Dear God, will it ever end?

Abbie has nailed it.... If anything defines the period we live in, it is the sight of a nation of over 300M people, with historically unsurpassed military and economic power in a state of sluggish political and social paralysis... and managing to make such a crisis, one so objectively earth shaking and transcendental, mendacious, mediocre and boring to boot. DS

Iran: keeping our eye on the ball

David Seaton's News Links
With our 24x7 news cycle it is easy to miss the forest for the trees.

Right now the question for me in evaluating the situation is if the serious (read violent) disturbances are spreading beyond Tehran. How about Moussavi's home town for starters?

If the protests begin to spread all over the country, then I will begin to think that this is all something 100% genuine, impossible to manipulate.

At the moment all I really see is a battle between two Ayatollahs: Kameini and Rafsanjani, using surrogates. At this point Kameini is ahead on points.

The best write-up of the whole thing that I have seen so far comes from the Asia Times.

What I do know for sure is that there are two stories here:

1. What is actually happening in Iran
   
   and


2. How it is being reported here in the west.
   

What I see is that my point two is pushing Bibi Netanyahu and his version of a Palestinian "state" off the front pages.

It is a good thing to remember that while Iran, in reality, actually poses no threat to Israel's existence (Persians are not suicidal), a free, sovereign Palestinian state in "Judea and Samaria" does. or at least to Bibi's version of it.

In my opinion most the furor over Iran in the western press, now and before, can be explained by this simple fact. The whole "Iran is a threat to the world", could easily be a massive red herring. DS

The Hundred Persian Flowers

David Seaton's News Links
Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo asks the following question:

Bill Keller (editor of the whole operation) and Michael Slackman have a piece in Times arguing that Ahmadinejad and the hard line clerical establishment emerge from Friday's selection with a stronger hand than ever before. I'm curious whether others share that impression.

In this case, the answer is probably yes.

How so?

The first thing that someone who has grown up in a democracy has to get clear is the difference between a lone dictator and a regime.

A regime, even with an unquestioned, charismatic leader such as Mao T'se Tung can live and even thrive without the charismatic leader, while when the lone dictator like Uganda's Idi Amin Dada or the Congo's Mobutu Sese Seko disappears so does his entire ruling apparatus.

Obviously Iran, whether qualified democracy or iron fisted autocracy, is a regime; one which has handily survived the death 20 years ago of its über-charismatic founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A regime that lasts this long under successive leaders, of necessity has a complex, multi-layered, organization and a wide popular base.

In the case of Iran the regime's popular base is made up of the traditional peasants and urban poor and finds the body of its critics among the urban middle-classes: people who would have the education, money and the leisure time to enjoy freedom of speech, a more relaxed dress code and travel abroad.

How does the present situation re-enforce the regime? The easiest example would be Mao T'se Tung's "Hundred Flowers" campaign, where he encouraged criticism of the party under the slogan;

"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land."

When the flowers had "bloomed", when the intellectuals had spoken their minds, Mao lowered the boom on them. This is how Wikipedia describes the result,

The result of the Hundred Flowers Campaign was the persecution of intellectuals, officials, students, artists and dissidents labeled "rightists" during the Anti-Rightist Movement that followed. During this time, over 550,000 people identified as "rightists" were humiliated, imprisoned, demoted or fired from their positions, sent to labor and re-education camps, tortured, or killed.

That is what I imagine is happening or going to happen in Iran right now. Iran, certainly the regime, feels itself to be threatened by the USA and Israel and has every reason to feel so threatened: even a paranoiac can have enemies.

What they have done by encouraging a free and outspoken presidential campaign is to encourage any serious opposition to the status quo which might collaborate in any way with the west in time of war, to come forward and identify themselves.

Now they will round them up or at least know exactly who to round up at a moment's notice in case Obama doesn't turn out to be quite so friendly as he'd like them to believe.

So yes, the regime is strengthened by all this dissent: all the rallies and the demonstrations have been filmed, the regime's dissenters have taken the bait and all Khomeini's successor, Khameni has to do is reel them in. DS

The great paradox

"Forty-eight per cent of Americans did not feel the hand of history on their shoulders on Tuesday, in spite of everything." Martin Kettle - Guardian

David Seaton's News Links
The great paradox surrounding Barack Obama's victory is that it would have been impossible without George W. Bush. Probably no other president in US history has been as "transformational" as Bush has.

The question that hangs over us now is whether Bush himself is the agent of this ghastly transformation, or merely history's delivery boy who has only handed over the package and stands after we have signed for it and have taken delivery... hoping for a tip.

I would lean toward a synthesis: if the chickens were straggling home to roost, Bush gave the hitchhiking chickens a lift in his SUV.

Most of us who have been little boys at one time or another remember that it is much easier to take apart a toy than to reassemble it without any pieces left over. That is now the task of the Democrats.

Right now we are enjoying the after glow, but from here on out I'm afraid it's all going to be "quod omne animal post coitum est triste". DS

The perils of the Kalpataru

First read this from Paul Krugman:
Most of the post-election discussion will presumably be about what the Democrats should and will do with their mandate. But let me ask a different question that will also be important for the nation’s future: What will defeat do to the Republicans?(...) the Republican rump, the party that’s left after the election, will be the party that attends Sarah Palin’s rallies, where crowds chant “Vote McCain, not Hussein!” It will be the party of Saxby Chambliss, the senator from Georgia, who, observing large-scale early voting by African-Americans, warns his supporters that “the other folks are voting.” (...) Also, the Republican base already seems to be gearing up to regard defeat not as a verdict on conservative policies, but as the result of an evil conspiracy. A recent Democracy Corps poll found that Republicans, by a margin of more than two to one, believe that Mr. McCain is losing “because the mainstream media is biased” rather than “because Americans are tired of George Bush.” .(...) the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.

And then this from Hindu mythology:
There was once a man chopping wood in the forest. He was splitting the wood, stacking it in piles etc. "It's very exhausting work," he thought. So he sat under on particularly nice tree, and he thought to himself, "I just wish all this wood would chop itself." So suddenly all the trees chopped themselves and stacked themselves up very nicely. "What is this?" he thought. "I just wished that it would happen, and it happened." So then he looked up at the tree he was under, and he realized that it was a kalpataru tree. "This is wonderful! Now I desire a beautiful woman." Poof! The most beautiful woman appeared to him. "Now I desire a beautiful palace to live in, I desire so many servants, an opulent feast.." On and on he went for many hours, and every single thing appeared because he was sitting under a desire tree. But then he thought, "The sun is going down, it's getting dark now. I know what's going to happen. Because this is a jungle, a tiger's going to appear and that tiger's going to eat me." So lo and behold, because he thought it, and he was sitting under a desire tree, a tiger appeared and gobbled him up.
MORAL: Vancha kalpataru 'bhyas ca. A devotee is a desire tree, so we have to be very careful what we desire.

David Seaton's News Links

Scenario:

• The Republican Party, which is one half of America's two party system, running with its last heavyweight moderate, loses big and moves farther to the right.

• Thanks to Bush, the economic and international situation are so deteriorated that the Democrats, despite a huge majority and no opposition worthy of the name to blame their troubles on, prove impotent in the face of it all and fail miserably.
  

• Mass unemployment, "stagdeflation" and humiliation in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and Latin America have become the exclusive property of the Democrats, who Bush has left holding the bag.
  

• Totally purged of moderates, the Republicans, in their most reactionary form, return to power, first in midterm and finally in 2012.

Let's look at another paragraph from Krugman's column:

Larry Sabato, the election forecaster, predicts that seven Senate seats currently held by Republicans will go Democratic on Tuesday. According to the liberal-conservative rankings of the political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, five of the soon-to-be-gone senators are more moderate than the median Republican senator — so the rump, the G.O.P. caucus that remains, will have shifted further to the right. The same thing seems set to happen in the House.

With people like that and Colin Powell gone, what sort of Republican Party will be waiting in the wings when the Democrats take full possession of Bush's disaster? Or, better yet, who would you prefer to leave the job of reconstructing the Republican Party to -- and you can be sure that it will be reconstructed somehow -- to John McCain or Sarah Palin?

Think it over before answering. DS

Orwell meets Disney

David Seaton's News Links
In a comment to a Mark Steyn article over at the Orange Country Register I found the following comment by someone who signs in as "livingtheoc" that gives one of the best descriptions of what I find the "George Orwell meets Walt Disney" effect of the Obama campaign: its massive control and its opaque touchyfeelyness, the effort made to suppress questioning and the cooperation that the media and its potential victims are giving to that effort.

The following excerpt from livingtheoc's post is especially succinct:

(....)Don't you find it odd that Senator Obama is now scrutinizing "Joe the Plumbers" personal life, but when it comes to his life, nothing will be released?! I am appalled that this is happening. Is this how he will treat all American citizens? This among other things do not sit well with me as an American and it should not sit well with you. The American people hold the power right now, as we, the American people are the deciding factor as to whether he gets into office. It's beyond any logical thinking why people are accepting his word and not questioning his character and his associations. Isn't Obama's refusal to release this information enough to spark enough doubt as to who he really is?

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

13.Your Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'

14. Your Illinois State Senate records--'not available'

You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.

You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.

You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.

You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after 143 days of experience.

You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience

AND NOW Obama is AGAIN lying to the American people about his Aunt! Stop being zombies people, wake up!

If Obama gets elected after such a surrealistic process and everything turns out fine and he is a wonderful president, it will be a miracle, like Lazarus arising from the dead or a temporary suspension of the law of gravity.

America will have shown that not only can it "reinvent" itself, it will have shown that in fact, it can "create reality"... just like the neocons always maintained. DS

At the guru's lotus feet

David Seaton's News Links
McCain may not be as inept and clueless as he seems. Strapped as he is for cash, by falling so far behind in the polls and without spending a dime he has turned Obama, not Bush, into the "incumbent" and the focus is now on Obama and not on Bush.

Did he plan this or, more likely, has he just stumbled upon it? However he managed to find it, it may be the only path he could have ever taken to victory.

The question for flat broke McCain is to keep the focus on Obama and build up doubts among the "low information voters" (LIVs) who, with the World Series finished are just tuning into the presidential campaign. And of course the essential challenge is to keep that focus on Obama with out spending any money.

The "low information voters" (LIVs) who are just now tuning into the election are only really hearing about Obama for the first time. At this point rumors about girl friends and wealth redistribution can really catch the attention of the LIVs. All this focus on Obama is a force multiplier for McCain's meager dollars.

Perhaps someone who can make a dollar go such a long way as McCain can would do well during a severe economic crisis. Certainly Obama's spending four to one and not having everything sewn by now up does smell a little bit of the classic "tax and spend" Democrat that Republicans love to portray.

Another thing bothers me quite a bit: there seem to be many stories about Obama that never get followed up in the press.

It is very striking how any trivial story about any other candidate that I can remember has always been considered legitimate news, but stories about Obama are considered off limits.

Like everyone else, I really know very little about Obama, but I am coming to know quite a lot about his supporters and I find quite a few of them frankly sinister.

Somehow, someone that has appeared literally "out of the blue" is infused with some sort of holy aura. What it most reminds me of from my dirty hippie days of yore, is of "ashrama", the hot house climate of an Indian ashram, where the guru's every nose picking becomes a cause for worship, is treasured, celebrated and collected.

I can't get a clear view of what Obama is, was, what he wants (besides power) or what he will do if elected. If after so much money has been spent over so many months and the candidate still appears all things to all men, then I don't think that this is by chance: I think that that this is the general idea, the effect desired.

What astonishes and offends me is how people are painting in the empty spaces with their own fantasies and dreams. It reminds me of previous "great awakenings" where Americans sold everything and sat in fields waiting for the second coming.

Next comes the "Great Hangover". DS

Poll axed

Henry Fuseli -The Nightmare

David Seaton's News Links
It will be interesting to see which pollster has called this thing correctly. There is such a huge difference between them. The differences seem to be between those who “weight” their samples using past precedents and those who, putting aside all skepticism, consider that many more young people and black people are going to actually take the trouble to vote than ever have before.

Another factor may be that their are so many pollsters calling so often that people are beginning to hang up on them and that these unpolled are McCain voters.

Another interesting idea is that to win Obama has to be over 50% in the polls because with Obama being black and in the lead the undecideds will all break for McCain. In short, the idea is to look at the polls of the key battleground states and if Obama is not over 50% (no matter what lead he has) than those states may very well go to McCain.

If this is true then McCain is not as inept as he seems.

By falling so far behind he has turned Obama, not Bush, into the “incumbent” and the focus is now on Obama and not Bush.

I expect that now, in the closing days and hours we will be seeing all the nasty material that the Republicans are said to have saved up on Obama.

We have already heard the “socialist” radio tape, now there is now supposed to be a “Palestinian video” which the Los Angeles Times is accused of suppressing, and also some sort of mysterious girlfriend, a certain Vera Baker, who seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth.

If the Reverend Wright is not encased in cement at the bottom of Lake Michigan by now, I wouldn’t be surprised if he turned up, say around Friday

The “low information voters” (LIVs) said to decide all close elections are just tuning into the election now and all they are hearing about is Obama.

At this point rumors about girl friends and wealth redistribution can really catch the attention of the LIVs. All this focus on Obama is a force multiplier for McCain’s meager dollars.

I think tonight’s massive info-ad is also a huge mistake. They are even putting the World Series on hold for it. This is like Obama’s Berlin speech, truly jumping the shark: overkill.

As improbable as it may seem right now it is totally possible that this thing may slip through Obama’s fingers at the last moment. DS

Obama's challenge and McCain's last, small, chance

David Seaton's News Links

Most probably Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States and if elected his major problem may very well be to control the "left wing infantilism" of some of his supporters who are going to confuse a virtual victory by default with a sea change in American politics, however for the same reason the presence of these supporters means that John McCain still has a real, if at this date almost infinitesimal, chance to pull off an upset.

The present political situation is more than marked, it is deformed by George W. Bush. He has practically amputated one of the legs America's two party system stands on.

Readers of my blog will be aware that rather than stupid or simply incompetent I consider him deeply insane. Within the framework of his insanity I consider him successful. He has achieved all that the darker recesses of his personality could have ever desired.

Psychobabble warning: Although surely he professes love for all of the following, actions speak louder than words, and I believe that Bush's actions prove that he hates his father, hates his talented younger brother, hates his political party and hates his country too... he has nearly destroyed them all.

Bush is said to love Jesus, and knowing that, if I were Jesus, I would watch my back.

If the Democrats win by the margins they are expected to win by it won't be because of any clear and ringing, Reagan-like, "good morning America", message they are sending, or a social-democratic epiphany in Middle America or any clear mandate to do anything but "change", which is something which can mean anything from " to make radically different" to a handful of small coins.

The Democrats will win enormously, simply because their opponents have been destroyed by George W. Bush. They are living the famous quote of Woody Allen's, "eighty percent of success is just showing up".

The Democratic coalition, as it stands today, more than a cohesive party of interest groups, presents itself and has for the last 30 years or so as what the British army would call a collection of "odds and sods", a flag of convenience, little more than a grab bag of assorted and heterogeneous entitlements. A disparate troop whose principal agglutinate seems to be a certain vague hostility to white, Protestant men whose last names end in consonants. Ronald Reagan played on this incoherence like a mighty Wagnaerian tenor with his jolly mixture of positive thinking, hand shaking xenophobia, sanctified selfishness and the "racism of low expectations": a mixture that still suits many Americans just fine.

However, Wagner, if played on the kazoo, would morph into a grotesque and comic caricature; and while not for one moment comparing Ronald Reagan's pablum to Wagner, George W. Bush's rendition of the Gipper's cheery arias has similarly deformed it. There is no reason to think that the great mass of Americans, those who have voted that message over and over again since 1981 don't like the message anymore... they just don't like failure and they don't like Bush. It would be dangerous to take winning, because the other team doesn't show up, as a mandate to do anything other then not look or sound like Bush.

If there is a real depression, then and only then will it be possible to talk to members of the American middle class about "income redistribution" or about "spreading the wealth around".

What is a real depression? Here is an example: my mother's father was running a steel mill in 1929... a year later he was selling shirts from door to door... When FDR died my grandfather cried like a baby. That is a depression.

If a Democratic dominated congress begins to move before America's middle class feels the fear my granddad felt in '29, the Republicans will take congress back in 2010 with a vengance.

That in a nutshell is Barack Obama's major problem if, as it looks almost sure at this late date, he wins the election.

And a dawning realization that precisely that might be the dynamic of his administration may give just a glimmer of a hope for John McCain to recover the votes that gave Bush the presidency in 2000 and 2004. DS

PS. Here is a wonky article from Salon, that illustrates obliquely some of the points I've been making:

Bill Greener: Why Obama has to stay above 50 percent - Salon
Abstract: I think John McCain really does have a decent shot at winning, and that's not just because I'm a longtime Republican political operative. Despite what the polls seem to be saying, a closer look at the numbers shows that a Democratic victory is not a foregone conclusion. Why? Because if history is any guide, Barack Obama, as an African-American candidate for political office, needs to be polling consistently above 50 percent to win. And in crucial battleground states, he isn't.(...) There's an old rule in politics that an incumbent candidate is always in danger when he dips under 50 percent, even if he is leading his opponent in the polls. It's all about the undecideds. In a race with an incumbent candidate and a challenger, on Election Day the undecideds tend to break for the challenger, at rates as high as 4 to 1. If an incumbent is polling at, say, 47 to 45 percent with 8 percent undecided, there's a good chance he's going to wind up losing 49 to 51. As it's sometimes expressed, if you're an incumbent, what you see is what you get. The same pattern seems to be true for African-American candidates in much of the country. If you're a black candidate running against a white candidate, what you see is what you get. And it doesn't matter whether you're an incumbent or a challenger. If you're not polling above 50 percent, you should be worried. As of this writing, Barack Obama is not polling consistently above 50 percent in a number of electoral-vote-rich swing states, including Ohio and Florida. He should be worried. Read it all

Americans, the little boy and the pony

David Seaton's News Links

A lot of people are saying the sort of thing I'm saying, but saying it better: Peggy Noonan, of all people, for instance.

People wonder if he is decisive. It is clear he is decisive in terms of his own career: He decides to go for president of the law review, to move to Chicago, to roll the dice for a U.S. Senate seat, to hire David Axelrod, to take on Hillary, to campaign with discipline and even elegance. When it comes to his career, his decisions are thought through and his judgments sound. But when it comes to decisions that have to do with larger issues, with great questions and not with him, things get murkier. There is the long trail of the missed and "present" votes, the hesitance on big questions. One wonders if in the presidency he'll be like the dog that chased the car and caught it: What's he supposed to do now?

Or Caroline Baum, over at Bloomberg:

I feel sorry for whoever wins the presidential election on Nov. 4. He faces a colossal mess. The housing bubble is still deflating, with no end in sight. The unemployment rate is rising, making consumer loans of all descriptions -- mortgage, auto, credit card -- vulnerable to rising delinquencies. (...) Neither candidate has offered much of a vision for addressing the credit crunch sinking an economy that was already taking on water. (...) For the next 11 days, the two candidates will regale us with their vision for the future. They will promise, if elected, to work hard each and every day for the American people. They will inspire us with their rhetoric and scare us with distortions about the other guy. Whether they know it or not, they won't be fulfilling many of those promises come Jan. 20. The next president of the U.S. will be handcuffed by events and constrained by deficits. He'll be playing defense. And he won't have a deep bench to work with. The only bright spot is the prospect of escape in four years if things get worse before they get better.

Americans are the dreamers of the "Dream", the world's first and foremost positive thinkers, "there is no life, truth, nor being in error" type of folks... Folks who have to remind themselves that "denial is not a river in Egypt". Filled to the gills with positive pills.

Bereft of the tragic sense of life, but horrified and offended as no others by the inevitability of age and death, they are optimists in order not to be totally bleak, bereft and abandoned pessimists.

Americans are optimistic like the little boy in the psychiatrist's joke:

A little boy goes into a room full of horse manure and begins to dig frantically with his bare hands: tossing the shit behind him with ferocious abandon. When asked why, he replies; "There has to be a pony in here somewhere!".

After history's most incredible run of luck, a tri-centenarian stream of blessings that no other people in the world have ever experienced, the USA is finally moving into a real bald patch and Americans, unlike more fatalistic peoples, don't know how to just hunker down and sweat it out... Yet. They still have to believe that a magic savior will come.
Here we are...
Come and get us.
Believing makes it so...

You betcha. DS

It is all very simple

David Seaton's News Links
It is all very simple.

The economy is going belly up.

Many people are going to suffer... suffer a lot.

Every day that passes they will become more aware of how much they are going to suffer.

They are afraid today and they will be more afraid with each passing day.

Fear is the mother of anger.

Anger will grow stronger with each passing day as the gravity of the crisis sinks in.

Its normal target would be the Republicans, they have been in power for eight years. Although this catastrophe is not just something the Republicans have done by themselves, but rather is the product of a consensus of the entire American establishment, the meltdown has happened on the Republican watch and logically they should carry the can.

Their loss should be one of historic proportions, the ruin of dozens of careers. The ruin of hard men and hard women, people who have struggled hard to be where they are. It would be disingenuous to imagine that there is any limit to what they would do to avoid that ruin.

So, it is all very simple.

The only possible chance that the Republicans have of winning, the only possible chance, is to somehow redirect all this hysterical anger toward Barack Obama. To do this they must let all of America's demons off their leash.

That is what they are trying to do... and they can't stop.

To think that they might desist in this tactic is like asking a drowning man to stop treading water.

McCain himself might want to stop, and may try to stop this process as he realizes that through this loosing of the demons he may very well both lose the election and something else of great importance to him, his establishment credentials, his membership in polite society.

As much as you might dislike him John McCain is not Richard Milhous Nixon

But the ghost of Richard Nixon and the shadow of Willy Horton are walking the land and we can only witness what may turn out to be the most nauseating three weeks in American history.

It's all very simple. DS

Clarifying

David Seaton's News Links

I draw my share of flack because I don't imbibe the Kool-Aid on Obama, and I'd like to clarify this a bit.

The problem here, as I see it, isn't really Obama, as it isn't really Bush, they are just symptoms.

America and Americans give the impression at this moment of wandering through history aided only by a white cane.

On one hand the people reelect someone who was already clearly incompetent in 2004 and now they are about to elect someone without any practical experience of government.

Not just that, but a lot of things don't make sense.

Look at the reaction of the Chinese people (not just their government) to the earthquake and then look at the reaction of the American people (not just their government) to Katrina.

50 years ago, I think Americans would have responded like the Chinese. The Chinese reaction seems to me the normal reaction of a great people to a terrible tragedy, the American reaction seems to me both autistic and decadent and America didn't get to the position it occupies by being either autistic or decadent... and it certainly won't/isn't keeping that position by being autistic and decadent.

So, the problem in my view is not Obama, the problem is not the leaders.

In a Democracy, even a flawed one like America's, the leaders are only symptoms, the problem is in the society and that is where the work has to be done.

I think the country has been somehow hollowed out.

___________

Well, I posted the above over at TPM Café and I got this question,

First I'm struck by your cynicism, If there were ever a year to have some hope it's this year. We've had more young people be involved than ever before on both sides of the isle. Even Ron Paul has been huge in his groundswell of support. This is also the most educated young electorate we've ever had. Certainly you have to have a little confidence America is at least starting to head in the right direction.

Secondly I would like to know how you square Clinton's vote for the war? If you are not a Clinton supporter who do you support?

To which I replied:

First the secondly:

Secondly I would like to know how you square Clinton's vote for the war? If you are not a Clinton supporter who do you support?

And firstly the secondly of the secondly. I am not a "Hillary supporter", although I like the idea of a woman president (of any color).

I think that by far the best candidate this year would have been Al Gore: experience, vision, right on the war, great international prestige based on action, not "charisma"... It still might happen in a hung convention, but the Democrats are the Democrats...

And secondly the secondly of the firstly:

Certainly you have to have a little confidence America is at least starting to head in the right direction.

Really, do I have to?

Four years ago, in perfect good faith, the American people reelected a war criminal who had proved to be totally incompetent... even as a war criminal. Now they are ready to elect president a community organizer under the patronage of Dick Daley, with no experience relevant to managing the affairs of a superpower... pure Frank Capra, "Mr Smith Goes to Washington". Really do I have to have confidence?

And thirdly the secondly or perhaps the thirdly of the secondly.

Who do you support?

Actually I support myself, eating my bread in the sweat of my brow.

As to the presidency.

I see different scenarios:

• Obama wins and reality and the interest groups and his desire for a second term cause him to fudge. I don't think he has anything near Jimmy Carter's integrity or anything like Bill Clinton's sex drive, so he will be much duller than people think. The kids will be heartbroken.

• McCain wins and this means the end of Goldwater/Reagan Republicanism. (see Peggy Noonan's lament). This would truly transform American politics. Interesting idea: to survive, the Republicans commit ideological hara-kiri.

I really like what Obama says and I am horrified by many of the things McCain says, however, as you have noted, I am rather cynical, (the Spanish say that the devil knows more because of his age than because he is the devil) I pay little attention to anything a politician says when running for office and much attention to what he or she has actually done when in office.

In this case, as Obama has done practically nothing, I am left with what he says.

In the case of McCain, he has a very long record, some of it is quite attractive and some less. It does give you the feeling that there won't be many nasty surprises and there might even be some pleasant ones.

But, since I would have to vote absentee from Illinois, and the Land of Lincoln, will surely adorn itself with leis and hula skirts to vote massively for its favorite son, voting even for Ralph Nader would be a waste of time, so I probably will sit this one out. DS

Dharma bums: Gore and McCain

Bhagavad Gita

David Seaton's News Links
I had a mail asking me to justify how I could be willing to vote for Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore and John McCain and not for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

First congressman Kucinich:
As I've often said, if the tooth fairy could give me three wishes Dennis Kucinich would be President of the United States and with a mandate large enough to enact his full program. I would love to live in a country that someone who thinks like Dennis Kucinich could be president. I do, in fact, live in such a country, but that is another story.

In the case of both Gore and McCain, I read them as men of dharma in the Hindu sense, a apparently esoteric term which, if you pardon me copying and pasting myself, I will explain below.

_____________________________________________

"Dharma" is a very useful Sanskrit word, that Wikipedia defines as "the underlying order in nature and human life and behavior considered to be in accord with that order." Some would translate that as "right" as opposed to "wrong", or "duty" but those words might carry a little more "Judeo-Christian" freight of "sin" and "guilt" than dharma might feel comfortable carrying. "Appropriate", might be closer, but such a very powerful version of that word... so powerful that the word "dharma" in the original version would be more precise, so I'll try to explain dharma, as I understand it, through some examples.

Once a famous rishi, or Hindu holy man, was sitting in meditation next to a flowing river accompanied by his disciples. His reverie was interrupted by the sound of the death struggles of a scorpion that had fallen in the river. Filled with compassion the rishi reached out his hand and lifted the drowning creature out of the water, but no sooner did the scorpion feel himself safe, it stung the rishi's hand and the pain of the sting forced the rishi to drop it back into the water, where of course the scorpion began to drown again... and again the holy man reached down to pull the scorpion out and again he was stung for his pains, this was repeated several times till one of the disciples managed to get a leaf under the scorpion, lift it out of the water and set it on dry land, whereupon the scorpion stalked off into the grass without so much as a backward look.

The disciple approached the rishi, who was nursing his swollen hand, and touching his guru's feet in homage asked, "Master, why did you continue to attempt to save the drowning scorpion, when each time you did so, he stung you for your pains?

The guru replied, "It is the scorpion's dharma to sting and it is my dharma to save."

Perhaps that example might be a little confusing because of the rishi's saintliness. The following story might clarify it.

Once upon a time in India there lived a king who was both a patron of the arts and of religion and a young actor resolved on getting a job at the court theater.

Disguising himself as a mendicant holy man with matted hair and smeared with ashes, the actor appeared before the palace gates, where the guards, knowing the king's penchant for conversing with saints, promptly ushered him into the royal presence. The king and the rishi/actor had a long conversation about spiritual matters and the king received some valuable pointers on his meditation techniques. At the end of the interview the king clapped his hands and a servant brought in a tray with a hundred gold coins upon it, which the king humbly offered to the rishi/actor, who with saintly modesty refused it, only accepting a bowl of rice before blessing the king and going on his way.

The next day the actor appeared before the palace dressed as a dancing girl and accompanied by a group of musicians. The guards knowing the king's love of music ushered the troupe promptly into the royal presence.

To the rhythm of the tabla and the whining of the sitar the actor/dancing girl whirled and stamped his/her bangled feet, striking coy poses, combined with lascivious undulations that drew enthusiastic applause from the king and the entire court. At the end of the performance, the king clapped his hands and again, as before, the servant appeared with the tray covered in gold coins... but this time the actor/dancing girl shook his/her tresses, stamped his/her feet in indignation and pouted with offended displeasure and asked for more money in a rough, high pitched voice.

Now, the king was no dunce and something in the voice of the dancing girl rang a bell and he leaped from his throne and shouted, "I know you! You are the same person that came here yesterday posing as a rishi!" The actor whipped off his wig and threw himself at the king's feet saying, "Yes, your majesty, I was the rishi yesterday and I am the dancing girl today. In reality I am an actor who wants a job in the royal theater and this was the only way I could think of to show you my art."

"Well, said the king, "you are indeed a wonderful actor and not only am I going to give you a job in my theater, from today you are its director." The king paused and lifting the actor to his feet asked him, "But tell me one thing first: Why as rishi did you refuse a hundred gold coins and as a dancing girl protest that they were too few?"

The actor replied, "Your majesty, it is against the dharma of a rishi to accept money for spiritual advice and it is against the dharma of a dancing girl to ever be satisfied no matter how much money she gets... and, of course, it is the dharma of an actor to behave in the dharma of others" So the actor stayed on at court and as the years passed became one of the king most trusted advisors.

Living in dharma can be quite complex, however. Take this example: A judge can also be a grandfather. At home, in his grandfather dharma, his little grandson rides him around the living room like a pony, spurring him in the ribs. In court, in his judge dharma, the accused tremble in his presence. Each role has its dharma.

Institutions and organizations also have their dharmas. Take General Motors for instance. Toyota Motors has just passed GM as the world's biggest car maker. The dharma of a car maker is to make good cars. Toyota makes good cars, GM makes lousy cars.

The opposite of dharma is "adharma". The problem that faces the United States today is that while it postures as "dharma swarupa" (the embodiment of dharma) it is now perceived as adharmic and this could cause a catastrophic collapse in America's positions in a host of situations to come.

In Hindu mythology, Vishnu, the god of preservation and nurturing, incarnates from age to age to restore and to foster dharma. In a secular democracy, however, I'm afraid we'll just have to do it ourselves.

_______________________________________________

So what about Gore and McCain?

First the one I think would make the best president: Al Gore.

I confess that I was not really a fan of Al Gore's until he had the presidency stolen from him by Bush. I cannot think of any more bitter experience for anyone to face. I thought his reaction, his attitude, serene and institutional was completely "dharmic". I think he put the welfare of the country before his own ego, which is at the heart of presidential dharma. That his sacrifice was repaid by eight years of the worst, most adharmic, president in American history takes nothing away from the merit of Gore's abnegation. Dharma to be really dharma has to be Nishkam Karma, self-less or desireless action performed without any expectation of fruits or results.

On to McCain. Obviously at the center of McCain's dharma are the years he spent in a Vietnamese prison. What most exemplifies dharma in this case is that McCain could have been released years before he was, because his father was the Admiral commanding the Pacific Fleet and the Vietnamese were eager to exchange him. McCain refused to be exchanged before his comrades. I can't think of a better example of nishkam karma or Dharma than that.

Tom Engelhardt quite reasonably inquires what McCain was doing when he got shot down. Again, the son and grandson of admirals was fulfilling family dharma. The Gita will inform any who are interested in the dharma of a Kshatriya.

I prefer Gore to McCain because I think he will follow more progressive policies, but I could be wrong. Yesterday there was an interesting article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, that I'll quote:

Of seven major industries that have been the most reliable Republican resources, Sen. McCain has beaten Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama in only one, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization. Even that one, transportation, is a close call. Among the seven combined, the expected Republican nominee raised $13.1 million through February, compared with $22.5 million for Sen. Obama and $27.1 million for Sen. Clinton.(...) Health-care and pharmaceutical firms have given three times as much to each of the two Democrats as to Sen. McCain. Defense firms put Sen. McCain ahead of Sen. Obama, but behind Sen. Clinton. Energy, construction and agribusiness firms have given more to both Democrats.

I don't know about you, but I smell a rat. These people know what they expect for their money and if there is anything people like this don't like and don't understand it is Nishkam Karma in any shape or form.

Summing up: The most important quality in any person of power, as Bush so well illustrates negatively, is dharma. I think that both Al Gore and John McCain are men of proven dharma and I know for sure, as do most Americans, that both the Clintons are adharmic in the extreme... and, as to Obama, to tell the truth, I have no idea what or who Barack Obama really is and I'm not sure even he does either, and that is simply not good enough for me. DS

What happened to Hillary?

David Seaton's News Links
What happened to Hillary?

How about this?

Hollywood doesn't write any good parts for middle aged, American women... Hollywood's message to them is "drop dead" and in today's world of corporate concentration and infotainment, Hollywood and the news media are of one flesh.

However, look around you, there are many middle aged American women with a few extra lines around their eyes, with some furrows in their pucker, with a bit of sag in the chin, and with a little "rope" in the neck muscles, but who, somehow -- malgré Hollywood -- don't want to drop dead, just yet... and they can vote.

I have spent my whole life trying enthusiastically, but none too successfully, to understand women, but what little I have managed to learn tells me that it would be very difficult for a middle aged woman to join in publicly ridiculing and humiliating another middle aged woman... the empathy would be just too strong. That humiliation and ridicule are always just beneath the surface in too many places, even in their own homes, available to them all.

And beyond middle age, despite all the talk of a "youth crusade" around Obama, the old folks are the ones that really vote. Women live longer than men, so that among the elderly, women outnumber men, that means more women voting in the group with the highest voter participation.

So Hillary has been saved by her sisters, they rode to her rescue like the 7th cavalry in an old western... "Joan Wayne" saved Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. DS

Draft Al Gore... Spare the world Giuliani

"Mr. Gore’s central argument is that “reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions” and that the country’s public discourse has become “less focused and clear, less reasoned.” This “assault on reason,” he suggests, is personified by the way the Bush White House operates. " NYT review of "The Assault on Reason"

"Al Gore is a serious man confronted by a political system that is not open to a serious exploration of important, complex issues. He knows it." Bob Herbert - NYT

David Seaton's News Links
Al Gore is the only serious, mainstream, "household word" type, public intellectual left standing in a country that has produced giants like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. While I would never put him in anywhere near the same league with those titans, there is no other American political figure at this time with Gore's intellectual capacity, experience and any chance of ever being elected president (he was elected once already, after all).

Gore has identified and made his own property the two gravest problems facing America and the world today: global warming and America's deficit of democracy. This alone, whatever other merits he may possess, marks him as a historical figure.

I think Gore is wise not to run for President and to unnecessarily expose himself again to the insult and ridicule which is now what passes for public debate in the USA, but I think that the Democrats are foolish not to draft him. The present field of Democratic candidates is made up of dwarfs in comparison to Gore.

There is some idea that the Democrats are predestined to win the next presidential election... This idea is entirely erroneous in my opinion. The forces able to create and press such an unlikely dunce as George W. Bush upon the American people (twice!) are still there and certainly will marshal up every dirty trick in their massive repertoire. The two leading Democratic candidates, Hillary and Obama are singularly vulnerable to the sort of garbage that these people can brew up. Oscar, Emmy and Nobel Peace Prize winners a tad less.

The leading Republican candidate. Rudolph Giuliani is uniquely suited to exploit the weaknesses of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They would both be electable if it weren't for Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda will still be there in October 2008.

Osama bin Laden has done very well with the Republicans and he has no reason to want to change. A Giuliani presidency could be even worse than Bush, especially with people like Daniel Pipes and Norman Podhoretz advising him. If Osama had his 'druthers' I'm sure he'd pick Rudy. And one big bomb in the right place, at the right time and I doubt if the American people would be in any mood to elect either the first woman or the first African-American president of the United States.

Perhaps the country is not ready for somebody that is really as serious as Al Gore is just yet. Another failed presidency might do the trick. After four years of Rudy Giuliani and the ensuing nightmare of war and corruption, the American people might be finally "ripe" for Al Gore.

The Democrats could save us all of this by drafting Al Gore now, but I doubt that they will. DS

Sarko is France's answer to Sammy Glick

"La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid"
Les Liaisons Dangereuses (1782)- Pierre Choderlos de Laclos.

David Seaton's News Links
My theory of the French elections, which contains nothing original, is that the whole thing revolves around the personality of Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy is the French incarnation of "Sammy Glick" the hero of Budd Schulberg's classic "What Makes Sammy Run?", eaten by ambition, without any known scruples, someone who has left scores of 'dead bodies' and walking wounded behind him in his climb to the top. In short, France is full of the enemies of Nicolas Sarkozy. This is their big chance.

Now, in the second round of the presidential elections, these enemies, perhaps even Sarkozy's wife, will come crawling out of the very woodwork. These two week are the culmination of his entire existence. His heart's desire is within his grasp. This is the cruelest moment for his enemies to strike. They will show no mercy. I have no trouble predicting that the next two weeks will probably be the worst of Sarkozy's life.

When you read this story from the Financial Times about Sarkozy's attempts to draw François Bayrou into a conspiracy against Jacques Chirac as far back as 2002, you will be struck by the timing of Bayrou's revelation. He didn't use it when it could have given him votes. He has waited till now, when the damage to Sarkozy will be the greatest. His goal is to destroy Sarkozy and inherit the French right. Indeed, revenge is "a dish best served cold". DS

Sarkozy sought Bayrou’s help to attack Chirac - Financial Times

Abstract: France’s presidential election took another twist on Wednesday with the revelation that François Bayrou, the self-styled kingmaker of the contest, rebuffed an invite from Nicolas Sarkozy to join forces in “a war” against president Jacques Chirac three years ago. Mr Bayrou, the centrist who came third in Sunday’s first round, on Wednesday refused to endorse either of the two remaining contenders for the presidency. He has been wooed by Mr Sarkozy, the favourite, and Ségolène Royal, the Socialist, who both need his 6.8m first-round votes for victory. The surprise revelation that Mr Bayrou fell out with Mr Sarkozy over his abortive anti-Chirac proposal in 2004 may complicate attempts by the presidential frontrunner to coax his centrist rival into supporting his candidacy in return for an electoral alliance. The website of the local newspaper Sud-Ouest unveiled the scoop on Wednesday, after keeping it under wraps at Mr Bayrou’s request since interviewing him with its readers on March 16. It said it decided to publish his comments to “clarify the gulf that separates the two men”. In the interview, extracts of which are being broadcast on Sud-Ouest’s website, Mr Bayrou said: “You cannot meet more different (people) than Nicolas Sarkozy and me. I have not spoken with Nicolas Sarkozy for three years.” Mr Bayrou recounted how a journalist and friend invited him to a meeting with Mr Sarkozy, shortly after the latter had become head of the centre-right UMP party, founded by Mr Chirac in 2002. Mr Bayrou said that at the meeting: “Sarkozy said to me: ‘I propose an alliance against Chirac. We’ll act the young ones and make him look old-fashioned, the old man. We’ll fight a war with him.’” The centrist said he replied: “That doesn’t interest me. I don’t want to form an alliance with you. I don’t want to form an alliance against Chirac on the criteria of age. That is not like me. So, you do what you like, but me, I won’t do it.” He added: “Since then its been like a chill between us.” The revelation confirms rumours that Mr Sarkozy actively tried to destabilise Mr Chirac, his former mentor, even though he served as interior minister and finance minister in his government for most of his final five-year mandate.(...) Mr Bayrou ran a surprisingly successful campaign as an alternative to the discredited two-party system. He criticised both leading candidates, but was especially hostile towards Mr Sarkozy. READ IT ALL

Ségolène and "la mesure"

David Seaton's News Links
In trying to handicap the French presidential race I think we have to ask ourselves, why 18% of the voters cast their ballot for a moderate-conservative horse breeder like François Bayrou in the first place?

I would suggest that this was a deeply anti-"Sarkozy the man" vote, as the program differences between the two conservatives wouldn't justify it. The question is Sarkozy himself. His character, his personality.

Those who voted for him voted for that character and personality. I think everybody that really likes him has had a chance to vote for him already... That is all there is. I don't think we'll see a great mass of Bayrou's supporters rushing to vote for Sarkozy... they simply couldn't vote for a Socialist in the first round. Now comes the gathering together of those who fear Sarko and detest him. If Sarkozy tries to move toward the center the Le Pen vote probably will abstain and the moderates won't be convinced.

Remember when our beloved leader George W. Bush said that the problem of the French was that they didn't have a word for "entrepreneur"... He might have added that they don't have a word for "bourgeois" either. The French have, in fact, invented the universal word for "middle class" and they are famous for being the world's most bourgeois people. At the center of their values is "la mesure"... just the right amount of anything, not too much, not too little... balance. My feeling is that although Sarkozy is exciting he is too hot, too often angry. Not quite in control... not even at home. Madame Sarkozy is often quite openly seen to indulge in, to use a down home turn of phrase, "a slippin' and a slidin"... The French don't care much about what people do in bed, but they admire discretion, control... mesure.

Ségolène Royal, although without the benefit of clergy, has had four children with the same man and both of them have careers in the same organization without any tension or jealousy being evident... How balanced, reliable and steady can you get?

Like this article from the Financial Times suggests, I think the election will be a referendum about Sarkozy's character and I think that he will fail the test. I wouldn't be surprised if his wife, now that he is safely into the second round, chose this precise moment to humiliate him. Hell hath no fury... DS

Battleground moves to the centre - Financial Times
Abstract: The trauma of April 2002 weighed heavily on Sunday’s elections. Left wing voters were determined not to repeat the mistake of the last ballot when they spread their support among several candidates allowing Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front, to sneak through to the second round. This time, the Socialist Party appealed for a ’vote utile’ (a useful vote) in the first round. They won it.(...) Support for the candidates of the extreme left fell sharply compared with 2002 as the left rallied around Ségolène Royal in spite of widespread misgivings about her campaign.(...) The question on everyone’s lips this morning is: can Ms Royal win? It is possible, but it will be difficult. A snap poll from Ipsos on Sunday night showed Nicolas Sarkozy would win the second round by a handy margin of 54 per cent to 46 per cent. However, five of the 10 defeated candidates immediately rallied behind Royal to form an anti-Sarkozy front; the others refrained from endorsing anyone. Ms Royal has shown that she is a remarkably resilient campaigner. Her opponents have underestimated her at their peril. She may also find it easier than Mr Sarkozy to move towards the middle, the battleground of the second round. As a woman of the left, with values of the right, she may make a better “cross-over” candidate. As Jacques Séguéla, the veteran advertising guru, once put it in an interview with the FT, there is a lot of Sarko in Sego, but not a lot of Sego in Sarko. It will be critical how the voters of François Bayrou, the third-placed centrist candidate, now divide. But it would be a mistake to believe that he has a single transferable block of votes at his command. Earlier opinion polls have suggested his vote could split equally between Ms Royal and Mr Sarkozy.(...) The vote on May 6 could well turn out to be a referendum on Mr Sarkozy. It is his election to lose; but the headstrong Mr Sarkozy is certainly capable of a rush of blood to the head that could cost him victory. READ IT ALL

Segolene and reading polls

David Seaton's News Links
I'm just including this fascinating snippet from the Guardian on the first round of the French presidential election for the record. On Monday we'll see if the defacing of posters or the university poll had given us a winner which the normal polls found impossible.

These offbeat things can often be uncannily accurate. Take, for example, the "Halloween mask poll", which always shows who is going to win US presidential elections. It appears that the candidate that sells the most masks for trick or treating is always elected.

The Halloween mask poll had Bush getting re-elected as early as September 2004. So if these French versions pick the winner we can continues this thread on Monday. DS

Floating voters the key as campaigning closes in France - Guardian
Abstract: Mr Sarkozy's election team is said to have been rattled by hints that his campaign posters were being destroyed more than those of other candidates - and worse, defaced with Hitler mustaches. Concerns about the reliability of polling figures were heightened last night when a survey at the respected Paris Institute for Political Studies predicted a first-round victory for Ms Royal. The 1,000 students who took part in the mock vote gave her 39.8 %, Mr Bayrou 26.6 %, Mr Sarkozy 18.7 % and Mr Le Pen 4.8 %. A college spokesman, Hervé Marro, denied that those at the university, a hothouse for many of France's future leaders, were traditionally leftwing. "Not at all. There are a lot of students at Sciences Po who normally support the right, which is why the result was such a surprise," he told the Guardian. "Additionally, a lot of the left-leaning students are not those who support Ségolène Royal." He added: "The big problem with all polls is that saying you are going to vote for a candidate and actually doing so are two very different things." READ IT ALL

Al Gore: "We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done."

"There is a wild card. On Feb. 25, America will watch the Academy Awards, where the Oscar for best documentary will likely go to "An Inconvenient Truth." If Al Gore wins the Oscar, addresses the nation for two minutes on global warming and the war, then appears on Oprah, Leno, Letterman, Stewart and Colbert, a subsequent declaration of candidacy would put him in the top tier. " Pat Buchanan

David Seaton's News Links
The news about candidates now is mostly about how much money they are raising and how eager they are find correct positions and how much they want the job. It all has the flavor of a reality show, a talent contest, or something with Donald Trump; a slight flavor of Paris Hilton or "Little Miss Sunshine". This does not fit the political mood of the times. This is a very grave and deadly moment, colored by cynicism and war crimes, of doubt, failure and defeat... of betrayal of trust. Of regret.

One of America's biggest regrets must be that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore. If Gore had been sworn in instead of Bush, we know now that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Hillary, like Gore's running mate, Joe Lieberman, was all for the invasion of Iraq and would probably support military action against Iran. As for Barack Obama, he was an Illinois state senator at the time... he says he was against the war, but did he inhale?

Having something you want with all your heart, which you have won fairly, literally stolen from you is about as bitter an experience as any man or woman can face in life. I'll freely admit that I never really had any clear impression of Al Gore at all until I observed how he carried himself in "defeat". Gore's reaction showed no bitterness, anger or pettiness. America, with its horror of losing, has not learned what a wise and demanding master the pain of defeat is. Spaniards, who have long experience of both triumph and defeat, say that the bravery of a man is like the taste of a melon, until they are cut open, you don't know what is inside. So now we know two important things for sure about Al Gore: he wouldn't have started the war and that he has a strong heart. Do we really know much of anything of comparable value about any other candidate for the Democratic nomination?

In global warming Gore has found an issue of universal concern and has carved himself a universally recognized position as an authority on it. He did this quietly, patiently and methodically. Even if adopting global warming were only a strategy to recreate his political career, it is such a long headed strategy and so subtly executed that it would prove a capacity of analysis, judgment, self control and execution that have long been (longer than six years) missing from the White House. One thing for sure, Al Gore shouldn't have to beg for the presidency. We cannot turn back the clock or undo the harm undone, but there can be second acts in American life. DS

Liberal groups expect postelection results - Los Angeles Times

David Seaton's News Links
I love the way this article primly refers to anti-war and civil liberty activists, who have led the charge in this election, as "interest groups". I usually think of oil, NRA and AIPAC as "interest groups". The Republicans aren't so shy about serving their base and their "interest groups," are they? Maybe they actually believe some of the tripe they advocate. If the Democrats play the "center" they are going to last about as long as a glacier in globalization. What they have to do, if they aren't going to be as useless as the glass hammer in the picture, is move the center to the left. Do they really think that volunteers are going to work themselves into a frazzle just so that Hillary Clinton can execute Murdoch's agenda. That is a surefire recipe for failure. DS

Abstract: After toppling the long-dominant Republicans in a hard-fought election, the Democratic Party's incoming congressional leaders have immediately found themselves in another difficult struggle — with their own supporters. Some of the very activists who helped propel the Democrats to a majority in the House and Senate last week are claiming credit for the victories and demanding what they consider their due: a set of ambitious — and politically provocative — actions on gun control, abortion, national security and other issues that party leaders fear could alienate moderate voters and leave Democrats vulnerable to GOP attacks as big spenders or soft on terrorism. The conflict underscores the challenge facing the Democrats in line to lead Congress — Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco in the House and Harry Reid of Nevada in the Senate. Each has pledged in recent days to "govern from the center," after a campaign in which anger over the Iraq war and GOP scandals helped their party attract some unusually conservative candidates and a large share of independent voters. Turning off those new voters could undermine Democrats' hopes of solidifying their new majorities and taking the White House in 2008. But to the leaders of interest groups who are core supporters of the Democratic Party, and who had been barred under Republican rule from the inner sanctums of power, the new Congress means a time for action, not compromise. Lobbyists for the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, are all but counting on Democrats to repeal the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorist law pushed by the White House that some critics call unconstitutional. They also want to end President Bush's domestic wiretapping program. "We are not going to let them off the hook," said Caroline Fredrickson, the ACLU's legislative director, of the newly empowered Democratic leaders in Congress. "We will hold their feet to the fire and use all the tools we can to mobilize our members." Similar vows are coming from lobbyists for abortion rights, who want to expand family-planning options for poor women and scale back Bush's focus on abstinence education, and from gun-control advocates, who hope to revive a lapsed ban on assault weapons. Labor unions, a core Democratic constituency, are demanding universal healthcare and laws discouraging corporations from seeking inexpensive labor overseas.(...) Eli Pariser, executive director of the political action committee associated with the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, warned that Democratic leaders would be ill-advised to ignore the party's base. "A huge number of people were involved in putting them over the top," Pariser said. "There's a huge group of people engaged and energized and ready to support Pelosi and company when they boldly lead — and to hold them to account if they stray." Pressure on Democrats is especially acute to redirect U.S. policy in Iraq. Many Democrats say the issue was the most important one driving the party's victory. Democratic lawmakers have not unified behind a single Iraq policy. READ ALL