After too many years -- what? maybe 30? -- of feeling crushed by the cynical meanness of the right, it's nice to see a little respect, empathy, and civic pride return.

Posted at June 14, 2008 7:07 PM in response to This is it. THIS is why I'm proud to support Obama.

Well, MJ Rosenberg, Bush-Cheney was a strong ticket. Damned if I'm going to let "strength" determine my vote anymore!

When the choice between Hillary and Barack first became clear (Edwards was out, Obama had won Iowa), I was already a committed supporter of Obama. Why? Because it had become clear to me that, aside from his very acceptable policies and temperament, he was aleady running a campaign that was well-organized, inclusive, full of good people, funded by all of us, and committed to keeping the race as clean and above-board as possible. It was not a matter of "hating" Hillary. At least not until South Carolina. She was clearly prepared to play dirty. Her campaign was disorganized and often vituperative. Her campaign funds came in part from Bill's post-presidency wheelings and dealings. She has been too closely identified with '90's Democratic party poobahs -- not its most laudable leadership.

That's when I decided that if she and Bill looked as though they were going to get any closer to the White House than the average tourist, I probably couldn't vote for our ticket in the November election. I still feel that way and I suspect others might also feel betrayed, having also hoped for a clean, "new politics," post-Rovian campaign. We want a political victory not just for our chosen candidate but for the country, something distinctly different from skulduggery that gave us the Bush-Cheney wins.

The notion that Hillary might become part of a twofer is simply stomach-turning.

Posted at May 15, 2008 4:15 PM in response to It's Obama-Clinton

'bout time.

Posted at May 15, 2008 3:48 PM in response to Council on Foreign Relations Group Calls For END to Cuba Embargo

Gore isn't perfect and he'd make a splendid president. Anyway, where did we get the idea that perfection is a prerequisite for the presidency? Not from the past four, that's for sure. My doubts are about whether we want to waste an invaluable and knowledgeable environmentalist on a thankless task where the poor guy would have to deal with blowback from resentful ignernt rightwingers and a demoralized post-Bush federal government. No fan of Hillary, I'd rather see her go grey trying to mend fences, prop up the judiciary, open up eight years' worth of pandora's boxes, and deal with a disillusioned citizenry -- rather than waste Al Gore on that mess.

Posted at October 12, 2007 12:05 PM in response to Gore Nobel Discussion

I wonder how many of us -- those of us who "know" Andrew Bacevich from his writings and discussions -- were shocked at his loss when we first heard the news this morning. I was surprised at the extent of my own feeling of desolation. I hope there's at least some consolation for Lt.Col./Professor Bacevich and his family in what appears to very widespread sympathy and sadness.

On the other hand, there are the unwarranted ad hominem attacks (above) on those who try to make sense of a society which manages to find others to do its dirty work. It's a sad day. Sometimes those who stalwartly defend flag and military against even the most honest questioning sound more smug than sincere, and certainly more self-congratulatory than genuinely "patriotic."
Edited to correct to "Gen" to "Col"

Posted at May 15, 2007 3:29 PM in response to What is Andrew Bacevich's Son's Life Worth?

Of course, it all depends on who gets to decide what's a "weed" and what's a valuable "native plant"!

That said, the DLC was a useful movement when it started and continued to be so until the mid-'90's. At that point its arrogance was a thorn in the side of life-long progressives. I'd have to agree with many here who find the DLC chillingly establishmentarian and eager to separate itself from (put itself above?) the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

(1) Keeping America The World Safe; (2) Giving Americans All Who Need Them the Tools to Compete; (3) Holding Government Accountable for Results; (4) Creating the Hybrid Energy A Sustainable Economy; (5) Making America the Most Pro-Family Diverse and Welcoming Country on Earth; and (6) Ending Poverty For All Who Work.

Posted at April 4, 2007 12:02 PM in response to In Search of Common Ground

I'm going to listen hard to Walton's instructions to the jury. Meanwhile, I'm thinking p-a-r-d-o-n.

Posted at February 14, 2007 9:04 AM in response to The Defense Rests

I did the whole thing with increasing irritation -- the irritation of a pedant! None of the above. None of the above.

Damn it! No score!

Isn't that the essence -- and burden -- of liberalism? Moral and intellectual pickiness? Particularly around people (and quizzes) using the word "robust."

Posted at February 6, 2007 3:02 PM in response to Slate Asks: Are You A liberal Anti-Semite?

Couple the growing bonds between politicians and corporations and with the abysmal vote count of individual Americans and it's easy to understand why we individuals are dismissed by our elected officials. Because they are no longer elected by us.

Pressure through online organizations has helped. But the bottom line is that the people have ceded political clout. By and large, "the people" are in thrall to corporations no less than politicians. No more marching. Change buying and voting habits instead.

Posted at January 24, 2007 3:00 PM in response to An Electoral Vehicle for Anti-War Sentiment?

With respect to impeachment, the reason why I think it's important to hold officials to a standard (and ourselves too, for that matter!) is that the law should be supreme. Without law, nuthin'.

You'll have seen in today's papers (or heard on NPR) the story about the Pentagon official in charge of detainee policy urging corporations to threaten law firms which defend Guantanamo prisoners pro bono. The guy, evidently a lawyer himself, has absolutely no idea what the law is about, least of all about the extent to which we depend on advocacy and on the adversarial system in both law and politics.

Bush does know what the law is and he depends heavily on lawyers in his administration to find ways for him to skirt, evade, or break the law.

I'm not a lawyer -- far from it. But it scares me ****less when I see a sizeable group in our country saying, in effect, "the law doesn't hold when it stands in our way."

Posted at January 13, 2007 1:33 PM in response to Note from Flynt Leverett: Most Important Parts of Bush Speech About Iran -- Not Iraq