How Hillary Clinton could win my vote

It's not with silly attacks on Obama, like the 'red phone' ad she's currently airing. (Obama's response to that was spot on, by the way.) And it may be too late for her to make any convincing argument at all at this point, but here is what I see as her main advantage over Obama, and how she could have capitalized on it.

She could say something like: "Obama talks a lot about wanting to restore bipartisanship in Washington DC. That's great, but what I want to do is get some good legislation passed--whether the Republicans like it or not. The Democratic party has been pushed around by the Republicans for a long time. When I'm president, the Democrats are going to do some pushing back! Like Obama, I'll extend my hand across the aisle to work with the opposition. But we're likely going to have Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in 2009, and if the Republicans aren't willing to work with us, we'll work without them. I'm not going to bend over backwards to work with them, just so I can say I've 'changed how Washington works.' As you know, my family has been on the receiving end of some of the worst the Republicans can dish out. We survived. In 2009, if they are still determined to pander to the right-wing extremists of their party, we--the Democratic majorities in Congress and me in the White House--will show them (and Senator Obama) that Washington DC can work just fine, as long as there is the will and discipline in Congress, and a strong, determined leader in the White House."

[updated to spell Hillary's name correctly in the title, and a couple other minor edits.]

What will the candidates do about civil liberties?

This is another issue that I've not heard either Obama or Clinton talk about. As the previous post points out, talking about decreasing the stupendous size of our defense budget is viewed as political suicide, so there is a fairly good explanation (though not a pleasing one) for why the candidates have left it alone. But the erosion of our constitutional protections against governmental--particularly presidential--power seems to me a electoral winner. So why are civil liberties not addressed by the candidates? (Can you find them anywhere, for example, on the web pages of Clinton or Obama?)

Have the candidates ever been asked about this? What do they think about the theory of the unitary executive? Do they consider the US to be in a state of war, and hence a state of necessarily expanded presidential powers? If so, what act of Congress do they think authorized that war, and how will they know when it's over? And what about all those signing statements--do they feel the next president is given freer rein by them, or do they reject them as unconstitutional? What about the warrantless wiretapping programs and the revised FISA process? Will they continue under an Obama or a Clinton administration?

I would hate to think that Clinton and Obama are keeping mum on these issues because they would like to keep their options open if either of them reach the White House. An imperial presidency is bad for America, regardless whom is president.

The Crucial Issue No Candidate Will Touch

Amid all the hoopla over the party horseraces on Super Tuesday, at least someone has his eye on the ball (sorry to mix sports metaphors): good ol' Robert Scheer. In his truthdig column, "The Legacy of Bush II" , Scheer raises the alarm about Bush's budget-busting military spending proposal, which would raise "defense" spending

to a level exceeding any other year since the end of World War II, and there will be precious little left over to improve education and medical research, fight poverty, protect the environment or do anything else a decent person might care about.

This issue is the one that nobody seems to talk about, which is so crucial for addressing all the other things that matter so much: the health care crisis, reducing the impact of climate change, stopping immoral wars, ending poverty, you name it. I am really saddened by the political impasse--Democrats afraid of seeming weak on defense and covetous of the military aura, Republicans who see rising military spending as a given and even more beholden to the military-industrial complex--which makes it impossible to move forward on reducing this obscenely high level of military spending. (Just to be clear, I support fully funding veterans benefits, a cause championed by my erstwhile preferred Presidential candidate, John Edwards.) We spend more on the military than everyone else in the world combined. Much of it is wasted on ridiculously expensive weapons systems and an imperialistic global network of military bases. We simply cannot sustain this level of spending into the future. It is already bankrupting us, not even counting the taxpayer dollars that are being poured down the Iraq drain of death and destruction. Our economy is still big, but it is no longer dominant enough in the world to support a military that runs the world.

It depresses me that both Clinton and Obama seem to have declared this issue off the table. Both seem to be promising increased military expenditures. At least Edwards played coy about it, insisting on re-evaluating and determining the right amount that would be required for future missions. (I thought that was a particularly clever part of his platform: avoiding any concrete promises of increased dollar amounts. He knows how tough it will be accomplish other priorities while the defense industry gorges on our public treasury.) Is there any possibility that the extended primary/caucus season will allow us to push Clinton and Obama to take a more courageous stand on this issue? I suppose it is a lost cause, since they would see it as toxic in the general electoral climate. But we can still dream (imagine).

Yes We Can

A very nice video putting Obama's 'Yes we can' speech to music. I slightly embarrassed to say that I don't know many of the people in the video, being an old fogy and all, but it's a pretty powerful piece of agitprop.

You can watch the YouTube embedded video below, but a better quality version is on the original source: Dipdive.com.

Vote Edwards

I'm not sure there are any Iowans (or New Hampshirites) who read this blog, but if so--let me add my voice to the chorus of progressives in support of John Edwards as the Democratic nominee for President. I mentioned several months ago that I was shifting from Kucinich, who I supported in 2004, to Edwards this time around. The intervening months have only strengthened my conviction that he provides the best and most realistic hope for real, progressive change.

If we do not nominate Edwards, I believe that we will deeply regret our failure to seize the moment when someone with a strong populist critique of big business influence actually had a decent chance to win the nomination (and even leads most of the general election match-ups against Republicans!)

Here are ten reasons to support Edwards in '08:
1. Proven fighter for the common people's interests against big money.
2. Will start taking troops out of Iraq immediately (and, apparently, now wants to get them all out on a fairly short timetable).
3. Commitment to universal health care with subsidies for lower and middle income (it's not single payer, alas, but after studying the plans, I can see much better how to get there from Edwards's plan than his leading rivals.)
4. Skilled communicator to build public support for progressive change (and beat Republicans!)
5. Strong labor union support and advocacy.
6. No corporate PAC money.
7. New approach to trade policy for Main Street, not Wall Street.
8. Will run strong nation-wide campaign, including swing states and Midwest.
9. Strong environmental plans, especially around crucial issues such as global warming (side-by-side comparisons with other leading contenders bear this out).
10. Working with a people-powered progressive movement, asking us throughout his campaign to take action and demand change rather than simply support/elect him.

I would be happy with Obama as the VP nominee, since I think he is a hopeful candidate who is energizing younger voters and shows a lot of promise. But from starting out as a close second, he has dropped in my estimation almost (but perhaps not quite) to Clinton's level due to his running to the right, conciliation with corporate interests, and rhetorical weakness on important progressive bedrock causes such as truly universal health care and social security. Clinton is actually better than Obama on many issues (health care, for example, in part because of close partial copying of Edwards's plan) but I have serious reservations about her corporate ties, the dynasty aspect of her campaign, and question marks about how many people, especially independents, are dead-set against her already, thus hurting our general election chances.

Happy voting (to those who get to primary/caucus while it still matters!)

And happy new year to all.