American military forces have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001 under the congressional authorization to destroy Al Qaeda for its role in training the 19 criminals who attacked the World Trade buildings in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001, a date that will live in infamy. US military leaders now say that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are no longer in Afghanistan but probably in Pakistan. The enemy has become the Taliban, an insurgency movement dedicated to overthrowing the Karzai government in Afghanistan, a regime supported and financed by the US.
President Barack Obama has sent 30,000 more troops to reinforce the 75,000 already in Afghanistan, in his attempt to secure a military victory over the Taliban guerrillas, a victory that will ensure the survival of the Karzai regime now holding power by election fraud and wholesale corruption. After ten years of fighting, thousands of American troops killed or wounded and a trillion dollars spent, most Americans want to transfer responsibility for this civil war to the Afghan government. However Obama policies for ending this long war are notable for their contradictions. He promises to begin drawing down US forces in July, 2011, “responsibly” but not hastily, and “taking into account conditions on the ground.” These hedges will allow Obama to delay or eliminate withdrawal indefinitely while citing the promised date as policy. Obama hints of willingness to talk to the Taliban while stepping up a military campaign designed to eliminate them. This has inspired President Karzai to begin his own secret negotiations with the Taliban in preparation for the possible departure of the Americans.
This has been the longest war in American history, begun when the US economy was in full bloom and the financial cost was not a factor. Now, with the economy hurting and enormous federal deficits piling up, voters are asking why are we in Afghanistan, a forsaken land dominated by brigands over the centuries, with no economic assets beyond opium, with a population largely illiterate, hardly a factor in world politics. With an important US election just a few months away, the Obama administration finally produced a reason for US presence in Afghanistan by announcing that it had discovered $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits there, far beyond any previously known reserves and “enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself.”
It must be very difficult for soldiers to put their lives on the line with such a contradictory and vague policy. Who wants to be the last one to die for a mistake? And who will protect the American businesses who invest in the newly discovered mineral riches? And who will protect them from the war lords and native marauders?
The timing of the minerals story is curious, especially because this information has been available for years. In fact, the McClatchy newspaper chain revealed several years ago that the Chinese government had made a long-term deal with the Karzai government giving them mining rights to the biggest copper mine in the world and that the Chinese were being protected from Afghan brigands by US troops. Obama needs to explain why the Chinese get this prize investment when US casualties make the exploration possible. What was the deal between China and the US? Was the price China's cooperation on the nuclear crises with North Korea and Iran?
In any case, it looks as though the American voters are being manipulated. We are leaving Afghanistan – maybe - but if we stay there is a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. Will this be enough to the defer voter worries until after the November election? Will it take this issue away from the Republicans? The prime reason for the contradictory Obama policy is probably political. Leaving Afghanistan without a clear military victory is sure to inspire political attacks on the Obama administration as incompetent or worse, that it diminished US security by "losing Afghanistan", as though it was ours to lose.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Expansion of Presidential Power
Presidential power is one of the mysteries of the American political system, certainly not justified or suggested in the United States Constitution. The last thing the framers of the Constitution wanted was a king, an American George III, with the power to tax, to levy armies, to initiate wars. Yet that is our current system and presidential power is growing as the democratic spirit weakens under the pressures of maintaining world-wide hegemony.
The ultimate presidential power: only the president can order the use of a nuclear weapon against an enemy he identifies, at a moment he chooses, for reasons he alone finds adequate. To give it practical effect the president is always accompanied by an aide carrying a briefcase containing the authorization codes to fire one or all of America's nuclear weapons. The president is not required to consult anyone. Given the strength of America's nuclear arsenal, the president can destroy the entire human species and end all life on planet Earth. This enormous personal power has belonged to all presidents since 1945.
Now President Obama seeks to expand his solitary power to the domestic economic and financial sphere, seeking control of the money supply for his unilateral use and control.
This month President Obama plans to ask Congress to give him and future presidents the power to delete individual items from appropriation bills. Many previous presidents have sought to seize the power of the purse. Here is where it now resides. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…..” subject to amendment by the Senate, the right of the president to veto, and the right of the Congress to override the veto.
That is why the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled a line-item veto unconstitutional. The constitutional responsibility of the president is to execute the laws passed by the people's representatives, the Congress of the United States. Now Obama wants the Congress to surrender part of its primary responsibility.
This constitutional change is most often put forward by Republican presidents. The attempt by this Democratic president to increase his vast presidential power tends to prove Lord Acton's famous maxim that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Weakening our division of powers may result in greater efficiency, but would clearly diminish the plan of the founding fathers to guard against the usurpation of authority by any one of the three branches of the federal government. Take away the power of the purse from Congress and it would become little more than a club for debate, the direct representatives of the people would be shorn of any significant power. And who can guarantee that the White House will not make appropriations based in part on political pressures and electoral calculations as the Congress does now.
In fact, for many years, the executive branch has found ways to modify the intent of congressional appropriations. Sometimes the president and his minions failed to spend the money, sometimes they chose the contractors, sometimes they speed or slow the rate of expenditure, sometimes they modify the project in ways that transform it and leave it to the undermanned Congress to discover the discrepancies.
Finally, giving any president increased power over appropriations might increase the growing number of presidential wars. A Library of Congress study identified 234 military actions between 1798 and 1993 of these by US Armed Forces abroad. Only five of these wars were declared by Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress calls those not declared by Congress presidential wars. Three are being fought right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If presidents had appropriating power to finance more wars, we might be fighting in more of the 147 countries in which we have military bases.
The ultimate presidential power: only the president can order the use of a nuclear weapon against an enemy he identifies, at a moment he chooses, for reasons he alone finds adequate. To give it practical effect the president is always accompanied by an aide carrying a briefcase containing the authorization codes to fire one or all of America's nuclear weapons. The president is not required to consult anyone. Given the strength of America's nuclear arsenal, the president can destroy the entire human species and end all life on planet Earth. This enormous personal power has belonged to all presidents since 1945.
Now President Obama seeks to expand his solitary power to the domestic economic and financial sphere, seeking control of the money supply for his unilateral use and control.
This month President Obama plans to ask Congress to give him and future presidents the power to delete individual items from appropriation bills. Many previous presidents have sought to seize the power of the purse. Here is where it now resides. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…..” subject to amendment by the Senate, the right of the president to veto, and the right of the Congress to override the veto.
That is why the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled a line-item veto unconstitutional. The constitutional responsibility of the president is to execute the laws passed by the people's representatives, the Congress of the United States. Now Obama wants the Congress to surrender part of its primary responsibility.
This constitutional change is most often put forward by Republican presidents. The attempt by this Democratic president to increase his vast presidential power tends to prove Lord Acton's famous maxim that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Weakening our division of powers may result in greater efficiency, but would clearly diminish the plan of the founding fathers to guard against the usurpation of authority by any one of the three branches of the federal government. Take away the power of the purse from Congress and it would become little more than a club for debate, the direct representatives of the people would be shorn of any significant power. And who can guarantee that the White House will not make appropriations based in part on political pressures and electoral calculations as the Congress does now.
In fact, for many years, the executive branch has found ways to modify the intent of congressional appropriations. Sometimes the president and his minions failed to spend the money, sometimes they chose the contractors, sometimes they speed or slow the rate of expenditure, sometimes they modify the project in ways that transform it and leave it to the undermanned Congress to discover the discrepancies.
Finally, giving any president increased power over appropriations might increase the growing number of presidential wars. A Library of Congress study identified 234 military actions between 1798 and 1993 of these by US Armed Forces abroad. Only five of these wars were declared by Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress calls those not declared by Congress presidential wars. Three are being fought right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If presidents had appropriating power to finance more wars, we might be fighting in more of the 147 countries in which we have military bases.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
America's Soft Power
The United States cannot solve the problems of the world on its own, and the world cannot solve them without the United States.
As the world’s only remaining superpower, America has the ability to affect the behavior of other nations through coercion, economic strength and the power of attraction. Hard power relies on coercion and raw economic power. Soft power influences others through public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, exchange of ideas and culture - everything from Hollywood to Shakespeare to orchestras.
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama informed all countries, friendly and unfriendly, that there was a new attitude in the White House. He advised those countries “on the wrong side of history” that the United States “will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.
During his first year in office, Obama followed through by launching negotiations with Iran and North Korea on their nuclear programs, searching for common ground with Russia on arms control and missile defense, and softening economic sanctions against Cuba.
The jury is still out on whether the Obama initiatives will bear fruit, but it is a start and a welcome improvement from the George W. Bush reliance on hard power. But much more must be done to translate Obama’s effective rhetoric into a softening of policy, a softening more likely to increase the security of America and the rest of the world. If President Obama were to withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, then reduce the enormous US military budget, close some of the 761 US military bases in 147 countries, he would set the stage for America to inspire and lead the world by using the panoply of its soft power.
As the world’s only remaining superpower, America has the ability to affect the behavior of other nations through coercion, economic strength and the power of attraction. Hard power relies on coercion and raw economic power. Soft power influences others through public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, exchange of ideas and culture - everything from Hollywood to Shakespeare to orchestras.
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama informed all countries, friendly and unfriendly, that there was a new attitude in the White House. He advised those countries “on the wrong side of history” that the United States “will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.
During his first year in office, Obama followed through by launching negotiations with Iran and North Korea on their nuclear programs, searching for common ground with Russia on arms control and missile defense, and softening economic sanctions against Cuba.
The jury is still out on whether the Obama initiatives will bear fruit, but it is a start and a welcome improvement from the George W. Bush reliance on hard power. But much more must be done to translate Obama’s effective rhetoric into a softening of policy, a softening more likely to increase the security of America and the rest of the world. If President Obama were to withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, then reduce the enormous US military budget, close some of the 761 US military bases in 147 countries, he would set the stage for America to inspire and lead the world by using the panoply of its soft power.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Don’t Let Them Do It Again
Don’t Let Them Do It Again
By Jerome Grossman
The same neo-conservatives who promoted the mistaken war in Iraq, are now urging President Barack Obama to greatly increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan and to stay there as long as it takes to conquer that country and defeat the native resistance.
Led by William Kristol, the same ideologues who insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass distraction and was involved with Al Qaeda, both not true, have sent an open letter to the White House describing Afghanistan as a "war we cannot afford to lose." Among the signers were a raft of prominent Republican politicians and military hawks as well as former Bush adviser Karl Rove and that "expert", former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
This effort comes as support for the war is falling. A CNN/ORC poll in August showed increased opposition to the war among 74% of the Democrats and 57% of Independents, with overall support down to 39%. Public opinion has been affected by the mounting U.S. death toll in Afghanistan, the multiple charges of election fraud, rampant corruption in the U.S. supported Karzai government, and the disinclination of the Afghan army to fight.
The American military forces in Afghanistan now number 62,000 in addition to the 70,000 contractors, mostly American, hired by U.S. corporations to provide food, clothing, shelter and other services for the troops. The suggested increase could bring U.S. forces and contractors as high as 400,000 at a cost that would exceed the trillion dollars we spent on Iraq. And we are still in Iraq in force. Our NATO allies won't help: they're cutting back their forces in Afghanistan.
Is the occupation of Afghanistan worth the effort? Al Qaeda is no longer there, Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, if he is still living. It is difficult for the only superpower, bestriding the earth like a colossus, to admit a mistake, but the cost in lives and money is too great for the miniscule benefits. America, go home from Afghanistan. Ignore the failed advisors that wasted so many lives in Iraq. Don't let them do it again.
By Jerome Grossman
The same neo-conservatives who promoted the mistaken war in Iraq, are now urging President Barack Obama to greatly increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan and to stay there as long as it takes to conquer that country and defeat the native resistance.
Led by William Kristol, the same ideologues who insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass distraction and was involved with Al Qaeda, both not true, have sent an open letter to the White House describing Afghanistan as a "war we cannot afford to lose." Among the signers were a raft of prominent Republican politicians and military hawks as well as former Bush adviser Karl Rove and that "expert", former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
This effort comes as support for the war is falling. A CNN/ORC poll in August showed increased opposition to the war among 74% of the Democrats and 57% of Independents, with overall support down to 39%. Public opinion has been affected by the mounting U.S. death toll in Afghanistan, the multiple charges of election fraud, rampant corruption in the U.S. supported Karzai government, and the disinclination of the Afghan army to fight.
The American military forces in Afghanistan now number 62,000 in addition to the 70,000 contractors, mostly American, hired by U.S. corporations to provide food, clothing, shelter and other services for the troops. The suggested increase could bring U.S. forces and contractors as high as 400,000 at a cost that would exceed the trillion dollars we spent on Iraq. And we are still in Iraq in force. Our NATO allies won't help: they're cutting back their forces in Afghanistan.
Is the occupation of Afghanistan worth the effort? Al Qaeda is no longer there, Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, if he is still living. It is difficult for the only superpower, bestriding the earth like a colossus, to admit a mistake, but the cost in lives and money is too great for the miniscule benefits. America, go home from Afghanistan. Ignore the failed advisors that wasted so many lives in Iraq. Don't let them do it again.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Big Business Loves Health-care Reform
Big Business Loves Health-care Reform
By Jerome Grossman
The liberals achieve their maximum political strength in the Democratic Party primary elections: they speak up at meetings, define the issues, make early political contributions, and rarely miss a vote. As political consciousness spreads slowly through the rest of the electorate, the liberal influence and vote diminishes in importance. They know that agreements on issues with candidates must be made early in the campaign and are likely to be modified under the pressures of the wider campaign.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton gave the liberals the health-care position they wanted: the transformation of the U.S. system of private insurance coverage to a single-payer expansion of Medicare that would include all Americans, a system paid for out of general tax revenues. Obama came the closest, saying that if he were to install a new system from scratch it would be single-payer. That was enough for the liberals to vote for him out of love and hope.
And indeed the Obama administration never proposed a health-care revolution challenging the insurance and drug industries. Such a challenge might have been successful if Obama was prepared to play political hardball, using political power to force compliance from Congress and business interests. Like Obama, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson won landslide victories in 1932 and 1964 gaining huge majorities in Congress. They knew how to use their political power generated by the landslides to force liberal legislation through an unwilling Congress by threatening the incumbents with loss of privileges, loss on their ability to pass legislation, loss of political contributions, loss of appointment of friends, etc. That was how they revolutionized the nation by installing the Social Security System, minimum wage, civil rights and voting rights legislation, Medicare, to name just a few, but not as defined by Chris Mathews on TV as merely talking tough.Chris Matthews worked for Speaker Tip O'Neill, a nice guy with no particular ideology whose idea of pressure was scotch and soda and a joke on the nineteenth hole.
Without hardball, President Obama will get a health-care bill but it won't be a revolution and it may not even be reform. His people have already made a deal with the pharmaceutical companies, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The industry will offer $8 billion a year in consumer savings for 10 years out of its current annual profits of $300 billion a year. Industry benefits: the barriers against importation of foreign drugs will be maintained; the government's ability to use its enormous purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices is off the table; the government will subsidize more drug purchases by seniors.
Insurance companies are similarly delighted with other elements of "reform". The government will require the uninsured to buy health insurance, subsidizing them if necessary. These millions of mostly young and healthy customers will demand few services, increasing industry profits far more than the cost of the Obama changes. The oldest and the sickest will be on Medicare, the poorest on Medicaid, the young and healthy new customers must buy from the insurance companies. Looks like a good deal for the health-care industry. And Obama’s lieutenants have discovered that it is easier to deal with big business than with the Republicans and their Blue-Dog allies in Congress.
By Jerome Grossman
The liberals achieve their maximum political strength in the Democratic Party primary elections: they speak up at meetings, define the issues, make early political contributions, and rarely miss a vote. As political consciousness spreads slowly through the rest of the electorate, the liberal influence and vote diminishes in importance. They know that agreements on issues with candidates must be made early in the campaign and are likely to be modified under the pressures of the wider campaign.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton gave the liberals the health-care position they wanted: the transformation of the U.S. system of private insurance coverage to a single-payer expansion of Medicare that would include all Americans, a system paid for out of general tax revenues. Obama came the closest, saying that if he were to install a new system from scratch it would be single-payer. That was enough for the liberals to vote for him out of love and hope.
And indeed the Obama administration never proposed a health-care revolution challenging the insurance and drug industries. Such a challenge might have been successful if Obama was prepared to play political hardball, using political power to force compliance from Congress and business interests. Like Obama, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson won landslide victories in 1932 and 1964 gaining huge majorities in Congress. They knew how to use their political power generated by the landslides to force liberal legislation through an unwilling Congress by threatening the incumbents with loss of privileges, loss on their ability to pass legislation, loss of political contributions, loss of appointment of friends, etc. That was how they revolutionized the nation by installing the Social Security System, minimum wage, civil rights and voting rights legislation, Medicare, to name just a few, but not as defined by Chris Mathews on TV as merely talking tough.Chris Matthews worked for Speaker Tip O'Neill, a nice guy with no particular ideology whose idea of pressure was scotch and soda and a joke on the nineteenth hole.
Without hardball, President Obama will get a health-care bill but it won't be a revolution and it may not even be reform. His people have already made a deal with the pharmaceutical companies, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The industry will offer $8 billion a year in consumer savings for 10 years out of its current annual profits of $300 billion a year. Industry benefits: the barriers against importation of foreign drugs will be maintained; the government's ability to use its enormous purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices is off the table; the government will subsidize more drug purchases by seniors.
Insurance companies are similarly delighted with other elements of "reform". The government will require the uninsured to buy health insurance, subsidizing them if necessary. These millions of mostly young and healthy customers will demand few services, increasing industry profits far more than the cost of the Obama changes. The oldest and the sickest will be on Medicare, the poorest on Medicaid, the young and healthy new customers must buy from the insurance companies. Looks like a good deal for the health-care industry. And Obama’s lieutenants have discovered that it is easier to deal with big business than with the Republicans and their Blue-Dog allies in Congress.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Old Razzle Dazzle
The Old Razzle Dazzle
By Jerome Grossman
If President Barack Obama rescues America, and indeed the entire world, from the ravages of recession/depression, the gratitude of the populace will be boundless. His party will sweep the congressional elections of 2010; his reelection in 2012 will be by acclamation.
If Obama's stimulus plan fails and the economy sinks into depression, he will bear the blame, and he and his party will be swept from power. Obama says the stimulus “serves two functions-creating jobs and stimulating the economy in the short term and laying the groundwork for overhauls in energy, health care and infrastructure that would be felt for decades.”
But some Democrats say that his package could end up missing both targets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the stimulus bill "could prove less than the quick jolt that President Obama is seeking," because of necessary delays in spending on longer projects.
To protect his political flank in 20i0 and 2012, Obama has catered to the policies of the Republicans, so that 40% of the entire package is composed of tax cuts. Vice President Joe Biden said "That's not what the Democrats wanted." But they accepted the Republican tax proposals to get their support and votes for the package. Then, in case of failure, Republicans could not attack politically in 2010 and 2012 because the bill included their own tax cut wish list.
However, after receiving the tax concessions, the GOP failed to deliver their votes. From being dispirited after losing the White House and the Congress, they now have a strategy: to blame Obama if the economy fails to rally, to blame Obama for the waste of trillions, to blame Obama for the anticipated inflation.
Today, Obama is in a very strong position. Virtually the entire country wants him to succeed. Guarding against possible failure, he wanted both parties on the same hook, the stimulus bill. In remarkable and unprecedented gestures of bipartisanship, he praised Ronald Reagan, met with GOP officials, dined with conservative pundits, solicited their advice and ideas, appointed Republicans to his Cabinet and policymaking positions, to name only a few outreaches. Obama made all those compromises for nothing.
So far, Obama has failed to achieve the desired cooperation or the bipartisan cover for his stimulus bill. The Republicans now have a political strategy for future elections. Unfortunately, it seems to be based on Obama’s future failure and the continuation of our economic troubles. Let us hope they are wrong in their use of the old razzle dazzle style of politics.
By Jerome Grossman
If President Barack Obama rescues America, and indeed the entire world, from the ravages of recession/depression, the gratitude of the populace will be boundless. His party will sweep the congressional elections of 2010; his reelection in 2012 will be by acclamation.
If Obama's stimulus plan fails and the economy sinks into depression, he will bear the blame, and he and his party will be swept from power. Obama says the stimulus “serves two functions-creating jobs and stimulating the economy in the short term and laying the groundwork for overhauls in energy, health care and infrastructure that would be felt for decades.”
But some Democrats say that his package could end up missing both targets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the stimulus bill "could prove less than the quick jolt that President Obama is seeking," because of necessary delays in spending on longer projects.
To protect his political flank in 20i0 and 2012, Obama has catered to the policies of the Republicans, so that 40% of the entire package is composed of tax cuts. Vice President Joe Biden said "That's not what the Democrats wanted." But they accepted the Republican tax proposals to get their support and votes for the package. Then, in case of failure, Republicans could not attack politically in 2010 and 2012 because the bill included their own tax cut wish list.
However, after receiving the tax concessions, the GOP failed to deliver their votes. From being dispirited after losing the White House and the Congress, they now have a strategy: to blame Obama if the economy fails to rally, to blame Obama for the waste of trillions, to blame Obama for the anticipated inflation.
Today, Obama is in a very strong position. Virtually the entire country wants him to succeed. Guarding against possible failure, he wanted both parties on the same hook, the stimulus bill. In remarkable and unprecedented gestures of bipartisanship, he praised Ronald Reagan, met with GOP officials, dined with conservative pundits, solicited their advice and ideas, appointed Republicans to his Cabinet and policymaking positions, to name only a few outreaches. Obama made all those compromises for nothing.
So far, Obama has failed to achieve the desired cooperation or the bipartisan cover for his stimulus bill. The Republicans now have a political strategy for future elections. Unfortunately, it seems to be based on Obama’s future failure and the continuation of our economic troubles. Let us hope they are wrong in their use of the old razzle dazzle style of politics.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Can Obama Do Change?
Can Obama Do Change?
By Jerome Grossman
Immediately after his election, President-elect Barack Obama was properly deferential to George W. Bush and the U. S. Constitution: "We have only one president at a time." However, it has not worked out that way. Obama has dominated the news every day, with multiple press conferences announcing his teams of advisors and Cabinet appointments while answering questions on foreign and domestic policies. At the same time he makes personal appearances (60 minutes, Meet the Press, etc.) designed to establish close relationships with the citizens.
Clearly, the US has two presidents in effect. As Bush recedes in public consciousness, the outgoing president seems baffled by the Obama phenomenon. Plaintively, he told Charlie Gibson on ABC television that he ran for president in 2000 on a program for change and before that had been elected governor of Texas promising change. Then he giggled.
Some Obama supporters are questioning his appointments drawn from the pool of establishment figures who had worked in high positions in the Clinton and Bush administrations. They worry whether such people can deliver the change promised by Obama in his presidential campaign. There are also complaints that significant sectors of the electorate are unrepresented, particularly labor, liberals and anti-Iraq war activists. Obama supporters also worry that he will not receive a full range of options from teams of centrist advisors. While his appointment of Republicans will give the president the views of the right, it is not matched by views from the left. And this is a Democratic president.
When asked to respond to this situation, Obama says that he is the changer, the idea man, that his appointees were the best qualified to carry out his changes. However, as brilliant as he is, Obama is unlikely to know the full range of options and possibilities and history to change the way the government works in foreign and domestic policies. No one could.
With nostalgia, Obama supporters remember the glory days of the campaign when their candidate led the enormous crowds chanting "We are the people we have been waiting for", emphasizing repeatedly the mantra that change will bubble up from the people. They remember the repeated calls for “Change we can believe in “, and the denunciation of lobbyists: “When I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House “.
These questions have not affected Obama's popularity, now at new heights. Most Americans along with most of the rest of the world are overjoyed that the failed Bush presidency is almost over and that America has repudiated its racist past by electing an African-American as president. Love is in the air but after the honeymoon, Obama will have to deliver.
By Jerome Grossman
Immediately after his election, President-elect Barack Obama was properly deferential to George W. Bush and the U. S. Constitution: "We have only one president at a time." However, it has not worked out that way. Obama has dominated the news every day, with multiple press conferences announcing his teams of advisors and Cabinet appointments while answering questions on foreign and domestic policies. At the same time he makes personal appearances (60 minutes, Meet the Press, etc.) designed to establish close relationships with the citizens.
Clearly, the US has two presidents in effect. As Bush recedes in public consciousness, the outgoing president seems baffled by the Obama phenomenon. Plaintively, he told Charlie Gibson on ABC television that he ran for president in 2000 on a program for change and before that had been elected governor of Texas promising change. Then he giggled.
Some Obama supporters are questioning his appointments drawn from the pool of establishment figures who had worked in high positions in the Clinton and Bush administrations. They worry whether such people can deliver the change promised by Obama in his presidential campaign. There are also complaints that significant sectors of the electorate are unrepresented, particularly labor, liberals and anti-Iraq war activists. Obama supporters also worry that he will not receive a full range of options from teams of centrist advisors. While his appointment of Republicans will give the president the views of the right, it is not matched by views from the left. And this is a Democratic president.
When asked to respond to this situation, Obama says that he is the changer, the idea man, that his appointees were the best qualified to carry out his changes. However, as brilliant as he is, Obama is unlikely to know the full range of options and possibilities and history to change the way the government works in foreign and domestic policies. No one could.
With nostalgia, Obama supporters remember the glory days of the campaign when their candidate led the enormous crowds chanting "We are the people we have been waiting for", emphasizing repeatedly the mantra that change will bubble up from the people. They remember the repeated calls for “Change we can believe in “, and the denunciation of lobbyists: “When I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House “.
These questions have not affected Obama's popularity, now at new heights. Most Americans along with most of the rest of the world are overjoyed that the failed Bush presidency is almost over and that America has repudiated its racist past by electing an African-American as president. Love is in the air but after the honeymoon, Obama will have to deliver.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Dollars and Diplomacy
Dollars and Diplomacy
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama and John McCain dispute the reasons for the decline in violence in Iraq, now at its lowest level in years. McCain emphasizes the effectiveness of the “surge” troops, 30,000 additional American combat soldiers. Obama appreciates the surge but emphasizes the political rapprochement between Iraqi factions. Neither Obama nor McCain give us the whole story and its implications for the future.
Before the 30,000 surge there were about 150,000 coalition forces in Iraq, mostly American and mostly combat soldiers. However, another 150,000 contractors were on the scene working for the US military, not in uniform but armed for self protection, feeding the troops, guarding US installations, repairing damaged sites, etc., doing what American uniformed soldiers have always done in past wars, but this time working for private contractors for high wages and corporate profits. The point is that the total Allied force was 300,000 making the surge increase only ten percent.
The decrease in violence was located in all of Iraq, yet the 30,000 surge was concentrated in Baghdad. In that city the troops concentrated on weakening the Mahdi Army, a militia controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric close to Iran who had already issued a cease-fire order to his minions.
The surge operation in Baghdad was aided by a new program called Sons of Iraq that employed Sunnis who were formerly insurgents, paying them $10 a day and giving them guns for their pseudo police powers. This strategy had already worked in Anbar province well before the start of the surge. There, the US military hired 90,000 Sunnis at $30 a month plus guns to maintain order and to disarm the few Al Qaeda partisans who had infiltrated into the country from foreign lands. Part of the Sunni motivation in accepting the American deal was to prepare themselves for the show-down when the US forces leave Iraq.
Iran may have been included in the arrangements. Neither the US command in Iraq nor their superiors in Washington are now accusing Iran of supporting insurgency in Iraq, quite a change from previous charges. In addition, cleric al-Sadr, still close to Iran, has shut down his militia. And the US does not have an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf for the first time in decades. The whole world has noticed that William Burns, the number three person in the US State Department, participated in a meeting with a representative of Iran, the first such meeting since 1979.
Has a deal been made? If so, the surge may have been the cover story for US home consumption, while the real story was investment in dollars and diplomacy.
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama and John McCain dispute the reasons for the decline in violence in Iraq, now at its lowest level in years. McCain emphasizes the effectiveness of the “surge” troops, 30,000 additional American combat soldiers. Obama appreciates the surge but emphasizes the political rapprochement between Iraqi factions. Neither Obama nor McCain give us the whole story and its implications for the future.
Before the 30,000 surge there were about 150,000 coalition forces in Iraq, mostly American and mostly combat soldiers. However, another 150,000 contractors were on the scene working for the US military, not in uniform but armed for self protection, feeding the troops, guarding US installations, repairing damaged sites, etc., doing what American uniformed soldiers have always done in past wars, but this time working for private contractors for high wages and corporate profits. The point is that the total Allied force was 300,000 making the surge increase only ten percent.
The decrease in violence was located in all of Iraq, yet the 30,000 surge was concentrated in Baghdad. In that city the troops concentrated on weakening the Mahdi Army, a militia controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric close to Iran who had already issued a cease-fire order to his minions.
The surge operation in Baghdad was aided by a new program called Sons of Iraq that employed Sunnis who were formerly insurgents, paying them $10 a day and giving them guns for their pseudo police powers. This strategy had already worked in Anbar province well before the start of the surge. There, the US military hired 90,000 Sunnis at $30 a month plus guns to maintain order and to disarm the few Al Qaeda partisans who had infiltrated into the country from foreign lands. Part of the Sunni motivation in accepting the American deal was to prepare themselves for the show-down when the US forces leave Iraq.
Iran may have been included in the arrangements. Neither the US command in Iraq nor their superiors in Washington are now accusing Iran of supporting insurgency in Iraq, quite a change from previous charges. In addition, cleric al-Sadr, still close to Iran, has shut down his militia. And the US does not have an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf for the first time in decades. The whole world has noticed that William Burns, the number three person in the US State Department, participated in a meeting with a representative of Iran, the first such meeting since 1979.
Has a deal been made? If so, the surge may have been the cover story for US home consumption, while the real story was investment in dollars and diplomacy.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
