Another Liberal Values Obama Flood

[Dr Ron]

For those who need more reading material, but want to remain here in the forum, here's another flood of Obama-oriented articles from Liberal Values. I'll post them as replies here so that I don't fill up the front page with a bunch of different articles all from me. As DU does not use standard HTML codes, check out the original posts for links, pictures, videos, and often better formatting.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/

Incidentally, if you haven't been by lately, there's been a major overhaul in the site. The format is much improved, and it even loads a lot quicker. (Every now and then the cache software does strange things. If you run into this, clicking on a comment thread will often force it to give the newest version of the page.

[Dr Ron]

1. Bill Clinton: If I Only Were A Republican

Bill Clinton: If I Only Were A Republican

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3163

April 21st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

It just gets harder and harder to take Bill Clinton seriously. The Trail quotes Clinton:

“If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she’d have a 300-delegate lead here,” he said. “I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don’t have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result.”

This system which the Democrats chose just happens to be the one which allowed Bill Clinton to win the nomination in 1992. What Clinton is really singing here is, “If Only I Were a Republican.” He’s also singing, “If I Only Had a Brain.” Intelligence in running the campaign is what has really made the difference. Barack Obama figured out how to win based upon the rules in existence. If there were different rules, there’s no reason to think that Clinton would have won as Obama would have based his strategy upon whatever rules there were. The Clintons failed to plan for a candidate surviving after Super Tuesday and would have been in trouble regardless of the rules.

It is also amusing how the criteria changes. Early in the race, when Hillary Clinton had the lead due to superdelegates who committed to her early, the claim was that this was a race about delegates. When Obama took the lead in delegates the Clintons claimed it was about the popular vote. With Obama winning more delegates, more states, and more of the popular vote, Clinton now claims that the nomination should have been settled by an entirely different set of rules.

[Dr Ron]

2. How Hillary Clinton Would Deal With John McCain

Video at original post

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3162

Hillary Clinton is mad that Barack Obama suggested that John McCain would not be as bad as George Bush. Hillary Clinton would prefer to be harder on McCain–even to Swift Boat him. Above is the type of ad we might expect if Clinton receives the nomination.

[Dr Ron]

3. Obama Responds to Clinton’s Ad

Another video

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3161

Obama responds to Clinton’s ad based upon fear by asking, “And who in times of challenge will unite us, not use fear and calculation to divide us?”

Clinton just seems to never learn how her tactics only play to Obama’s strengths.

[Dr Ron]

4. Clinton Continues Negative Campaign Over Nonsense

Clinton Continues Negative Campaign Over Nonsense

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3159

April 21st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

When Hillary Clinton hasn’t been pandering to fear or fabricating arguments that Obama, and not her, has been engaged in negative campaigning, she’s been resorting to all sorts of other nonsense. Last week her campaign concentrated on distorting Obama’s comment in San Francisco, falsely claiming he was insulting small town voters. Today the morning news concentrated on her latest attack on Obama for saying that all three of the current candidates would be better than Bush:

“Senator Obama said today that John McCain would be better for the country than George Bush,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Now, Senator McCain is a real American patriot who has served our country with distinction. But Senator McCain would follow the same failed policies that have been so wrong for our country the last seven years. Senator McCain thinks it’s O.K. to keep our troops in Iraq for another 100 years. Is that better than George Bush?”

Obama had said:

“You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain – and all three of us would be better than George Bush,” Mr. Obama said. “But what you have to ask yourself is, who has the chance to actually, really change things in a fundamental way?”

Obama’s campaign later backtracked on this:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said: “It’s hard to imagine a president doing a worse job than President Bush but one thing is clear, John McCain wants to do his best to emulate Bush’s failed economic and foreign policies and even his divisive political tactics.”

Perhaps there is no reason to say anything good about the opposition, but saying someone is not as bad as George Bush hardly means they would be an acceptable president. George Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time and odds are the next president won’t be as bad, even if a Republican. McCain is certain to distance himself from Bush during the general election campaign and it will be necessary to campaign against McCain’s own faults and not against George Bush.

McCain very well might not be as bad as Bush. While he shares many of his faults, at least McCain is against torture (even if inconsistent when it comes to voting), is more willing to admit that global warming exists (although we don’t know if he will actually do anything more than Bush), and doesn’t get along with the religious right as Bush does (although he sure does pander to them).

I don’t really care all that much if someone wants to say that McCain is not as bad as Bush, or if they believe he is as bad. We won’t really know unless we are stuck with him as president. Regardless of whether McCain is as bad as Bush, this is a nonsense political issue. Whatever Obama said about this has zero meaning in terms of deciding upon who to vote for. However, the manner in which Hillary Clinton has tried to turn this into a major campaign issue only highlights once again why we need an end to her type of politics. It’s the final day before a major primary and the morning news concentrated on this attack from Clinton. Doesn’t she have any better final messages to voters with regards to reasons to vote for her?

Steve Benen also points out that it has been Hillary Clinton who not only has been campaigning by saying something he objects to far more than saying that McCain is not as bad as Bush:

Because it seems to me the single most troubling thing the Clinton campaign has done all year was praise John McCain for having the experience necessary to be president, for passing the “commander-in-chief threshold,” for being a “moderate,” and even for being right about global warming.

Who’s been cheering on John McCain?

[Dr Ron]

5. Clinton Resorts to Scare Tactics Yet Again

Clinton Resorts to Scare Tactics Yet Again

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3158

April 21st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Hillary Clinton is coming under attack for resorting to scare tactics to get votes, including using images of Osama bin Laden in her final ads before the Pennsylvania primary.

The Obama campaign has responded with this statement by Bill Clinton in which he says:

Now one of Clinton’s Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think; if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That’s the best.

This ad is reminiscent of the red phone ads. Resorting to such scare tactics has been a common strategy from the Clinton campaign, representing one reason why she is a poor choice to replace George Bush. This latest ad is actually less objectionable than some previous incidents. After losing in Iowa Clinton flew into New Hampshire to give this warning: “We have people who are plotting against us right now, getting ready to repeat the atrocity of Sept 11. We know it, I see the intelligence reports.”

Hillary Clinton is also the one who used the 9/11 attack to justify voting to go to war in Iraq:

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

[Dr Ron]

6. Yet Another Clinton Lie–This Time Distorting Blog Post

Yet Another Clinton Lie–This Time Distorting Blog Post

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3157

April 21st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Although Clinton has been waging a dirty, negative campaign, she has often tried to distort the facts to make it appear that it is Obama who has been doing this. Marc Ambinder reports that the Clinton campaign has distorted a headline to falsely suggest that Obama has been attacking her. He writes:

In their newest television spot in Pennsylvania, the Clinton campaign used a headline from this blog to to make the point that Barack Obama was on the attack. Indeed, my headline was: “Obama on the Attack.” That was true.

But my headline did not so much refer to his specific charges against Sen. Clinton on health care as it did to Obama’s remarks on the stump, the slam on Clinton by an Obama supporter on a conference call, etc.

In general, I don’t consider a contrast ad on health care to be an “attack.” As I pointed out in another blog post, an Obama campaign aide says the Obama health care ad was aired as a direct response to an ad funded by the American Legacy Project, a 527 that receives its money from Clinton donors. While I don’t think the Clinton use of the headline was beyond the pale, I will write my headlines more carefully from now on.

This has been a common tactic used by Clinton to draw a false equivalence between Obama disagreeing with her on issues and Clinton’s dishonest attacks.

[Dr Ron]

7. Voting on Values and The Working Class

Voting on Values and The Working Class

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3148

April 20th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Obama’s “bitter-gate” comment led to a lot of controversy over very little. Obama gave a brief answer to a complex question at a fund raiser, which the Clinton and McCain camps tried to distort to earn their own political capital. The attempt was to suggest that Obama was insulting voters in small town America, but so far there is little evidence that anyone has taken this very seriously.

After all the political posturing began to die down, there has been some more serious discussion as to whether Obama was right. This is actually difficult to give a definitive answer on as Obama was giving a very brief response in answer to a complex question, and even Obama later stated he was displeased with the wording used. It is hardly remarkable that an attempt to give a brief answer to a very complex question without advanced preparation would not turn out to be a definitive response on the issue.

Paul Krugman, whose blind Obama-hatred has seriously compromised his ability to think straight and write coherently, has attempted to look at the actual issues in a recent column. Krugman has at least finally been convinced, partially by a recent column by Larry Bartels, that Thomas Frank’s argument in What’s the Matter With Kansas? is incorrect. Franks argues that Democrats have been losing because they have abandoned economic populism, allowing lower-income voters to vote Republican, against their economic interests, based upon values issues.

There is some truth to this but I disagree with Frank’s inherent assumption that voting should be based upon economic issues as opposed to on values. Franks also fails to recognize, as Bartels argued, that there are many of us affluent liberals who could also be said to be voting against our economic interests. From the perspective of electoral politics, Franks might be right that Democrats could regain some voters on economic issues by shifting to the left, but this would also cost them the support of many other voters.

Both economics and values are considered in voting. People will vote against their economic interests, but only to a certain degree. For affluent liberal voters there are things in life which are more important than dwelling on a few percentage difference in the marginal tax rate or the capital gains rate. Making money, at least for those of us who already have it, is relatively easy and I’m not going to compromise principles in voting out of fear that taxes might go up a little. I’ve rebalanced my portfolio in response to the decreased rates on capital gains in the past, and this year I’m looking at changes under the assumption that capital gains rates will increase next year. (As an aside, such investment strategy is why the Laffer-curve absolutists are incorrect in their claims a decrease in the capital gains tax definately results in increased tax revenue, and an increase will result in decreased tax revenue. A lower capital gains tax will lead to shifts in investments to take advantage of the lower rate, but the more important question is not tax revenue gained by lowering the capital gains tax but tax revenue lost on other investment income.)

With regards to the current election, there is reason for affluent liberal voters to support Obama. On the other hand, I see no reason to support a candidate such as Hillary Clinton who is conservative on social and civil liberties issues and populist on economic issues. Krugman, preferring the more economically populists candidates such as Clinton and Edwards, tries to put a negative spin on both Obama’s comments on class and voting as well as on his supporters:

Does it matter that Mr. Obama has embraced an incorrect theory about what motivates working-class voters? His campaign certainly hasn’t been based on Mr. Frank’s book, which calls for a renewed focus on economic issues as a way to win back the working class.

Indeed, the book concludes with a blistering attack on Democrats who cater to “affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues” while “dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans.” Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Obama campaign?

This raises the question of whether Obama is really making the Thomas Frank argument as Krugman and Bartels suggest. For Obama to be making this argument really is counter to what Obama has said at other times, and is counter to the reason why “affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues” back Obama. Krugman, again blinded by his Obama-hatred, is content with assuming there is a contradiction in Obama’s beliefs as opposed to looking further. If he was willing to actually consider Obama’s views he might realize that his interpretation of what Obama said was incorrect.

Jonathan Chait does the best job I’ve seen of actually evaluating Obama’s comments. Recognizing that the issue is far more complex than can be analyzed based upon Obama’s brief answer in San Francisco, Chait looks at the issue by reviewing past comments from both Obama and Bill Clinton:

Obama’s offense, as we all know, was to call white working-class voters “bitter” over their economic misfortune during the last few decades, and thus prone to “cling to” guns and religion. Taken literally, Obama was saying that these voters have taken up religion and gun ownership only over the last few decades–a notion so transparently false that he surely couldn’t believe it. And, in fact, he doesn’t: In a 2004 interview with Charlie Rose, Obama described how traditions of hunting and churchgoing stretch back generations. He proceeded to argue that, in the absence of plausible economic improvement, people in small towns will vote on the basis of those traditions that give their lives stability. This is not a controversial view among Democrats. Bill Clinton once said that Republicans “find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them”–a less respectful expression of the same analysis.

Chait provides a further look at voting based upon economics versus values:

To urge the white working class to vote on the basis of economic policy is itself considered an act of elitism. When Obama and other liberals reproach blue-collar whites for voting their values over their wallet, argues Will, they are accusing those workers of “false consciousness.” A Wall Street Journal editorial took umbrage that Obama “diminishes the convictions of those voters who care more about the right to bear arms, or faith in God, than they do about the AFL-CIO’s agenda.”

But nobody’s challenging the validity of caring more about your religion, or even your right to hunt, than your income. The objection is whether it makes sense to vote on that basis. There are, after all, stark differences between the two parties on economic matters. Republicans do want to make working-class voters pay a higher proportion of the tax burden, restrain popular social programs, erode the value of the minimum wage, and so on.

Democrats, on the other hand, have no plans to keep anybody from attending church or hunting. A few years ago, their gun-control agenda revolved around issues like safety locks, banning assault weapons, and other restrictions carefully designed to have virtually no impact on hunters or average gun owners. Now Democrats have abandoned even those meager steps. The GOP’s appeal on those “issues” rests on cultural pandering rather than any concrete legislative program.

And, while it may be elitist to say so, voting for a politician merely because he can mimic your lifestyle is not a very good idea. George Will and the Journal editors would never dream of voting on the basis of which candidate related best to their culture. They support the candidates who share their policy goals, not those who share their passion for watching baseball, or flogging the servants, or whatever other pastimes they may enjoy.

Now, it’s true that many working-class whites also vote on social issues that do have some political relevance, like abortion or gay marriage. It’s certainly not irrational on its face to vote your values over your wallet. (Democratic billionaires do it, too.) On the other hand, conservatives routinely express their fury that a majority of Jews stubbornly flout their own “self-interest”–defined as low tax rates and a maximally hawkish Middle East policy–to vote Democratic. The process of trying to persuade others to reconsider the nature of their self-interest is not some Marxist exercise or an accusation of false consciousness. It’s what we call “democracy.”

One problem with many appeals to vote Republican is that it is based upon falsehoods and scare tactics. As Chait notes, “Democrats, on the other hand, have no plans to keep anybody from attending church or hunting.” Despite this, Republicans have based many campaigns upon using scare tactics to tell voters that Democrats planned to take away their guns, and even bibles. The support by liberal Democrats of our heritage of separation of church and state is distorted as representing an attack on religion, ignoring the fact that historically it has often been religious leaders who argued for the importance of such separation to preserve their religious freedom. It is voting based upon such scare tactics, not voting based upon their values, which I believe Obama was really trying to get at in his answer in San Francisco.

[Dr Ron]

8. Thomas Frank Responds on Elitism and Bitterness

Thomas Frank Responds on Elitism and Bitterness

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3156

April 21st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Barack Obama’s recent comments on small town American voters have been compared to the writings of Thomas Frank. I discussed these views at length yesterday in this post. Today The Wall Street Journal has an op-ed from Thomas Frank.

Frank looks at whether Obama, and Hillary Clinton, are elitist:

Consider, for example, the one fateful charge that the punditry and the other candidates have fastened upon Mr. Obama – “elitism.” No one means by this term that Mr. Obama is a wealthy person (he wasn’t until last year), or even that he is an ally of the wealthy (although he might be that). What they mean is that he has committed a crime of attitude, and revealed his disdain for the common folk.

It is a stereotype you have heard many times before: Besotted with latte-fueled arrogance, the liberal looks down on average people, confident that he is a superior being. He scoffs at religion because he finds it to be a form of false consciousness. He believes in regulation because he thinks he knows better than the market.

“Elitism” is thus a crime not of society’s actual elite, but of its intellectuals. Mr. Obama has “a dash of Harvard disease,” proclaims the Weekly Standard. Mr. Obama reminds columnist George Will of Adlai Stevenson, rolled together with the sinister historian Richard Hofstadter and the diabolical economist J.K. Galbraith, contemptuous eggheads all. Mr. Obama strikes Bill Kristol as some kind of “supercilious” Marxist. Mr. Obama reminds Maureen Dowd of an . . . anthropologist.

Ah, but Hillary Clinton: Here’s a woman who drinks shots of Crown Royal, a luxury brand that at least one confused pundit believes to be another name for Old Prole Rotgut Rye. And when the former first lady talks about her marksmanship as a youth, who cares about the cool hundred million she and her husband have mysteriously piled up since he left office? Or her years of loyal service to Sam Walton, that crusher of small towns and enemy of workers’ organizations? And who really cares about Sam Walton’s own sins, when these are our standards? Didn’t he have a funky Southern accent of some kind? Surely such a mellifluous drawl cancels any possibility of elitism.

It is by this familiar maneuver that the people who have designed and supported the policies that have brought the class divide back to America – the people who have actually, really transformed our society from an egalitarian into an elitist one – perfume themselves with the essence of honest toil, like a cologne distilled from the sweat of laid-off workers. Likewise do their retainers in the wider world – the conservative politicians and the pundits who lovingly curate all this phony authenticity – become jes’ folks, the most populist fellows of them all.

Frank notes which party is the champion of encouraging and taking advantage of bitterness:

Conservatism, on the other hand, has no problem with bitterness; as the champion strategist Howard Phillips said almost three decades ago, the movement’s job is to “organize discontent.” And organize they have. They have welcomed it, they have flattered it, they have invited it in with millions of treason-screaming direct-mail letters, they have given it a nice warm home on angry radio shows situated up and down the AM dial. There is not only bitterness out there; there is a bitterness industry.

Consider the shower of right-wing love that descended in February on small-town newspaper columnist Gary Hubbell, who penned this year’s great eulogy of the “angry white man,” the “man’s man” who “works hard,” who “knows that his wife is more emotional than rational,” and who also, happily, knows how to “change his own oil and build things.”

Frank concludes with a summary of his views:

If Barack Obama or anyone else really cares to know what I think, I will simplify it all down to this. The landmark political fact of our time is the replacement of our middle-class republic by a plutocracy. If some candidate has a scheme to reverse this trend, they’ve got my vote, whether they prefer Courvoisier or beer bongs spiked with cough syrup. I don’t care whether they enjoy my books, or would rather have every scrap of paper bearing my writing loaded into a C-47 and dumped into Lake Michigan. If it will help restore the land of relative equality I was born in, I’ll fly the plane myself.

[Dr Ron]

9. Congressional Insiders on Electability

Congressional Insiders on Electability

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3147

April 19th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

The National Journal presents a Congressional Insiders Poll which asks “Which Democratic presidential candidate would do better against John McCain in November?” Among Democrats, Obama leads 54% to 41%. This is the number which is more significant in analyzing a Democratic nomination battle, but the results from Republicans might be more interesting. Clinton beats Obama 53% to 45%. This isn’t really very surprising. The Republicans see the strongest candidate as the one who most represents their values and uses their tactics.

[Dr Ron]

10. Clinton is the New Rove

Clinton is the New Rove

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3146

April 19th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Just when it seems like Clinton has gone as low as possible against a candidate from one’s own party, Clinton manages to dig deeper into the mud. Thomas Edsall reports that Clinton is again attacking Obama from the right while trying to pass the blame off onto Karl Rove:

A high-ranking labor supporter of Hillary Clinton is distributing to union leaders and to Democratic strategists a document detailing the radical activities of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, two former members of the ’70s group the Weather Underground, who decades later, in Chicago, crossed paths with Barack Obama.

The document - a three-page emailed essay by Rick Sloan, communications director for the International Association of Machinists as Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) — takes both literary and political license to outline what Sloan believes would be the thrust of a hypothetical Republican campaign against Obama focusing on his tangential connection to Ayers and Dohrn.

The goal of the essay appears to be to discredit Obama as the prospective Democratic presidential nominee.

Undoubtedly realizing that the risk that such a negative attack will again hurt Clinton, Sloan tries to justify this by blaming the Republicans for his own actions:

“The drip, drip, drip of Republican opposition research will continue throughout the summer. At the Republican Convention, speakers will joke about a color spectrum of light pink to deep red. And the GOP attack machine will publicize the visual that Rove believes will give that Ayers-Obama link ‘power and force.’

“Rove’s frame for the fall campaign will be filled with revolutionary figures — Marx, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara. His audio tapes of Ayers, Dohrn and other Weathermen will provide the screams of revolution. The bombing of the US Capitol, the Pentagon and the US State Department will serve as b-roll for his television ads that will have one final visual asthe announcer gravely intones ‘Their Change — Not What You Had In Mind’.”

It is not Karl Rove or the Republicans who are doing this. It is Hillary Clinton and her supporters. I have to agree with Joe Gandelman that Ed Morrissey gets it right here:

Well, this is really convenient, isn’t it? Not only can they indulge in what they call McCarthyism, they can blame their bete noir Karl Rove for it before he even utters a word. This frees up both Democratic contenders to fling as much mud at each other under the WWKD concept. We can call it pre-emptive McCarthyism, another great concept in campaigning from the people who brought us the vast right-wing conspiracy…

Meanwhile, the real Karl Rove can sit on the sidelines while the Democrats diminish themselves at the speed of light in an orgy of hypocrisy. That’s what this really is — a way to campaign hard while blaming others for the damage it causes, as hypocritical an effort as one will ever see in politics.

Clinton has learned the wrong lesson from her battles with the vast right-wing conspiracy. When Clinton repeatedly uses these dishonest tactics this is no longer only Rove-style politics. It is now Clinton-style politics. She is fooling no one, beyond her own supporters, when she justifies such tactics with claims that this is what the Republicans will do. Clinton is the new Rove.

[Dr Ron]

11. Stephanopoulos 1993 vs. Stephanopoulos 2008

Stephanopoulos 1993 vs. Stephanopoulos 2008

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3145

April 19th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

There’s been a lot of controversy over the type of questions asked in the last Democratic debate. Basically conservatives (as well as similar thinking Clinton supporters) who are obsessed with nonsense like the views of those Obama associates with, even if not held by Obama, or that patriotism is determined by wearing a flag pin, defended the debate. Those of us who believe that this is a pack of nonsense and want to see politics move beyond such wedge issues objected to the debate.

Yesterday a group of journalists wrote a letter critical of the debate:

We, the undersigned, deplore the conduct of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic Presidential debate on April 16. The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world. This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize gotcha questions over real discussion. However, it is, so far, the worst.

For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens’ interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC’s viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage.

The moderators’ occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Mr. Gibson’s claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe. Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to bring debate back to the real problems faced by ordinary Americans. Neither moderator allowed them to do this.

We’re at a crucial moment in our country’s history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they’re deeply worried about the country’s direction. In such a context, journalists moderating a debate–who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves–have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential “character” issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.

Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in “shoddy, despicable performances.” As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher describes it, the debate was a “travesty.” We hope that the public uproar over ABC’s miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Add one more journalist to the list–the old George Stephanopoulos of 1993. Jason Linkins uncovered an old video clip in which Stephanopoulos saw things different while he was faced with responding to such right wing talking points. From the transcript:

What he’s going to do in this campaign is focus on what’s important to the American people, on the jobs and the education. That’s what the American people care about. They want to move into the future. They don’t want to be diverted by side issues, and they’re not going to let the Republican attack machine divert them.

[Dr Ron]

12. Clinton Insults “Activist Base” of Democratic Party

Clinton Insults “Activist Base” of Democratic Party

April 18th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Last weekend the big story was a bogus argument that Obama had insulted those who live in small town America. This weekend’s buzz in the blogosphere is likely to be about a different story–Hillary Clinton insulting the Democratic base. Celeste Fremon reports:

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the “activist base” of the Democratic Party — and MoveOn.org in particular — for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had “flooded” state caucuses and “intimidated” her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

“Moveon.org endorsed — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”

Besides making the mistake of further antagonizing party activists, Clinton is also wrong on her facts:

In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn’s Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton’s remarks: “Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton’s attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points.”

Her claims about intimidation don’t hold up well either:

Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, verified the authenticity of the audio, and elaborated on Clinton’s charge that these same party activists were engaged in acts of intimidation against her supporters: “There have been well documented instances of intimidation in the Nevada and the Texas caucuses, and it is a fact that while we have won 4 of the 5 largest primaries, where participation is greatest, Senator Obama has done better in caucuses than we have.” About Clinton’s remarks suggesting dismay over high Democratic activist turnout, Wolfson said, “I’ll let my statement stand as is.”

In fact, the Nevada caucuses occurred prior to MoveOn’s endorsement of Obama, and when Clinton made her remarks, the Texas caucuses had yet to take place.

While last weeks “bittergate” controversy did not hurt Obama, this might hurt Clinton. At worst Obama repeated some of Thomas Frank’s flawed ideas on voting based on values versus economics. Even if Obama’s analysis was partially in error, there was no validity to Clinton’s distortions of his comments to claim he was insulting small town Americans. In contrast, these comments clearly show Clinton insulting Democratic activists who do have a role in determining the outcome of the final primaries.

[Dr Ron]

13. Robert Reich Endorses Obama

Robert Reich Endorses Obama

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3142

April 18th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

It’s time to see James Carville blow up again. Another Clinton appointee has endorsed Obama. Robert Reich initially did not plan to endorse anyone but, as with many other people, the negativity and dishonesty of Clinton’s campaign tipped the balance:

“I saw the ads” — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama’s bitter/cling comments a week ago — “and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It’s the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we’ve developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn’t possibly believe and doesn’t possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I’ve seen growing in Hillary’s campaign. And I’ve come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can’t in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They’re lending legitimacy to a Republican message that’s wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past twenty years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It’s old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It’s just so deeply cynical.”

Robert Reich endorsed Obama on his blog:

The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly)limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn’t assume anyone cares. My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won’t let me be silent any longer.

I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.

Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama’s strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.

He also presents the best chance of creating a new politics in which citizens become active participants rather than cynical spectators. He has energized many who had given up on politics. He has engaged young people to an extent not seen in decades. He has spoken about the most difficult problems our society faces, such as race, without spinning or simplifying. He has rightly identified the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have commandeered our democracy, and pointed the way toward taking it back.

Finally, he offers the best hope of transcending the boundaries of class, race, and nationality that have divided us. His life history exemplifies this, as do his writings and his record of public service. For these same reasons, he offers the best possibility of restoring America’s moral authority in the world.

[Dr Ron]

14. Clinton and Republican Loonies Let Imagination Go Wild

Clinton and Republican Loonies Let Imagination Go Wild

(The pictures are an important part of this post)

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3141

April 18th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

The attacks from right wing loonies and the increasingly indistinguishable Clinton loonies are getting even more ridiculous. A video of Obama speaking about Clinton shows him scratching his face, but the loonies have used their warped imagination to claim he was making a one-fingered derogatory gesture.

It just took a quick glance at a couple of videos of Obama speaking to confirm that he often scratches his face when he speaks. For example, check out the videos here and here. Sure you could imagine that he was flipping off Clinton from the angle shown, but it is far more likely he was repeating what appears to be a frequent, and possibly subconscious gesture while speaking. John Cole demonstrates how innocent the act was by showing a picture from a different angle:

The real irony is that Obama was speaking about all the nonsense which comes from the Clinton campaign. This just demonstrates his point. Lacking any real reasons to support their candidate beyond the now debunked idea of her inevitability, her supporters have been coming up with an endless stream of nonsense. This is just one more example of how low the Clinton supporters, and their intellectual equivalents on the far right, are willing to go. To both groups matters of real policy and matters of principle mean nothing. All they care about is whether Obama wears a flag pin or if someone he associates with holds controversial views (regardless if Obama does not share such views).

What the Clinton supporters fail to realize is that waging a campaign based upon such nonsense rather than matters of substance is a major reason why Obama is winning the nomination battle. The Clinton supporters have been playing to Obama’s strength, and the Republicans will probably face the same fate if they try to run a similar campaign.

Libby presents a good counter-example for the Republicans who see this as reason to criticize Obama:

[Dr Ron]

15. Baracky: The Movie

Humorous video

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3140

[Dr Ron]

16. Is Hillary Clinton Still a Democrat?

Is Hillary Clinton Still a Democrat?

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3139

April 17th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Seeing today’s debate in the blogosphere helps point out why I am an independent and not a Democrat. While it is hard to imagine voting for the Republicans since their move to the extreme right, I am unwilling to consider myself a Democrat. The Democrats are preferable to the Republicans, and have far more candidates I would consider voting for. The difference is that, while presumably a Democrat feels obligated to eventually rally around their party’s nominee, I will only vote for a Democrat if I find them to be acceptable. In 1992 I considered Paul Tsongas but would not vote for “Slick Willie,” a man I did not feel had the character to be president. My judgment on that matter was certainly verified. It is even less likely I would vote for Hillary Clinton after seeing how dishonest she has been during the current campaign.

Many bloggers who identify themselves as Democrats are facing a dilemma with regards to Hillary Clinton. Clinton has many of the characteristics which I and other liberal bloggers have opposed in the Republicans. This includes conservative views on social issues, civil liberties issues, and foreign policy, and the adoption of dishonest tactics more generally associated with Republicans such as Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. For myself there is no dilemma here. As an independent the logical course of action would be to refrain from voting for Hillary Clinton since I disagree with her on most issues and I find her to be too dishonest to be acceptable as a president.

Bloggers whose identity includes being a Democrat are faced with a dilemma. They feel that they should vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party, but also are realizing that Clinton does not represent the reasons why they are Democrats. Someone commenting at Daily Kos wrote:

At some point the concept of “Republicans will do X” has turned into a license for Hillary to do all the same things. It’s bizarre, but I don’t really consider her a Dem any more.

Markos promoted the comment to a main post with approval of the statement, leading to protests from partisans such as Big Tent Democrat. His post is centered around the concept of unifying the party. If party unity is the goal, then there is a certain logic in opposing such criticism of a potential nominee under the belief that party members should support the party, regardless of what it comes to represent. For those of us who are concerned with principles first, then this sentiment of not considering Clinton a Democrat makes perfect sense.

While understandable, obviously this statement is technically incorrect. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, even if she behaves more like a Republican and is on the wrong side of so many issues. Presumably what Kos and the original author are getting at is the problem that, although a Democrat in name, Hillary Clinton does not represent the principles which have led them to consider themselves Democrats. They are realizing that, after criticizing the Bush administration for years, they cannot in good conscience support a Democrat who has many of the same faults as George Bush.

While it would be simpler to declare that Clinton is not a Democrat, in reality they do not have that choice. Liberals will have to decide whether they will ultimately support someone based upon party label, even if her views and conduct are contrary to our principles, or reserve their support for candidates who are deserving of support. As an independent, there is no difficulty in refraining from supporting the nominee of the Democratic Party, but those who identify themselves as Democrats will have a harder decision to make. Fortunately this is a dilemma which we will probaby not have to face, considering how Obama’s lead is growing and Clinton is unlikely to receive the nomination.

The real question for those who stress party unity is how they can tolerate someone like Clinton who practices a Tonya Harding strategy and reduces the chances that Barack Obama will win. Rather than blindly defending the dishonest tactics and flawed policy positions of Hillary Clinton, it would make far more sense to unify around Obama at this point. Not only is Obama the candidate with a far better chance of winning the nomination, he also represents the values which have led many to support the Democratic Party, as well as having the support from many independents whose votes the Democrats would otherwise lose. Allowing Hillary Clinton to proceed with her dirty campaign reduces the chances that a Democrat will win in November, and also increases the chances that we will not have a real choice in the unlikely event that she manages to win the nomination.

Some who are supporting Big Tent Democrat over Kos in this dispute are calling those who oppose Clinton supporters of a small tent. That is just one more item in a long list of absurdities from the Clinton camp. The true small tent is the Clinton tent, limited to only hard core Democrats who care more about the party label than principles. This is the Democratic Party which has been a minority party. It is Obama who represents the true big tent as he is showing he can build a new majority based upon liberal principles which includes both many principled Democrats as well as independents.

Update: Another post worth reading on this controversy is at Booman Tribune. He doesn’t appear to object to Clinton’s policy positions as I do, but expresses similar views with respect to her “starting to resemble a Republican is in her campaign rhetoric and tactics.” He also stresses the foolishness of supporting such efforts from a candidate who will probably lose which damage the probable winner of the Democratic nomination.

[Dr Ron]

17. Obama Capitalizes On Lessons Of Last Night’s Debate

Obama Capitalizes On Lessons Of Last Night’s Debate

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3138

Video included in post

April 17th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

My post-debate comments centered around the manner in which the debate concentrated on the type of slime being spread on right wing talk radio (and by the Clinton campaign) as opposed to matters of substance. The general response has been predictable. Right wingers and Clinton supporters (which in many ways is redundant) have defended the questions. To them, the subjects discussed last night, and not the real issues, represent what they think a campaign should be about.

Despite some differences on economic issues, Hillary Clinton has essentially adopted the mind set of the “vast right wing conspiracy.” Clinton has become indistinguishable from the Republicans in most matters, with Obama being the only candidate who, as John Kerry has said, seeks to end the practice of Swift Boating as opposed to perfecting it. Obama has become our only hope in this election of having anything other than a third term of George Bush style politics.

Some people, even Obama supporters, initially considered the debate a loss for Obama because he was under attack so frequently and was unwilling to play the game. This assessment of the debate misses the big picture. Those who think that the topics discussed in the debate matter will vote for a conservative such as McCain or Clinton, but most voters are sick and tired of that type of politics. The debate, as have many of Clinton’s dirty attacks, has once again played into Obama’s strengths, allowing him to show how he differs from Clinton/Bush/Rove style politics.

Obama quickly took advantage of the debate while campaigning today (video above):

I will tell you it does not get more fun than these debates. They are inspiring debates. I think last night we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.

It took us 45 minutes — 45 minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices.

Now, I don’t blame Washington for this because that’s just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversies and getting us to play gotcha games and getting us to attack each other. And I’ve got to say Sen. Clinton looked in her element.

She was taking every opportunity to, you know, get a dig in there…. That’s all right, that’s her right, that’s her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit….

Look, I understand though, because that’s the textbook Washington campaign, because that’s the politics that’s been taught to be played, that’s the lesson that she had heard when the Republicans were doing the same things to her back in the 1990s.

This shows once again why Obama has beaten the Clinton machine, and why most Democrats think he is their best shot at winning the White House. Not only has Obama made himself immune to the types of smears used by the right wing (primarily Hillary Clinton at present) but the more they resort to these tactics the more the differences between Obama and the other candidates is highlighted.

[Dr Ron]

18. ABC and Hillary Clinton Double Team Obama With Slime

ABC and Hillary Clinton Double Team Obama With Slime

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3137

April 17th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Theoretically having a debate on a major network as opposed to cable might mean having a better debate. It certainly did not turn out that way. Looking around the blogosphere there is disagreement as to who won but most agree that the questions were horrible. Tapped writes that the questions were a disgrace. Greg Mitchell calls it a shameful night for the U.S. media. It seemed like every ridiculous bit of slime being spread the last several weeks was discussed, ranging from flag pins to associations with 60’s radicals to Obama’s bitterness statement.

Deciding upon who wins depends largely upon how you see these questions. While Clinton was asked about her Bosnia gaffe, the bulk of the nonsense questions involved Obama. This could be seen as a negative for Obama with him being placed on the defensive. I saw the major difference between the two being that Hillary Clinton tried to use the slime to her benefit. In contrast, Obama clearly would have preferred that such nonsense be kept out of presidential debates, and even defended Clinton on Bosnia.

The debate contained far too little of substance, but it did reveal more about the character of the two candidates. Judging the debate in this manner Clinton failed badly. Once again this debate demonstrated that the choice is a continuation of the same old Bush/Rove/Clinton style dirty politics or a change to politics of substance.

What really matters after debates is the general reaction, not my opinion. On the one hand, public opinion is partially determined by the media, and I fear that the media lacks the ability to recognize how terrible the questions were. Coverage based upon showing Obama on the defensive would not look favorable.

I remain hopeful that the American people are smarter than this and are growing tired of choosing presidents based upon who can be discredited with the most negative slime. If the American voters see it this way, the next president will be either Barack Obama or John McCain. The debate once again made it clear that Hillary Clinton lacks the integrity and character necessary to be taken seriously as a president, and has far more in common with George Bush than any of the other candidates remaining in the race.

Update: If it seemed like the questions were coming from the lunatic right as opposed to rational journalists, there’s a good reason for this. George Stephanopoulos got his advice regarding the types of questions to ask from Sean Hannity. Of course Hillary Clinton remains on the same page as the far right, as I’ve noted many times in previous posts.

[Dr Ron]

19. Clinton’s Make Believe Positive Campaign

Clinton’s Make Believe Positive Campaign

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3135

April 16th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

The Washington Post has an op ed from pollster and former adviser to Bill Clinton Dougles E. Schoen saying Hillary Clinton “needs to completely abandon her positive campaign.” This would be like George Bush’s pollsters saying that Bush should abandon his policy of being completely honest and transparent and should become more secretive and misleading in his communications with the American people to improve his approval ratings.
This appears to be an attempt to hide how dirty Clinton’s campaign has been, considering how many believe she has resorted to the Tonya Harding strategy. Josh Marshall also questions Schoen’s arguments:

But, seriously, what is Schoen smoking? Hasn’t Clinton been going after Obama pretty much tooth and claw for like eight weeks?

Steve Benen also shows many faults in Schoen’s arguments, including:

John Heilemann has a fascinating item on McCain in the new issue of New York magazine, and he spoke with one leading Republican Party official about how the GOP would go after Obama in the general election. “Our strategy will look a fair amount like the one that Hillary is running against him now,” the official said.

If Clinton were running an exclusively “positive campaign,” somehow I doubt Republican officials would make a comment like this.

The dishonesty shown by Hillary Clinton has already been very damaging to her campaign. After a long string of lies from Clinton and her supporters, the claim that Clinton has been running a positive campaign might be the biggest lie of all.

[Dr Ron]

20. Obama’s San Francisco Remarks Not As Damaging As Clinton’s Dishonesty

Obama’s San Francisco Remarks Not As Damaging As Clinton’s Dishonesty

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3134

April 16th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

It should be pretty clear from my posts over the weekend that I didn’t consider Clinton’s attacks on Obama for his comments in San Francisco to represent a meaningful attack. Actually I considered the controversy to be more of a reflection on Clinton as it showed how desperate she was to grab onto anything to try to attack Obama, even if it meant attacking him from the right. However the more important question is not what I think of the validity of the attacks but whether they are likely to impact the nomination battle. So far it does not look like these attacks are having much impact.

The polls do not yet present a clear picture as they do not fully take in the response by voters. For example, The Philadelphia Daily News shows Obama closing the gap on Clinton, trailing by only six points, compared to trailing by sixteen points in March. They include this caveat:

But experts said that the survey may not fully show the impact of Obama’s statements last week that small-town Americans are “bitter” over their economic status and “cling to guns or religion.”

“It’s too soon — you’d have to see polls taken Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,” said political consultant Neil Oxman. “It’s clear polling in both campaigns show an uptick in support for her and a downtick for him.”

They go on to note that “Clinton is now running a television ad attacking the remarks.” The Swap tried to answer this question with a study by a consumer-research company that examines advertising effectiveness. They did not find that the ad had much of an effect:

After being shown the ad, not many people shifted their views. When asked before and after seeing the ad who they would vote for if the election were held today, Obama’s support went to 44 percent to 45 percent, pre versus post. Meanwhile, Clinton’s support went from 43 percent to 44 percent, pre versus post.

Although the ad does not seem to be having much of an effect, apparently Clinton believes this is the only argument she has left. Talking Points Memo reports that this negative ad is the only spot Clinton is running in most Pennsylvania markets.

Another theory raised over the last few days is that party activists might not care but that superdelegates might see Obama’s comments as harmful in a general election and therefore switch to support Clinton. I believe this is primarily hopeful thinking on the part of Clinton supporters. The Hill interviewed some of the superdelegates and did not find evidence that Obama’s comments were a liability.

While the poll I noted above still shows Clinton with a small lead, other polls continue to show even worse news for Clinton. Public Policy Polling shows Obama with a three point lead. While this is still statistically a tie, the trend does not look good for Clinton who led by three points last week. Nationally, a Reuters/Zogby poll shows Obama increasing his lead to thirteen points, up from a ten point lead last month.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Obama with a ten point lead with other numbers also presenting poor signs for Clinton. Obama has moved to a 2 to 1 edge as to which is more electable in a general election. In a hypothetical general election race, Obama leads McCain by five points while McCain leads Clinton by three points. Clinton’s unfavorable rating has increased from 40% after the New Hampshire primary to 54%.

Clinton’s strategy of trying to destroy Obama by running a dirty and dishonest negative campaign against him also appears to be backfiring. The Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Clinton is viewed as “honest and trustworthy” by only 39 percent of Americans.

Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.

Superdelegates may or may not consider Obama’s comments in San Francisco, but it is hard to ignore the dangers of nominating a candidate who is considered to be dishonest by so many Americans.

[Dr Ron]

21. Obama’s Father and Socialism

Obama’s Father and Socialism

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3132

April 15th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Some on the right have been trying to fabricate a case that Barack Obama is a socialist–which is quite far fetched considering that much of his economic advice comes from the University of Chicago. With that ridiculous argument not taking hold, some have turned to trying to prove that his father was a socialist. Some of them base this on an article written by Obama’s father.

There are two problems with this line of attack. First of all, his father’s economic views don’t necessarily have any bearing on Obama’s own economic views. The second problem is that an analysis of the paper cited by conservatives does not back up the claim that Obama’s father is a socialist. The Politico had an economist review the article, and his analysis is quite different from the arguments made by many conservatives:

…Kenya expert Raymond Omwami, an economist and UCLA visiting professor from the University of Helsinki who has also worked at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, said Obama senior could not be considered a socialist himself based solely on the material in his bylined piece.

Omwami points out that the elder Obama’s paper was primarily a harsh critique of the controversial 1965 government document known as Sessional Paper No. 10. Sessional Paper No. 10 rejected classic Karl Marx philosophies then embraced by the Soviet Union and some European countries, calling instead for a new type of socialism to be used specifically in Africa.

The government paper rejected materialism (i.e., “conspicuous consumerism”), outlined the nation’s goals to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and disease, and also laid out important decrees regarding land use for economic development. Obama senior’s response covers these issues, frequently focusing on the distribution of real estate to farmers. Since most Kenyans could not afford farmland in line with market forces established earlier by white British farmers, the elder Obama argued that strong development planning should better define common farming space to maximize productivity and should defer to tribal traditions instead of hastening individual land ownership.

In other words, Obama senior’s paper was not a cry for acceptance of radical politics but was instead a critique of a government policy by Kenya’s Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, which applied African socialism principles to the country’s ongoing political upheaval.

“The critics of this article are making a big mistake,” says Omwami, who at Politico’s request read the document and the associated Internet debate over the weekend. “They are assuming Obama senior is the one who came up with this concept of African socialism, but that’s totally wrong. Based on that, they’re imbuing in him the idea that he himself is a socialist, but he is not.”

Omwami says he would instead refer to the elder Obama as “a liberal person who believed in market forces but understood its limitations.” Sessional Paper No. 10 centered on the new control of Kenya’s resources, promoting a form of trickle-down economics in which financial aid would be consolidated in more populated areas with the hope that positive effects would eventually be felt by smaller villages.

Obama senior argued against this notion, and Omwami suggests history has proven him correct since most, if not all, small communities in Kenya have yet to benefit from monies that poured into larger cities since the nation’s independence four decades ago.

The elder Obama also looked ahead to what has become a shaping force across Africa — urbanization — arguing that the government’s efforts to lure citizens back to the land were futile.

“If these people come out in search of work, it is because they cannot make a living out of whatever land they have had,” he wrote.

In retrospect, it was one of several warnings in the paper that would prove true.

“If you understand the Kenyan context, you can clearly see in that paper that Obama senior was quite a sharp mind,” Omwami concluded. “He addresses economic growth and other areas of development, and his critique is that policymakers in Kenya were overemphasizing economic growth.

“We had high economic growth for years but never solved the problems of poverty, unemployment and unequal income distribution. And those problems are still there.”

Obama senior’s projections and critiques are so spot on, says Omwami, that he plans to assign the paper to his classes in the future.

[Dr Ron]

22. Obama Leaves Door Open to Investigating Bush Administration

Obama Leaves Door Open to Investigating Bush Administration

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3131

April 15th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

When the Democrats took control of Congress there was hope that the Bush administration would be held accountable for its actions. Impeachment was taken off the table and so far the committee investigations haven’t amounted to very much. Should a Democrat be elected in 2008 there is the possibility that the Justice Department could investigate the Bush administration but I’m not very optimistic that anything will be done. Although Obama frequently speaks of moving beyond previous conflicts and turning the page, he did provide some hope that the Justice Department will investigate actions of the Bush administration in response to a question on this topic. Will Bunch asked reports asking Obama about such investigations:

I mentioned the report in my question, and said “I know you’ve talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there’s also the issue of justice, and a lot of people — certainly around the world and certainly within this country — feel that crimes were possibly committed” regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department “would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed.”

Obama’s answer:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.

[Dr Ron]

23. Obama Responds to Recent Clinton/McCain Attacks

Obama Responds to Recent Clinton/McCain Attacks

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3130

April 14th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Barack Obama has responded to recent attacks from Hillary Clinton and John McCain which are based upon distorting a recent statement by Obama (video above):

Barack Obama launched into a fiery offensive this evening in a speech before the United Steelworkers Union in Steelton, Pa., in responding to criticisms about his “bitter” remarks — going after Sen. Hillary Clinton in a way rarely seen over the course of this campaign.

“Shame on her,” Obama said, echoing one of Clinton’s own atacks on him. “Shame on her, she knows better.”

Obama said he was disappointed with her for her response and then launched into a new criticism of Clinton over her recent admission of being a hunter, and compared her sarcastically to Annie Oakley.

“She’s running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment, she’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton’s out there like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday, she’s packin’ a six shooter! C’mon! She knows better. That’s some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds.”

Obama said he is amazed and surprised by this “dust-up” but admitted that his words were chosen badly. He said he deeply regretted … that his words were misinterpreted.

He also defended himself, bringing up his own devotion to faith and his stance on the Second Amendment -– and he responded to the idea that he is an elitist.

“Now, I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly,” he said, “So I’m not a perfect man and the words I chose, I chose badly. They were subject to misinterpretation, they were subject to be twisted and I regret that. I regret that deeply. But when people suggest that somehow I was demeaning religion when I know that I’m a man of deep faith, somebody who in my own life has held on to faith, held on to my confidence in God during times of trial and tribulation, then it sounds like there’s some politics being played. When people suggest that I was somehow being elitist and demeaning hunters when I have repeatedly talked about the tradition that people pass on from generation to generation, hunters and sportsmen, and how I have consistently spoken about my respect for the Second Amendment, when people try to suggest that I was demeaning those traditions, then it sounds like there’s some politics that’s being played.”

More from ABC News

[Dr Ron]

24. Clinton Joins McCain In Attacking Obama From the Right

Clinton Joins McCain In Attacking Obama From the Right

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3128

April 12th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Hillary Clinton joins John McCain in attacking Barack Obama from the right. As Steve Benen points out, ” Clinton is sounding an awful lot like a Republican candidate.” With regards to Obama’s statement, Steve writes:

Clinton and McCain pounced simultaneously, with identical messages, in large part because this is all they’ve got. Jeremiah Wright simply wasn’t enough. Obama gave them an opportunity with a couple of awkward sentences, but at the same time, he also captured some real, genuine disaffection that exists in plenty of communities nationwide.

If Obama had been reading from a prepared text, or sticking to carefully-crafted talking points, he certainly wouldn’t have phrased this point the same way. But he was making an observation about why voters have been willing to give up on voting on economic issues, and here’s the kicker: I think he was probably right.

If I were advising the Obama campaign, I’d actually embrace the controversial quote. Of course folks in small towns are clinging to their guns; they’ve been led to believe the state is coming to take away their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course they cling to their faith; given the economic turmoil in their communities, they have to cling to institutions that give them strength and hope. Of course they’re bitter; while millionaires and wealthy corporations have been well represented in corridors of power for as long as they can remember, they’ve been working harder, making less, and feeling like they’ve been left behind.

That’s not an un-American sentiment. That’s not reflective of poor values. That’s not elitism. That’s reality.

As Steve said, “Clinton and McCain pounced simultaneously, with identical messages, in large part because this is all they’ve got.” And in large part because Clinton and McCain represent the same governing philosophy, and would deliver more of the same if either were elected.

Those who want politicians who sanitize every word they say to avoid the risk of offending anyone (and avoid the risk of saying anything of substance) will continue to prefer the Bush/Clinton/McCain Party. Those of us who prefer a leader who is willing to actually say something (and actually change things if elected) will continue to support Obama.

Norm Scheiber also notes the similarities between Clinton’s attack on Obama and attacks fron the right, as she has lowered herself to the level of Michelle Malkin:

Strange how the Clinton approach to strengthening the Democratic Party is remarkably similar to the GOP’s approach to strengthening the Democratic Party.

Related Stories:
More Attacks on Obama From the McCain/Clinton Party
Obama Responds to Clinton/McCain Attacks

[Dr Ron]

25. Obama Responds to Clinton/McCain Attacks

Obama Responds to Clinton/McCain Attacks

Post is primarily an Obama video

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3126

April 12th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Obama responds to criticism from Clinton and McCain over recent statements. Sure, he might have said it better, but I would prefer a leader who says what he things as opposed to a typical politician who makes sure every statement is sanitized before speaking. Such politicians, such as Hillary Clinton and John McCain, are less likely to say anything controversial, but will just give us more of the same should they get elected.

[Dr Ron]

26. More Attacks on Obama From the McCain/Clinton Party

More Attacks on Obama From the McCain/Clinton Party

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3125

April 12th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

One thing about monitoring the blogosphere intermittently while on vacation is that sometimes by the time I get on line to check the news many blogs have already commented. It looks like Obama has done what he is prone to do–speak the truth as opposed to watching every word to avoid any chance of saying something controversial or of substance as most politicians are prone to do. This means that those who practice politics as usual–namely the right wing and Clinton supporters (which is actually redundant if you consider world view as opposed to conventional labels) have responded by finding more ways to distort Obama’s words.

Here is what Obama said:

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre…I think they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What’s the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is — so, we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide health care for every American. So we’ll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.

There’s certainly room to distort Obama’s words and falsely portray this as elitist or as an attack on rural America, as many McCain and Clinton supporters are doing. Once again it is difficult to find any meaningful difference between the McCain and Clinton camps. Both camps are similar in finding it easier to rely on such distortions as opposed to actually discussing ideas. David Sirota finds a similar statement from John McCain and argues that McCain Said It, Before He Attacked It. Oliver Willis has a good response to attacks from the right:

It’s intriguing that Dems are never supposed to voice any criticism of rural America (which isn’t what Sen. Obama did) but Republicans are allowed to insult San Francisco, Massachusetts, the coasts, etc. It’s like there’s a double standard or something.

Obama’s campaign later released this response to the attacks from McCain:

Senator Obama has said many times in this campaign that Americans are understandably upset with their leaders in Washington for saying anything to win elections while failing to stand up to the special interests and fight for an economic agenda that will bring jobs and opportunity back to struggling communities. And if John McCain wants a debate about who’s out of touch with the American people, we can start by talking about the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that he once said offended his conscience but now wants to make permanent

Update: Response from Obama.

[Dr Ron]

27. Camille Paglia On Obama’s Experience

Camille Paglia On Obama’s Experience

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3119

April 9th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Camille Paglia of Salon answers a question about Obama’s experience and whether Rezko casts doubt on his judgment. She does write some bizarre things, but she gets it right here:

Obama’s Rezko embroglio is certainly troublesome. But the splotches on Obama’s record are few and relatively minor compared to the staggeringly copious chronicle of Clinton scandals, a mud mountain that the media have shown amazingly little interest in exploring during this campaign cycle. For all their grousing about media bias, the Clintons have gotten off scot-free over the past year from any kind of serious, systematic examination of their sleaze-a-thon history from Little Rock to Foggy Bottom.

Obama has actually served longer in public office than Hillary has. It’s very true that he lacks executive experience, but so does she. Her bungling of healthcare reform, along with her inability to control the financial expenditures and internal wrangling of her campaign, does not bode well for a prospective chief executive. Beyond that, I’m not sure that your analogy to professionals like doctors, accountants and teachers entirely applies to presidents. There is no fixed system of credentialing for our highest office. On the contrary, the Founders envisioned the president as a person of unpretentious common sense and good character. Hillary may spout a populist line, but with her arrogant sense of dynastic entitlement, she’s a royalist who, like Napoleon, wants to crown herself.

I too wish that Obama had more practical experience in government. But Washington is at a stalemate and needs fresh eyes and a new start. Furthermore, at this point in American history, with an ill-conceived, wasteful war dragging on in Iraq and with the nation’s world reputation in tatters, I believe that, because of his international heritage and upbringing, Obama is the right person at the right time. We need a thoughtful leader who can combine realism with conciliation in domestic as well as foreign affairs.

[Dr Ron]

28. Clinton Going After Pledged Delegates in North Dakota

Clinton Going After Pledged Delegates in North Dakota

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3116

April 7th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

There have been repeated reports that the Clinton campaign is going after delegates pledged to Obama. While her campaign has previously denied this, ABC News reports that Clinton is going after pledged delegates in North Dakota:

Sen. Hillary Clinton made a blunt appeal to North Dakota delegates to switch their support to her, despite the fact that Sen. Barack Obama handily defeated her in the state’s caucus in February.

In an indication of how tense the battle has become for each Democratic delegate, Obama abandoned the campaign trail in Pennsylvania and scooted to North Dakota for the state party’s annual dinner last night, despite the fact that he’s already won 14 of the state’s 21 delegates as well as six of the state’s seven superdelegates.

The two candidates also will battle for votes tonight in Butte, Mont., when Democrats there hold their annual dinner. The Montana primary, which offers only a handful of delegates, is scheduled for June.

Clinton made it clear to North Dakota Democrats last night that she believes there is no such thing as a pledged delegate and highlighted that stubborn streak in her appeal for delegates to switch from Obama to her when the Democratic national party holds its nominating convention this August.

The strategy appears futile. Pledged delegates are chosen for their loyalty to the candidate. Clinton is unlikely to pick up more delegates by such tactics, but they do reinforce the view that she is willing to do anything to win the nomination, regardless of how dishonest.

[Dr Ron]

29. The Sweet Dreams Ticket

The Sweet Dreams Ticket

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3115

April 7th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Marc Ambinder reports on yet another push for a so-called dream ticket of Clinton/Obama:

Hillary/Obama ‘08 becomes official today. In a way.

A Clinton insider who served as ex campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle’s executive assistant for several years has set up a new website, http://www.voteboth.com/ and plans to register with the Federal Election Commission today.

VoteBoth urges Democrats to support a joint Clinton-Obama ticket.

Its creator, Adam Parkhomenko, resigned from the campaign three weeks ago.

He had been one of the first employees of the 2006 incarnation of Clinton’s political action committee, HillPAC, and his proximity to the powers of the campaign will raise the question of whether the effort is sanctioned by the campaign. (Parkhomenko says that the idea was his own.)

It looks like one more desperation move from Clinton supporters. Having Obama running as VP wouldn’t make the prospect of a Clinton presidency any more palatable to me. While I doubt they have any interest in the reverse ticket, I would still vote for Obama if he felt forced to run with Clinton, but would see her as a poor choice for running mate.

Rather than the Dream Ticket, how about the Sweet Dreams Ticket? Since Hillary Clinton seems to like answering the phone at 3 a.m., Obama could promise to make her a special White House assistant in charge of handling any crisis calls which come in at that hour. This would allow Obama to have a good night’s sleep and enjoy sweet dreams, keeping him refreshed for during the day when the real work is done. As there is rarely a call at 3 a.m. which requires presidential intervention, Hillary Clinton’s poor judgment and lack of ethics is not likely to do the country any serious harm in such a position.

[Dr Ron]

30. Clinton Remains Dishonest on Iraq Position

Clinton Remains Dishonest on Iraq Position

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3112

April 6th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

One major difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is that on the biggest foreign policy question of recent years Clinton got it wrong and Obama got it right. Throughout the campaign Clinton and her supporters have tried to obfuscate this fact, realizing that it totally undermines her claims of being the more experienced candidate on foreign policy. Experience doesn’t count for much when you get it wrong.

Jake Tapper reports that Clinton is up to it again. First she plays a game similar to her attempts to claim certain states don’t count in the nomination battle as she tries to limit what should be considered with regards to Iraq:

In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.

But Clinton’s claim was false.

Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, “when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did.”

It’s an odd way to measure opposition to the war — comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama’s opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton’s vote for it.)

This is a bit more flagrant, but is essentially what we have been hearing all along. Clinton has tried to downplay Obama’s opposition to the war and creat a false equivalence between support for the war before it began and votes on funding measures once the war was underway. However it gets worse for Clinton. Just as her earlier argument that the nomination battle is about delegates worked against her, this argument on Iraq also favors Obama:

But even if one were to employ this “Start Counting in January 2005″ measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.

Scrambling to support their boss’s claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.

“The Administration and Defense Department’s Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments,” the January 2005 Clinton statement said. “From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq.”

But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.

Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.

Tapper provides more information on Obama’s criticism of the war and argues, “The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.” He argues further that this episode of dishonesty form Clinton is part of a larger trend.

[Dr Ron]

31. The Clinton Credibility Gap Widens

The Clinton Credibility Gap Widens

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3110

April 5th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Hillary Clinton, who already has a serious credibility problem, has been caught telling yet another untrue story. The New York Times reports:

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.

Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”

This story furthers two problems for Clinton–both that she is running a poor campaign and that she cannot be trusted. Failing to vet the story is just another in the long list of errors made by a campaign which started out as being perceived as an invincible force. The number of errors made by her campaign raises questions as to her competence as a manager and of the type of administration she would run.

While many campaigns have been caught saying things which turn out to be untrue, few do so with the frequency of Hillary Clinton. This news will probably hurt her campaign coming so soon after she was exposed for falsely claiming she faced sniper fire in Bosnia. Clinton has also received criticism for the numerous lies she has told when campaigning, with some of them discussed in this video from Lawrence Lessig (with transcript also posted). Worst of all she has perpetuated the lies of the Bush administration in justifying the Iraq war based on the 9/11 attacks. She has continued pandering to fear of terrorism while campaigning and in her recent ads.

Her husband’s administration is largely remembered for the lies told, including the claim that “I did not have sexual relations with that women.” Even before entering a general election campaign, Hillary Clinton has a serious problem with regards to dishonesty. If the media destroyed Al Gore with erroneous claims of dishonesty, imagine what they will do to Hillary Clinton, where there are many real examples, in a race against John McCain.

[Dr Ron]

32. Krugman Wrong Again–This Time Both Obama and McCain Are Right

Krugman Wrong Again–This Time Both Obama and McCain Are Right

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3109

April 4th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

The problem with being an economist, a newspaper columnist, or both, is that you might get a distorted view of the real world from looking at abstract data. Paul Krugman once again demonstrates this in today’s column. He has attacked Obama’s health plan with such regularity that we knew it was time for another attack. Daniel Drezner, writing at Megan McArdle’s blog, has predicting Krugman down to a science. His formula ends with Krugman’s columns arguing “Barack Obama is not a real progressive.”

If you are one of those people who believes that everything which is accepted as truth in the liberal blogosphere is true, and anything proposed by a Republican such as John McCain is not only wrong but evil, you might as well stop here because you are not going to agree with this post. Today John McCain is right and many liberal bloggers, along with Paul Krugman, are wrong.

While there is plenty to criticize in John McCain’s health care plan, Krugman chose to attack an aspect which is actually a good idea (and which is similar to a proposal made by Democrat Bill Richardson). Krugman quotes from McCain’s web site:

“America’s veterans have fought for our freedom,” says the McCain Web site. “We should give them freedom to choose to carry their V.A. dollars to a provider that gives them the timely care at high quality and in the best location.”

Krugman fails to recognize that this is a good idea as he has been suckered into the belief, repeated by many liberal bloggers, that the V.A. health system is the Mecca of health care. This fallacy comes from computerized reports which evaluate health care plans. The problem, as most people who actually work in health care realize, is that the state of the art of evaluating medical outcomes is still quite primitive. Krugman raves about the integrated system and their use of information technology. While this probably has brought about significant improvements, the main benefit of such a system is the ability to generate data which improves their ratings.

In the private sector, there is very poor data available to evaluate care provided. Some H.M.O’s are trying, but their data at this point is pathetic. Private practices providing good care will not be recognized. The V.A. has an advantage as their system can provide just what data is needed to make themselves look good.

Those of us who actually see patients who also go to the V.A. system, as opposed to relying on computerized print outs, see plenty of evidence that the V.A. system has its faults. I see many patients who come to me because they do not receive adequate care from the V.A. They often go the the V.A. intermittently because they pay for their medications but do not receive meaningful care to manage their medical problems. The decisions made by the V.A. with regards to medications are frequently based upon short term cost.

Sometimes it is not only beneficial to the patient but also more cost effective in the long run to pay more to treat chronic diseases aggressively at an earlier stage. For example, while the consensus is that lowering the LDL to under 70 is beneficial in regressing heart disease in many patients, I’ve had the V.A. refuse to cover additional medications once the LDL is below 110. It wouldn’t take very many extra bypass surgeries to blow all the savings from refusing medications.

Hopefully some readers are thinking, “to hell with the cost benefits. If the medications mean I’m less likly to need bypass surgery, or less likely to die of a heart attack, I want to go with the current medical recommendations, not V.A. policy.” This comes down to that C-Word which Paul Krugman hates: Choice. Patients might want the choice to receive the medications recommended for their problems, not those which the V.A. finds most cost effective.

I fail to understand why some liberals defend choice when it comes to abortion rights, as they should, but some have absolutely no respect for an individual’s choice in matters such as health care and personal economic decisions. The V.A. system does vary in quality. There are also geographical issues. People often have to drive a long distance to receive care from the V.A. if going to the closest provider, and I also know of people who drive further to get to a V.A. facility they believe is of a higher quality than the closest.

John McCain is right. Let the veterans go where they choose. If the V.A. system is really the Mecca that many liberals believe it is, they will have no problem maintaining keeping patients coming. Paul Krugman believes that the V.A. system will collapse if patients have a choice to go elsewhere. Isn’t this a confession that the V.A. isn’t really providing the best care available?

John McCain is right on this one, but this is an easy issue. Changing health care for those who already have coverage is the easy part. The hard part is helping those who cannot afford health care coverage and who want to receive coverage. That’s where Barack Obama has an advantage over John McCain since McCain’s plans will do very little to help these people. Krugman once again objects because Obama’s plan includes choice. Those who both need and want his plan can take advantage of it, but everyone has a choice. Krugman writes:

Worse yet, Mr. Obama attacked his Democratic rivals’ health plans using conservative talking points about choice and the evil of having the government tell you what to do. That’s going to make it hard — if he is the nominee — to refute Mr. McCain when he makes similar arguments on behalf of such things as privatizing veterans’ care.

In other words, by supporting choice Obama gives cover to John McCain in a case where he is right. Partisan Democrats (many of whom probably should have stopped with my second paragraph) might see some logic to this if their primary goal is for Republicans to always be wrong. For those of us who want to solve problems regardless of partisanship, there’s no problem here. If it makes liberal blog readers feel better, remember that this isn’t only a Republican proposal. Bill Richardson proposed the same thing.

Paul Krugman gives conservatives quite a bit of help by spreading the fallacy that conservatives support choice and liberals support “having the government tell you what to do.” If these were the real differences between liberals and conservatives, I’d rather be a conservative, and so would the majority of Americans. Conservatives, who are hardly the supporters of choice and personal freedom which Krugman would portray them as, have benefited in many elections by portraying themselves in this manner, with the help of some such as Paul Krugman.

The reality is that Republicans talk about choice, but they seldom deliver on their rhetoric. They have no qualms about pushing the agenda of the religious right to pick up a few more votes(even though many Republicans don’t think much of their allies). Liberalism is at a cross roads after having been out of power. Some, such as Krugman and Clinton, are reactionary supporters of failed big government liberalism. Others of us stress civil liberties and favor individual choice as much as possible. We don’t know for certain what Barack Obama will do in office but, in contrast to Clinton, he has shown signs of understanding the limitations of a top-down government approach. His health care plan is just one example of this.

[Dr Ron]

33. Patients Lie

Patients Lie

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3102

April 3rd, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Jake Tapper is shocked that Barack Obama lied about cigarette smoking. If we can trust Tapper’s “unusually keen sense of smell” as much as he does, it is possible that Tapper caught Obama at a time when he fell off the wagon but denied that he smoked.

If he thinks this is worth writing about, Tapper’s sense of people is not as good as his sense of smell. He needs to watch House. As Gregory House repeatedly reminds us, patients lie. For that matter, everyone lies. While there are many aspects of House which are totally unrealistic, in this case Dr. House is correct. I would not be the least bit surprised to hear that somone attempting to quit smoking might both fall off the wagon and lie about it.

This is hardly an example of a character flaw which would affect who I vote for. On the other hand, if Obama had admitted to smoking but also claimed he had to dodge sniper fire while doing so, it would be a totally different matter.

[Dr Ron]

34. Lee Hamilton Endorses Obama

Lee Hamilton Endorses Obama

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3095

April 2nd, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Barack Obama has picked up another major endorsement. Lee Hamilton has endorsed Obama, adding to his credentials on national security:

Hamilton, a former U.S. House member who co-chaired the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and headed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he was impressed by Obama’s approach to national security and foreign policy.

“I read his national security and foreign policy speeches, and he comes across to me as pragmatic, visionary and tough,” Hamilton said in an interview. “He impresses me as a person who wants to use all the tools of presidential power.”

Hamilton also sided with Obama on two foreign policy stances that have been criticized by Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee. Both have dismissed the Illinois senator, saying he doesn’t have enough experience to deal with critical foreign policy matters…

Hamilton said he agreed with Obama’s position on meeting with U.S. adversaries such as the leaders of Iran without conditions. Also, Obama’s consideration of unilateral military action against terrorist hideouts in Pakistan, is already U.S. policy, Hamilton said.

Hamilton was on Bill Clinton’s short list to run as Vice President, joining a long list of foreign policy experts who have been tied to Clinton who have endorsed Obama. I wonder if this endorsement will result in yet another explosion from James Carville as occurred after Bill Richardson endorsed Obama. Hamilton is from Indiana and his endorsement might also be of some help in that state.

[Dr Ron]

35. The Clinton Campaign’s View of Fox

The Clinton Campaign’s View of Fox

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3093

March 31st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

I’ve noted several times recently how Hillary Clinton has joined the vast right wing conspiracy (such as here, here, and here). The latest example comes from Clinton surrogate Ed Rendell:

I think during this entire primary coverage, starting in Iowa and up to the present — FOX has done the fairest job, and remained the most objective of all the cable networks. You hate both of our candidates. No, I’m only kidding. But you actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news, and some of the other stations are just caught up with Senator Obama, who is a great guy, but Senator Obama can do no wrong, and Senator Clinton can do no right.

Fox has done the fairest job? From the perspective of the Clinton campaign that is not an unexpected claim. After all, Fox does devote quite a lot of time making up things about Barack Obama–just like the Clinton campaign does. The Clinton campaign figures there is no reason to object to lies such as the Madrassa claims spread by Fox if it helps them politically.

[Kukesa]

36. Wow! Thanks for all your hard work, Dr. Ron. n/t

[blm]

37. Great service Doc.

.

[beachmom]

38. Thanks, Ron. Your site totally rocks. I also see it sometimes linked to

on Memeorandum, so it is getting attention from all kinds of people. Keep up the good work!

[Dr Ron]

39. Memeorandum and lots of other places

Besides sites such as Memeorandum which link to blogs, and other blogs, many of these posts are carried in the web editions of newspapers. Several of the above articles have been picked up by Reuters, USA Today, and lately the Chicago Sun-Times has been posting a lot of my Obama articles.

[Dr Ron]

40. The Clinton Embarassment Continues

The Clinton Embarassment Continues

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3165

April 22nd, 2008 by Ron Chusid

It would sure be great if Obama could manage to do well enough in Pennsylvania to knock the Clintons out of the race. They are beyond the point where Clinton can both win and retain enough Democratic support to be a viable general election candidate. At this point they are just an embarrassment.

One problem is that by keeping a pointless nomination battle alive the Democrats are losing valuable time which should be spent going after McCain. Even worse, as a result of the Clintons, the Democrats have lost the high moral ground. In recent years I’ve been tempted to vote Democratic even in cases where I didn’t necessarily agree with the candidate due to the dishonest tactics utilized by the right wing noise machine. Now the Clintons have emulated all their tactics, making the Democrats appear no better than the Republicans.

There’s also the fact that they are looking increasingly ridiculous. Today we got another example. Earlier in the race the Clintons tried using race baiting to go after Obama. Providing another example of how the Clintons have often accused Obama of doing what they are actually doing, Bill Clinton was caught on tape claiming Obama was playing the race card on him:

INTERVIEWER (RE: Jackson comment): “Do you think that was a mistake, and would you do that again?”

CLINTON: “No. I think that they played the race card on me. And we now know, from memos from the campaign and everything, that they planned to do it along.

When asked about this interview, Clinton denied what he had said:

NBC/NJ: “Sir, what did you mean yesterday when you said that the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?”

CLINTON: “When did I say that, and to whom did I say that?”

NBC/NJ: “On WHYY radio yesterday”

CLINTON: “No, no, no. That’s not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today. Have a nice day.”

NBC/NJ: “Respectfully sir, though, you did say …”

CLINTON: “Have a nice day.” . I said what I said, you can go and look at the interview. And if you’ll be real honest, you’ll also report what the question was and what the answer was.”

NBC/NJ: “They asked you if you regretted your comparing Jesse Jackson to Barack Obama on the day after the South Carolina primary.”

CLINTON: “And I pointed out that I did not do that, and that I complimented them both. And that Jesse Jackson took no offense. And I called him myself, I said, ‘Did you find that offensive?’ And he said no.

Certainly it was ridiculous for Clinton to claim that it was Obama who had been playing the race card, but it doesn’t help to simply pretend he didn’t say something that was recorded. He didn’t get away with it when he claimed he didn’t “have sex with that woman” and it is even harder to get away with denying something that has been recorded. Does Clinton have any idea of the difference between reality and fiction, or between telling the truth and lying?

[Dr Ron]

41. McCain Distorts, Too

McCain Distorts, Too

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3166

April 22nd, 2008 by Ron Chusid

John McCain has been claiming that Barack Obama has been distorting his statements in campaigning against him. There has been a little truth to his claims but Marc Ambinder notes that McCain has done the same with regards to Obama’s statements:

But McCain is not as clean as his campaign’s outrage at such distortions would suggest. On consequential issues of national security policy, McCain has, at times, caricatured Barack Obama’s stated positions on several occasions. Sometimes the distortions are small, but the often the effects of the distortion on the message, and its subsequent transmission, can be big.

For example: Obama has said he does not believe that former President Jimmy Carter ought to have met with leaders of Hamas. McCain has suggested just the opposite, telling Fox’s Neal Cavuto that “Obama does not have the experience to make the right judgment as to how to deal with terrorist organizations, obviously. Otherwise, he would never approve of such a meeting.” But Obama does not approve of such a meeting. Obama never said he would meet with leaders of terrorist organizations, just leaders of rogue nations, (and then as part of a diplomatic process. ).

McCain has frequently used the verb “surrender” to characterize the consequences of Obama plans for Iraq. McCain’s advisers say that Obama’s position amounts to a surrender and that the word, while pregnant with meaning, is defensible and appropriate.

But McCain has taken the phrase a step further. Who precisely would Obama “surrender” to? “Al Qaeda” But that’s a bit of a distortion of the situation in Iraq, where a Sunni/US, eh, call it an alliance, has contained and significantly diminished the capacity of Al Qaeda to the point where the terrorist organization is no longer the predominant threat in Iraq. It makes no sense to say that Obama would “surrender” to a tiny, increasingly irrelevant faction even if that faction would declare victory. One could argue that Al Q might re-surge if US troops withdrew; indeed, McCain does argue that. Describing the Democratic plan as one involving a surrender to Al Q immediately brings and posits associations between Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism, 9/11, fear and evil. The distortion is significant. Obama wants to withdraw troops; that withdrawal will have consequences; one of them is not a “surrender” to Al Qaeda unless Iraq is a very different country from the one described last week by Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. If McCain were to substitute “Iran” for “Al Qaeda,” there’d at least be a stronger factual basis underlying his claim, as Iran would, at this point, have more influence in Iraq than Al Qaeda does.

McCain has questioned whether, in electing Obama, “will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?” Well, Obama did not say that. He suggested a more aggressive version of current US policy — a policy that McCain himself has endorsed. All Obama meant was that if the US had actionable intelligence against a terrorist target in Pakistan and Pakistan’s government refused to act on the intelligence, President Obama reserved the right to take military action. One can question the wisdom of discussing the options out loud, but that does not translate into a desire to bomb an ally. Obama and McCain seem to have roughly the same point of view here.

[Dr Ron]

42. An Uneventful Day

An Uneventful Day

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3169

April 23rd, 2008 by Ron Chusid

After six weeks of hype nothing much happened on Tuesday. As most predicted, Clinton won but Obama reduced her lead from earlier polls. While Clinton won in Pennsylvania, the result makes Obama’s nomination a little more certain, and the race will continue with Clinton still remaining in the race.

Clinton will pick up a slightly higher number of delegates than Obama but it won’t have any effect on the race as only a total blow out would have helped. Pennsylvania’s demographics were among the best for Clinton of all the states remaining. If she couldn’t win big in Pennsylvania she won’t be able to do so anywhere else. To eliminate Obama’s lead among pledged delegates she now needs to pick up near 80% of the vote in all the remaining states, which is virtually impossible. Clinton’s only hope is that the superdelegates vote for her over Obama, but far more have superdelegates have committed to Obama than Clinton in the past couple of months.

The spin provided a few moments of amusement. While the Obama camp explained how a Clinton victory wouldn’t change the dynamics of the race, the Clinton camp claimed that even a one point victory would still be a victory. While true, this sure contradicts all the times they claimed that Obama’s victories didn’t count, even when he won by far larger margins than Clinton won in Pennsylvania. Clinton surrogates both argued that it is the popular vote and not delegates which matter, but also declined to agree that Clinton loses if she fails to take the lead in the popular vote. Everyone knows they will come up with yet another argument if unable to take the lead in the popular vote. Hillary believes she is entitled to the nomination and nothing else matters.

[Dr Ron]

43. Clinton Continues Dishonest Campaign–This Time Misrepresenting ABC News

Clinton Continues Dishonest Campaign–This Time Misrepresenting ABC News

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171

April 23rd, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Being far behind Obama by any meaningful measure, the Clinton campaign continues to twist reports to try to claim a lead. They are again stressing popular vote, despite actually being behind. Jake Tapper writes that in making this claim Clinton Camp Misrepresents ABC News Report.

Besides being incorrect, the race is based upon delegates, not popular vote, and shifting to popular vote allows Clinton to continue to play the game of picking and choosing which states to count. As I noted recently, if the race was based upon the popular vote and not delegates, Obama would have conducted his campaign differently to increase his popular vote. However Obama campaigned based upon the party rules and concentrated on obtaining delegates.

Besides changing the rules, concentrating on the popular vote creates problems with regards to which states to count. Clinton includes Michigan where Obama was not on the ballot and write-in votes for Obama were not even counted. Clinton’s selective count does not even include the count for uncommitted in Michigan, which clearly represented anti-Clinton votes. The popular vote down plays caucus states where turn out is lower. These happen to be states where Obama had greater support.

If allowed to pick and choose which votes to count, then Clinton wins. By any meaningful criteria, Clinton remains far behind Obama. Someone who conducts a campaign like this is likely to govern like this. After what we have gone through with the Bush administration, we do not need a president who repeatedly does not tell the truth.