The Godless Liberal

Represent! (the Public Option)

2009-09-25T11:53:00.000-07:00

We are supposed to have representative government here in this country, aren't we?

That's what I thought. So why are our elected officials so willfully ignoring public opinion? Apparently, our senators think they know what we the people want better than we know ourselves. Apparently, what they deem 'political suicide' is what polling calls 'public support'. Not only does a majority of the American public support a public option, according to recent polling - a majority of physicians do, as well. If our representatives aren't supporting the views of the masses, and they aren't acting on behalf of doctors to protect our health, there's only one interest left that they could possibly be pulling for...

... and that, my friends, is the insurance industry.

Is this what we elect our officials for - to legislate in favor of the all-powerful insurance companies, who long have enjoyed monopoly control over our lives and health, who rake in profits by denying us treatment for our illnesses and injuries, who are the only real example of "death panels" this country has?? I certainly don't think so, and it's time for these so-called "representatives" of ours to be called out for their shady behavior.

The most frustrating aspect of all of this, however, is Obama's glaring failure as a leader. Republican opposition to health care reform was a given from the very start, and instead of standing up for what he allegedly believes in, for a major part of the platform the American public elected him on, for the course of action a majority of the country supports... he is throwing himself at the feet of Congressional Republicans, sacrificing the will of the people and of the base of his own party in attempt to score a few measly votes from the GOP. All this, just so he can call whatever pathetic excuse for a bill that passes an example of "bipartisanship", and claim to have ushered in a new era of peace, harmony and shattered party lines. It's a joke, and he's rapidly squandering what political capital he had, with the result being only to alienate his Democratic base, turn the majority of the American public against him, and show the Republicans - who last time I checked, Mr. President, were the MINORITY PARTY - that he will go out of his way to cater to their interests, even at his own expense. I'm sorry, but that's just plain pathetic. As I've said before, when the Republicans are in power, they may completely ravage our economy, our international image and our individual liberties -- but at least they know how to get stuff done. They get what they want, because they take the popular mandate and use it to exert their authority. When Democrats are in power, all they seem to be able to do is to sacrifice their own supposed political ideology in an effort to please the other side.

Now, the fate of the public option - and thus, the fate of the American health care system - seems to be up to the White House. With two consecutive public-option amendments being voted down in the Senate finance committee, with public-option supporters vowing to continue the fight and the opposition refusing to budge, with a House bill likely to contain a public option but a Senate unlikely to push for reconciliation in the face of an anticipated lack of 60 favorable votes... Congress is looking to Obama to step in and mediate. The President needs, for once in his term, to show some leadership. It is time for him to look the nation in the eye and state unequivocally what he championed on the campaign trail - the necessity of a public option to reforming our health care system. Any bill without a public option would be worse than doing nothing at all, because once Obama's got another legislative feather to stick in his cap, he's going to declare the health care problem solved and move on, and we Americans will be stuck with this woefully inadequate system for the rest of our foreseeable future.

So please, Obama, show us just one example of that "change" we've been hearing so much about. Do what I really believe you know is right for the American public. Forget about appeasing a minority party who is going to find a way to oppose you no matter what you do. Just in terms of tactics, start acting like a Republican and just "git 'er done". Because unlike the last Republican President... the majority of the American people support what you want to do. It's time to start acting like the leader of the free world you supposedly are.

Take charge in support of a public option, and maybe, just maybe... our nation will have something we can believe in again.

The Change We Can Believe In?!?

2009-08-25T16:34:00.000-07:00

There's really nothing I can add to this... the headline says it all.

"U.S. Says Rendition to Continue, But With More Oversight"

The Audacity of Nope

2009-08-17T09:07:00.000-07:00

Well, folks, looks like President Pushover is at it again. The past several weeks have heard a level of debate, accusation, misinformation and scare-tactic hyperbole that has achieved sheer lunacy over the issue of health care reform. For a while, it seemed as though a plan with a public option was pretty much a given; most Americans seemed to support it, many members of Congress seemed at least open to the possibility of its inclusion in legislation, and Obama pitched it at every public-speaking opportunity he could. It should have been a sure thing - with all in its favor, there should never have been any doubt that whatever neutered legislation finally emerged from Congress would at least have a public option as an available choice. The public desperately wants, and needs, health care reform. Nobody - except those with a financial interest in their continued monopoly - is satisfied with the insurance companies and their death grip (literally) on the American populace. Medical professionals have spoken out time and again about the brokenness of the current system. Obama, whose campaign rhetoric frequently referenced health care reform, was elected with a strong mandate, and his approval rating is still tremendously high for a new president. The Democrats have control (theoretically) over both Houses of Congress. They have the ability to pass practically any legislation they want without one vote from the Republicans. Skyrocketing health care costs are bankrupting the citizenry, and insurance companies are signing Americans' death warrants by denying coverage overall or refusing to cover potentially lifesaving procedures.

So WHY is Obama falling over backwards to cater to the Republicans?! Why is he doing everything in his power to please a minority party with record-low approval ratings?!? Why is the Democratic leadership, supposedly the champion of the common man, supposedly not deep in the pockets of the rich, the powerful, the insurance company CEOs, doing their damndest to neuter whatever reform legislation comes their way to the point of utter uselessness?

There is absolutely NOTHING audacious about this administration thus far. Obama is playing to the center while alienating everyone even remotely on the outskirts. The Democrats in the House and Senate are proving themselves, once again, to be just another bunch of shady politicians, no better than any other party they denounce at election time. And the worst part is, they don't even have anything to show for this behavior. When the Republicans are in power, they may piss a lot of people off, but damn it, they get what they want. They get legislation passed, they make policy, they issue bold and definitive statements about ideology political and otherwise. I may not like the Republicans - but at least I feel like I know where they stand. With Obama and the Democrats, I just feel like I've been had. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, and time and time again this proves a tragic mistake.

I think it's time for the President and the Democratic leadership to really let us know where they stand. If all they're doing is looking out for themselves, fine - just let us know about it. In my mind, they are thoroughly in the red in terms of their political capital; next time, I'll be voting for Nader. If they want to completely bungle their one shot at real power, at the time when it should have been so easy for them to establish their agenda it's laughable, then they don't deserve to hold on to any of it.

But please, for the sake of all Americans, just don't bungle this one. Let us have the health care reform that we so desperately need and deserve. Let us join the ranks of every other civilized nation in the world and actually provide for our citizens, for a change.

Just this one time, stick to your original principles... let us hear one final "yes we can". It was a good slogan. It's just a shame it only applied as far as election day.

Resistance is Futile

2009-07-16T16:29:00.000-07:00

Obama and pals are going to get a health care reform bill passed before the sun sets on 2009, and they're going to do it whether the bill turns out to be an ineffective turd that will squelch the chances of passing any meaningful health care legislation within our lifetimes or not.

Rahm Emanuel said as much - "failure is not an option". And "failure", to this administration, is characterized solely by an inability to pass a piece of legislation this year. "Failure" has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of said legislation, nothing to do with this so-called reform's ability to provide universal, affordable and effective health care coverage to Americans. The administration is so dead-set on getting something, anything passed, that they don't care what it's going to do to the greater cause of health care reform in the future. They're going to destroy whatever small chance might exist for a single-payer system in the future; they're going to rally Republicans everywhere to decry the evils of socialized medicine; they're going to run the national deficit even further through the roof, and despite all this, they're going to end up with some neutered piece of all-too-familiar looking legislation, stuffed with Republican amendments that completely change the original intention in some half-assed attempt at "bipartisanship" that still leaves too many Americans without access to the care they need, and when this bill fails to have any tangible positive effect on individual and national life, the Republicans are going to come back with guns blazing in 2012 or 2016 and set us back to a worse situation than we were in to begin with.

Obama is so focused on not becoming Hillary Clinton, he's becoming George W. Bush.

He's going to pass something just so he can check it off his presidential to-do list. It doesn't matter if it actually accomplishes its intended goal - it's fulfilling a campaign promise by just doing something he can point to when it comes time for re-election. This is the health care version of No Child Left Behind - it sounds great, it ostensibly fulfills an intended goal of meeting a pressing social need, but at the end of the day, it accomplishes absolutely nothing, except maybe making the problem even worse.

Keep a close watch on this developing political battle, America... because if they fuck up this one, we're all going to get left behind.

P.S.

Where is John Edwards when we need him? Oh, right... his career was decimated because Democrats aren't allowed to survive political sex scandals, whereas Republicans just make a public apology, promise to be good, and stay put in office (see Larry Craig, John Ensign, and Mark Sanford, to name just a few).

More Light Shed on the Prince of Darkness

2009-07-13T09:39:00.000-07:00

Machiavelli would be proud.

Kicking the Habit

2009-07-07T09:09:00.000-07:00

Two of the biggest recent news headlines - the death of Michael Jackson and the resignation of Sarah Palin from the Alaska Governorship - are interrelated in a way that is perhaps not readily apparent. Both the corporeal departure of the King of Pop and the political death of America's Hockey Mom represent the inevitable denouement to the pursuit of power and fame. Both were, in the end, the agents of their own destruction... and yet the blame is largely deflected to the media these erstwhile celebrities courted themselves.

Michael Jackson was thrust into the limelight at a young age via his early success with the Jackson Five. As his own star rose brightly and rapidly, Jackson sought the publicity that kept it soaring upward; he purposely attracted the media, courting a blossoming paparazzi culture that would evolve into the gossip-soaked, reality-synthesizing, exploitation-obsessed behemoth it is today. It has been argued that Jackson's love affair with this sort of celebrity caused a shift in tabloid media "reporting" from fantastical yarns about the Loch Ness Monster, alien autopsies and the ghost of Lincoln to the more ambiguously believable scoops on celebrity sex scandals, drug overdoses and eating disorders, and Jackson needed the paparazzi to survive as much as they needed him. In fact, probably more; there will always be new celebrities for the tabloids to gobble up, and thus Jackson became a master of weird, fringe-media attracting stunts over the years - naming his son "Blanket", dangling said Blanket out of a third story window above throngs of reporters, molding himself beyond recognition with plastic surgery, building a ranch called "Neverland" at which young boys just may have found out a little more than they'd like to about Peter Pan... the list goes on. In the end, the personal destruction that naturally accompanies an unrivaled quest for power and fame got the better of him, and Jackson's body, no longer able to stay up without prescription painkillers or go to sleep without anesthesia - anesthesia, for Chrissakes!! - simply gave out on him, in the midst of rehearsing for the pop world tour that would supposedly, at age 50, give the King his crown back.

Sarah Palin also seemed to stumble into the national spotlight after John McCain, deep into the 2008 campaign against superstar Barack Obama, made her his surprise pick for the vice presidential position. Much like Jackson, however, Palin and her surrogates had been making passes at the media early on, and this attraction only blossomed when the public began eating it up. She was coining catch-phrases, bumbling ignorantly through television interviews, proselytizing to crowds of rabid Republican fans, and hurling attacks at every oppositional demographic faster than you could wink an eye, and she handily stole the spotlight from that old guy who was supposed to be running for president. She single-handedly changed the terms of the debate, the tone of the campaign and, ultimately, the tide of support for the Republican presidential ticket. Moderates who previously had rallied to McCain's cause began drifting towards the Democrats; liberals became reinvigorated in their opposition; thinking Conservatives everywhere cringed at the Thrilla from Wasilla's painfully obvious ignorance and lack of experience. And Palin obviously was loving every minute of it. She bucked campaign advisers (remember that whole "going rogue" business?), continued to hold disastrous interviews - even went on Saturday Night Live after Tina Fey had made a career out of damningly impersonating her. It became quite apparent that the only person in the race Sarah Palin cared about was Sarah Palin, and since she first left Alaska, her constituents have only noticed that trend increasing. She has hardly even been in the state during the eight months post-election, opting instead for speaking tours, media and party events and visits to the lower 48. She has accomplished practically nothing politically, either, passing only one of her proposed bills; what bipartisan relations she had maintained with state Democrats in the passed completely evaporated after months of the Governor's partisan haranguing. Scandalous ruminations on her family and business relations have circulated constantly in the press. And, perhaps most tellingly, she has spent a fortune of her personal finances and millions of dollars of the state of Alaska's money on some fifteen ethics complaints that have been filed against her during only two and a half years in office. She eroded her credibility, destroyed her ability to govern, and made a fool of herself and her family in front of the entire nation; and, after resigning the Governorship, the one credit she could point to as qualification for higher elective office, before finishing her first term, she killed her political career and buried whatever chance she might have had at the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. She got a taste of fame and power, she couldn't get enough, and became another instance of the brightest star burning the shortest time. Lucky for all of us - but a downright embarrassing fall for the woman once hailed as the next leader of the GOP.

Of course, both Sarah Palin and Michael Jackson are getting the truckloads of press coverage they love(d) so well. Unfortunately for them, it's the kind of publicity that only happens once. Soon enough, the media will move on to more sensational headlines, to the next rising stars of the political and entertainment scenes, and their stories will fade from the hot topic of the moment to the stuff of dusty legend. Because as long as the public eats up substanceless infotainment, and as long as narcissistic celebrities throw themselves into the spotlight, the press will keep up this enabling relationship. Maybe someday we can all learn better. Maybe someday we can break this cycle of addiction. Maybe someday celebrities, consumers and reporters alike can kick the habit of sensational obsession.

Maybe. But probably not.

Hurry Up and Wait

2009-06-30T15:30:00.000-07:00

In keeping with the double-talk that has characterized the administration thus far, President Obama, speaking on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots, delivered another subtextually-condescending snippet to the gay community (many of whom had helped elect the so-called candidate of change, and many of whom dropped out of a recent DNC fundraiser after the White House released its offensive statement likening homosexuality to incest, and supporting that Republican stalwart, the Defense of Marriage Act). Even the flowery rhetoric of our generation's Great Communicator couldn't hide his administration's patronizing and hypocritical stance.

Perhaps the most infuriating thing about this speech is that Obama makes it clear he sees the double standard he is perpetrating, saying "it's not for me to tell you to be patient anymore than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago." And yet, in the next breath, he tells the gay community exactly that - to just be patient, that the administration has other priorities, to hurry up and wait for their civil rights. This admission thoroughly implicates Obama in active discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans; by himself drawing the parallel between the struggle for gay equality and the civil rights battles of the 1960s, he admits that gays and lesbians are treated as second-class citizens, that they do not currently have the liberties promised to all American citizens - and that they must continue to sit idly by while this treatment continues, sanctioned by the highest levels of government.

Obama's remark that "by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration" left the sourest of tastes in my mouth. 'By the end of the administration'? 'You guys'? In one sentence, he reveals that gay rights is of the lowest priority on his presidential agenda, and emphasizes the 'otherness' of the LGBT community. The subtle condescension of this remark is exemplary of Obama's whole attitude towards gay rights - indeed, towards many of the progressive causes he seemed to advocate when he was on the campaign trail. On the surface, it seems reasonable; to those who are not passionately invested in the issues, it sounds fair, pragmatic, bipartisan. But dig a little deeper, read the fine print, and you will find a conservative, corporatist politician who's just, like all the rest of them, trying to play it safe with an eye to the next election.

To quote Joe Biden, from a stump speech for then-candidate Obama himself: "That's not change. That's more of the same." It's time for us all to start paying attention to the discrepancies between who it is we voted for, and who ended up in the White House, after all.

All the World's a Stage...

2009-06-18T15:56:00.000-07:00

I have to preface this post by noting that I haven't written in a long time, due to the chaos of an impending move halfway across the country to a state I've never been outside the airport in. Yep... my better half and I are moving to Austin, TX, to add a little more blue to the big red state. Wish us luck. And now, back to politics.

Almost five months in to the Obama presidency, and my disillusion has long since set in. Sure, I'm glad that he won, it's great that the first black President is in the White House... but I have to say, I think I was right the first time about our friend Barack. My initial perception of him as being long on charisma and short on conviction; as being a master of rhetoric, but an ineffective policymaker; as being a champion of the masses only so long as the cameras were rolling; as being a successful peacemaker, but a blatant panderer... all of this, which I myself forgot in the fervor of the campaign and the excitement of historical milestone-setting, has unfortunately come to bear.

What irks me the most is that, really, I don't think he's a bad guy, and I don't generally think he has bad intentions. The problem is, we never know what his intentions truly are; we may never know what Barack Obama, the man, really believes. Everything about the President is a carefully crafted persona. A public facade. He aims to please, and he aims to please whomever the moment deems politically advantageous. Often, I think he's trying to please the right people - for example, worldwide Muslim populations, the international community - but almost as often, I think he's not, and the whole thing is beside the point anyway, since he should really be trying to promote what he thinks are the best policies, regardless of whom they may or may not appeal to. It's no coincidence he's always name-dropping Ronald Reagan - Obama is a panderer in the tradition of the master himself.

Like his Republican predecessor, Obama uses religious rhetoric and references to sell himself and certain of his agenda items - but I don't even get the impression that he's all that into religion. Sure, I think he believes in a Judeo-Christian traditional-type model of god, but really, I just don't think he cares that much. His past church attendance was spotty at best (his claim to have never heard most of the infamous Reverend Wright's sermons was true - he wasn't there); the Obamas still haven't found a church in the DC area, to the best of my knowledge; and when he speaks of god and religion, he tends to do so in general, broadly appealing terms... I doubt you'd ever hear this President cop to talking policy with the Almighty. He also is the first post-evangelical-revival Prez to directly reference atheists and agnostics in his public addresses (though, betraying his ever-present attempt to have it both ways, he did so using the heavily loaded term "non-believers").

God-fearing folk aren't the only ones to whom Obama has spoken out both sides of his mouth. He rails loudly and frequently against the banking industry, credit card companies and other powerful financial institutions - then throws trillions of taxpayer money at them whenever the opportunity arises, imposing only meager regulations. He says that all Americans deserve affordable health care - then backs down from the public option, the only option that would be truly affordable and accessible to everyone. He speaks in support of gay rights - then has Rick Warren speak at his inauguration, ignores his campaign pledge to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, and signs on to a White House memo supporting the Defense of Marriage Act and likening homosexuality to incest. He swore up and down the campaign trail and back again to end the war in Iraq and finish what we started in Afghanistan - then throws tankloads of defense dollars at both quagmires, and deploys an ever-increasing number of additional troops to the wage an unwinnable battle in the poppy-covered country no foreign power has ever emerged from victorious. This President talks a big, beautiful talk - and while I'm more than happy to have a Commander-in-Chief who can formulate a coherent sentence, words without deeds are unfortunately rather meaningless.

Basically, Obama acts like he's for the little guy, and then rolls over for the powerful interests that be time and time again. I admit it... I bought into his populist rhetoric in the heightened passions of the final months of the campaign season. And he sounded like he really believed it. I actually think that he does, deep down... that underneath the slick facade is a true egalitarian, a man of the people, a man with firm convictions and policy prescriptions. The problem is, he's bought into his own hype, and now seems more concerned with appearing on television, on building his media brand, than he is with bringing those buried convictions to bear in his own government. Obama has delivered a whole hell of a lot of speeches in the past several months... but what has he really accomplished? He promised that change was coming to Washington - and I'd like to see a little of that change actually occur. Let's get some things done. To quote Bill Maher: "We're done with the audacity of hope. Now I'm hoping for a little more audacity."

Play a part long enough, and eventually, you won't even be acting anymore. Here's hoping that one of these days, we get more than just a performance.

Comfortably Numb

2009-03-19T15:24:00.001-07:00

Maybe I'm alone on this one, but I have to admit that, as disgusting and reprehensible as AIG's use of taxpayer money to pay unwarranted executive bonuses may be... I just can't really care anymore. I've become so desensitized to the news of Ponzi-schemers stealing millions, financial-sector bigwigs lining their own pockets with our bailout money, spectacularly-failing Wall Street firms getting government aid only to continue to plummet flaming into the night, that honestly, I've become too numb to react anymore. I feel about as much tangible outrage about the most recent AIG scandal as President Obama actually expresses in his public statements... which is to say, yeah, in theory I'm angry, but it's not really worth the energy required to express it. Nothing's changed, and nothing will, as long as the government keeps attempting to solve the neverending catastrophes of the financial sector by throwing exorbitant sums of money at incompetent institutions staffed by greedy bourgeosie who haven't felt effect one of this supposedly capitalism-crippling recession.

You sort of lose the right to be "outraged" about a situation that you were essentially responsible for creating - or at the very least, should have seen coming a mile away. These organizations are failing for a reason. The people in power on Wall Street are not about to have a sudden philanthropic epiphany just because you tell them their practices are hurting ordinary Americans. They're not going to have an attack of conscience because you wag your finger at them.

So here's an idea for the Obama administration. STOP GIVING THEM THE MONEY. They've already had their chance at subsidized reformation. If this is how they think a business should be run - then that business should be allowed to fail. Put the taxpayer dollars where they might actually make a difference - in health care reform, in green-infrastructure development, in funding renewable energy distribution, in helping Americans get an education, in making sure the Social Security dollars we're paying in are still going to be there when we need them, in protecting the environment and supporting scientific innovation, in making rent more affordable and stemming foreclosures... I can think of an endless number of uses for that money better than bailing out Wall Street tycoons. That's the kind of change I want to see in this country.

I don't know about the rest of you... but I'm starting to think Jon Stewart is more qualified to run the Treasury than Tim Geithner. It's time for a populist revolution... who's with me?

Anyone?

Yeah, I know. You don't care anymore, either.

Do The Right Thing

2009-03-13T11:16:00.000-07:00

President Obama has found his administration faced with yet another opportunity to either forge a new direction for national policy, or to kowtow to the opposition in another ineffective attempt at finding the middle path. The most recent issue involves whether to award full benefits to same-sex spouses of federal employees, as outlined in the New York Times today. So far, when Obama finds himself publicly caught in the middle (as he so often does, given his self-designation as the national moderator), he has cast out a halfhearted attempt at pleasing both sides - which usually ends up as both sides getting pissed off and nothing new really being accomplished. Here's hoping that President Obama can, on at least this one issue, look at the evidence and see the clear choice that should be made; denying same-sex spouses of federal employees benefits, spouses legally married in their home state and thus entitled to all the matrimonial rights the state allows, is nothing short of discrimination. To strip these spouses of their rights based purely on their sexual orientation, based on some sick and arbitrary conception you have of what they ought to be doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms, is pure prejudice. It is no different than denying a spouse of a federal employee benefits because the spouse happened to be black, and Obama, of all people, should recognize this, should see the blatant hypocrisy between his stated ideals and some of his official rhetoric. Interracial marriage used to be illegal; such is the state of gay marriage today. But in those few states that have managed to inch forward in this stale debate, the federal government should recognize the rights these local governments designated and stop trying to legislate the national morality based on the personal convictions of a powerful few. The administration needs to cash some of those social-justice checks its campaign has written.

In short: President Obama, do the right thing.

The Silver (Embryonic) Lining

2009-03-09T09:07:00.000-07:00

Within the cloud of disappointing half-measures President Obama has brought to the political forefront lately, today reveals a silver lining. Obama's repeal of President Bush's ban on using federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research is a breath of progressive fresh air in an increasingly stagnant moderate atmosphere. This action, and the memo released in conjunction with it, reveals a glimpse of the open-minded rationalist we saw on the campaign trail, what seems like an eternity ago, before the depressing realities of compromise and acceptance of the system settled upon the shoulders of our fearless leader. Obama's firm stance on the separation of science and ideology is a refreshing reminder of why we voted for him - a reminder I wish we'd get more often. We know he is capable of standing up for his beliefs, for the preservation of scientific integrity, for the triumph of pragmatic truth over unthinking ideology, for the well-being of all Americans over the interests of the priveleged few. All we can do now is hope that he will take such a stand when the battles over health care, energy and the environment are brought to the front lines. So far, he hasn't given much sign that he will. But maybe, just maybe, he'll lead us in that now-familiar chorus: "yes we can."

Half-Measures Avail Us Nothing...

2009-02-19T16:49:00.000-08:00

I think, as usual, I'm in the minority here, but early as it may be, I really don't think I either love or hate the Obama administration. So far, it seems like everything Obama has tackled has amounted to a nice try... but just not quite enough. And I think it's pretty safe to infer that this is and will continue to be the Administration of Half-Measures. Obama's not going to do anything horrible (no illegal wars or warantless wiretapping here, I daresay)... but he's not going to do anything great, either. Just as I feared in the beginning, now-President Obama is just too eager to please, has too much of that kum-ba-ya congeniality to really take a stand for a liberal agenda, is just too "post-partisan" to really act on progressive legislation.

Which is a shame. Because desperate times call for desperate measures, and after eight years of eroding civil liberties, increasingly compromised ideals of equality and justice, snowballing deregulation, flagrant cronyism and influence peddling... we need bold, progressive legislation like never before.

But so far, we have gotten nothing but the half-measures typical of Democratic leaders (see Clinton), only with an insanely elevated emphasis on the (obviously failed) idea of "bipartisanship". Obama tried to bring Republican leaders into his cabinet - and he was made the naif by would-be Commerce Secretary Judd Gregg's belated coming-to-Jesus moment. He called to mind images of the New Deal with his proposed stimulus package, promising renewed investments in infrastructure, promising real progress in alternative transportation and green energy - and we got some token allocations with the same old majority emphasis on roads, with infrastructure repairs many deem insufficient, and with a huge bone thrown to the opposition in the form of tax breaks and slashed budgets for science and education (and for what? In the end only 3 Senate and zero House Republicans voted for the bill). He spoke in sweeping generalities of a new era of inclusiveness and equality - then had Rick Warren give the invocation at his inaugural, and increased the funding and scope of George W. Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. We were promised the dawn of accountability and oversight - and we got Cabinet nominees who were tax cheats and an almost completely useless government website. We were promised and end to America's foreign crusades - and we're getting a repositioning of the front lines from Iraq to Afghanistan (as evidenced by Obama's quiet commitment of 17,000 additional troops to the region). We were promised a new and improved health care system - and we're getting the same old health care system, only available to more people at the same abhorrent social and financial costs (where's John Edwards when you really need him??). We were promised redemption, and we're letting the Bush administration scuttle back to their caves, consultantships, think tanks and hedge funds, 100% scot-free.

He told us he wouldn't let a crisis go to waste. And so far, it looks an awful lot like he's letting a crisis go to waste.

Enough with the pandering. Enough with the fruitless attempts at bipartisan compromise. Enough with trying to have it both ways. America is in crisis, and the last thing we need is to prolong our inevitable descent into irrelevance. This is a time for bold action, a progressive agenda, for - what's that word again? Oh, right - change. So far, I haven't seen a whole hell of a lot that I can believe in... except the grim realization that old politics never dies - it just gets better marketing campaigns.

I'm not giving up on Obama yet... I just think he's on a current path to Clintondom. Which maybe was all he ever wanted from the beginning... but he made me think he'd be so much more.

Yes We Did... Now What?

2009-02-10T09:01:00.000-08:00

Now that the confetti has settled, the inauguration day parties have faded into hazy memory, and the awe of seeing the first African-American face behind the White House podium has subsided, the realities of governance are coming home for President Obama and the American people who elected him. During the transition, the leadership team Obama was assembling was lauded for its talent, pragmatism and integrity. Obama spoke with his trademark romanticism about the upcoming era of responsibility and bipartisanship, a time when officials would be held accountable and ideological differences would fall away to reveal a common pragmatism. Upon taking office, he maintained an expectation of Republican support for the upcoming stimulus legislation, boldly suggesting the possibility of an 80-vote passage in the Senate. Optimism was high among the electorate; excitement over the election of the first African-American president was palpable.

And then, reality set in. First came the House vote on the 'economic recovery and re-investment' package - a crushing defeat of Obama's bipartisan dreams, as not a single House Republican voted for the bill. Then came the scandals; following the earlier news of Bill Richardson's withdrawal came the tax woes of Tim Geithner, Nancy Killefer and, dramatically, Tom Daschle. Geithner's confirmation in the face of these revelations, along with widely-supported criticism that William Lynn skirted the no-lobbyists rule in his position at the NSC, along with Leon Panetta's claims that in his capacity as CIA Director the organization would strictly follow guidelines in the Army Field Manual except when it wouldn't... well, it all started to sound an awful lot like that old campaign-trail slogan, "more of the same". Obama, criticized during the election for being too inexperienced, seemed to have attempted to compensate by filling his cabinet with the very "old Washington insiders" he had previously decried. And, whether by way of a godawfully sloppy vetting team, or hubris on Obama's part in thinking that his popularity would overshadow any criticism against his Cabinet, the grand and admirable pre-election ideals of integrity, accountability, consistency, and renewal were dashed before the presidency reached its first 30 days.

I voted for Obama, but now, I'm starting to worry that the "inexperienced" attacks may have held some water, after all. It seems like, under the cool exterior, the new president is flailing, unsure of how to proceed. I find it telling that he is retreating to the familiar territory of the campaign trail, traveling to states like Indiana and Florida to push the stimulus package through his old standby: impassioned speeches to ordinary Americans. Obama may very well redeem himself, but he began this 44th Presidency with some serious mistakes. First and foremost, instead of displaying the leadership the new President himself insisted we needed after eight years of denials and retreats to Crawford, instead of taking an active role in crafting a bill that would ensure achievement of his promised goals and avoid much of the inevitable criticism from the opposition, Obama passed the stimulus-legislation buck to the Democratic Congressional leadership, resulting in a bill laced with pet projects and characterized by a lack of cohesive vision. Equally damaging was Obama's insistence on bipartisan cooperation above all else; by making this the utmost legislative priority, he put the ball squarely in the Republicans' court, because after all, bipartisanship depends entirely on their cooperation. He gave the Republicans the floor, allowing their criticisms of the stimulus (as expected, a demand for increased tax cuts and decreased spending, claiming that anything they didn't like 'wouldn't create jobs') to dominate the national discussion. Why Obama ceded the floor in the first place to the party largely responsible for getting the country into its various dire straits, why he is validating the opinions of those whose ideology ran us into the ground for the past eight years, why he is even giving the appearance of consideration to failed policies and flawed ideologies, is entirely beyond me. And in the end, all this bipartisanship got him was, well, a lot of intensely partisan legislative scuffling. There is absolutely no reason the minority should still be calling the Congressional shots. The Democrats are in control, and they need to act like it - most importantly, Obama needs to lead, on both sides of the aisle, with a firm hand. He cannot rely on the Democratic leadership to guarantee his administrative goals, and he cannot yield control of the debate to the opposition. If there was one thing the Bush administration could do well, it was message control - and so far the message we are getting from Obama's White House is one of weakness.

So, please, Obama, stop this rising tide of disillusion, not by making sweeping speeches and grand promises that will ultimately only disappoint us, but by leading boldly and deliberately. You are the Commander-in-Chief; command this legislation you keep telling us we so desperately need, command your White House team to act with integrity, command your own message and public persona. We voted for you because we believed in your ideals - so don't compromise them before your first month's even over. Think outside the Beltway box with your remaining Cabinet appointees, and ensure that they are people whose integrity meets your own ethical standards. Do not make compromises on that which you promised you would remain true. And do not sacrifice good governance for the sake of bipartisan pandering. I hate to break it to you, but the American political system is not going to change, at least not anytime soon. So operate within the framework that is actually in place, and use that pragmatism to make a difference.

Remember... the American people like a leader who can admit his mistakes, but we don't want to spend the next four years listening to the President apologize. Our country can't afford many more "screw-ups".

Whither Now Goes Health Care Reform?

2009-02-04T09:54:00.000-08:00

It was a sad day in Washington yesterday, as Tom Daschle, whom Obama not only named as director of Health and Human Services but also created a special "health care czar" position for, joined the rapidly-growing ranks of disgraced would-be Obama Cabinet designees and withdrew from consideration. Daschle withdrew over his failure to pay $140,000 in back taxes and interest from the use of a car-and-driver service granted to him by a media mogul/politico friend over the years. This announcement came right on the heels of Nancy Killefer's withdrawal from the newly-created post of Chief Performance Officer, over a much smaller amount ($900) but a more malicious-seeming intent (she refused to pay employment security taxes on a former nanny and had a lien placed on her house, whereas Daschle believably claims he thought the car service counted as a gift, not as income). And, of course, Tim Geithner came under fire during his own confirmation for failing to pay $100,000 in income taxes while he was employed at the IMF - though he managed to dodge the bullets and claim his post as Treasury Secretary.

The most unfortunate part about the recent realization of Obama's tax-evasion triumvirate is that the wrong guy made it to confirmation. One scandal-ridden Cabinet member could be dealt with, the administration and the Congress seemed to agree, but three was unacceptable. Geithner's hearing got underway first, due to the perceived urgency of his nomination in light of the economic crisis; he met significant opposition during his hearing, but the Democratic majority handed him an albeit tarnished victory. However, by the time Daschle's confirmation rolled around, the Obama administration was fast acquiring a reputation for hypocrisy, for being that nasty old more-of-the-same they so decried on the campaign trail. As member after member fell under scrutiny (besides the aforementioned, Bill Richardson and William Lynn were ethically called-out), Daschle's tax problems (as well as some questionable psuedo-lobbying activity in his recent past) seemed like too much fuel for the fires of those who felt betrayed. In light of Geithner's tainted confirmation, Daschle, many felt, couldn't also be allowed to slide. Of course, if Obama knew he was only going to get to keep one of his three top Cabinet nominees, you better believe he wouldn't have picked Geithner. Daschle truly was uniquely qualified for the HHS position (and, of course, the position Obama created for him); a passionate advocate of universal health care and systematic reform (one of our nation's most dire needs), he is one of the only public figures with both the issue advocacy and expertise as well as the political connections and governmental savvy that will be required, if health care reform has a prayer of a chance of getting passed. Not only was Geithner a much less vital personality, but, for the love of god, he was up for Treasury Secretary. Overseeing the IRS. AND HE DIDN'T PAY HIS TAXES. What could be more direct grounds for dismissal than that?!?

Regardless, the future of health care reform in this country looks, at the moment, bleak. The only other names that immediately come to mind in regards to health care are Ted Kennedy (dying of brain tumor) and Hillary Clinton (already tapped for an inappropriate spot as Secretary of State). The administration never so much as contemplated anyone but Daschle for the position, according to the Washington Post. While Daschle, like other idiots, should have just paid his damn taxes and avoided this whole mess in the first place, and while the whole situation is a disgrace to him and to the new President - he was still the best man for the job.

Perhaps Obama shot himself in the foot by setting standards too high for any Washingtonian to possibly meet. But, then again, he did promise us, during the campaign, that he wasn't going to fill his White House with the same old Washington insiders. His campaign attracted attention and praise due in large part to its preponderance of Beltway outsiders - it was what gave it the grassroots appeal that carried the junior Senator to the top of the polls. And yet, no sooner had Obama been declared the winner of the election than he began to pick his staff members straight from - you guessed it - the same old pool of seasoned politicos. The Clinton connections go way beyond Hillary Clinton herself - so how, exactly, did Obama expect to bring a brand new day in presidential politics when the fundamental personnel had not changed? Either Obama should have stuck to his promise, and picked from a pool of rookies, or he should not have set the goal so high as to be unable to achieve it. Now he just looks, well, naive. (And Jesus, who picked that vetting team, anyway??)

Obama must take this opportunity to seriously evaluate where he wants this nation to go, and how he means to achieve it. There is way too much at stake to be making gambles at this stage in the game.

Mr. Sims Goes to Washington

2009-02-02T14:46:00.000-08:00

It has recently been announced that our very own Ron Sims, long-serving King County Executive, has been tapped by the Obama administration to fill a deputy position in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. If confirmed, we here in the Puget Sound will be losing a strong, progressive voice, a supporter of equal rights and an advocate of much-needed infrastructure improvements. But I suppose Obama's White House is a good place for him to go. Goodbye, Mr. Sims, and thank you for your service to our humble County of King.

Oh, and here's hoping we don't all find out HE hasn't paid his income taxes, either... heh...

Return of the Rule of Law

2009-01-23T10:20:00.000-08:00

The image speaks for itself. So far, Obama is putting his executive order where his mouth is, signing memorandums ordering the closing of Guantanamo within a year, reviving the Freedom of Information Act, and reversing legislation that prevented foreign governments accepting US aid for family planning from providing assistance for abortion services. Let's hope this is just the beginning of a new era in which the rule of law prevails, human rights come first, accountability is the standard and the US is a less bombastic and more respected partner on the international scene.

The Day We Painted the White House Black

2009-01-20T16:08:00.000-08:00

This morning, at 12 p.m EST, Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America - and, of course, as our nation's first black Commander-in-Chief.

The enormity of the day speaks for itself, but I felt I had to add to the bustling blogosphere my own sentiments of pride, awe, respect and a skeptical optimism for the future. I am proud that my country has taken such a step forward in progressive politics and equal rights; I am proud that the rest of the world is finally looking at America in celebration, and looking towards the White House for leadership and guidance. It feels so good to be able to look to my President in awe of his intelligence, his rhetorical skill and his leadership abilities. His speech was impressive, even in the context of his soaring campaign rhetoric; it was at once academic and accessible, realistic and hopeful, referential to America's rich and varied past while looking towards the future. It harkened back to the good old days of political oratory, and I must say, it was downright inspiring to listen to.

I once again have respect for the executive office, and while I know President Obama will disappoint me with more than one of his policy decisions over the next four to eight years, I at least know that I will be able to respect him and his judgment. He is not going to save us from all our problems; he is not the Messiah. But he does have all the qualities necessary to be a great President - intelligence, a thorough knowledge of the Constitution, rhetorical skill, political savvy, an eerie capability to remain calm under pressure, a progressive nature, an openness to new and competing ideas, a desire for bipartisan cooperation (and so far, the ability to achieve it), and a vision for a better America. To even be able to look to the new Presidency with a skeptical optimism is an amazingly welcome change, and I do believe that our 44th President, our first African-American President, will be a good leader. We the people must not fall into complacency - we must remain vigilant, holding Obama and his administration accountable for every decision. But we can rest assured knowing that there is, at last, a steady and capable hand at the helm. The image of the departing executives was a perfect visual summation of the moment at hand - Dubya shuffled, hands in his pockets, onto a helicopter at the far side of the Mall; the decrepit monster Dick Cheney was pushed towards a black sedan by his wife in a wheelchair. The Obamas, young, black, full of life and the excitement of the day, stood on the steps and bid them farewell.

Best of luck, Barack Obama. Today we are all living in history.

Today is the day that America, in the words of the prophet Luda, painted the White House black.

We May Be Through with the Past...

2009-01-15T10:14:00.000-08:00

President-in-five-days Barack Obama has recently expressed his perspective on whether or not Bush administration officials should be prosecuted for the atrocities committed over the course of its increasingly-Orwellian 'War on Terror'. Calls for such prosecutions have focused on war crimes charges for "enhanced interrogation techniques" (read: torture), extraordinary rendition, abuse of prisoners (and the law) at Guantanamo and warrantless wiretapping; such prosecutions, were they to be pursued, would target not the grunts on the ground (who eerily say they were "just following orders", but I suppose one can only blame them so much) but the upper-level decisionmakers who authorized the measures - and based on recent statements by unfortunately-still-Vice President Cheney, the cloud goes all the way to the top of the chain of command.

Now, given all the rhetoric we've heard for the past two years about "change", about making a "clean break from the past", one would think that as President, Obama would want to right the wrongs of the past administration, would want to bring to justice those who have so flagrantly violated the law and pissed on the Constitution for the past two terms. One would hope that a President who claims a high moral standing, who claims to want to restore ethics and accountability to our nation's disgraced executive branch, would not let war crimes go unpunished, would not want to continue the shameful and Nixonian precedent that the President is above the law.

Unfortunately, one would be wrong.

Obama has been deliberatley oblique in response to questions about the possible prosecution of Team Dubya members, but he has said, in quite a bit more words, that he will not direct anyone in his own administration to pursue such a track. He says that he does not want to dwell on the mistakes of the past, but to move forward and focus on the challenges that lie ahead. He wants to change without emphasizing how bad things were before.

This would be all well and good if we were talking about, oh, for example, prosecuting a blow job. But we're not talking about some sex scandal or some of the old run-of-the-mill politicking, here. We are talking about war crimes. We are talking about the systematic destruction of the Constitution, the flagrant assertion that the executive branch is above the law, the denial of human rights, the abuse of prisoners, the unwarranted spying on our own nation's citizens. These accusations are not something that can be simply swept under the rug. This isn't something the American people just need to "get over". This is criminal activity, and it needs to be brought to justice.

If Obama truly wants to make a fresh start for the White House, if he truly believes in his own mantra of 'change', then it is imperative he lead by example. He needs to prove that the moral integrity is being restored to this country's leadership, and he needs to prove that crimes will not go unpunished simply because they were committed by people in power. If he wants his own as well as future administrations to behave justly, lawfully and in the best interests of the people, if he believes in the Constitution he will soon swear to uphold, he needs to show us just what that's worth. The precedent that will be set by allowing the Bush administration to laugh all the way to the bank with our nation's honor, integrity and power in tow is more dangerous than any Republican boat-rocking Obama could possibly be fearing at the moment.

"The book says we may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."

The only way to truly and honestly move forward is to properly deal with the wreckage of the past eight years. And if Obama can't see that... well, then we may have declared him a visionary just a little too soon.

Refreshingly Corrupt

2008-12-11T11:16:00.000-08:00

I have to admit it. The flagrant, idiotic arrogance with which Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich engaged in systematically corrupting his already blighted public office is, in a weird way, sort of refreshing. He brazenly discussed extortion and bribery on phones he knew were likely to be tapped. He threatened his opponents and sought openly to enrich himself and his family before even considering his constituents. And he made it so entertaining! Blagojevich's conversations sounded more like Tony Soprano than that other star of the wiretap, Richard Nixon. Rod the God even had the brass cojones to call the President-Elect of the United States a "motherfucker" , for refusing to participate in his evil scheme to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder.

So why, you ask, do I find this gubernatorial "crime spree" (in Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's words) a refreshing occurence? Well, quite frankly, it's kind of nice to see good old-fashioned dirty dealings back in political news. After eight years of Orwellian power grabs and constitutional subversions by Bush and pals; the increasingly horrific costs paid in civil liberties, American and Iraqi lives, the US' international reputation; financial and domestic stability; two terms of being lied to about everything from the origins of the 9/11 attack to the pretenses of the Iraq War to the goal of national unification... well, a scandal as clear-cut as this bumbling Mob goon of a governor, complete with an '80s bouffant and dollar signs for eyes, seems downright quaint. No wars were unjustly launched, habeus corpus was not suspended, nobody was tortured in a secret military prison, nobody died for what proved to be a false cause. The guy wanted money. Lots of money. And he was prepared to engage in any form of bribery or extortion necessary to get that money. Plain and simple. Far from engaging in a conspiratorial plan for Middle Eastern domination, this dude wasn't even coordinated enough to avoid a word-for-word exposure of his criminal plans to the FBI.

So, really, the Blagojevich corruption case is a throwback to the good old days of political scandal... days when cash was king, blatant power plays were the norm and elected officials were dumb enough to explain their nefarious plans on tape, like some sort of soon-to-be-foiled Bond villain. Thanks, Mr. Blagojevich, for reminding us what a scandal is really all about.

The Great Divide

2008-12-10T22:44:00.001-08:00

While I consider former governor, failed presidential candidate and successful Fox television host Mike Huckabee to be pretty much the antithesis of everything I believe in... I have to give the guy credit. He is starting the dialogue that we so need to have in this country - the conversation between religious devotees and atheists, agnostics and the secularly inclined. While ignorant monsters such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter make it their mission to wage cultural warfare against non-Christians everywhere, Huckabee has proven himself more than willing to sit down with even the most vehement detractors of religion (read: my hero, Bill Maher) and have a sane, rational discussion about faith, politics and the nexus of both. Huckabee's reasoning may not make any logical sense outside of a staunchly evangelical framework, but at least he's not screaming his righteous head off at his ideological adversaries or calling them 'godless' (though the latter is a label that some of us, of course, wear proudly). Until religious believers and secularists alike are able to sit down at the same table and have a calm, engaged and intelligent discussion about faith, our society and political system will remain stalemated.

Well, okay, it'll probably still be stalemated after that... but at least maybe we'll all have our dignity intact.

Check out the last six or seven minutes of December 9th's episode of the Daily Show to see a great example of a constructive religious and political debate (oh, and it doesn't hurt that Jon Stewart delivers a rousing series of gentlemanly knockout punches to Huckabee's circular arguments, either!).

The Best Christmas Ever

2008-12-04T09:50:00.000-08:00

In an unusual display of holiday cheer, Governor Chris Gregoire has allowed, for the first time, an athiest message to be displayed next to the nativity scene in the state capitol. Citing first amendment rights of free expression, the Governor rightly discerned that it was just as fair to allow our friends at the Freedom From Religion Foundation to put up a sign as it was to allow a diorama of the most famous Christian myth. However, the message the FFRF chose to display was unfortunately worded; during the time of year when even us secular types are celebrating the Christmas season, the deliberately provocative (albeit true) message about there being no god and that religion 'hardens hearts' is obviously being less than well-received. As provocation begets provocation, our humble state of Washington has made national news, making the shit of none other than the master hatemonger, Bill O'Reilly.

While it is par for the course, the Christian reaction really, to me, begs the question, is the faith of these people so weak that it can be threatened by a sign proposing an alternative viewpoint? If they truly believe in their faith, why should they care what anyone else believes in? Especially at this time of year, I am constantly bombarded by Christian imagery, spokespersons and institutions (to say nothing of its involvement in our political and legal system, but in no way does it weaken or undermine my atheistic belief. I do not demand that the nativity scene be removed from the capitol (though without the FFRF sign to counter it, I might, seeing as that could be seen as state endorsing church). I don't care if someone is a Christian, as long as they don't try to force me to accept their beliefs. The point, really, is that they want the Judeo-Christian viewpoint to be the only accepted viewpoint. It's not about freedom of religion or diversity or the so-called sanctity of the church... it's about rewriting history, about making the USA a de facto Christian theocracy. You better believe there would be almost as big a stink about an alternative Islamic display in the Capitol, only the bigotry in that case would be veiled in a semblance of respect for diversity. Anyway, I don't think that putting up a sign constitutes forcing one's belief on another. It's simply exemplifying a perspective... just as the magical baby in a manger is exemplifying another viewpoint, albeit one that requires a much greater stretch of the imagination.

I don't think anyone has the right to demand the removal of the FFRF's sign, just as no one has the right to demand the removal of a nativity scene (unless it is presented as a direct endorsement by a state authority). However, as I said before, I think the wording of the message was unfortunate, was merely provocative for provocation's sake. The message was obviously designed to piss people off, to dump on the Christmas holiday that is celebrated by a diversity of people, including athiests (and anyway, most of its modern incarnations are based on paganism). That sort of behavior is no better than the Bill O'Reillys of the world who are constantly trying to piss off the left. And most harmful of all, it perpetuates the stereotype that all athiests are bitter, hateful people with no ethical fiber and no regard for others' feelings. That is the last thing our cause needs. I think religion is, as Bill Maher says, batshit, but that doesn't mean I'm going to insist it be eradicated. People can believe what they want to believe, and they must extend me the same courtesy. I wish more people subscribed to my way of thinking, but the way to persuade people is through positive publicity, through intelligent discussion and constructive argument rather than senseless provocation. On all sides of this conflict, we need to retain our composure and engage one another like civilized human beings (are you listening, O'Reilly??). There may be a lot of Christians in this country, but we are not a theocracy. Nor are we a nation of atheists. Nobody should be so ignorant as to assume that their word is law for everyone in the United States. That is not what the Founders wanted, and it is not appropriate for a democracy today.

Brand New Colony

2008-11-28T14:21:00.000-08:00

I'll be the first to admit that I've been less than enthusiastic about many of Obama's Cabinet appointments, which have largely seemed to be less "change we can believe in" than "change back to where we were eight years ago". But one aspect of the President-Elect's nascent domestic policy is refreshingly truly progressive, not only in its long-term orientation, but in his persistence to keep it at the forefront despite the plummeting economy. That aspect is what the pundits have dubbed "The Green New Deal".

Throughout the long campaign season, Obama talked frequently about the creation of a "green jobs" sector, about necessary investment in alternative energy sources and tackling climate change. Such priorities, in the past, have fallen by the wayside once the promising party was sworn into office, and many of us environmentalists have been waiting for Obama's other green shoe to drop. On the contrary, however, I have been pleasantly surprised to hear his progressive environmental rhetoric become more prominent since he won the election.

With the economy in a seemingly endless downward spiral and gas prices at a low I never thought I'd see again, most assumed the president-elect would put the Green New Deal on the backburner, but Obama has shown true leadership and insight in his insistence on the necessary of green restructuring now, before it becomes an even more dire problem. After so many years of presidents who couldn't see past their 4-year term and re-election, it is unbelievably refreshing to have a Commander in Chief who is - gasp! - forward-looking, concerned with the long-term security of the nation and the world. It shouldn't be such an amazing achievement - but in this country, unfortunately, it is a sea change in leadership style. The economy is in the tank, but Obama appears unwilling to let that prevent him from championing what will be an admittedly expensive undertaking - the conversion of the entire nation's infrastructure to a "green energy" system, the implementation of alternative fuels, the replacement or conversion of fossil-fuel based transportation to renewable energy power. Despite the price tag, President-Elect Obama actually seems to grasp the concept that we cannot wait to make these changes until we desperately need them; that the environment is already in grave danger and cannot survive another presidential term of unrelenting destruction; that a sacrifice in the present is an investment in the future, and that ultimately we will all be vastly better off for having made the change. Not to mention that in a period of rising unemployment, the opportunity to create the thousands of "green jobs" that will be needed to convert the American infrastructure and develop and produce new technology and product cannot be overemphasized.

Obama's long-term vision, grounded realism, and pragmatic idealism are precisely what this country needs if we are to turn our environmental and energy policy around. Before even taking the oath of office, he has already shown the path to a much-needed progressive future for America, and a dedication to the hard work that will be required to make the Green New Deal a reality. Here's hoping that commitment stays with him all the way to the Oval Office.

Just When He Thought He Was Out...

2008-11-17T21:43:00.000-08:00

And so it begins.

With President-Elect Obama's transition team fully up and running, pundits, national and global leaders and political junkies alike are eagerly anticipating the rollout of cabinet appointments over the next 66 days. The only selection made public thus far, volatile Clinton-era veteran Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, has already raised its fair share of eyebrows. As names of potential picks for such prominent posts as Secretary of State, Defense and Treasury circulate in the media, the flurry of accolades and criticisms being launched at these mere mentions make apparent the challenges President Obama will face. The problem with bipartisanship, with making nice and bridging the gap and so forth, is that suddenly, you find yourself with a whole hell of a lot of people to please. Broad appeal is essential on the campaign trail... but in the Oval Office, that just means a broad spectrum of the populace feels like you owe them.

A subset of this greater problem is the Clinton conundrum, which is itself multifaceted. Despite all his calls for a change in government, Obama must obviously select more than a few old hands for the prominent White House positions, staffers who know the system and how to work it. The problem is, to get experienced executive-branch Democrats, you have to go back to the last time the party held the presidency... which essentially means The Clinton Administration: Redux. So part of Obama's challenge will be balancing the mandate for change with a need for experienced staffers (who just happen to be relics of the Clinton dynasty). All that isn't even counting the still-disgruntled Hillary supporters, or those public officials who turned "Judas" on the Clintons in the primaries and want to be rewarded for it.

The other side of the challenge is the Clintons themselves. The Clintons are sort of like the Sopranos when it comes to loyalties - once you're with them, you're with them for good; you don't want to owe them, and if you cross them, you will regret it. Like Carmela Soprano, Hillary reaped the benefits of Bill's politicking and has the power of threat-by-association, without having to have gotten her own hands dirty. Now, Hillary - and, perhaps even more vehemently, Bill - believes she is owed something major by the new President-Elect. He owes her for stealing her mantle of inevitability, her "historic" moment, for stealing what was probably her only shot at reclaiming the White House... and, of course, he owes her for her post-nomination stump support, and he owes Bill big time for his rousing speech at the Democratic National Convention (which was pretty convincing, until you heard him on the talking-heads circuit a few days later glowing over none other than John McCain). Whether in the White House or not, the Clintons are still the most powerful force in the Democratic party, and they still have a wide-ranging support network. Many people feel like Obama owes Hillary a plum position in the Cabinet... and the Clintons (usually) get what they want.

However, this idea of Hillary being named as a candidate for Secretary of State is utterly ludicrous. She'd be a stupider choice for the office than John Kerry - and I thought that was the stupidest choice they could possibly make. Hillary may have been Ms. Experience on the campaign trail, but when it comes to foreign policy expertise, she has no real credentials to boast. Sure, she tagged along with Bill during his presidential globe-trotting, but she wasn't exactly in a position of power. The extent of her resume for this job pretty much consists of her being sniped at on the tarmac in Bosnia - oh wait, except that didn't happen.

Furthermore, the influence of Bill's Clinton Global Initiative should not be underestimated. Essentially the multinational corporation of philanthropy, the CGI has its own agenda abroad that any thinking person would cite as a potential conflict of interest. Who's to think Hillary wouldn't move to benefit the organization at the expense of a presidency she feels she herself deserved? I understand wanting to throw her a bone, but for god's sake, throw her one that actually makes sense, one that actually might make a positive contribution to your administration, not just one that the public has heard of before. Make her the new Health Care Czar. Put her in charge of Education (because honestly, the only fantasy appointment that makes less sense is the notion of Colin Powell in that spot). Put her in charge of something that she actually knows about - there are plenty of titles Hillary Clinton would be a great fit for, but Madame Secretary sure ain't one of them.

So, come on, President-Elect Obama. Everyone promises to be a different kind of politician... but the American people actually believe that you mean it. Don't start off making the same mistakes the rest of the guys have. You made it through the primaries against the Clintons, and now that you're out, don't let them pull you back in. Be your own man - you're the one we voted for, after all.

A Brief Aside

2008-11-12T11:39:00.000-08:00

As I am currently in my own personal hell studying for the GRE on Friday, I regret that blogging has been put on hold this week. I just felt I had to make a brief aside, based on what I've heard on NPR and my numerous political podcasts lately.

Please. No more metaphors for the failing economy. It's not a car. It's not a hospital patient. It's not an animal in a zoo. It's an economy, and you all shall refer to it that way. And if you absolutely, positively must use a financial metaphor, for god's sake, don't make it a mixed one.

Learn to speak English, people. That is all.

... And Yet So Far

2008-11-06T19:53:00.000-08:00

Now that the initial excitement of the historic Obama victory has started to wear off, reality has started to creep back in. While we came a long way as a nation this past Tuesday, we have still only come so far. There were still winners who shouldn't have been, people who are still being oppressed, liberties that are being withheld. In terms of becoming a progressive nation, we came so close... and yet we are still so far.

An issue in this election that is being conveniently ignored is the fact that while one group of Americans were expanding their rights, another group was losing theirs. California's passage of Proposition 8, the reactionary ban on gay marriage, was a resounding example of the bigotry and ignorance that still persists in so much of the electorate (and was echoed in Arizona, Arkansas and Florida). While one minority was electing its own to the highest office in the nation, another minority was being systematically denied one of the most fundamental citizens' rights. The support for Prop 8 came out of fear, archaic religious beliefs, ignorance and secular intolerance, and persuasion by an ad campaign so dirty and misleading it made McCain-Palin's spots look like Sesame Street. Flying in the face of an inspiringly progressive Supreme Court ruling that had legalized gay marriage just a few months before, the California electorate decided that gay and lesbian couples were separate and unequal citizens, and that their right to marry should be stolen away. A black man may have finally made it to the presidency, but rights such as marriage, adoption and legal and social benefits are still firmly labelled "straights only".

Though I am proud of our country for making a major step past racism on Tuesday, I am disgusted by the level of ignorance and intolerance that still remains - and it is vital that we not stop and pat ourselves on the back just yet. We cannot become complacent, we cannot think for a moment that our work is done because we now have a black president. Gays and lesbians are still not equal citizens under the law. Hate crime legislation is necessary and has improved recently, but civil unions, where they even exist, are modern-day segregation, "separate but equal" institutions for second-class citizens. Athiests are still publicly and vehemently hated and discriminated against, and it is a national axiom that an "outed" athiest could never be elected president. In fact, polling data reports that athiesm is the number one quality of a presidential candidate that would lose them peoples' vote; more people would vote for a Mormon, a Muslim or an openly gay candidate than would pull the level for one of the 'godless'. In this very election, hate-spewing, corrupt and despicable candidates were still elected to prominent offices; the modern McCarthyite Michele Bachmann kept her seat in Minnesota, and the seven-times-convicted felon, "Uncle" Ted Stevens, looks like he will be re-elected in that backwater horrorshow known as Alaska. Oh, and let's not forget... nearly half the electorate still voted for McCain-Palin.

So, America, don't rest on your laurels just yet. We achieved something in this presidential election, but our work as a nation is far from over.

We are still so close, and yet so far away from being the just, fair and equitable society we like to think we are.

Maybe under President Obama, we can all roll up our sleeves and really, truly get to work. But that is up to us.