Kajblog's Blog

Lurch to the left? No. A correction? Yes.

2008-11-05T23:04:16Z

Republicans are astonished and, in some cases, sickened by the 'lurch to the left' that America made by voting for Barack Obama. To them, I say: don't be silly. If anything, it is a correction, a very logical reaction to a process started in 2000, when a true 'lurch to the right' was rammed down the electorate's throat. Obama's election is a belated response to the election of Bush.

Each action begets a reaction. A positive action usually begets a positive response - and a negative action more often than not elicits a negative reaction.

On some network during election night, some analyst at some point voiced his astonishment about "how America seems to be abandoning its history of centrist politics". I was appalled; here was a guy whose name I had never heard of, but who was a full-time paid analyst, and who somehow missed that in 2000, a man who said that he would unite the country, who promised that he was not a divider, started an ideological divide the likes of which no one had seen since the days of Barry Goldwater.

George W. Bush veered off wildly to the extreme right, on a quest to appease only the ultra-conservative, yes even extreme wing of the Republican religious wingnuts. In 2004, when so many people already had enough of that lurch that came to them like a thief in the night, many were swayed to vote for Bush again out of fear for terrorists. Bush was re-elected by the thinnest of margins.

That should have humbled him, but it didn't.

Where was Fred Barnes of the Wall Street Journal back in those days, in 2000 and 2004, to accuse America of 'lurching to the right'? Robert Novak, on the day after the election of Barack Obama, wrote that Obama has "no mandate". By the time of this writing, Obama has 349 votes in the electoral college.

What constitutes a "landslide" in Robert Novak's dimension? Or even a mandate? Where was Novak in 2000 and 2004, to accuse Bush of not having a mandate, even though Bush had barely eked out a win with 286 seats in 2004 - and even after having to resort to calling in the aid of the Supreme Court in 2000?

The answer is, of course, that Barnes and Novak felt pretty much at ease with whatever Bush was doing. But in 2008, a vast majority of the US electorate felt that they had to change course. The ship had veered off too much to starboard. They voted for the other guy, one who wasn't a member of their party. That's why they're back spewing their vitriol.

So the voters voted for a correction, and bringing the country back on course. If anything, the change Obama is seeking doesn't seem too radical. Yes, universal health care is, in light of US history, a historical and possibly even 'radical' departure from the (supposedly) centrist course. But as for the rest of his platform, I'm convinced that not the slogan 'change we can believe in' but rather 'a return to the way we were' would have been more to the point.

What is so terrible about that, I wonder? I wish Barnes and Novak would read this, and answer that question.

But they won't. It's probably a good thing that Obama's quest for 'new, uniting politics' can do without the likes of Barnes and Novak. I wish them well while they lower themselves into the dustbin of history, where 'old politics' has been languishing for a good 24 hours already.

Don't doubt the changed face of America

2008-11-05T20:02:21Z

Let there be no doubt that on November 4, 2008, America changed. Let there be no doubt that the long march, once started by a preacher and a woman on a bus, finally reached the finish line. Let there be no doubt that apathy because of the colour of your skin, or because of where you're from, is no longer an option. Let there be no doubt: all that has changed with Barack Obama's election.

Let there also be no doubt that, when Obama said that "a new dawn of American leadership is at hand" in his victory speech, the world has changed in the past 8 years. The United States of America is no longer the one superpower that remained after the fall of the Soviet Union. If the current crisis has shown Americans one thing, it should be the realization that Ameríca's economy is intertwined with the rest of the world, that it is no longer the undisputed leader that stands alone on a mountain top. And let there be no doubt that, indeed, political power no longer grows out of the barrel of a gun.

But let there also be no doubt: the world will never be the same again. Other players have entered the top of the game, thanks to - ironically - the lack of leadership displayed by the US during the past 8 years. To assume that America can regain its position of world leadership of yore, is a fantasy. Instead, America must work together with other nations, the other leaders that rose when America turned its back on the world for eight long years.

Let there be no doubt that America must again learn what responsibility is, and that America must show that responsibility. Barack Obama said he wants to "turn the page". That is a welcome goal. But he mustn't only turn the page on 8 years of George W. Bush, he must also turn the page on Bill Clinton, and all presidents before him.

Let America show that it is willing to change. Ratify the follow-up to the Kyoto Treaty, which neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton wanted. Sign and ratify the moratorium on land mines, on chemical weapons, on biological weapons, on the development of new nuclear weapons.

Let there be no doubt that America must walk the talk.

Lecture other countries about their ethical behaviour by improving America's own ethical behaviour. Lecture by action, heal the damage done. When America demands of nations that they agree to stop producing chemical weapons and must allow international inspections for verification, America must allow those same inspectors to check American factories. When America demands of European countries that they abolish farm subsidies, let America abolish its own.

Support the International Crimes Tribunal. Repeal the 'The Hague invasion act'. Become a nation among nations. Understand that there is not just one country on this planet, but that there is only one planet. And make other countries understand this, too. Again, by actions, not by lecturing.

"The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from our ideals", Obama said. How I wish that were true.

The true strength of nations comes from their willingness to work together, by carefully appropriating the might of their arms and the scales of their wealth, not as goals unto themselves, but as tools with which to promote shared ideals.

Obama, the new Bill Clinton?

2008-10-27T20:21:31Z

(As posted on October 25, so way before the New York Times led with essentially the same story...)

Barack Obama looks set to become the 44th president of the United States. With national and state polls being what they are, McCain can't win. So it's time to take a look at what an Obama presidency would be like -- and more interestingly, whether such a presidency would truly be very different from Bill Clinton's presidency. One thing Obama should watch out for, is not making the same mistakes Clinton made.

When Bill Clinton beat contender George H.W. Bush in 1992 and entered the White House, he had everything going for him. He won many 'Red States', giving him a solid mandate and a lot of political capital, and he had a Democratic Congress and Senate to boot. Nothing could stop him from rolling out a true Democratic political programme.

Boy, was he wrong.

Guess who stopped him? That's right: his friends, the Democrats in Congress. When Hillary Clinton went straight for the Holy Grail of Democratism, namely the establishment of Universal Health Care, she behaved like a wild elephant in a porcelain cabinet, crashing and thrashing everything inside. The Republicans managed to sell her plans as being 'Socialist' or even 'Communist', in the states where incumbent Democratic Senators and Representatives had to defend their seats.

So when majorities of voters in those states came out against Clinton's health care plans, incumbent Democrats made an about-turn. They wanted changes to the plans. When Hillary Clinton refused, those Democrats - fearful of losing their well-paid daytime job in Washington, D.C. - voted down the plans.

By then, the midterm elections of 1994 were upon them, and the health care debacle was used by the Republicans as paint to colour the Democrats as closet Socialists. That, combined with scandals surrounding some Democrats and a highly effective Republican propaganda campaign, resulted in a 'Republican Revolution' that swept away Democratic rule from Capitol Hill for 20 years.

Faced with a hostile Congress, Bill Clinton had to abandon his strategic plans and focus on tactical gains instead. He could no longer win the war for Democratic causes, but could at least try to win some public battles, in order to be re-elected and save his presidency, and thus his legacy. He succeeded for a while -- until Monica Lewinsky showed her appetite for cigars, of course.

Fast-forward to 2009. Barack Obama will enter the White House as a Democratic president, very likely backed up by a strong Democratic majority in Congress. Like Clinton, Obama also wants to finally establish Universal Health Care and he will need Congress to sign off on it, too.

The question is: will it?

So far, the similarities between now and 1992 are striking. Just like in those days, there already are so-called 'Blue Dog Democrats' in Congress, Democrats hailing from solid Republican 'Red States' who will have a hard time convincing their constituencies that a collective public, government programme is not 'Socialist cockamamie'.

And those are just the incumbent ones. Many more, from even more 'Red States', are set to join their ranks on November 4, when Republicans seem set to be ousted in large numbers, in favour of conservative Democrats.

In 1992, when Bill Clinton made introduction of Universal Health Care one of his priorities in his campaign, he failed to get many Representatives and Senators to publicly back that cause before his election. So when he was inaugurated, few members of Congress felt obliged to sign up for his health care plans.

Barack Obama has so far held several meetings with incumbent members of Congress on matters like national security, social security and the economy, but he has thus far failed to get a public commitment from them on his health care plans. He also hasn't asked first-time contenders in the Red States, who seem to be sailing to victory, to sign up.

That could spell trouble. It would be very wise for Obama to get those public commitments now, also from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid, before the election is held. It is very important that at least those plans finally get turned into law, because the financial crisis, the deep recession and the enormous damage done by the criminal Republican administation, will already put a strain on Obama's treasury.

He will have to make some tough choices, ditching some plans to save others. But it could very well be that ditching his universal health care plans - one way or the other - will force him to make the same decision Clinton made: abandoning the war in favour of winning some battles.

Napoleon Bonaparte made that decision during the difficult years of 1813 and 1814, and he lost the war. Just like Bill Clinton did.

Let's hope that Obama is the smarter one.

NOTE TO OBAMA: BACK OFF JOE THE PLUMBER

2008-10-16T18:42:01Z

Team Obama should move away from 'Joe the Plumber' REAL SOON, because if they don't, it will explode in Obama's face. People like Joe Wurzelbacher are the last people Obama wants to have insulted by Joe Biden.

McCain already can't wait to reel him in: Wurzelbacher symbolises the undecideds in the Red States whom Obama has been wooing for so long, and who have been abandoning McCain. Alienate him, and all the hard work will have been for naught.

Obamaians, don't get your hopes up too much (just yet)

2008-10-14T09:07:24Z

It was mid-October 1992, and Bill Clinton led George HW Bush with 16 points in the polls. In the end, Clinton won the elections by 6 points. In 1999, Al Gore led George W Bush 51 to 40 points in at least one poll. In 1973, Jimmy Carter led Gerald Ford in one poll by 13 points; Carter finally won by just 2.

All this is meant to convey one message: Democrats, don't you get your hopes up too much just yet.

This race is going to tighten to microscopic margins, and John McCain might yet win.

That's why Barack Obama's campaign is pushing people to vote early, and vote now, while Obama is still high up in the polls. This is especially the case in Ohio, where the Democratic state leadership has done everything it can, within the confines of the law, to allow early voting everywhere -- especially in districts which in 2000 and 2004 were very close, and which narrowly went for Bush.

And Obama's campaign just might have learned something from Tom Bradley's campaign for governor of California, in 1982. The Bradley Effect is named after him -- but for the wrong reasons. The Bradley Effect, in my book at least, had everything to do with motivation and early voting, not with racism.

Tom Bradley led his white Republican counterpart in the polls by a wide margin, but in the end lost. Many to this day wrongly say that it was racism that led white people to say to pollsters that they were going to vote for Bradley, while in the end, they voted for the white candidate.

Not so. Closer examination of the polls leading up to the election in hindsight showed Bradley's lead narrowing significantly. In the end, Bradley's lead had evaporated to just 45-44. He then lost the election because of early voting; Republican voters simply were more motivated than their complacent Democratic counterparts, and they went out to vote early in massive numbers, precisely because Bradley was out-polling their favourite candidate.

This is the Bradley Effect the McCain is now banking on. Team McCain is hoping that the strong polling numbers of Obama will motivate McCain voters to go out to vote early.

Team Obama is trying to do two things at once: dilute the Bradley Effect, and gain the upper hand in the process while he is still leading McCain in the polls.

And that's smart thinking by people who seem to know their campaigns history. Election Night on November 4 will tell who outsmarted who.

This fight could still go either way.

John McCain: Shit Soldier

2008-05-18T10:40:05Z

Let's see whether John McCain will 'renounce' this one when it breaks, courtesy from yet another national-socialist multi-billionaire:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/17/who-wants-to-be-the-next-millionaire/

Grapevine: Kal Rove wants to lead GOP's 527 effort during GE

2008-05-13T19:17:13Z

From the grapevine:

"(Karl) Rove wants to lead the GOP's 527 effort... There are going to be strategy meetings, people who are not yet associated with 527s but who will later on associate themselves and spread the strategy..."

Strategy? So what's the central, focal point he's got against Obama?

"Oh, that's easy, Karl's got it all in his head. And I mean that - he's got it memorized. 'His pastor said 'Goddamn America', and said that AIDS was concocted by our government, as a genocidal tool'. And then, ummm... Oh yeah: 'this pastor wants black and white to come out against corporate America. Throw in Rezko' - we have our own people constantly taking notes at his trial. 'Combine that with Obama's obvious anti-patriotism, and we've got ourselves one toxic cocktail.'"

"He just keeps repeating that mantra over and over again. Every group of depressed GOP'ers he talks to, he just repeats those lines."

To which I said, "yeah - but people won't fall for that, 'cause you know it ain't true. And Obama's campaign knows it, and they'll tell the voters that it ain't true."

"Hah!", said the conversationist. "Now you're sounding like one of those fringe netroot bloggers. Why do you think that people like Rove are succesful? Lee Atwater, Roger Stone? Because they know, and have always known, that it doesn't matter whether something's true or not. All that matters is what sticks in the voter's mind."

And then I remembered this little gem, written by Hunter S. Thompson in "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '74".

It's Lyndon B. Johnson's senatorial campaign in Texas and he's trailing his GOP opponent by just a few percentage points. It's very close to election day and his campaign manager has just told LBJ that he's out of options.

"Hmmm," LBJ grunts. "Wait a minute - doesn't that guy own a pig farm? He does, doesn't he?"
"Errr, yeah he does, but I don't see - "
"Well, why don't we let it leak that he's humpin' his own pigs?"
"SIR!" the campaign manager blurts, "we can't - I mean, we - sir, we know he's not doing that!"
"I know that, and you know that," LBJ said, "but let's have the son of a bitch deny it."

The rest is history.

It's what sticks.

And with registered voters like the ones in this gem here - http://www.kajleers.nl/?p=140 - you know that a lot will stick.

Obama's and Hillary's foreign policy amateurism

2008-03-10T22:01:16Z

I could regurgitate what someone has already written in far more eloquent terms. So without any ado, I give the floor to Greg Palast.

“Amateur Hour in Blue

We can trust Correa to keep the peace South of the Border. But can we trust our Presidents-to-be?

The current man in the Oval Office, George Bush, simply can’t help himself: an outlaw invasion by a right-wing death-squad promoter is just fine with him.

But guess who couldn’t wait to parrot the Bush line? Hillary Clinton, still explaining that her vote to invade Iraq was not a vote to invade Iraq, issued a statement nearly identical to Bush’s, blessing the invasion of Ecuador as Colombia’s “right to defend itself.” And she added, “Hugo Chávez must stop these provoking actions.” Huh?

I assumed that Obama wouldn’t jump on this landmine – especially after he was blasted as a foreign policy amateur for suggesting he would invade across Pakistan’s border to hunt terrorists.

It’s embarrassing that Barack repeated Hillary’s line nearly verbatim, announcing, “the Colombian government has every right to defend itself.”

(I’m sure Hillary’s position wasn’t influenced by the loan of a campaign jet to her by Frank Giustra. Giustra has given over a hundred million dollars to Bill Clinton projects. Last year, Bill introduced Giustra to Colombia’s Uribe. On the spot, Giustra cut a lucrative deal with Uribe for Colombian oil.)

Then there’s Mr. War Hero. John McCain weighed in with his own idiocies, announcing that, “Hugo Chavez is establish[ing] a dictatorship,” presumably because, unlike George Bush, Chavez counts all the votes in Venezuelan elections.

But now our story gets tricky and icky.

The wise media critic Jeff Cohen told me to watch for the press naming McCain as a foreign policy expert and labeling the Democrats as amateurs. Sure enough, the New York Times, on the news pages Wednesday, called McCain, “a national security pro.”

McCain is the “pro” who said the war in Iraq would cost nearly nothing in lives or treasury dollars.

But, on the Colombian invasion of Ecuador, McCain said, “I hope that tensions will be relaxed, President Chavez will remove those troops from the borders - as well as the Ecuadorians - and relations continue to improve between the two.”

It’s not quite English, but it’s definitely not Bush. And weirdly, it’s definitely not Obama and Clinton cheerleading Colombia’s war on Ecuador.

Democrats, are you listening? The only thing worse than the media attacking Obama and Clinton as amateurs is the Democratic candidates’ frightening desire to prove them right.” - Greg Palast

You can read it in full here. Harrowing. When will those Yankees learn that hypocrisy is not a virtue?

Stupid American Voter

2008-03-09T13:14:47Z

For all the criticism levelled at Team Clinton for her so-called harsh treatment of Team Obama, the latter should be happy and thankful for it.

Why?

Because Team Obama can learn a thing or two from the attacks, knowledge it will need during the general election.

Team Obama will be up against another team,people that have no scruples whatsoever, a team that will have no problem letting surrogates plant fake stories with befriended journalists about Obama and his selling of crack cocaine to kids.

There will be fake stories about Obama's hustling, beating up of former girlfriends, hell - Obama's pimping.

At the same time, Democrats will be getting robocalls from 'Angry Black Man', which will make them think twice about going out to vote. (And which is exactly the objective.)

Expect Angry Black Man's 'pro-Obama' phonecalls to be made to Jewish and Italian pensioners in Florida. At 3 a.m. in the morning.

There will be 'independent' talk radio hosts who will mercilessly pounce on Obama's second name, Hussein, and how Obama used to play with Muslim kids on the school yard in Indonesia.

The madrassa story will be revisited with a vengeance. Each Team Obama counter-attack will only be used to keep the fake story alive. There will no longer be an accusation, but there will be monologues / dialogues about the accusation, which is just as bad.

There actually will be TV ads with Obama's skin made darker than it really is.

Left-leaning, unemployed Democrats who are vehemently opposed to NAFTA will get robocalls from so-called "alienated Democrats" who will say that Obama's actually not going to renegotiate NAFTA. "Ralph Nader however is against NAFTA. Should you not be voting for him...?"

Michelle Obama is going to be depicted as unpatriotic, someone who is a far worse feminist than Hillary Clinton. She too will be accused of having "too much influence" on her husband with her "anti-patriotism" (cue Obama sans US flag pin, cue Obama not singing national anthem).

Obama the candidate will also be pounced again and again on the differences between his speech rhetoric of unity, and his "divisive, ultra-liberal" platform.

And much, much more.

Chastise Team Clinton for the rough handling it is giving Obama? Sure; be naive. Pretend this is the first presidential campaign you're witnessing.

Go ahead, make the same mistakes Team Gore and Team Kerry made.

Go ahead, tell yourself that the mainstream media is on Obama's side. (Read this excellent article on that; or my own months earlier, here.)

Go on then - tell yourself that "the American electorate will see through these smear tactics". Go on, tell yourself that "the American people will see these smears for what they are."

Like Gary Hart's supporters did. Like Al Gore's supporters did. Like John Kerry's supporters did.

Team Obama has thus far been doing quite a bad job in responding. Campaign discipline obviously also isn't what it should be.

True, it is learning; the quick 'resignation' of Samantha Powers was a testament to that. Team Obama is starting to understand that it's not reality or truth that matter, but the voters' perception of both.

So in between all your fuming and toothgrinding about the "smear tactics" of Team Clinton, know this: whatever happens, Team Clinton is giving Team Obama a taste of what's to come for Obama during the general election.

Oh, and wait a minute... If you think that Obama is going to change the way politics are done in the US, or change the way how election campaigns are done, also: think again.

Obama would be able to take that moral ground and keep it if the press would support him in it. But they won't. Publishing companies, TV and radio stations, news websites: they all have salaries to pay. Reporting on rumours, backstabbing and scandals sell.

Cuz however much voters would like to see a change in politics, they just can't help longing for juicy, raunchy articles about sex, lies and videotape.

So. If anything, be thankful for what Team Clinton's doing. Come July, she'll be out of the game anyway and Obama's shining armour will have grown thicker.

One hopes...