Ted Kennedy

Ted Kennedy is what I think of when I hear the phrase "liberal lion".

A fighter, with what is already a remarkable life journey. All the best to him, his wife and family.

Hot Bush "Injection": A Brief History of Appeasement--What It Is, And What It Is Not

It was this morning, while on the elliptical machine, that I heard the 20th (when I began counting) reference to Bush having "injected" foreign policy, via his raising of "appeasement" before the Knesset, into the Democratic campaign debate.

Aside from the fact that a Bush injection would likely require more investigation from the FDA and CDC than vaccinations laced with 50% thimerosal, the discussion, which has shown surprising legs, has revealed a remarkable lack of basic knowledge about the distinctions between negotiation (e.g. Nixon's intervention with what was, at the time, a rogue Chinese state, which largely prevented conflict and helped to usher China into the family of nations) and appeasement--ranging from the Kevin James school of international policy negotiation based upon an utter lack of knowledge, to more informed but still significantly incomplete or incorrect understandings of appeasement as it has been used in this context.

Therefore, I provide you with a brief, fully accurate history of the "appeasement" that has been raised in these debates, so that those who wish to use actual fact in advancing their arguments can do so (For those who wish to continue to rely on insinuation, distortion, or the ritual, repetitive, seemingly talismanic use of the cry "He's an appeaser! You know! Like Munich! Like Chamberlain!" without knowing what this actually means, please proceed to Remedial History, room 101B. No gum).

The Munich Agreement:

The Brief Pre-History of Munich:

Hitler, levered into power in January of 1933 (ironically after the Nazi's first significant national election outcome decrease in 1932, after which they very well may have faded into their earlier insignificance) through the dramatic miscalculations of former Chancellor Von Papen (who, in his proposed role as Vice-Chancellor, hoped to be the "power behind the throne", and to return to the Chancellorship) and prominent Nationalist Alfred Hugenberg, among others to isolate and co-opt Hitler in a cabinet of Conservative Nationalists ("We've hired him"--Von Papen; "We've boxed him in"-Hugenberg), who persuaded the reluctant, aging President Hindenberg to accept this agreement, soon gained primacy and control over the cabinet, government, and increasingly the nation, through a series of questionable legislative (e.g. "The Enabling Act") and viciously revolutionary and counter-revolutionary (i.e., the elimination of other political parties, the Rohm Purge, brutal and cynical anti-Semitic actions by the SA, the Gleischaltung or "Coordination" of virtually all German organizations and press in 1934) actions.

After gaining such control, and with an autarkic economy that, from the start, invested huge sums in rearmament, Hitler brought the German military into coordination as well, under the aegis of the compliant General Blomberg, and with a shared mission of challenging the restraints placed upon German armament under the Versailles Treaty which followed World War I (Hitler's railing against this treaty had been a key element in the rise of the Nazis to power, particularly in the most dire economic phases of the Weimar Republic). In a series of shocking and escalating violations of this treaty, Germany announced the reestablishment of the German Air Force (1935), the reoccupation of the Rhineland (1936) and the Anschluss of Austria (1937); Hitler began an express drive for expansion conveyed as a correction of the Versailles Treaty, but in fact a clearly stated intent to increase the "living space" (Lebensraum) of Germany, and to attain hegemony in Europe (and, eventually, beyond).

In 1938, under the pretext of incorporating the Sudeten Germans who lived in Czechoslovakia (and utilizing Czech Nazi sympathizers to provoke manufactured "incidents" among this group), Hitler continued this expansionist drive by threatening, beginning in the famous "Weekend Crisis" of May 20-22, 1938, to attack Czechoslovakia on behalf of the Sudetens. Months of anti-Czech propaganda created by the Goebbels-controlled ministry continued through June, July and August. Following a vicious tirade at the conclusion of the Party Congress against the Czechs on Sept. 12, Hitler threatened action if the "issues" regarding the Sudetenland were not resolved. This provoked a wave of fear and disturbance across France and the Sudetenland.

As a result, on September 15, Neville Chamberlain flew to Munich to meet with Hitler. Hitler, in this first meeting, presented Chamberlain with an apparent fait accompli, stating that he would settle the matter himself "one way or another", clearly implying force. Chamberlain met this with the remark that under such conditions, there was no further point in talking--after which, Hitler tactically receded and stated that if the question of incorporation of the Sudetenland was open, discussions should continue. Hitler's ultimate goal here was to use the tactic of Sudeten independence to force Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudeten potion of its nation to Germany, claiming that "we want no Czechs"--e.g., the remaining part of the country--and that without such an incorporation, he would attack--thus unleashing the protective guarantees of France to Czechoslovakia, and thereby, a second World War.

Under such pressure, France and Britain placed weight on Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland. Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain and Daladier (the French premier) provided the basis for the Munich Agreement--which indeed carved off the Sudetenland, leading to Chamberlain's notorious statement of "peace in our time"--set along side Goebbels statement that "We have achieved everything we wanted according to the small plan, while the big plan is...for the moment, not realizable".

Hitler, in fact, intended to incorporate the rest of Czechoslovakia--and was described as disappointed that the agreement had denied him the opportunity for a war against the Czechs that would allow him this full territorial conquest in a single step. In March of 1939, following a similar propaganda barrage regarding Slovakian nationalist independence, Hitler threatened the Czech President Benes with invasion should he not cede the rest of the nation. Under such threat, Benes collapsed, and the Germans seized the remaining portion of Czechoslovakia without resistance.

Ironically, these constant risk-all gambits led Hitler to his fatal mistake--the conquest of Poland, which, although "victorious", led Britain, France, and ultimately the USA to enter the fight against Germany, and Germany to seek to end the battle against these enemies by removing their most likely ally--the Soviet Union--a combined two front battle which led to the downfall of Nazi Germany.

Appeasement here was agreeing to give away Czechoslovakia. It was shameful--and wrong.


Negotiation: Talking To Leaders

Two examples:

Nixon's Rapprochement With China:

Despite the well-known failings of the Nixon Presidency, Nixon's engagement with China remains a signal achievement. Note that Nixon, throughout his career, was an ardent fighter of Communism. Thus, we might have fully expected him to take the "negotiation is weakness" position with a country that, at the time, was regarded as a rogue nation in the West.

Nevertheless, this fervent anti-Communist chose to negotiate--a marked change from previous U.S. policy--and continued to do so even as highly inflammatory border attacks occurred between China and the Soviet Union in 1969, stating that "We simply cannot afford to leave China outside the family of nations." (a statement that would likely draw the errant fire of commentators from the Right if it were uttered today). With a persistent diplomacy through 1969-1972, culminating in a meeting with Chou en Lai, these negotiations led to a dramatic thawing of relations with both China and the Soviet Union--where, in meetings with Leonid Brezhnev, an anti-ballistic missile treaty, a trade agreement worth a billion dollars, and a SALT treaty were signed.

Reagan and Gorbachev:

Reagan, of course, was noted for referring to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire." Despite this stance, he too was willing to negotiate with Gorbachev in the interests of nuclear disarmament --and despite the objections of many on the Right, whose statements at the time regarding the weakness of negotiation could be easily grafted onto the present debates.

As we know, Reagan's meetings, according to Alan Greenspan, "started the sequence of geopolitical initiatives that led Mr. Gorbachev to figuratively tear down the Berlin Wall", and contributed to the break up of the Soviet Union.

Many from the right called for aggressive military action--for missiles first, rather than negotiation. Reagan, in negotiating, was proved right.

Note that in each case, the President talked with a leader who they regarded as hostile--in the face of those who argued then, as they do now, that talking--negotiation--signifies weakness.

In each case, talking--strong, informed negotiation--did not result in appeasement of the aggressor, but instead resulted in the desired outcome--in one case, the component breakup of the aggressor nation--in another the end of a threat of nuclear conflict--without a single loss of life.

Negotiation is not appeasement.

When negotiation is chosen, however, it will be the case that those who simply wished for the visceral strike--the simplistic first solution of subduing an enemy through the use of might--will not find satisfaction. We have seen the results of this position, throughout the years--from the events recounted in the first section, to the present.

Perhaps, in negotiation, it is *they* who have been appeased.

If so, given history--this was a favorable outcome indeed.

The Creation of a New Word: Entsetztfreude--Literally: "Horrified Joy"

Apparently one need know nothing to assert anything. While not a new discovery, this example is nonetheless 5 minutes of pure delight.

On the basis of this, I am creating a new word: Entsetztfreude --literally meaning "Horrified joy"

Watch until the end. Via TPM:

Ensetztfreude. You're feeling it right now, aren't you?

Golf as Expiation

From: The Guardian

"U.S. President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he quit playing golf in 2003 out of respect for the families of Americans killed in the war in Iraq."

Golf As Expiation

By Guru Alano Jeffries Lipmiano, adviser to former heads of state Amin, Taylor, Nixon et al.


Many have criticized President Bush for his statement that he gave up golf as a way of making a personal sacrifice to show solidarity with those fighting and risking their lives in the war in Iraq, a war that he largely created.

However, I think that it is difficult to see the value and importance--the weight and value of such a personal sacrifice--until we examine it more closely.

I recall meeting with Mobutu Sese Seko, I believe it was in the late 1960s. He had just finished his plundering of the Zairian (now Congolese) economy after deposing Joseph Kasavubu in a bloody coup, raping the natural resources of the nation, and had lured the former Minister of Education back to the nation on the assumption that he would be amnestied, only to be tortured and then murdered by Mobutu's minions.

I recall the scene vividly. Seko sat atop an ornate Louis the XVII original, running his right hand through a bag of rubies, and said: "I am satisfied, Guru, but I cannot yet find full and complete satisfaction. There is a vague feeling of irritation, or disquiet. Perhaps I am taking my people in the wrong direction."

Table tennis, I recommended. Give up table tennis, your favorite sport after your evening repasts. With this sacrifice, you will show that you too are willing to deny yourself what is important, that you too will bear the burdens of want, as does the nation. Seko smiled, as several rubies fell from the bag to the floor.

I, too, remember, as if it were yesterday, the events of 1973. Pinochet had just overthrown Allende in a bloody coup, and he had just then declared himself "Supreme Chief of the Nation". The General had begun his "disappearing" of political opponents, in which over 2000 were killed and about 30,000 tortured.

"Guru," he said one evening, as we sat in the Massage Room of the Presidential Palace, "There is a pain in my lower back that emerges whenever I hear the shouts of imprisoned former associates from the courtyard, a pain that no massage can remove. Please, tell me, how can I rid myself of this continuous suffering?"

I looked to the plate of Maté and Alfajores (fried Argentinian bread) that sat on a tray beside the massage table. "You must make a show of sacrifice to rid yourself of the tension of the difficult removal of your treasonous enemies, General." I pointed to the tray. "General", I said, "Mate' es fine. No mas."

He smiled, instructed a satrap to remove the tray. The following day, the vanishing of the Disappeared once again flowed without imposition or bar.

It was only months later that I sat together with Nixon and Kissinger. It was late at night, the three of us seated in the Oval Office, tumblers of scotch before us--all but Nixon's untouched--and Nixon's shoulders hunched low over his desk, the desk lamp against the night sky framed in the window behind him casting his face in an eerie glow.

"It's the goddamn press, Henry. They want to hang us. Why don't they realize what I am trying to do for them, Henry? Peaceniks, Hippies, Yippies, and the damn New York Times. One day, when this has all passed, passed us on, then they'll realize, then they'll understand how hard I worked, how hard I tried..." The tumbler shook in his hand, and all that could be heard was the ice lightly clinking against the heavy glass. "What can I do, Guru? What can I do?"

I looked to the gilt framed picture on his desk, of Nixon playing the piano, Pat beside him. "You must sacrifice. You must abstain. The piano is your sacrifice to the lives so bravely being lost in Vietnam. Just as they have given up their freedom to play stringed ebony instruments in the Southeast Asian jungles, so you too shall put aside this desire. For them. "

He looked at me with a silent, poignant smile, as a tear slowly ran down his cheek. "Henry", he said, waving his hand "Tell Ramon to remove the piano from the East Room and put it in the basement. And have him bring another bottle of Scotch."

There are many such tales of deep sacrifice for the good of one's nation, taken with a full and insightful vision of what the nation has suffered, and with a full understanding of what that suffering entails.

The sacrifice of golf is no mere folly, no trivial shift, by a man so out of touch throughout his entire life with the meaning of actual suffering, by a man whose lifelong values have been so skewed by the cosseting of pain, infliction of deprivation, error, and the human consequence of his actions by an ever-present familial safety net that he cannot even conceive of the notion of risk inherent in actual sacrifice, by a man so in thrall to his own limitations and such fears of those limitations that he has walled himself in from all that might possibility contradict it.

No.

Golf is a sacrifice, a man giving up the very peace and solace, the removal from daily life, that his war has removed from those that his actions have sent into sands of Iraq.

And so I say, Mr. President, put your putter aside with honor, with pride. And do so with the knowledge that you too have made a great sacrifice, fully in keeping with the actions and goals that you have cast upon this nation.

The Change That You Deserve

From the Chicago Tribune:

The slogan unveiled this week by House Republicans - "Change you deserve" - is already a trademark used by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals to market its antidepressant Effexor XR.

Black Screen.

Fade into:

Scene of a thin grey haired man standing in a green field. Behind him we can see the sun is rising.

"I got the change I deserved with GOP"

Cut to a small child, in a sun dress, who looks up at him and smiles.

"I was tired, listless. I had lost interest in my usual activities--creating false attacks, acting as if I had been unfairly attacked about issues created out of whole cloth, drawing specious historical parallels, fawning over ideologically bankrupt manufactured father figures. Sure, I sent emails claiming that Obama was a Muslim, but somehow...it had lost the spark, the enjoyment of everyday life."

Cut to a child who rides by on a bicycle, and throws a newspaper on the front porch.

"That's when I found GOP."

Cut to man rowing in a scull across a still river. He turns to the camera, smiles.

"In clinical studies, GOP has been found to increase aggressiveness in the absence of actual provocation in 8 out of 10 users. In most users, the desire to gleefully attack returns in 1 week. Full enthusiasm for invented ideas in two. "

Cut to image of porch swing.

"With GOP, my attention to minor distractions fully returned, until I was again building them into major accusations of flawed character. Once again, my intense focus on pins, buttons, sentences fragments and remote relationships as absolute indications of personal virtue and ability was at its peak. For an entire weekend, I could once again choose the right moment to accuse a candidate of treason without cause--when I was ready, when the time felt right".

Cut to a series of blurred images: long, stringy haired teens in torn jeans and ironic 80's t-shirts lounging by the Washington Monument; picture of John Kerry in a Swift Boat during Vietnam;
Eiffel Tower; Plate of arugula. During these images, rapid voiceover in female voice:

"GOP may cause monosyllabism, inability to consider two differing concepts at the same time, memory loss or inaccurate recall of recently and repeatedly presented intelligence information, focus on size of automobiles or koro, sequential nicknaming, hooting. If you have a desire to read Ann Coulter's collected works that lasts longer than four hours, this may be a sign of a dangerous condition and you should contact your physician immediately."

Cut back to man standing in field. American flag waving in the distance behind him, below a risen sun. A woman walks up beside him, puts her arm around him, and smiles.

Man:

"So get the change that you deserve. Talk to your doctor about GOP. Soon, you'll be walking by the homeless on the street again and saying "Let them get a job!"

Or better yet--let them get GOP."

Woman smiles.

Fade.

Maureen Dowd...

...at her best today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11dowd.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Relief.

Look at this image. What do you see?

Bill looking on with concern--and evaluation. And in Hillary: Relief.

If you heard her speech last night--before the final Gary, IN results were in and it looked like a loss--you saw a woman freed. Freed of pretense. Freed of pressure and demand. Open and engaged in the idea of helping the nation.

You've seen me write before about a woman who was suffering and striving to prove under her father's evaluation and demand. You've seen this in other seminal works--how Hillary can seem freed when not under the pressure of proving, performing.

I believe we saw this last night. I'd vote for that woman. However, not, paradoxically, for the woman who would win--who would then feel forced into the persona that she lives in when she feels that she must prove and perform--the one separated from the relieved and undiminished self.

Indiana turned, and now her valedictory moment has, for the moment, passed, leading to a quasi-reversion to campaign mode.

However, without doubt: A remarkable photograph.

h/t: L.A. Times "Top of the Ticket"
Photo Credit: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

Gas Tax Holiday: Multiple Choice

Hillary Clinton's claim that a Gas Tax Holiday will help middle class Americans, at the same time that her advisers have privately stated the opposite to the Washington Post, namely that they are aware that this will result in an increase in gas prices, and that it is "just politics", is most similar in political mindset and ideology to:

a) Former Bush Administration Chief of Staff Andy Card stating that the Administration waited until September to make its case for Iraq because `From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August';

b) Paul Wolfowitz predicting that the costs of reconstruction in Iraq would be paid for by oil profits from that nation, when contemporaneous predictions of the costs of the war and a subsequent insurgency would be, and have been, far greater;

c) Dick Cheney's prediction we would be greeted in Iraq as "liberators, despite numerous pre-war intelligence analyses which warned “that the U.S. would face armed resistance from Iraqis following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

d) All of the above

I'd Like to Thank the Academy: "Head of State" Wins Prestigious "Swampy" from the Chicago Tribune

"Head of State" has been named the winner of the intangibly shiny "Swampy", awarded by the readers and editors of the Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp", for the post "Top Ten Inducements By The Clinton Camp To Vote For Hillary Clinton", which can be found here

The announcement of this award, which I would wear with deep humility if it were wearable, can be found at the Trib's "The Swamp" here.

Next stop: Stockholm.

Clinton Calls for "Bad Weather Holiday"

"When asked this morning by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos if she could name a single economist who backs her call for a gas tax holiday this summer, HRC said "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists.”

The gas tax holiday is...so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling."
-Robert Reich, May 4, 2008

I know we've got those "intellectual", high-falutin', elitist meteorologists, those "forecasters" with their complicated charts and their mumbo-jumbo, their high fronts and their low fronts, their arrows and their Doppler radars. But I've come to say that we're going to put an end to all of that.

When my daddy and I went out in the morning in (Scranton, Indianapolis, Durham, Hagåtña, Charlotte Amalie, San Juan), and he said "It's going to be a sunny day today", well, that was good enough for me.

And that's why, if you vote for me on (May 6, May 13, June 3), I will put into effect a "Bad Weather Holiday" running from the years 2009-2012--and potentially extendable.

That's right. We shouldn't have to eat our (hot dogs, barbecue, tamales, Chicken Estufao, Stewed Oxtail) under rainy skies. We've had enough of going off to work in the (streets, sands, seas) of this most beautiful (state, territory) only to face a cold, cloudy day. We know what it's like to rest our weary bones after a hard day of labor in the nearest (local watering hole, locale taberna, berlina) only to step out into a stiff, tiring wind.

The Weather issue is very real to me, as I've been meeting people across this nation who (walk, drive, sail, ride ox before stewing tail) to work, and would save precious sums if they did not have to spend their hard earned money on "umbrellas" and "rain coats" and other high priced, high class items of the upper crust. In my daddy's day, a newspaper held over the head by a worn, calloused hand was just fine.

So I say: Let the 'Umbrella Lobby' take the brunt--not our hard working citizens. Oh, sure. I know elite opinion and so called "academic experts" say that my plan would cause 12 straight years of hail, swarms of ravenous locusts, and a vortex of hurricanes ranging from the Mideast to the West Coast.

But I don't put stock in experts. And neither should you. And that's why you should vote for me on (May 6, May 13, June 3).

NOTE: North Carolina version: Drop final "'g"s.

Clinton Says That Regarding Rev. Wright, "We Should Move On"

Today, during a Town Hall meeting presented by "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", an extremely poised and articulate Indianapolis voter, Michelle Skinner, a Republican, posed a beautifully targeted question to Clinton:

"Sen. Clinton, my question is: Do you think the discourse, the controversy going on with Rev. Wright, do you think this is relevant to Obama and his policy? Do you think this has accomplished anything or should we drop it, should we move on?"

Clinton: (trapped): "Well, we should definitely move on."

In this case--let's take her at her word.

Nota Bene

From today's Telegraph:

Michelle Obama: Barack has hit boiling point

Barack Obama is struggling to contain his anger and frustration over the constant barrage of questions about his character and judgment, his wife has revealed.

AP

Michelle Obama told her audience that her husband was 'sick of the battle against Clinton'

Michelle Obama lifted the lid on the irritation felt by the leading Democrat candidate for the White House at the way anti-American outbursts by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, have dogged his campaign.

He is said to be itching to turn all his fire on John McCain, the Republican candidate, who is benefiting most from Mr Obama's protracted tussle with Hillary Clinton.

Mrs Obama told a rally in Durham, North Carolina, on Friday that only her husband's desire to change US politics had helped him to control his feelings: "Barack is always thinking three steps ahead – what do we need to do to make change."

Her husband was thinking "I can't let my ego, my anger, my frustration get in the way of the ultimate goal," she said.

As noted, see Saturday's HoS post, "Strength", which predicted this, as well as today's comments by Carville here.

Top 10 Clinton Camp Inducements to Vote For Hillary (For Letterman)

The Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp" has called for suggestions for the "Top 10"list for Hillary Clinton's upcoming Letterman appearance.


Happy to oblige, consistent with her "Gas Tax Holiday" proposal:


Top 10 Inducements From the Clinton Camp To Vote for Hillary

10. All future Hoosiers teams can draft players from the NBA

9. Superdelegates will get actual Spandex costumes along with Super Power of choice

8. Permanent liquor tax holiday

7. Will limit husband to "low traffic" zones of White House

6. Promises to use only one personality throughout first 100 days of Presidency

5. Will hold Inaugural Ball in Smiley's Pub, Allentown, PA.

4. Free rides on Mark Penn

3. Will provide personal armed one-woman security detail through any combat zone

2. New shampoo: No More Tears

And the number 1 inducement to vote for Hillary Clinton:

1: New National Bird: Barbeque.

...And The Hoosiers Can Draft Players From The NBA

From Political Punch:

Guam's four Democratic delegates (not to mention its five superdelegates) are up for grabs in Saturday's primary, and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has told residents of that Pacific territory that as president she will work to give them the right to vote for president...

Would that mean making Guam a state? Bestowing citizenship upon these US nationals? Same with Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa? Would they get Senators and full voting members of Congress? How about DC? Wouldn't this require major constitutional changes?"

Perhaps she can sell Guam to fund the Gas Tax Holiday.

Strength

I have been watching Sen. Obama during his weeks of adversity.

He has what we need--a transformative national vision, a commitment to a new and unifying politics, and to a long-needed truth in governance and international relations.

He needs to transcend other characteristics.

There is a prickliness--a sense of insult or of hurt that, having given an honest message, the message has been distorted--a certain wounded defeatism.

He must rise above this and be strong.

This is the vulnerability of a man long without a father.

When a man is raised under such circumstances, they sometimes become their own father-- accompanied by the grandiosity, limitlessness, precociousness, and willingness to quickly fill in gaps with apparent consistencies that is characteristic of a persona adopted in childhood, too large and too soon--i.e., Bill Clinton.

They too can become the agent of the genuine, intelligent, and heartfelt ideals of their mother, passed on, rightly, as the intelligent and humane truth of the world, but not buttressed by the daily measuring and inevitable confrontation of those ideals that can come from the presence of a father; the tensile strength and resilience that causes those ideals to energetically endure in the face of challenge.

Obama has recently shown an underlying hurt and lethargy in reaction to the politics of fear and attack--what has been reported by some as "boredom."

To win--and more important, to reach the goals that he has set out for himself--he must turn away from such disappointed reactions.

He must put forward his energy and strength in the face of distortion to bring the nation to a realization of what matters most at this time.

When he shows such disappointment in reaction to such events, he shows that he cannot stand up to the distortion that will inevitably come, and that he must overcome to reach the point of national transformation.

Barack: There is no place in this campaign for disappointment, wounded defense and hurt. You are taking on the gigantic task of changing the minds of the American people, including those diverted, suspicious thoughts that will inevitably rise from the restraining bonds of our collective past--and, as you know, will be encouraged to do so.

Now is the time for strength--strength of purpose and strength of commitment. Bring people to an image of what can be established and created beyond the trivial, momentary excitement of attack politics. Do not be drawn into the minutiae of a ground war, or into a position of withdrawn and injured hopelessness. A hint of this creates the image of someone who is playing the old game, by the old rules.

You've made this clear in your stump speech: This is your moment. Now--Fully step into it. Bring people to fully realize what they can have, with full energy, commitment, strength and belief: A nation committed to truth in its relation to the people of this and other nations, to the unity of this country rather than to tactical and self-serving division, and to the interests of the many, rather than the few.

Clinton, Obama and Negative Campaigning

Just as there is a "Fog of War", the "Fog of Campaigning" can also breed short (and at times false) memories.

Geoff Garin claims that there has been "one campaign...that has been mean-spirited" and "unfair" and that it is "not ours".

Garin, who seems to be a genuine and decent professional who has been dropped to the helm of a listing ship, attempts to right it not by changing the direction of the boat, but by trying to reverse reality around it.

Let's take a look:

Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Speech:

"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America. And I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans -- they deserve all the heat we can give them."


November, 2007:

New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, which is now attacking Senator Barack Obama on a daily basis." [New York Times, 11/30/07]

MSNBC: "Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama." [First Read, 11/29/07]


December 2007 (leading to the January 6 Iowa primary, including the notorious use of an essay that he wrote in Kindergarten):

Chicago Tribune: "This Clinton Attack On Obama Could Boomerang." "The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]

Washington Post: "Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama." "With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama." [Washington Post, 12/3/07]

New York Daily News: "Hillary Clinton Attack On Barack Obama Comes After She Loses Iowa Lead." "Hours after a new poll showed her falling behind for the first time in Iowa, Hillary Clinton launched a blistering personal broadside on rival Barack Obama." [New York Daily News, 12/3/07]

New York Times: "An Attack, From the Candidate's Mouth" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

New York Times: "Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

Clinton Release: "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President. 'Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]

And what did the voters think?

Which Candidate is the most negative?
Hillary Clinton	21%
John Edwards	9%
Dennis Kucinich	9%
Barack Obama	8%
Joe Biden	3%
Mike Gravel	3%
Christopher Dodd	3%
Bill Richardson	3%
None/Not sure	43%
Source: The Iowa Poll [Des Moines Register, 12/2/07]

What about after Iowa? She surely must have changed her tactics then...

After Iowa Loss, Clinton Ramps Up Attacks: January 06, 2008

AP: "Hillary Clinton Comes Out Swinging, Politeness Lost Along With Iowa Caucuses" [AP, 1/6/08]

Los Angeles Times: "Clinton lets arrows fly at Obama"..."Staggered by her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, the New York senator was the aggressor throughout a 90-minute session" [LA Times, 1/6/08]

Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried repeatedly to knock Sen. Barack Obama off his footing during a high-stakes debate here on Saturday night" [Washington Post, 1/6/08]

AP: "Clinton criticizes Obama in NH mailer" [AP, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "Clinton sharpens attack on Obama" [Newsday, 1/5/08]

Reuters: "Obama under attack ahead of New Hampshire debates" [Reuters, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "After weeks of playing nice in Iowa, the Clinton camp sharpened their elbows when the campaign went wheels-down in New Hampshire, readying TV ads targeting Obama that were expected to focus on health care and his legislative record." [Newsday, 1/4/08]

Washington Post: But she and her aides also signaled their intention to now ratchet up the race, aggressively countering Obama in the five days ahead. She is also now planning to draw even sharper distinctions between herself and Obama on the question of change, after watching voters who wanted a new direction select her main rival for the nomination on Thursday night. [Washington Post, 1/4/08]

Well...that must have been just a momentary reaction to January's surprising defeat. She surely didn't continue that strategy...

The State: "Clinton camp hits Obama -- Attacks 'painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama, remarks about King" [1/12/08]

New York Times: "Clinton's Campaign Sees Value In Keeping Former President In Attack Mode" [1/25/08]

Greenville News: Ex-Democratic Official Criticizes Clintons' Attacks On Obama [1/23/08]

First Read: "Clinton Justifies War Vote, Hits Obama" [1/13/08]

Politico: "Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama" [1/13/08]

Perhaps it became more substantive and dignified in February:

Feb 25, 2008

2008 Presidential Election
Clinton Circulates Pic of Obama in Somali Garb: Report

For some, Barack Obama's "Hussein" middle name has been something worth picking on. For others, it has been pushing the unsubstantiated rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Obama is or was a "radical Muslim." But this - this is truly low. ..Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said, "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

CNN: "Clinton Sharpens Attacks On Obama" [CNN, 2/14/08]

Concord Monitor: "Clinton Attack Still Riles Some" [2/4/08]

Guardian Unlimited: "Clinton Goes On Attack As Obama Closes Gap" [2/3/08]

March:

The Politico, Ben Smith, March 2:

"A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question...

“You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said."

April:

MSNBC: April 14: Clinton Attacks Obama On Air

Sun-Sentinal: April 22: Clinton Attacks, Obama Hopes.


And what of the recent words of Mr. Garin himself?

From the April 20 Meet the Press:

MR. AXELROD: ...Did you not put a negative ad on this weekend in Philadelphia? The--100 percent negative ad attacking Senator Obama?

MR. GARIN: No. I don’t believe we did.

MR. AXELROD: Yeah, you did. Go back and check with your people, and it was, it’s an ad on lobbying, and it’s circulating...

MR. GARIN: It’s not. It, it ends up, I believe, with...

MR. AXELROD: No, no, it’s 100 percent negative ad, Geoff. Go back and ask your people. I understand you’re new in the campaign, and I love you, man, you’re a good friend of mine. I know you to be a good, positive person.

MR. GARIN: Right.

MR. AXELROD: But I think that there’s some vestiges of the old regime still in place.

MR. GARIN: Well, look, when, when, when...

(Garin never answers this question--Axelrod later in broadcast: "The—well, first of all, that’s what’s in your negative ad that you didn’t know about in Philadelphia.")

Note: This of course leaves self-inflicted attacks (i.e. sniper fire) aside. Incidentally, while I have known people to err when they are tired (for example to say "sniker" instead of "sniper"), I have never seen anyone invent and repeat an entire episode that did not occur as a result of exhaustion--although, of course, this commonly does occur when people are completely asleep.

Hendrik Hertzberg, in the New Yorker's "Campaign Trail" this past week has noted the tragic and inevitable game here, whereby Obama, who has tried to run a different type of campaign--explicitly principled and positive--has been drawn into defense by the incessant attack.

This attempt to now flip and revise history in this very fundamental manner is something that we have seen in our recent Presidential past--and is something that should give us pause.

h/t: http://www.barackobama.com/hillaryattacks/2007/12/03/try_this_1.php

The Best Way For Obama To Go Negative: Go Positive

The WP, via CNN, reports that there is now a discussion in the Obama camp as to whether he should go negative in Indiana.

Simply going negative would be a critical error, opening Obama to charges that he would be contradicting the very messages that have inspired his efforts and undergirded his campaign. This is a gap that the Clinton team would surely leap through. He would be further drawn into the swirling chaos that the old politics has created--as the Clinton camp would sure wish-- further enveloping and distracting voters from the fundamental messages of his campaign.

The best way for Obama to go negative is to go positive--clearly, strongly, and powerfully contrasting the method of "kitchen sink" politics, where any statement or position--even statements that are diametrically opposed; any claim, no matter how false; and any trivial distraction can be used simply in the effort to win at any cost, with the genuine effort to move the nation into a more substantive and honest politics--and into an Administration that will be grounded in these principles, rather than the very same methods and distortions that we can so easily see having been employed over the past seven years.

He should relentlessly tie the former method to the politics of the past--and to indicate the consequences for the nation that these politics have wrought--in the loss of national stature, Constitutional and moral authority, economic stability, and our most important treasure, the lives of our sons and daughters to a cause borne of such distortions.

i.e.:

"We have had enough of the negative campaigning of the past. We have seen what it has done to us over the past years--the "kitchen sink" politics of distortion and falsehood, of being willing to make any claim--no matter how true, false, inconsistent or contradictory--to put forward one's personal agenda, has threatened to take this great nation down the drain--financially, in terms of our standing in the world; in terms of our most important and basic treasure--the lives of our sons and daughters--the very future of this nation.

Do we want the same result? The same candidates, using the same old tactics, leading to the same outcomes of the all-too-recent past? Those who will do or say anything to be elected--and then will do or say anything afterward to justify their mistakes?

I say: We need a change from the politics of the past. We need someone who will say enough of the politics of the kitchen sink, of trivia and distortion. It's time to drain the sink. It's time for someone who , instead of fighting to divide the nation in pursuit of victory, will fight for you by saying: We will not play the same old games. That's the old politics. That's the politics that led us into Iraq, that left Osama Bin Ladin free, that led to violations of the Constitution that we solemnly pledge to uphold for this nation, and that has led us to be faced each day with the loss of promise that each new American life represents.

We can be seduced by politics of tactics, of fear. We've seen it before. And we've seen what happens after.

Will you join me in putting this era of old politics behind us, into a new future where you, your country, and the needs of your family and your future come first? Where we step beyond the tactics, distortion, and trivia of the moment, that too often have led to a long and difficult future for our nation, into to a time when the genuine needs of our nation and our country matter most?

Change is never easy. But when it is difficult, it is what we most often need. Will you join me in saying "No" to the kitchen sink politics of the past, to putting the era of old politics, of trivia and tactics, sniping and distortion, behind us? In saying "Yes" to a new and honest future, dedicated to the real needs of the American people, and not to the trivial battles that have divided and distracted this country for so long? To the real changes that this country has needed for the past 7 years, rather than to a continuation of the politics of the past? Will you join me? Can you join me? Let me hear it:

Yes we can (etc.)"

This should help to lead voters away from the churning pool of chaos and incitement, the distracting, impulsive song of the Clinton camp that, in its vague insinuations, pulls people to the seeming attraction and safety of the old--and will to help lead them towards an era where we can leave this ill-thought trivia behind for a considered, honest and principled statesmanship.

Chelsea Morning

This morning's WP has an excellent piece on Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign.

I have also been struck by how the 90s images of a younger Chelsea have been replaced by a woman of substance, intellect, humor and grace.

As one can now expect, the article was followed by comments that barely reach above the limen of sheer expulsion to actual thought. Simple crude attacks.

As an Obama supporter, I find the coarse, degrading, adolescent fire aimed at Chelsea repulsive--a true example of human ignorance, of simple glee in childish degradation.

Chelsea is a genuine, articulate and obviously sincere woman who both admires and cares for her mother; she brings warmth, humor and humanity to her efforts. If only these commenters could bring one-tenth of these qualities to their own impulsive emissions--literally smears of thought and emotion. Criticism is of course, part of a political campaign, and she places herself in a position for critique. However, the vitriolic, semi-coherent glee of some attacks are of another order entirely.

This is a fine woman working to help her mother. See yourself clearly for a moment. Stop it.

Shorter Wall Street Journal

Today's WSJ:

Sen. Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech on race relations last month seemed to put the controversial remarks of his former pastor behind him. But three weeks later, there is evidence of lingering damage.

"It has not been defused," says David Parker, a North Carolina Democratic Party official and unpledged superdelegate. He says his worries about Republicans questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism prompted him to raise the issue of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s remarks in conversations with both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

Shorter WSJ: We're afraid the damage is passing, but we'll do our best to try to keep it going.

Mark Down

...but not out:

After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign. Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson will coordinate the campaign's strategic message team going forward.

Clinton campaign statement, via the Nation.