programs on domestic and foreign policy. The angry partisans are excited by the contrasting personalities, the differences in style and the intensity of the horserace. But underlying these conflicts are the strong feelings about race and gender, as the first African-American and the first Woman battle to break the ultimate ceiling.
The Republicans, handicapped by Bush’s unpopularity, presiding over recession, over failure in Iraq and chained to a reputation for incompetence, can win only if the Democrats become disunited and fratricidal. GOP political contributions have diminished, their Congressional retirements have risen, and their voting turnouts have declined.
A Democratic Unity Ticket with Obama as president and Hillary as vice president would satisfy party factions, lower the temperature, lead to a landslide victory in November. Obama would bring to the marriage the young, the black, and the liberal suburbanites. Hillary would attract her proven constituency of older voters, women, whites, workers and Hispanics. On to victory.
Would Obama accept Hillary? Would Hillary play second fiddle? Would they work together as did Cheney and Bush, Gore and Clinton? Or would she be frozen out any effective power the way President Kennedy isolated his vice president, Lyndon Johnson? Would Hillary be satisfied to be the lady-in-waiting for the presidency? Could Hillary learn to cooperate and surrender rivalry? Or would she prefer to build up her power in the Senate to raise her prospects for future presidential runs?
Let's get these questions answered. Then unite. The choice may be to win together or lose separately. On to victory.
By Jerome Grossman
Traveling serenely down Pennsylvania Avenue on his way to the White House, Barack Obama had an accident that he should have anticipated. If anybody knew of Jeremiah Wright's opinions and meanness and self-centeredness, it was Obama, whose twenty year association with the pastor included close family relationships as well as significant political cooperation. However, Obama tried to repudiate Wright when he excluded him from the presidential campaign but Jeremiah refused to be excluded. He had messages, many hateful messages, to be delivered to the world and nothing was going to stop him from using this rare opportunity.
Obama has been hurt and his campaign will suffer in the nomination struggle and in the general election in November. How important was Wright in the beginning of Obama's political career? Why did the association last for 20 years? Why did it take so long for Obama to renounce his pastor and denounce his opinions?
Obama remains the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, damaged but viable. Perhaps it was better for the Wright explosion to have happened in April than in October. Better to give Hillary a leg up now than to give McCain an advantage just before the election. There is no doubt that the controversy would have exploded whether or not Hillary was in the race. Wright could not have been contained and is still on the prowl. Hopefully, the story will be old news by Election Day.
Now, Barack and Hillary need each other to put a Democrat in the White House. Party unity is in serious danger. On both sides strong feelings and even hatreds are erupting in public and in private. Not about issues: both are hopelessly centrist, offering virtually identical programs on domestic and foreign policy. The angry partisans are excited by the contrasting personalities, the differences in style and the intensity of the horserace. But underlying these conflicts are the strong feelings about race and gender, as the first African-American and the first Woman battle to break the ultimate ceiling.
The Republicans, handicapped by Bush’s unpopularity, presiding over recession, over failure in Iraq and chained to a reputation for incompetence, can win only if the Democrats become disunited and fratricidal. GOP political contributions have diminished, their Congressional retirements have risen, and their voting turnouts have declined.
A Democratic Unity Ticket with Obama as president and Hillary as vice president would satisfy party factions, lower the temperature, lead to a landslide victory in November. Obama would bring to the marriage the young, the black, and the liberal suburbanites. Hillary would attract her proven constituency of older voters, women, whites, workers and Hispanics. On to victory.
Would Obama accept Hillary? Would Hillary play second fiddle? Would they work together as did Cheney and Bush, Gore and Clinton? Or would she be frozen out any effective power the way President Kennedy isolated his vice president, Lyndon Johnson? Would Hillary be satisfied to be the lady-in-waiting for the presidency? Could Hillary learn to cooperate and surrender rivalry? Or would she prefer to build up her power in the Senate to raise her prospects for future presidential runs?
Let's get these questions answered. Then unite. The choice may be to win together or lose separately. On to victory.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Generalities Without Content
Generalities Without Content
By Jerome Grossman
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer the voters the same agenda: their positions on issues are quite similar and match the Democratic Congressional stands. As long as their centrist positions differ from the right wing conservative positions of the discredited Bush administration, they can rally enough Democrats and Independents for victory in November.
This situation gives a significant edge to Obama, whose personality, charisma and oratorical skills completely overshadow Clinton. Hillary compensates by producing details of the issues, acting as the smartest girl in the class, but not offering new approaches to old problems. For example, she could break the impasse on health care by offering a single-payer government-run system including every American, a system used by virtually every industrial nation. But Hillary would rather offer an improved version of the current system, staying within the Democratic consensus.
Supporters of Barack Obama praise him for his foreign policy. In The American Prospect magazine, April 2008, the entire front cover blazes in multicolor with the message, "The Obama Doctrine, Barack Obama's challenge to the foreign policy establishment."
Some challenge. The article offers "the most sweeping liberal critique in decades." Examples offered: dignity promotion, enlightened global leadership, freedom from want, freedom from fear, elimination of misery, promotion of liberty, justice, and prosperity. The only specific policy listed is the destruction of Al Qaeda as though that is all that is necessary to achieve these worthy objectives.
Across the 50 states, more than 100 candidates ran for president although only 18 of them were selected by the presidential commission to appear on the televised debates. They represented a wide spectrum of parties and views. It is fair to say that virtually every candidate would agree with the generalities, the bromides attributed to the Obama campaign. Do these motherhood goals constitute a foreign policy challenging the establishment?
An authentic challenge to the foreign policy establishment would be to advocate specific changes to accomplish the stated objectives. The devil is in the details. The credibility of any program is in the “how to.” Please, beloved candidates, tell the American voters what you will actually do. The people are fed up with generalities without content.
Offering bromides without policy is an insult to the voters and a failure of democracy, one of the reasons why 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. One of the candidates should break this logjam by offering credible specifics. From the history of politics, we know that person will be the one running behind the others. But if that doesn't happen, it is the responsibility of the media to stir the pot, to demand relevant answers. Where are they?
By Jerome Grossman
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer the voters the same agenda: their positions on issues are quite similar and match the Democratic Congressional stands. As long as their centrist positions differ from the right wing conservative positions of the discredited Bush administration, they can rally enough Democrats and Independents for victory in November.
This situation gives a significant edge to Obama, whose personality, charisma and oratorical skills completely overshadow Clinton. Hillary compensates by producing details of the issues, acting as the smartest girl in the class, but not offering new approaches to old problems. For example, she could break the impasse on health care by offering a single-payer government-run system including every American, a system used by virtually every industrial nation. But Hillary would rather offer an improved version of the current system, staying within the Democratic consensus.
Supporters of Barack Obama praise him for his foreign policy. In The American Prospect magazine, April 2008, the entire front cover blazes in multicolor with the message, "The Obama Doctrine, Barack Obama's challenge to the foreign policy establishment."
Some challenge. The article offers "the most sweeping liberal critique in decades." Examples offered: dignity promotion, enlightened global leadership, freedom from want, freedom from fear, elimination of misery, promotion of liberty, justice, and prosperity. The only specific policy listed is the destruction of Al Qaeda as though that is all that is necessary to achieve these worthy objectives.
Across the 50 states, more than 100 candidates ran for president although only 18 of them were selected by the presidential commission to appear on the televised debates. They represented a wide spectrum of parties and views. It is fair to say that virtually every candidate would agree with the generalities, the bromides attributed to the Obama campaign. Do these motherhood goals constitute a foreign policy challenging the establishment?
An authentic challenge to the foreign policy establishment would be to advocate specific changes to accomplish the stated objectives. The devil is in the details. The credibility of any program is in the “how to.” Please, beloved candidates, tell the American voters what you will actually do. The people are fed up with generalities without content.
Offering bromides without policy is an insult to the voters and a failure of democracy, one of the reasons why 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. One of the candidates should break this logjam by offering credible specifics. From the history of politics, we know that person will be the one running behind the others. But if that doesn't happen, it is the responsibility of the media to stir the pot, to demand relevant answers. Where are they?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Flip a Coin For President
Flip a Coin For President
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama was on a "roll" as they stay in the clubhouse of the Boston Red Sox. He had won 11 straight primaries, all but one in smaller states as the Hillary Clinton campaign reserved its money and energies for the biggest states. And indeed Hillary won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan and Florida.
The Obama campaign looked like the New England Patriots as they approached the Super Bowl with a record of 18 straight victories. Defeat was unthinkable. The Obama organization, like the Patriots, was justifiably touted as the best in the business. The candidate was tall, handsome, and brilliant with a remarkable gift for oratory. Moreover, it had political smarts and powerful political momentum.
But on March 5 in the super duper primaries for Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, the underdog rose up and defeated the big dog in every state but tiny Vermont, just as the New England Patriots lost to the under dog New York Giants in the Super Bowl. In that one event, much of the air went out of the Obama campaign. It was no longer a perfect instrument; it had failed and lost momentum. Even the candidate seemed diminished as he repeated his mantra of hope, change and inspiration. But not diminished enough to call for Tom Brady as substitute candidate, for Tom Brady, the Patriots inspiration had also been seriously diminished by losing.
Nothing succeeds like success. Even Hillary's negatives have gone down. Her campaign now has momentum as the contest moves into the final quarter. When Hillary wins Pennsylvania on April 22, neither candidate will have enough delegates for nomination at the convention. It will be up to the super delegates to break the virtual tie. Remarkably, Hillary has revived her relatively inefficient campaign three times: after Iowa, South Carolina and the eleven defeats, while the media constantly shows their distaste for her.
Right now, it appears that the super delegates will decide the nomination. The super delegates are appointed, not elected, from the ranks of political big shots who think they own the party: Senators, Representatives, Governors, bureaucrats past and present, donors and professional politicians. They can vote for whomever they please. They don't have to run for delegate and perhaps be defeated. They can play it safe and wait until they see the likely winner. Predictably, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are putting maximum pressure on the super delegates, including making serious financial donations to their political committees.
Some super delegates are in embarrassing situations. Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, and Governor Deval Patrick endorsed Obama before the Massachusetts primary. But the state voted heavily for Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy's endorsement did not prevent a big Clinton win in New York, nor did Patrick Kennedy save Rhode Island, nor Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger save California. US Representative John Lewis switched from Clinton to Obama partly because a rival candidate made it an issue and filed to oppose him for reelection.
Hillary has a chance to pick up 366 delegates in Michigan and Florida where she won primaries that were disqualified for breaking party rules but there will be intense opposition. It seems inconceivable that the millions of voters in those two big states can be effectively disenfranchised. Especially in Florida, where the violation was made by the Republican Governor and legislature. This battle on the convention floor could harm party unity and jeopardize victory in November.
An ideal solution for this dangerous rivalry would be to nominate both Obama and Clinton, one for President, the other for Vice President. Which one on top? Flip a coin. They are both superb candidates who would represent the party with distinction.
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama was on a "roll" as they stay in the clubhouse of the Boston Red Sox. He had won 11 straight primaries, all but one in smaller states as the Hillary Clinton campaign reserved its money and energies for the biggest states. And indeed Hillary won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan and Florida.
The Obama campaign looked like the New England Patriots as they approached the Super Bowl with a record of 18 straight victories. Defeat was unthinkable. The Obama organization, like the Patriots, was justifiably touted as the best in the business. The candidate was tall, handsome, and brilliant with a remarkable gift for oratory. Moreover, it had political smarts and powerful political momentum.
But on March 5 in the super duper primaries for Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, the underdog rose up and defeated the big dog in every state but tiny Vermont, just as the New England Patriots lost to the under dog New York Giants in the Super Bowl. In that one event, much of the air went out of the Obama campaign. It was no longer a perfect instrument; it had failed and lost momentum. Even the candidate seemed diminished as he repeated his mantra of hope, change and inspiration. But not diminished enough to call for Tom Brady as substitute candidate, for Tom Brady, the Patriots inspiration had also been seriously diminished by losing.
Nothing succeeds like success. Even Hillary's negatives have gone down. Her campaign now has momentum as the contest moves into the final quarter. When Hillary wins Pennsylvania on April 22, neither candidate will have enough delegates for nomination at the convention. It will be up to the super delegates to break the virtual tie. Remarkably, Hillary has revived her relatively inefficient campaign three times: after Iowa, South Carolina and the eleven defeats, while the media constantly shows their distaste for her.
Right now, it appears that the super delegates will decide the nomination. The super delegates are appointed, not elected, from the ranks of political big shots who think they own the party: Senators, Representatives, Governors, bureaucrats past and present, donors and professional politicians. They can vote for whomever they please. They don't have to run for delegate and perhaps be defeated. They can play it safe and wait until they see the likely winner. Predictably, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are putting maximum pressure on the super delegates, including making serious financial donations to their political committees.
Some super delegates are in embarrassing situations. Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, and Governor Deval Patrick endorsed Obama before the Massachusetts primary. But the state voted heavily for Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy's endorsement did not prevent a big Clinton win in New York, nor did Patrick Kennedy save Rhode Island, nor Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger save California. US Representative John Lewis switched from Clinton to Obama partly because a rival candidate made it an issue and filed to oppose him for reelection.
Hillary has a chance to pick up 366 delegates in Michigan and Florida where she won primaries that were disqualified for breaking party rules but there will be intense opposition. It seems inconceivable that the millions of voters in those two big states can be effectively disenfranchised. Especially in Florida, where the violation was made by the Republican Governor and legislature. This battle on the convention floor could harm party unity and jeopardize victory in November.
An ideal solution for this dangerous rivalry would be to nominate both Obama and Clinton, one for President, the other for Vice President. Which one on top? Flip a coin. They are both superb candidates who would represent the party with distinction.
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Democrats are in the Red Zone
The Democrats are in the Red Zone
By Jerome Grossman
When this remarkable election campaign began, Senator Hillary Clinton was clearly the class of the field, her main rivals present or past senators who could not come close to matching her in name recognition, national organization, and financial resources. In addition, she had the moral advantage of being the very first woman with a serious chance of attaining the presidency, the highest office in this constitutional republic.
Hillary was a sure thing, inevitable, just like the New England Patriots were to win the Super Bowl and to achieve an unprecedented 19 - 0 season. With the Democratic nomination seemingly assured, Hillary’s strategy was to prepare for the Republican onslaught in November that will surely feature national security, war on terrorists and increased military might combined with accusations of Democratic softness. Hence her maneuvering for assignment to the Senate Armed Services Committee, hence her vote to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq.
Hillary's vote gave Barack Obama the political opening that catapulted him into contention as the only major candidate to have opposed the war from the start, even though he did it in relative obscurity in Illinois before he was elected to the U.S. Senate. It was the primary reason for his candidacy and brought the passionate antiwar constituency of the Democratic Party solidly into his camp, a constituency that kept his campaign alive when it looked like he was going nowhere.
Now Obama is riding a wave of popularity and political success. His team is moving down the field in Texas and Ohio needing only one more touchdown to end the game - and they are moving relentlessly into the red zone to score. Obama is the quarterback, a triple threat, throwing inspiration, hope and change at the opposition with speed and accuracy. Can they hold off this offense? Is victory for the Obama Giants inevitable over the champion Clinton Patriots?
Hillary doesn't think so. She has a defensive strategy even in the dreaded Red Zone. From the.Belichick playbook, she has three lines of defense. Up front are three massive linemen from Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania who must dig in and stop the Obama advance. If they fail, the second line of defense, the linebackers, will be the delegates of Michigan and Florida, now off the field, who must be allowed to play to fulfill the Democratic obligation for a full team of fifty players on the field. And if the first two defenses don't stop the Obama Giants, the third line would be the safeties who would handle the 796 superdelegates at the convention.
So don’t count out the Hillary Patriots. One of their triple defenses might work. That is why their quarterback comes out of the locker room every day with a blonde helmet and a forced smile, full of hope and energy.
Even if her triple defense strategy doesn't work and the Obama Giants score and take the lead, the Hillary Patriots can use the remaining seconds on a traditional Hail Mary. Throw away the centrist playbook and adopt the relentless liberal program: 1.immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq, 2.expansion of Medicare to cover every American regardless of age, 3.reform of the tax code to eliminate the tax breaks for Wall Street barons, 4. raise the minimum wage so that every family of four would be above the poverty line, 5.reduce the military budget and spend the savings on repairing roads and bridges etc. all over the country
Maybe the Hail Mary pass would be intercepted and fail - but what a way to go!
By Jerome Grossman
When this remarkable election campaign began, Senator Hillary Clinton was clearly the class of the field, her main rivals present or past senators who could not come close to matching her in name recognition, national organization, and financial resources. In addition, she had the moral advantage of being the very first woman with a serious chance of attaining the presidency, the highest office in this constitutional republic.
Hillary was a sure thing, inevitable, just like the New England Patriots were to win the Super Bowl and to achieve an unprecedented 19 - 0 season. With the Democratic nomination seemingly assured, Hillary’s strategy was to prepare for the Republican onslaught in November that will surely feature national security, war on terrorists and increased military might combined with accusations of Democratic softness. Hence her maneuvering for assignment to the Senate Armed Services Committee, hence her vote to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq.
Hillary's vote gave Barack Obama the political opening that catapulted him into contention as the only major candidate to have opposed the war from the start, even though he did it in relative obscurity in Illinois before he was elected to the U.S. Senate. It was the primary reason for his candidacy and brought the passionate antiwar constituency of the Democratic Party solidly into his camp, a constituency that kept his campaign alive when it looked like he was going nowhere.
Now Obama is riding a wave of popularity and political success. His team is moving down the field in Texas and Ohio needing only one more touchdown to end the game - and they are moving relentlessly into the red zone to score. Obama is the quarterback, a triple threat, throwing inspiration, hope and change at the opposition with speed and accuracy. Can they hold off this offense? Is victory for the Obama Giants inevitable over the champion Clinton Patriots?
Hillary doesn't think so. She has a defensive strategy even in the dreaded Red Zone. From the.Belichick playbook, she has three lines of defense. Up front are three massive linemen from Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania who must dig in and stop the Obama advance. If they fail, the second line of defense, the linebackers, will be the delegates of Michigan and Florida, now off the field, who must be allowed to play to fulfill the Democratic obligation for a full team of fifty players on the field. And if the first two defenses don't stop the Obama Giants, the third line would be the safeties who would handle the 796 superdelegates at the convention.
So don’t count out the Hillary Patriots. One of their triple defenses might work. That is why their quarterback comes out of the locker room every day with a blonde helmet and a forced smile, full of hope and energy.
Even if her triple defense strategy doesn't work and the Obama Giants score and take the lead, the Hillary Patriots can use the remaining seconds on a traditional Hail Mary. Throw away the centrist playbook and adopt the relentless liberal program: 1.immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq, 2.expansion of Medicare to cover every American regardless of age, 3.reform of the tax code to eliminate the tax breaks for Wall Street barons, 4. raise the minimum wage so that every family of four would be above the poverty line, 5.reduce the military budget and spend the savings on repairing roads and bridges etc. all over the country
Maybe the Hail Mary pass would be intercepted and fail - but what a way to go!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Lessons of Super Tuesday
Lessons of Super Tuesday
By Jerome Grossman
In the presidential primaries on Super Tuesday, February 5, a mass of statistics was produced in the exit polls that weighed heavily on the basic forces colliding in the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, forces that will also affect the November election.
In California, the Hispanic/Latino vote was Clinton 69, Obama 29; the Black vote was Obama 78, Clinton 19. In Massachusetts, the black vote was Obama 66, Clinton 29; the Hispanic vote was Clinton 56, Obama 36. In New Jersey the black vote was Obama 82, Clinton 14; the Hispanic vote, Clinton 68, Obama 30. Most of the other states had similar voting patterns.
Part of the reason for this pattern of voting can be ascribed to black loyalty to Obama, another part to the long relationship between Clinton and the Hispanic community. However, some believe that another powerful factor is the negative consequence of immigration, particularly Hispanic immigration, on the employment rate and wages of the African- American community, creating a tension between the two constituencies as they compete for jobs, housing, etc.
Another important electoral statistic was gleaned from the following question asked in the exit polls: Which candidate has the right experience to be president? In all states, those won by Obama as well as those won by Clinton, the numbers overwhelmingly favored Clinton by margins of more than nine to one. On the other three questions about who can bring about change, who cares about people like me, who has the best chance in November, both candidates were competitive.
The lessons from the exit polls are clear. Obama is showing great political talent and is gaining popular acceptance. Clinton should invest more energy in the Latino community as the upside potential for her is large. Clinton should emphasize her experience as a prime qualification even more then she already has. That factor appears to be the main Obama political weakness and is likely to be a prime theme for the McCain campaign should Obama win the nomination. Lack of experience joined with concerns about national security and McCain’s military record is likely be the prime Republican theme in the November general election, not only against Obama but also against Hillary for her lack of military experience.
Do these factors translate into victory for McCain in November? Not necessarily, but they make him competitive. President Bush leaves office in a difficult financial year for most Americans. The incumbent party has lost in three of the four elections since 1904 that have coincided with recessions (1920, 1932, and 1960). 2008 is likely to be another.
By Jerome Grossman
In the presidential primaries on Super Tuesday, February 5, a mass of statistics was produced in the exit polls that weighed heavily on the basic forces colliding in the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, forces that will also affect the November election.
In California, the Hispanic/Latino vote was Clinton 69, Obama 29; the Black vote was Obama 78, Clinton 19. In Massachusetts, the black vote was Obama 66, Clinton 29; the Hispanic vote was Clinton 56, Obama 36. In New Jersey the black vote was Obama 82, Clinton 14; the Hispanic vote, Clinton 68, Obama 30. Most of the other states had similar voting patterns.
Part of the reason for this pattern of voting can be ascribed to black loyalty to Obama, another part to the long relationship between Clinton and the Hispanic community. However, some believe that another powerful factor is the negative consequence of immigration, particularly Hispanic immigration, on the employment rate and wages of the African- American community, creating a tension between the two constituencies as they compete for jobs, housing, etc.
Another important electoral statistic was gleaned from the following question asked in the exit polls: Which candidate has the right experience to be president? In all states, those won by Obama as well as those won by Clinton, the numbers overwhelmingly favored Clinton by margins of more than nine to one. On the other three questions about who can bring about change, who cares about people like me, who has the best chance in November, both candidates were competitive.
The lessons from the exit polls are clear. Obama is showing great political talent and is gaining popular acceptance. Clinton should invest more energy in the Latino community as the upside potential for her is large. Clinton should emphasize her experience as a prime qualification even more then she already has. That factor appears to be the main Obama political weakness and is likely to be a prime theme for the McCain campaign should Obama win the nomination. Lack of experience joined with concerns about national security and McCain’s military record is likely be the prime Republican theme in the November general election, not only against Obama but also against Hillary for her lack of military experience.
Do these factors translate into victory for McCain in November? Not necessarily, but they make him competitive. President Bush leaves office in a difficult financial year for most Americans. The incumbent party has lost in three of the four elections since 1904 that have coincided with recessions (1920, 1932, and 1960). 2008 is likely to be another.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Democratic Party Unity
Democratic Party Unity
By Jerome Grossman
In an interview with ABC Good Morning America on February 4, Michelle Obama, the wife of Barack Obama, was asked if she would work to support Hillary Rodham Clinton if she won the Democratic nomination for president. She replied," I have to think about that."
Wow! Get ready to attend the inauguration of President John McCain.
Without party unity after the primary voters have marked their ballots, after the delegates have made their choice at the convention, the Democrats will not have a chance in the November general election. Both Clinton and Obama have made mistakes and antagonized their opposition in a variety of ways. They will do so again repeatedly in the heat of political battle. But in my book, they are both superior politicians with strong intellects and sensitive consciences capable of handling the management of the nation.
I have not endorsed either candidate because the policies they offer the American people are not liberal enough for me, do not seriously address the need for change on foreign and military policy, taxation, labor rights and social welfare, to name only a few. However, either candidate will be a vast improvement over the disastrous and elite policies of the Republican Party in general and George W. Bush and John McCain in particular.
I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party, Clinton or Obama, disappointed that neither are New Dealers, but determined to push them in that direction. As a relentless liberal in a centrist period of U.S. history, that is the best I can do.
By Jerome Grossman
In an interview with ABC Good Morning America on February 4, Michelle Obama, the wife of Barack Obama, was asked if she would work to support Hillary Rodham Clinton if she won the Democratic nomination for president. She replied," I have to think about that."
Wow! Get ready to attend the inauguration of President John McCain.
Without party unity after the primary voters have marked their ballots, after the delegates have made their choice at the convention, the Democrats will not have a chance in the November general election. Both Clinton and Obama have made mistakes and antagonized their opposition in a variety of ways. They will do so again repeatedly in the heat of political battle. But in my book, they are both superior politicians with strong intellects and sensitive consciences capable of handling the management of the nation.
I have not endorsed either candidate because the policies they offer the American people are not liberal enough for me, do not seriously address the need for change on foreign and military policy, taxation, labor rights and social welfare, to name only a few. However, either candidate will be a vast improvement over the disastrous and elite policies of the Republican Party in general and George W. Bush and John McCain in particular.
I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party, Clinton or Obama, disappointed that neither are New Dealers, but determined to push them in that direction. As a relentless liberal in a centrist period of U.S. history, that is the best I can do.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The Recession and the Election
The Recession and the Election
By Jerome Grossman
The dominant issue in the fight for the Democratic nomination for president in 2007 was the war in Iraq: illegal, fraudulent and imperial that wasted thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Edwards, all candidates for president, voted in October 2002 to authorize this unnecessary and brutal travesty. Barack Obama, then an obscure State Senator in Illinois opposed the war, achieving special distinction in the presidential field. At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, the party nominee, John Kerry, who also voted for the war, gave Obama the opportunity to express his opposition to the war, something that Kerry was afraid to do himself. The Iraq war plus Obama’s remarkable rhetorical gifts and personality propelled him to front runner status.
In 2008, Iraq is no longer the dominant issue for Democrats or the nation. The war continues with obscene death and destruction, Americans want it ended, but Iraq is now on the inside pages, part of the daily news, intensity of feeling diminished, the occupation likely to continue for a generation. Bread and butter issues affecting many more Americans are challenging the confidence of the country in a way that Saddam Hussein could not.
Recession, economic decline and even a depression are confronting the United States and the voters of New Hampshire were the first to sense the dangers. Perhaps that is why the voters defied the polls and gave Hillary the victory. The political effects of this new round of voter concern are fairly obvious. Hillary’s wrong vote on the Iraq war has become less important. Her experience in government becomes more important. She can cite the prosperity of the nation under the Bill Clinton presidency and promise to install the same economic team that brought full employment. Hillary can offer an economic package with a degree of credibility. Her age and experience become an advantage over Obama’s attractiveness and inexperience.
In this new situation, Obama’s inspiring call for hope, unity and change may appear less relevant and lacking in specificity. The voters will want to know what the candidates will do to save their jobs, their homes, their financial futures. Worrying voters will have little patience with rhetoric no matter how brilliant. Even charisma and personality will be downgraded as assets. Abraham Lincoln and FDR became icons only after they solved the problems of their eras, not before.
There will be, indeed there are now different and strongly held views about solving the current economic crisis. The Republicans, led by President Bush, will want to extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that favor the investors, eliminate estate taxes, cut capital gains tax, lower corporate tax, install investment tax credits, etc. The Democrats will suggest a stimulus package putting money in the hands of lower income people who will spend it quickly: extending unemployment benefits, grants for home heating, suspension of the gas tax, tax rebates to people with low income, etc.
The next president cannot leave the difficult decisions to the experts. They are notoriously divided in their recommendations and affected by their political orientation. Herbert Hoover had plenty of experts. So did George Bush the Father. Both were slow and indecisive in making economic decisions and paid the price in the next election.
The political question in this time of economic malaise is -- which Democratic candidate can best address the problems, which party can end the recession quickly and effectively. The voters of New Hampshire sensed the problem while the pundits were analyzing nuances. Maybe that is why their answers were Hillary and the Democrats, Hillary because of experience and the Democrats because of their historic attention to the masses. These questions will dominate American politics for the rest of 2008. Once again, it’s the economy, stupid.
By Jerome Grossman
The dominant issue in the fight for the Democratic nomination for president in 2007 was the war in Iraq: illegal, fraudulent and imperial that wasted thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Edwards, all candidates for president, voted in October 2002 to authorize this unnecessary and brutal travesty. Barack Obama, then an obscure State Senator in Illinois opposed the war, achieving special distinction in the presidential field. At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, the party nominee, John Kerry, who also voted for the war, gave Obama the opportunity to express his opposition to the war, something that Kerry was afraid to do himself. The Iraq war plus Obama’s remarkable rhetorical gifts and personality propelled him to front runner status.
In 2008, Iraq is no longer the dominant issue for Democrats or the nation. The war continues with obscene death and destruction, Americans want it ended, but Iraq is now on the inside pages, part of the daily news, intensity of feeling diminished, the occupation likely to continue for a generation. Bread and butter issues affecting many more Americans are challenging the confidence of the country in a way that Saddam Hussein could not.
Recession, economic decline and even a depression are confronting the United States and the voters of New Hampshire were the first to sense the dangers. Perhaps that is why the voters defied the polls and gave Hillary the victory. The political effects of this new round of voter concern are fairly obvious. Hillary’s wrong vote on the Iraq war has become less important. Her experience in government becomes more important. She can cite the prosperity of the nation under the Bill Clinton presidency and promise to install the same economic team that brought full employment. Hillary can offer an economic package with a degree of credibility. Her age and experience become an advantage over Obama’s attractiveness and inexperience.
In this new situation, Obama’s inspiring call for hope, unity and change may appear less relevant and lacking in specificity. The voters will want to know what the candidates will do to save their jobs, their homes, their financial futures. Worrying voters will have little patience with rhetoric no matter how brilliant. Even charisma and personality will be downgraded as assets. Abraham Lincoln and FDR became icons only after they solved the problems of their eras, not before.
There will be, indeed there are now different and strongly held views about solving the current economic crisis. The Republicans, led by President Bush, will want to extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that favor the investors, eliminate estate taxes, cut capital gains tax, lower corporate tax, install investment tax credits, etc. The Democrats will suggest a stimulus package putting money in the hands of lower income people who will spend it quickly: extending unemployment benefits, grants for home heating, suspension of the gas tax, tax rebates to people with low income, etc.
The next president cannot leave the difficult decisions to the experts. They are notoriously divided in their recommendations and affected by their political orientation. Herbert Hoover had plenty of experts. So did George Bush the Father. Both were slow and indecisive in making economic decisions and paid the price in the next election.
The political question in this time of economic malaise is -- which Democratic candidate can best address the problems, which party can end the recession quickly and effectively. The voters of New Hampshire sensed the problem while the pundits were analyzing nuances. Maybe that is why their answers were Hillary and the Democrats, Hillary because of experience and the Democrats because of their historic attention to the masses. These questions will dominate American politics for the rest of 2008. Once again, it’s the economy, stupid.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Everybody Won in New Hampshire
Everybody Won in New Hampshire
By Jerome Grossman
In the eye of the entire nation, the citizens of the state enjoyed a singular performance equivalent to a Broadway show, tapped their feet, sang the songs, felt the uplift, rocked to the cadences, adored the star, cheered and cheered, gave repeated standing ovations, were inspired and mesmerized - then went home to mother.
New Hampshire can never repay Barack Obama for transforming another boring election into a party, open to all, that moved them from a drab New England Winter into the neverland of an idealistic future without details, someday, somewhere.
Voting for Hillary was like leaving the darkened theater with its illusions of the past and the future, then stumbling and blinking into the real world, walking through the slush, finding your car, starting the windshield wipers, thinking about going to work tomorrow, lining up in your mind the problems and the duties of the real world, the here and now.
They saw the future. Their hearts beat to the rhythm of what might be in the best of all possible worlds, and deferred the prospect of political heaven to enjoy another day of precious life in this vale of tears and promise. It was an uplifting experience that kept quotidian life in control of the most experienced, the likely model for the other states – and everybody will win.
By Jerome Grossman
In the eye of the entire nation, the citizens of the state enjoyed a singular performance equivalent to a Broadway show, tapped their feet, sang the songs, felt the uplift, rocked to the cadences, adored the star, cheered and cheered, gave repeated standing ovations, were inspired and mesmerized - then went home to mother.
New Hampshire can never repay Barack Obama for transforming another boring election into a party, open to all, that moved them from a drab New England Winter into the neverland of an idealistic future without details, someday, somewhere.
Voting for Hillary was like leaving the darkened theater with its illusions of the past and the future, then stumbling and blinking into the real world, walking through the slush, finding your car, starting the windshield wipers, thinking about going to work tomorrow, lining up in your mind the problems and the duties of the real world, the here and now.
They saw the future. Their hearts beat to the rhythm of what might be in the best of all possible worlds, and deferred the prospect of political heaven to enjoy another day of precious life in this vale of tears and promise. It was an uplifting experience that kept quotidian life in control of the most experienced, the likely model for the other states – and everybody will win.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Uncle Sam Needs Real Policy Changes
Uncle Sam Needs Real Policy Changes
By Jerome Grossman
U. S. Representative William Delahunt of Massachusetts, a leading foreign-policy voice in the Democratic Party, has endorsed Barack Obama for president saying that he believes the Senator will repair the image of the United States overseas. He said, “If Barack Obama is elected president, I daresay America will present a new face to the world, will restore, simply by his election (emphasis added) hope -- not just within the United States, but from all corners of the world, that America's claim to moral authority is back on track and that our leadership in the world affairs will see a renaissance.”
The phrases, “A new face…… simply by his election” seem to imply that the election of an African-American will signal significant changes in U.S. foreign policy to the nations of the world. However, the current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor Colin Powell, both African-Americans in positions of power, have failed to make the changes in policy necessary to repair the image of the U.S.
Personality and good intentions may win nominations and elections, but the rest of the world will be looking for new policies that call for the use of American soft power rather than the military adventurism that dominates world society and enforces American interests.
It will take a lot more than ending the U.S. invasion of Iraq to prove this. Remember that the Democrats endorse a residual force kept there to protect U.S. bases, to train Iraqi soldiers and to kill Iraqi insurgents.
The next Democratic president, Obama or Clinton or Edwards can change the U.S. image worldwide by cutting the enormous military budget, closing some of the 737 U.S. military bases now in 130 countries, cutting back on its 10,000 nuclear weapons, stopping the kidnapping and torture of suspected terrorists, promoting human rights, adhering to international law and the Geneva Conventions, increasing its support for the struggle against AIDS and other diseases, to name but a few serious changes.
Electing the Hillary Clinton as the first woman president or Barack Obama as the first African American president is important to the United States. It would be a sign of improved gender and race relations. Although the prejudices remain latent, over the course of the long campaign the voters have come to regard these two candidates more as individuals than as representatives of a group.
This is a welcome development for the often difficult relations in American society. It will send an interesting and hopeful signal abroad but will do little to repair the tattered image of our country unless there is evidence of changes in the nation's policies that have been in place for decades, perhaps centuries.
So far, the leading candidates have spoken about change in the abstract without significant detail. They may get away with that cynical approach with an electorate that focuses on personality, appearance and electability but public opinion abroad will need to see pertinent policy changes that will improve their lives in a world dominated by Uncle Sam.
By Jerome Grossman
U. S. Representative William Delahunt of Massachusetts, a leading foreign-policy voice in the Democratic Party, has endorsed Barack Obama for president saying that he believes the Senator will repair the image of the United States overseas. He said, “If Barack Obama is elected president, I daresay America will present a new face to the world, will restore, simply by his election (emphasis added) hope -- not just within the United States, but from all corners of the world, that America's claim to moral authority is back on track and that our leadership in the world affairs will see a renaissance.”
The phrases, “A new face…… simply by his election” seem to imply that the election of an African-American will signal significant changes in U.S. foreign policy to the nations of the world. However, the current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor Colin Powell, both African-Americans in positions of power, have failed to make the changes in policy necessary to repair the image of the U.S.
Personality and good intentions may win nominations and elections, but the rest of the world will be looking for new policies that call for the use of American soft power rather than the military adventurism that dominates world society and enforces American interests.
It will take a lot more than ending the U.S. invasion of Iraq to prove this. Remember that the Democrats endorse a residual force kept there to protect U.S. bases, to train Iraqi soldiers and to kill Iraqi insurgents.
The next Democratic president, Obama or Clinton or Edwards can change the U.S. image worldwide by cutting the enormous military budget, closing some of the 737 U.S. military bases now in 130 countries, cutting back on its 10,000 nuclear weapons, stopping the kidnapping and torture of suspected terrorists, promoting human rights, adhering to international law and the Geneva Conventions, increasing its support for the struggle against AIDS and other diseases, to name but a few serious changes.
Electing the Hillary Clinton as the first woman president or Barack Obama as the first African American president is important to the United States. It would be a sign of improved gender and race relations. Although the prejudices remain latent, over the course of the long campaign the voters have come to regard these two candidates more as individuals than as representatives of a group.
This is a welcome development for the often difficult relations in American society. It will send an interesting and hopeful signal abroad but will do little to repair the tattered image of our country unless there is evidence of changes in the nation's policies that have been in place for decades, perhaps centuries.
So far, the leading candidates have spoken about change in the abstract without significant detail. They may get away with that cynical approach with an electorate that focuses on personality, appearance and electability but public opinion abroad will need to see pertinent policy changes that will improve their lives in a world dominated by Uncle Sam.
Monday, November 19, 2007
It's All about Her
It's All about Her
By Jerome Grossman
The presidential election of 2008 is not primarily about the problems facing America: the Iraq war, relations with Iran, illegal immigration, and healthcare. It's all about her, and her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton: her personality, her smile, her laughter, her marriage, her honesty, her courage, her husband, her toughness, her ability. Hillary's position on issues attracts some attention as does her managerial skill, but Democrats and Republicans, men and women, liberals and conservatives are simply fascinated by her mind, body and especially her chutzpah. Let me count the ways.
1. Hillary dominated the Democratic debates, her opinions and personal style were constantly under analysis, review and attack.
2. The media regards Hillary as a prize for their business. Loving or hating her keeps interest alive in a contest already boring the nation.
3. The attacks upon Hillary make the repetitious and sloppy debates watchable. Will one of the candidates finally act out his hostility and frustration by actually roughing her?
4. The National Journal’s political expert writes, "The Democratic race is a locomotive with Hillary Clinton's face on it."
5. A poll of parents of kids 12 years old and younger asked this question: of the presidential candidates, which is the most and least trusted to baby-sit their children? Hillary won both, the best and the worst.
6. For a large section of the electorate, Hillary is too liberal while many Democrats think she is too conservative.
7. The new French President Nicolas Sarkozy, absolutely frenetic in a rushed trip to Washington, DC, the capital of the world, finds the time (15 minutes) to call Hillary, but called no other candidate.
8. National Public Radio reports an incorrect rumor that Hillary failed to leave a tip in an Iowa restaurant. The Clinton campaign rushes another hundred dollars to the waitress (on a $200 group lunch). The rival campaigns race around the country interviewing other waitresses.
9. At Hilton Head, South Carolina, on November 12, at a McCain rally, a woman asked the candidate, “How do we beat the bitch?" McCain smiled and replied “An excellent question."
So far Hillary appears in command of the competition, maintaining her self-control, knowing the issues, and getting good marks from disinterested observers (is there such a category?) on personality, appearance, demeanor, ability to give impromptu organized answers, defending herself when attacked, attacking when necessary.
This woman is in charge. Who or what will replace her as the object of our tangled emotions once the campaign is over and she becomes the mother (but not the lover) of us all? But for now - it’s all about her
By Jerome Grossman
The presidential election of 2008 is not primarily about the problems facing America: the Iraq war, relations with Iran, illegal immigration, and healthcare. It's all about her, and her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton: her personality, her smile, her laughter, her marriage, her honesty, her courage, her husband, her toughness, her ability. Hillary's position on issues attracts some attention as does her managerial skill, but Democrats and Republicans, men and women, liberals and conservatives are simply fascinated by her mind, body and especially her chutzpah. Let me count the ways.
1. Hillary dominated the Democratic debates, her opinions and personal style were constantly under analysis, review and attack.
2. The media regards Hillary as a prize for their business. Loving or hating her keeps interest alive in a contest already boring the nation.
3. The attacks upon Hillary make the repetitious and sloppy debates watchable. Will one of the candidates finally act out his hostility and frustration by actually roughing her?
4. The National Journal’s political expert writes, "The Democratic race is a locomotive with Hillary Clinton's face on it."
5. A poll of parents of kids 12 years old and younger asked this question: of the presidential candidates, which is the most and least trusted to baby-sit their children? Hillary won both, the best and the worst.
6. For a large section of the electorate, Hillary is too liberal while many Democrats think she is too conservative.
7. The new French President Nicolas Sarkozy, absolutely frenetic in a rushed trip to Washington, DC, the capital of the world, finds the time (15 minutes) to call Hillary, but called no other candidate.
8. National Public Radio reports an incorrect rumor that Hillary failed to leave a tip in an Iowa restaurant. The Clinton campaign rushes another hundred dollars to the waitress (on a $200 group lunch). The rival campaigns race around the country interviewing other waitresses.
9. At Hilton Head, South Carolina, on November 12, at a McCain rally, a woman asked the candidate, “How do we beat the bitch?" McCain smiled and replied “An excellent question."
So far Hillary appears in command of the competition, maintaining her self-control, knowing the issues, and getting good marks from disinterested observers (is there such a category?) on personality, appearance, demeanor, ability to give impromptu organized answers, defending herself when attacked, attacking when necessary.
This woman is in charge. Who or what will replace her as the object of our tangled emotions once the campaign is over and she becomes the mother (but not the lover) of us all? But for now - it’s all about her
Monday, October 8, 2007
President Hillary is Inevitable
President Hillary is Inevitable
By Jerome Grossman
Now that Hillary is really inevitable, the professional pundits are protecting their careers by opining that her election is not inevitable. But if you want to bet on Hillary going all the way, the legal bookies in Ireland will pay you only one dollar for every two bet: she is the odds-on favorite. Possessing a magic name, the best organization, the most experienced managers, the most connections to the biggest donors, her main weakness was her unfavorability rating hovering at 48 -- 49%. How could she be elected when half of the voters didn't like her? That barrier has been broken: the negative number is down to 37, where most politicians are. Americans learn to love front runners, to admire success.
To cinch the case, here are poll numbers conducted in late September by ABC News / Washington Post, covering just about every personal and issue valuation of the three top Democratic candidates. No need to analyze the Republicans. In my book, any Democrat nominated for President will defeat any Republican. It's all over folks.
Regardless of who you support, who do you think ___?
(Dems) HRC Obama Edwards
Is the strongest leader 61% 20% 13%
Is the most honest and
Trustworthy 35 26 22
Has the best chance of
Getting elected 57 16 20
Is best able to reduce
partisanship in D.C. 42 20 24
Best reflects the core
VIs the most inspiring 41 37 14
Regardless of who you support, who do you trust most to handle ___?
(Dems) HRC Obama Edwards
The war in Iraq 52% 22% 17%
The U.S. campaign
Against terrorism 51 20 19
The economy 56 17 17
Healthcare 66 15 14
Corruption in gov’t 40 28 20
By Jerome Grossman
Now that Hillary is really inevitable, the professional pundits are protecting their careers by opining that her election is not inevitable. But if you want to bet on Hillary going all the way, the legal bookies in Ireland will pay you only one dollar for every two bet: she is the odds-on favorite. Possessing a magic name, the best organization, the most experienced managers, the most connections to the biggest donors, her main weakness was her unfavorability rating hovering at 48 -- 49%. How could she be elected when half of the voters didn't like her? That barrier has been broken: the negative number is down to 37, where most politicians are. Americans learn to love front runners, to admire success.
To cinch the case, here are poll numbers conducted in late September by ABC News / Washington Post, covering just about every personal and issue valuation of the three top Democratic candidates. No need to analyze the Republicans. In my book, any Democrat nominated for President will defeat any Republican. It's all over folks.
Regardless of who you support, who do you think ___?
(Dems) HRC Obama Edwards
Is the strongest leader 61% 20% 13%
Is the most honest and
Trustworthy 35 26 22
Has the best chance of
Getting elected 57 16 20
Is best able to reduce
partisanship in D.C. 42 20 24
Best reflects the core
VIs the most inspiring 41 37 14
Regardless of who you support, who do you trust most to handle ___?
(Dems) HRC Obama Edwards
The war in Iraq 52% 22% 17%
The U.S. campaign
Against terrorism 51 20 19
The economy 56 17 17
Healthcare 66 15 14
Corruption in gov’t 40 28 20
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Hillary Isn't President Yet
Hillary Isn't President Yet
By Jerome Grossman
My blog on September 22 warned that President Hillary might find it necessary to prove that a woman is tough enough, resolute enough, to be commander-in-chief in time of war. It took only four days for her to prove me prescient.
On September 26 she voted in the U.S. Senate to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization based on intelligence offered by the Bush administration that furnished the faulty intelligence that took us into Iraq. Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, argued that designating part of Iran's government as a terrorist group represents a de facto declaration of war on Iran.
This amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill was written by Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn, and Senator John KYL, D-AZ, and was adopted 76 -- 22. The original version was much more provocative, actually calling for using all military instruments against Iran, but cooler heads prevail.
Presidential candidates Biden and Dodd voted NAY, Obama was not present but said he would have voted NAY, Edwards criticized Hillary for her vote saying "You cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted." Amen.
Hillary defended her vote:" it gives us the options to impose sanctions... to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran." Tough talk, There are strong rumors in Washington and around the world that the U.S. is preparing a massive air strike on Iran. Then we will be fighting three wars against Moslem countries simultaneously, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, with a worn out military 10,000 miles from home, and a purpose that has been rejected by almost all other nations. Let's see know-it-all Hillary manage that as President.
In another in -your -face to the American people, Hillary staked out some hawkish ground on Iraq in the presidential debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover New Hampshire, on September 26. She refused to commit, but “ hopes” to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 - that is no misprint - 2013. And she was echoed by her main rivals, Edwards and Obama. Only the also-rans, Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel gave answers that would satisfy the voters who gave the Democrats control of Congress in 2006. So much for the Democratic Party commitment to end the war.
Basking in her political sunshine with a 20 point lead, President Hillary is already sounding like President Lyndon Johnson did on Vietnam-and she is not even nominated or elected yet. Where is Gene McCarthy now that we need him to talk peace and political courage? Dead and buried, that's where, but remembered as the hero who began the political process that got us out of Vietnam But if a worthy successor springs up, watch out Hillary, you aren't President yet.
By Jerome Grossman
My blog on September 22 warned that President Hillary might find it necessary to prove that a woman is tough enough, resolute enough, to be commander-in-chief in time of war. It took only four days for her to prove me prescient.
On September 26 she voted in the U.S. Senate to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization based on intelligence offered by the Bush administration that furnished the faulty intelligence that took us into Iraq. Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, argued that designating part of Iran's government as a terrorist group represents a de facto declaration of war on Iran.
This amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill was written by Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn, and Senator John KYL, D-AZ, and was adopted 76 -- 22. The original version was much more provocative, actually calling for using all military instruments against Iran, but cooler heads prevail.
Presidential candidates Biden and Dodd voted NAY, Obama was not present but said he would have voted NAY, Edwards criticized Hillary for her vote saying "You cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted." Amen.
Hillary defended her vote:" it gives us the options to impose sanctions... to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran." Tough talk, There are strong rumors in Washington and around the world that the U.S. is preparing a massive air strike on Iran. Then we will be fighting three wars against Moslem countries simultaneously, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, with a worn out military 10,000 miles from home, and a purpose that has been rejected by almost all other nations. Let's see know-it-all Hillary manage that as President.
In another in -your -face to the American people, Hillary staked out some hawkish ground on Iraq in the presidential debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover New Hampshire, on September 26. She refused to commit, but “ hopes” to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 - that is no misprint - 2013. And she was echoed by her main rivals, Edwards and Obama. Only the also-rans, Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel gave answers that would satisfy the voters who gave the Democrats control of Congress in 2006. So much for the Democratic Party commitment to end the war.
Basking in her political sunshine with a 20 point lead, President Hillary is already sounding like President Lyndon Johnson did on Vietnam-and she is not even nominated or elected yet. Where is Gene McCarthy now that we need him to talk peace and political courage? Dead and buried, that's where, but remembered as the hero who began the political process that got us out of Vietnam But if a worthy successor springs up, watch out Hillary, you aren't President yet.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Hillary: What kind of President?
Hillary: What kind of President?
By Jerome Grossman
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination for President. She leads the field in the polls of the key early voting states, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida. If she wins these states there will be a landslide. In the general election in November, there is every indication that the hungry and angry Democrats will turn out in force, while the Republicans, demoralized by scandals and policy failures, will vote in lesser numbers than in the GOP heyday. The Democratic nominee will be a cinch to win.
Hillary will be the first woman President. What kind of President will she be? How will her being the first woman affect her performance?
Hillary brings important qualities to the office: she is informed, educated, well spoken, hard-working, experienced. She has been a social worker and lawyer, ran programs in Arkansas and the White House, and served six years as a United States Senator from New York. She can do the job. She has political smarts to weave her way through the competing interests in the fifty states and indeed the nations of the world.
Hillary's politics are centrist, just like husband Bill’s. They have made their way by locating the consensus of their time and supporting it. They make their peace with the dominant interests and are clever in selling the policies produced to the public. Hillary, the social worker, had no problem accepting the mantra that “the era of big government is over “and the ensuing decline in federal social services.
Experimental programs seeking new approaches to intractable problems, like crime, drug addiction, segregation, income inequality, etc. will get short shrift. Hillary's health care program protects the interests of the major players, making no attempt to adopt the single-payer approach used by every other industrialized nation. The liberal constituency of the Democratic Party is sure to be disappointed in her domestic programs as she finds another Robert Rubin to guide her through paths approved by Wall Street.
Hillary's biggest problem will be her performance as Commander – in - Chief at a time of international upheaval, guerrilla insurgencies, terrorism and war. In spite of her business - like style and her demonstrated ability to compete with the boys, the public instinctively sees in this woman, or any woman, a caring, sympathetic, loving, tender person with the warmth and social skills they remember from their mothers, whether or not the mothers actually had them.
Is a woman tough enough, resolute enough, to be Commander – in - Chief in time of war, to make decisions that will cause loss of life and limb, to attack when necessary, to command in times of stress, to make the often brutal call for the military? That is the question that will be asked of Hillary during the election campaign and her first term. Many Americans will reply that a woman, any woman, cannot command with the necessary authority.
Hillary has prepared herself for these questions. She voted for the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq and refuses to apologize. She has voted every year for the enormous U.S.military budget, larger than the military budgets of all other countries in the world combined. She has never questioned Pentagon development of new weapons. As First Lady, Hillary participated in Cabinet meetings and favored the Clinton military interventions in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia. Together with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Vice President Al Gore, Hillary pushed a reluctant President Bill to adopt a policy of humanitarian military interventions later used by the neo-cons to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Will President Hillary be able to resist military solutions to international problems? Will President Hillary challenge the ever higher military budgets requested by the Pentagon? Will President Hillary resist Pentagon demands for new nuclear weapons? Will President Hillary resist making an attack on Iran? Will President Hillary withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq?
The example of Prime Minister Margret Thatcher in Britain,” the toughest person in the Cabinet” seems to indicate that a woman must be tougher than a man to prove that she can handle the duties of a Commander – in – Chief in time of war. Electing a woman President may not be the path to peace.
By Jerome Grossman
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination for President. She leads the field in the polls of the key early voting states, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida. If she wins these states there will be a landslide. In the general election in November, there is every indication that the hungry and angry Democrats will turn out in force, while the Republicans, demoralized by scandals and policy failures, will vote in lesser numbers than in the GOP heyday. The Democratic nominee will be a cinch to win.
Hillary will be the first woman President. What kind of President will she be? How will her being the first woman affect her performance?
Hillary brings important qualities to the office: she is informed, educated, well spoken, hard-working, experienced. She has been a social worker and lawyer, ran programs in Arkansas and the White House, and served six years as a United States Senator from New York. She can do the job. She has political smarts to weave her way through the competing interests in the fifty states and indeed the nations of the world.
Hillary's politics are centrist, just like husband Bill’s. They have made their way by locating the consensus of their time and supporting it. They make their peace with the dominant interests and are clever in selling the policies produced to the public. Hillary, the social worker, had no problem accepting the mantra that “the era of big government is over “and the ensuing decline in federal social services.
Experimental programs seeking new approaches to intractable problems, like crime, drug addiction, segregation, income inequality, etc. will get short shrift. Hillary's health care program protects the interests of the major players, making no attempt to adopt the single-payer approach used by every other industrialized nation. The liberal constituency of the Democratic Party is sure to be disappointed in her domestic programs as she finds another Robert Rubin to guide her through paths approved by Wall Street.
Hillary's biggest problem will be her performance as Commander – in - Chief at a time of international upheaval, guerrilla insurgencies, terrorism and war. In spite of her business - like style and her demonstrated ability to compete with the boys, the public instinctively sees in this woman, or any woman, a caring, sympathetic, loving, tender person with the warmth and social skills they remember from their mothers, whether or not the mothers actually had them.
Is a woman tough enough, resolute enough, to be Commander – in - Chief in time of war, to make decisions that will cause loss of life and limb, to attack when necessary, to command in times of stress, to make the often brutal call for the military? That is the question that will be asked of Hillary during the election campaign and her first term. Many Americans will reply that a woman, any woman, cannot command with the necessary authority.
Hillary has prepared herself for these questions. She voted for the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq and refuses to apologize. She has voted every year for the enormous U.S.military budget, larger than the military budgets of all other countries in the world combined. She has never questioned Pentagon development of new weapons. As First Lady, Hillary participated in Cabinet meetings and favored the Clinton military interventions in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia. Together with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Vice President Al Gore, Hillary pushed a reluctant President Bill to adopt a policy of humanitarian military interventions later used by the neo-cons to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Will President Hillary be able to resist military solutions to international problems? Will President Hillary challenge the ever higher military budgets requested by the Pentagon? Will President Hillary resist Pentagon demands for new nuclear weapons? Will President Hillary resist making an attack on Iran? Will President Hillary withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq?
The example of Prime Minister Margret Thatcher in Britain,” the toughest person in the Cabinet” seems to indicate that a woman must be tougher than a man to prove that she can handle the duties of a Commander – in – Chief in time of war. Electing a woman President may not be the path to peace.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
MEDICARE FOR ALL
MEDICARE FOR ALL
by Jerome Grossman
The leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States have proposed reforms of the nation's health-care system. The plans of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are similar in outline, but not necessarily in detail. Especially noteworthy is their retention of the basic system relying on business and insurance companies to finance health care.
However, each candidate articulated themes contrary to the current basic system. They praise government - run Medicare for low administrative costs, high efficiency, and for not cherry picking patients. They praise the government - run Veterans Administration for the same features as well as consumer satisfaction. They praise government -run systems in other industrialized nations pointing out that the U.S. lags behind all most all of these nations in adult longevity and infant mortality. Yet the candidates insist on retaining our current system with minor modifications. Universal Medicare would eliminate the cost of health insurance to businesses and lower insurance costs by about 25% percent by eliminating advertising, big execuitive salaries salaries and insurance company bureaucracy aimed at increasing market share and profitability.
The primary constituency of business is the stockholder and the primary activity is to cut costs and maximize profits. In health care this usually means insure as few workers as possible for the fewest ailments. Insurance companies are also focused on the bottom line, charging as much as the market will bear while avoiding the large expenses of the very sick The maneuvers toward these objectives inflate the cost of healthcare
Expanding Medicare to the entire population would realize the goal of universality, improve the national health, lower administrative costs, shift control of care to doctors and hospitals. Why should seniors and veterans be the only groups receiving government subsidies for health care? What about that 10 year old girl I see through my window? How about the worker who repairs my necessities?
Only a universal health system run by the government is defensible morally and politically. Equality and democracy require it. How long will the voters allow this unfairness and waste of money on a basic right to life to continue? Will one of the presidential candidates, from either party, endorse the Medicare approach and arouse the voters to demand it?
The answer to that question is " NO." American political leaders are understandably intimidated by the economic and political power of the health and insurance industries. They remember how Hillary Clinton's mild health reform proposals of 1993 were defeated, and even worse, ridiculed to such extent that it affects her campaign for president 15 years later.
Any proposed change must not be perceived as attacking the profit motive, the most dynamic element in the American economic juggernaut. However, certain communal activities do not lend themselves to the profit model. Health care, education and the military rely on the values of equality, cooperation and even sacrifice. The model for each is common benefit before individual advancement and profit.
However, there may be a way to resolve the dilemma, by following the example of big business. Our government cannot drive the health and insurance industries out of business to install a universal Medicare, but it could buy them out and make health a government monopoly. Give them their profit, give stockholders, executives, workers a big payout, something on the order of100% profit or a years salary. Even if costs one trillion dollars, the lower costs could return the capital outlay in ten years or less. The new efficiencies, the new satisfactions, the increased longevity, the saving of children's lives could transform our lives as they have already benefited our senior population since 1965. And think of the value of increased happiness, of diminished worry about the precious gift of life. Do we have the courage to break the pattern of the past, for ourselves and future generations?
by Jerome Grossman
The leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States have proposed reforms of the nation's health-care system. The plans of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are similar in outline, but not necessarily in detail. Especially noteworthy is their retention of the basic system relying on business and insurance companies to finance health care.
However, each candidate articulated themes contrary to the current basic system. They praise government - run Medicare for low administrative costs, high efficiency, and for not cherry picking patients. They praise the government - run Veterans Administration for the same features as well as consumer satisfaction. They praise government -run systems in other industrialized nations pointing out that the U.S. lags behind all most all of these nations in adult longevity and infant mortality. Yet the candidates insist on retaining our current system with minor modifications. Universal Medicare would eliminate the cost of health insurance to businesses and lower insurance costs by about 25% percent by eliminating advertising, big execuitive salaries salaries and insurance company bureaucracy aimed at increasing market share and profitability.
The primary constituency of business is the stockholder and the primary activity is to cut costs and maximize profits. In health care this usually means insure as few workers as possible for the fewest ailments. Insurance companies are also focused on the bottom line, charging as much as the market will bear while avoiding the large expenses of the very sick The maneuvers toward these objectives inflate the cost of healthcare
Expanding Medicare to the entire population would realize the goal of universality, improve the national health, lower administrative costs, shift control of care to doctors and hospitals. Why should seniors and veterans be the only groups receiving government subsidies for health care? What about that 10 year old girl I see through my window? How about the worker who repairs my necessities?
Only a universal health system run by the government is defensible morally and politically. Equality and democracy require it. How long will the voters allow this unfairness and waste of money on a basic right to life to continue? Will one of the presidential candidates, from either party, endorse the Medicare approach and arouse the voters to demand it?
The answer to that question is " NO." American political leaders are understandably intimidated by the economic and political power of the health and insurance industries. They remember how Hillary Clinton's mild health reform proposals of 1993 were defeated, and even worse, ridiculed to such extent that it affects her campaign for president 15 years later.
Any proposed change must not be perceived as attacking the profit motive, the most dynamic element in the American economic juggernaut. However, certain communal activities do not lend themselves to the profit model. Health care, education and the military rely on the values of equality, cooperation and even sacrifice. The model for each is common benefit before individual advancement and profit.
However, there may be a way to resolve the dilemma, by following the example of big business. Our government cannot drive the health and insurance industries out of business to install a universal Medicare, but it could buy them out and make health a government monopoly. Give them their profit, give stockholders, executives, workers a big payout, something on the order of100% profit or a years salary. Even if costs one trillion dollars, the lower costs could return the capital outlay in ten years or less. The new efficiencies, the new satisfactions, the increased longevity, the saving of children's lives could transform our lives as they have already benefited our senior population since 1965. And think of the value of increased happiness, of diminished worry about the precious gift of life. Do we have the courage to break the pattern of the past, for ourselves and future generations?
Friday, June 29, 2007
How Hillary Can Win or Lose
How Hillary Can Win or Lose
By Jerome Grossman
The Hillary political juggernaut has picked up speed and increased its lead. Contributions are rolling in at a faster rate as she appears to be the likely Democratic nominee. More Democratic officeholders with significant constituencies have endorsed her. The challenges by Obama and Edwards seem to have reached their plateaus, perhaps their upside limits. Hillary’s campaign gaffes have been held to a minimum. The superdelegates, mostly major donors and officials not elected but appointed by the party apparatus, which make up almost half of the voting delegates, seem to be breaking for her.
There are two potential serious negatives for the Hillary campaign that may persist until the primary elections. The liberal base of the Democratic Party is dissatisfied with her position on the Iraq war; her authorizing vote, her refusal to repudiate and apologize for it, and her plan for keeping residual force in Iraq after reducing US combat forces there. In addition, Hillary's positions on other issues are similar to the centrist positions maintained by her husband during his eight years as president. Liberals suspect that Hillary will reign like Bill and they don’t like it. However.if she is the nominee, they will vote for her to rescue the nation from Bush, Cheney and their adherents.
The second potential negative, her electability, threatens Hillary's nomination. Her opponents are reminding the Democrats of the 2004 nominating process in which the very popular Howard Dean seemed to have a lock on the nomination until the voters, first in Iowa, and then in the other states, decided that John Kerry was more electable - and it was over. If Hillary's negatives remain in the high forties, she may be rejected even by those who love her. That love will be superseded by the antipathy towards the Republicans, who aided and abetted George W. Bush. They must be driven from office: that is the primary motivation of the Democrats. If there is a possibility that Hillary could lose, she will not be the nominee. And if the other Democratic candidates have the same weaknesses, there's always Al Gore, just offstage.
By Jerome Grossman
The Hillary political juggernaut has picked up speed and increased its lead. Contributions are rolling in at a faster rate as she appears to be the likely Democratic nominee. More Democratic officeholders with significant constituencies have endorsed her. The challenges by Obama and Edwards seem to have reached their plateaus, perhaps their upside limits. Hillary’s campaign gaffes have been held to a minimum. The superdelegates, mostly major donors and officials not elected but appointed by the party apparatus, which make up almost half of the voting delegates, seem to be breaking for her.
There are two potential serious negatives for the Hillary campaign that may persist until the primary elections. The liberal base of the Democratic Party is dissatisfied with her position on the Iraq war; her authorizing vote, her refusal to repudiate and apologize for it, and her plan for keeping residual force in Iraq after reducing US combat forces there. In addition, Hillary's positions on other issues are similar to the centrist positions maintained by her husband during his eight years as president. Liberals suspect that Hillary will reign like Bill and they don’t like it. However.if she is the nominee, they will vote for her to rescue the nation from Bush, Cheney and their adherents.
The second potential negative, her electability, threatens Hillary's nomination. Her opponents are reminding the Democrats of the 2004 nominating process in which the very popular Howard Dean seemed to have a lock on the nomination until the voters, first in Iowa, and then in the other states, decided that John Kerry was more electable - and it was over. If Hillary's negatives remain in the high forties, she may be rejected even by those who love her. That love will be superseded by the antipathy towards the Republicans, who aided and abetted George W. Bush. They must be driven from office: that is the primary motivation of the Democrats. If there is a possibility that Hillary could lose, she will not be the nominee. And if the other Democratic candidates have the same weaknesses, there's always Al Gore, just offstage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
