What Riverdaughter Says

The left blogosphere might want to think about that for awhile. If it thinks that nothing it does makes a difference to the powers that be, maybe it should try dissenting and allow the pain of independence work its magic. DON’T say you’re going to vote for the bastards even if they treat you like shit. And then mean it. They’re counting on you to go along with the crowd in order to alleviate that pain and fear. Peer pressure only works if you let it. And those of us who have resisted from the beginning can’t reason with you to make you see our point of view. Resisting peer pressure is something you need to come to grips with on an emotional level your own. It *is* painful but worth it when your thoughts are your own. It’s sometimes physically disorienting and nauseating, I won’t lie to you. People aren’t going to like you. They’re going to call you stupid or mentally ill. They’ll say they were wrong about you and you’re not as sexy and smart as they thought you were. They’ll tell you that you will bring Armageddon down on everyone’s head if you let the Republicans win. They know how the brain game works because they’ve read the studies and it’s always worked this way. If you give in to them, they win and they can do whatever they like because they know you will go along in order to feel good about yourself.

They need you more than you need them.  They still need the momentum of the crowd, the frenzy of the mob, the mounting pressure as the election gets nearer.  They need your vote.  If you refuse it, you monkeywrench their entire peer pressure apparatus and then they have to start paying attention to you and addressing your demands.  They’d rather not have to do that.  They have other people to win over.  It’s easier for them to know that they have checked you off their list so they can move on to tougher nuts.  Don’t make it easy for them.

Sunday: Ok, I think we’re on to something here

Amen.

Anglachel

No Ticket to Ride

I am perusing my complimentary copy of Eric Boehlert's new book, Bloggers on the Bus (thanks, Eric), and I am mystified by an enormous lacuna in its pages.

Nowhere is Bob Somerby or The Daily Howler directly mentioned.

Perhaps I have not looked in the right place in the index or missed the specific pages where The Incomparable One is discussed, but I'm sitting here, scratching my head, trying to figure out how anyone, let alone someone as perceptive as Boehlert, can omit Bob Somerby from an analysis of the media and the blogs in Election '08, especially as Somerby was cranking out some of the most clear-eyed, trenchant commentary on the circus.

Where is mention of Somerby's brilliant phrase, Whoever Kidnapped Josh Marshall?

A phrase that neatly sums up the schizophrenia gripping Left Blogistan by the throat from November 2007 through the Democratic National Convention, and continued to rear its psychotic head through the confirmation hearings for Secretary of State Clinton. A phrase that points directly to the paradox Boehlert himself identifies, then shies away from investigating, in the final few pages of the book - that "The bad news for liberal bloggers was that as the Obama campaign unfolded... it became obvious that bloggers were never really invited to the party." (p.261)

Boehlert's book is interesting in a number of ways, and I encourage my readers to get your hands on a copy and read it, but something I find disconcerting is its presentism. Part of this is in the nature of the topic - the recent election - but to represent the political critique of both the Movement Conservatives (to use Paul Krugman's phrase) and the Villager media culture as having started with Chris Bowers, Kos and Atrios boggles my mind. In the introduction, Boehlert talks about Timothy Crouse's 1972 expose of the political press, The Boys on the Bus, from which this new book draws its name. He says,

And yet there hasn't been enough serious public attention paid to the netroots phenomenon, which is why I decided to write Bloggers on the Bus. Inspired by Crouse's book, although I'm in no way comparing my work with his pioneering effort, I believe the uniquely twenty-first-century phenomenon of the netroots ought to be documented. (p. xi, Introduction)

I agree that there has not been enough serious public attention paid to the netroots, but, Eric, sorry, Bob Somerby was blogging back in 1998, the twentieth-century. The foundation of the liberal blogosphere is Somerby's writings on the war against liberal politics and the Democratic Party conducted by the so-called liberal media. The impetus for his blog was the media assault on the Clinton Administration.

The Daily Howler is one of the (if not the) longest published political blog of substance out there. The Howler and The Horse (Media Whores Online - The site that set out to bring mainstream journalism to its knees, but found it was already there...) were the two must-read sites for anyone who wanted to get around the courtiers of Versailles. Somerby's influence on and inspiration for what we know today as Left Blogistan is as incomparable as his archives. Somerby is difficult to read, bugs the hell out of me at least half the time, and some of his obsessions are not on my radar, but unlike people like Kos, Josh Marshall, Big Media Matt and other Blogger Boyz, he has never allowed himself to be compromised or co-opted by the mainstream media. Or by a political campaign.

Somerby would probably agree when Eric says,

The outdated campaign bus had broken down. Worse, over the years not only had its media passengers slavishly maintained the same pack-driven approach that Crouse bemoaned decades earlier, but the political press had become increasingly unserious, with an almost nonstop devotion to campaign tactics, process, and trivia. (p. x, Introduction)

but would add "and the big name bloggers of the netroots, the people you so admiringly write about in your book, are part of that unserious press corps. They want to be the pool boys servicing the media celebrities in their cabanas."

On the same page, Boehlert can describe in excellent detail how thoroughly the Obama campaign worked with the mainstream media to ensure delivery of his message with his spin, and then state (with no hint of irony), "The Internet, as Barack Obama demonstrated in 2008, offered a way for candidates to go around the traditional Beltway media and communicate directly with voters." (p.x)

No.

Obama was the candidate the MSM wanted to see elected. Obama's "joke" at the press roast this weekend (some of you reported on me, all of you voted for me) is as revealing on this count as George Bush's quip about the mega-rich ("or, as I call them, my base."). They worked just as assiduously for Obama's election as any of the Blogger Boyz. Their political war in 2008, just as it had been from 1992 through 2000, was conducted against those upstarts from Arkansas and Gore the Bore. The paradox of the 2008 election was how little effect the liberal thinkers and writers, from Paul Krugman down to yours truly, had on the public discourse. Obama was the establishment candidate, and the leading lights of the Left Blogosphere were as thoroughly managed by that establishment as any of the talking heads.

The Election of 2008 marks the moment when some bloggers were allowed on the media bus, as long as they directed their ire at the same people Tweety and Tim Russert held in contempt. Those who refused to adopt the language and goals of the CDS-afflicted DC Elite were shoved in front of that juggernaut. We're still there, clinging to the grill, just as undisciplined and scrappy as ever.

Chapter 8, The Blog War of 2008, tries to capture some of that dynamic, but is still captive to the misapprehension that the A-list blogs on the Left were not part of the media's magic circle. Or perhaps Boehlert is well aware of the phenomenon, but not willing to state it himself. Instead, he quotes a conversation he had with Paul Krugman about the campaign:

But as the primary unfolded in 2008, Krugman, a Clinton supporter, did not like what he saw online. He objected to what he called the creation of a false portrait of Hillary Clinton. To him, the pile on recalled how the traditional media savaged Al Gore during the 2000 campaign, portraying him as borderline delusional. In 2008, Krugman watched Clinton get tagged by the press as delusional, except this time lots of liberal bloggers joined in as well, he said, twisting stories and quotes to make CLinton look as unappealing as possible.

"It was ugly," said Krugman, who was also startled to see portions of the Obama-loving netroots alter their views on cornerstone issues, such as the need for universal health care. Specifically, the netroots had been stalwart in calling for government mandates to insure universal coverage. Clinton supported mandates and Obama did not, yet progressives online flocked to Obama despite his position. "Suddenly being opposed to mandates, which for me is basically being opposed to universality, becomes a touchstone of being a real progresssive?" Krugman asked incredulously. "Wow. There was a definite [Orwellian] 'we-have-always-been-at-war-with-Eastasia' feel to that."

For the columnist, the Democratic race represented a turning point for the blogs, an end to innocence. Said Krugman, "I don't think people like myself are ever going to look at Daily Kos the same way."

What we witnessed in 2008 was the cognitive capture of the major blogs by the Beltway. The A-List bloggers are now functionally and culturally part of the Village.

I doubt those bloggers will ever leave the bus.

Anglachel

Against Conventional Wisdom

While I'm sitting around here in the heat watching California's annual Apocalypse unfold, I thought I'd blog about the current political Apocalypse, namely the possibility of Hillary becoming Secretary of State.

There is a wide consensus that She Must Not Do This.

The professional Clinton haters don't approve of anything that involves her taking part in public life, so they can be ignored. Whole Foods Nation doesn't want that woman anywhere near The Precious for fear she will sap his vital fluids or something else equally silly. A certain cadre on the left is absolutely convinced she will launch a preemptive war against Syria and the Palestinians, being nothing but the cat's paw of Israel. (They think this about, umm, everyone as far as I can tell, even Obama.) Certain others simply babble incessantly that she is a hawk, and we can't have a hawk, no, that would be bad, she is a hawk... , subsituting assertions for argument or even a few stray facts. A shockingly large number of this latter group were originally supporters of the Iraq invasion, once again demonstrating that this country is an irony-free zone.

On the pro-Hillary side, people are shouting for her to stay away, it is a trap! There are a number of arguments being advanced, the most cogent among them being that the offer itself is not sincere but is just an attempt to inflict public humiliation, that she will be tainted by association with a failed Obama presidency, that she will lose her independence and be forced to advance a policy she does not believe in, that this is just an attempt to get her out of elective office and prevent her from advancing her domestic agenda, and that to take this position basically ends her elective office career. I find each of these points plausible and reasonably compelling. There is also the argument put forward from both pro- and anti-Hillary writers that she is not the best person for the job.

I'm going to go against conventional wisdom here and argue that not only is Hillary Clinton among the handful of people eminently suited for this particular office under current international conditions, but also that this is a position that will allow her to advance her agenda powerfully and broadly, will provide her with mechanisms for affecting the long term trajectory of domestic affairs, and is simply the smartest choice for serving the interests of the country. While I don't trust The Precious further than I can kick him, the burdens of office and the consuming nature of current events will circumscribe what he can do. Mostly, when I apply the cold eye of political science to the situation and set aside the junior high school popularity contests so beloved of the chattering class, what I see are some very solid reasons to want this person in this role.

First, let me address some of the reasons why she should not accept the offer, should it be made. One of the more compelling arguments against her taking the position is that to do so would mean sacrificing her position in the Senate where she can shape policy. Realistically, her level of seniority is so junior that she cannot effectively lead actual legislation. Given the Senate committee rankings, HRC would end up carrying water for too many people for too many years before she could take power directly. The crude rebuff she received from Kennedy's staffers about holding a sub-committee chair told me a great deal about the tit-for-tat spite of the hierarchy, which is the heirarchy of entrenched staff jealous of their status as much as that of individual senators clinging to theirs. To answer a question others have asked on the blogs, you bet your bippy "they" will diss her and her 18 million supporters. OTOH, she has already set expectations for legislation that others are going to have to meet. My judgment is that the Senate is her fallback position if the Secretary of State position does not materialize under terms she is willing to accept.

Which leads to concerns about the validity of the offer. There has been too much skullduggery from the Obama camp to take anything at face value, so suspicion is warranted. The diss over the VP slot is the model for whether this is a "real" offer, and bringing Richardson in on the heels of HRC's meeting is a very big red flag.

I will reach back to my Tea Leaves post and note that the political landscape is not what it was in August because the financial crisis is remaking conditions on the fly. If the conditions were the same as when Bush took office, or even when Bill Clinton did so, I would give more credence to the "He's just going to screw her over," argument because the stakes for Obama would be low, but they are not and the knowledge that bad decisions now will doom his administration should act as a brake on his more vindictive impulses.

Obama has less than two years to provide some kind of measurable economic improvement to the majority of the population, or he will lose seats in the mid-term elections and probably will be turned out of office in 2012. The domestic agenda will be all consuming under these conditions. Whatever plans Obama and his hangers-on may have had for his fairy tale presidency were jettisoned in mid-September. If he does not get the domestic situation on the right track at once - and he will only have one chance - then he is toast. This puts constraints upon him that most observors are not taking into account.

Let's talk about the Secratary of State office itself. This is not a time of peace and quiet industriousness around the globe. American hegemony is in doubt. For Obama to "play politics" with the Secretary of State position weakens American standing with other nations because it says "You people aren't important enough for me to give you our best ambassador. Your interests and your actions are of less concern to me than settling some political scores." That will not go over well, especially after the Bush years. No matter who he selects in the end, that person has to embody the full strength and resilience of the nation to other national actors. I suspect this is why Kerry is not making the cut - he is too much the milquetoast nebbish. I add that if all Obama wants is a technocrat in that position, he should pick Richard Holbrooke.

The need to deal with the economy and the interrelated domestic policy issues means that Obama must make a decision about the conduct of foreign policy. Either he must put it into a holding pattern and trust that events will not get out of hand for over two years, or else he must place it in the hands of someone who can execute it without hesitation and without any doubt on the other side that this person can act in the stead of the administration. In addition, given that the financial crisis is international, you need someone who is thoroughly versed in economics and the impact of financial markets on domestic policy.

If the choice is Hillary, Obama has no choice but to invest her with that authority or undermine the very reasons to have selected her in the first place. You cannot pick this person and not have her bear the full authority of the administration because to do so is to endanger national interests. It will make Obama himself appear weak, second guessing his picks for the office. When you select HRC, you are not picking some career bureaucrat - her selection must take cognizance of who she is in an international context.

A rock star. Someone known and respected around the world. Someone who understands better than Obama himself the implications of international actions by the president, having been the implicitly trusted mediator between a president and other international actors before. Someone who has no need to establish any credentials with the people she will meet.

So now lets look at Hillary in the context of the office. She is already an international advocate for women's rights. She defends human rights. She fights for working people, especially women. She is on a first name basis with many heads of state asnd is loved by general populations. She understands economics, trade, diplomacy, and war. Unfailingly civil and dignified, she cannot be bullied or intimidated. She will be a team player by being an unflappable leader, demonstrating by example how to do the job right. This is someone who has political vision and believes in the ability and obligation of her nation to do the right thing. And, yes, she is a hawk which pleases me a great deal when the loosest cannon around is Vladimir Putin. Touchy-feely only goes so far with sociopathic dictators. Beijing already knows they cannot push her around. She has standing in Africa.

But there are a few conditions under which it makes no sense for her to accept. The four most powerful positions in the cabinet are Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury and National Security Advisor. Gates will be Sec. Def. for the time being. In the past, the SOS and the NSA have engaged in power struggles that have worked to the detriment of foreign policy. If Obama has the sense to put HRC in as SOS, he may suffere a failure of nerve and decide to divide powers by putting an opponent in the NSA slot to "counter balance" her influence, and we would end up with political infighting. Unless that position is filled by someone who would work with the SOS and not be a pawn in some passive-agressive game, it would be foolish for Hillary to leave the Senate. It would need to be someone like Wes Clark or Richard Clarke. Likewise, if the Sec. Tres. is filled by some tired Wall Street insider hack, there will not be a partner to work with on economic concerns. (I myself would love to see Stiglitz. He's run the World Bank, he won't be bullied, and Wall Street has no attractions for him.)

As mentioned above, that Obama would have HRC and Bill Richardson as finalists for this office does not make me hopeful that he really gets what he needs to do. They are not comparable political actors. Richardson would be suited to a holding pattern foreign policy, for example, and that makes me doubt Obama's confidence in both the policy and the person he would put in place. Holbrooke would be a stronger choice if that is the case and would smack less of political favors. Nunn, Powell, Hagel and Kerry are simply inadequate for the challenge. The only other person comparable to Hillary for this position, frankly, is Bill, and I'm not sure Bill's ego could be contained at Foggy Bottom.

So, that is my argument against conventional wisdom. Much of it is driven by a realistic assessment of just how bad the next four years are going to be no matter what the new adminsitration does or does not do, and a desire to see the best possible outcome by using the best possible people. I do not think my personal wish for the political future can become reality, and the conditions under which that could happen are grim to imagine.

Anglachel

A Precious Victory

So I'm getting bitched out plenty in the comments and through email about how I never say a nice word about Obama and I"m soooo bitter and can't I get over it and why won't I say things that validates the writer's political choices, yadda, yadda, Ginger.

Sure, here ya go.

I want Obama to go to Georgia and campaign his heart out for a single day, just one day, so we can put another great Democrat into the Senate and remove Saxby Chambliss from office. You want to know why? Because it is going to take his star power to get out enough votes to make the difference in this runoff election. I don't think Hillary alone can do it. It's going to take both of them to do this. I want the Democrats to take back Max Cleland's seat. I want Democrats to put another person on their side fo the aisle in the Senate chamber.

And I swear, as sure as God made little green apples, that I want our African-American President-Elect to walk down in to heart of the Old South, take the stage, and show the hateful, authoritarian, revanchist bastards who have divided this nation since the moment of its founding that their days are numbered by being the factor that turns this "sure bet" election for Chambliss into a rout for Martin.

I mean, c'mon, how can this team lose?

Anglachel

GO BEGICH!!!!

In the Alaska Senate contest, Begich has pulled slightly ahead of Stevens!

According to CNN, it is only a bare THREE VOTES.

He has come from behind being thousands of votes down. Everyone, keep fingers and toes crossed that the numbers keep going Mark Begich's way!

We're at 57 - Begich, Franken and Martin for 60! It can be done!

Anglachel

Update 11/14 - Begich's lead has opened up to over 800 votes now. If Stevens can be removed from the Senate, that would be so sweet.

Bye-bye Agenda for Change

I am chuckling over the disappearance of the entire "Agenda" section at the transition website http://www.change.gov/. I knew that they were editing parts of it as complaints and objections arose, and now they have yanked it all out. (You can see parts of the "Service" page content quoted in my posts You First and The Hands)

Now, some will see this in a nefarious light, but I'm of a slightly more ironic temper. All of the stuff is still up on his campaign web site under "Issues". I think that people who wouldn't bother going to his campaign site did go to the transition site and actually read what the guy says he's going to do, and all of a sudden The Precious was getting a lot of very bad press and word of mouth criticism. When you say you're going to do something people tend to believe you and will object or hold you to it as they see fit. Accountability is for suckers and losers, as the Republicans have shown us the last few decades, and the Unity Democrats are trying to emulate winners.

More obnoxious is this news from CQ about the Georgia Senate seat run-off:

Both candidates have moved quickly to try to line up high-profile party support for the runoff campaign. Arizona Sen. John McCain — who carried Georgia as the Republican presidential nominee but lost the national election to Democrat Barack Obama — has committed to attend a rally and fundraiser for GOP Senate colleague Chambliss on Thursday. Chambliss spokeswoman Michelle Grasso said discussions also are under way with GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin , the governor of Alaska, as well as three well-known Republicans who rallied behind McCain after losing to him earlier this year in the contest for the party’s presidential nomination: Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas; Rudolph Giuliani, a former New York City mayor; and Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts Governor.

Martin’s campaign, meanwhile, has been in contact with Obama’s staff, but has no firm commitment from the president-elect, according to Martin campaign communications director Matt Canter on Monday. “There are no plans at this time to come to the state, but the request has been made,” Canter said. Canter added that Obama’s campaign team is already lending expertise and experienced campaign staffers to Martin. While President Bush trounced Democrat John Kerry in conservative-leaning Georgia by 17 percentage points in 2004, Obama trimmed McCain’s winning margin in the state to 5 points.

State analysts say the race will test whether Democratic campaign strategists can mobilize Obama supporters to go to the polls without Obama on the ticket. Martin’s first ad of the runoff campaign prominently features Obama and aligns Martin with the president-elect. “Jim Martin will work with Barack Obama to get our economy moving again,” a voiceover states in the ad.

And Martin can make a stronger argument than he could before Nov. 4 that he would have more clout than Chambliss in a Senate dominated by the Democrats. The Democrats’ predicted gains, still speculative before Election Day, are now tangible at six seats, with the races for Republican seats in Georgia, Minnesota and Alaska still undecided. That means the Democrats, who entered the elections with effective control over just 51 of 100 seats, already have clinched 57 seats in the upcoming 111th Congress, counting two Independents who have caucused with Democrats.

Georgia Senate Runoff Foes Vie for Big-Name Support

Uh, what? We have a chance to pick up this seat, get another Senator closer to the magical 60, and knock out one of the bigger jerks in the Republican Senate ranks and Mr. Hopey-Changey can't get his skinny ass down there for a single day to campaign for Martin, especially when AA turn-out will probably decide the contest? Jim Martin was one of Hillary's HillPAC candidates. I bet she'll be down there fighting for him. I also note that Chambliss wants Palin campaigning for him. So much for the thesis that she is seen as a drag on the party.

This is an interesting commitment to an agenda for change - take down your promises and don't show up for the party.

h/t Howling Latina

Anglachel

Joan Didion - Unexpressable Uneasiness

This appeared on Jezebel. My emphasis throughout:

Joan Didion Is Kind Of A Downer About The Election

Last night, I went to see an event at the NYPL to celebrate the New York Review of Books' 45th birthday. It was a and featuring a distinguished group of six panelists that included scholar Andrew Delbanco, writer Darryl Pinckney, and Joan Didion, the only woman on stage. The idea was for everybody to comment on the election and then speculate about what will happen in the future. Yeah, everyone was smart, many of them widely-admired writers and thinkers, and it was certainly interesting. But thank goodness for Joan.

While people tossed off cheap jokes about Palin and Rove — the past eight years and McCain's campaign were reduced to a gently farcical in-joke — Joan Didion was different. As anyone who's seen her speak knows, she's as physically self-contained as she is in manner: tiny, yes, but also uninterested in taking up much space with force of personality. When she speaks, it's flat, slow, straightforward: she never seems to enjoy hearing herself speak much. Unlike the other panelists, she'd prepared a written statement. Characteristically, it was detached, even cold. She started by describing the "unexpressable uneasiness" she and some others had felt early on in the campaign. Why? "We were getting what we wanted," she continued, meaning, a smart, qualified, decent candidate the Eastern elite could get behind. And yet the frenzy surrounding Obama made her uneasy — both the sense that he was a young person's candidate, "a generational thing we couldn't understand" and the unthinking embrace of "naivete transformed to hope, partisanism as consumerism." Didion bridled at the wanton use of "transformational" and said she couldn't count the number of times she heard the 60's evoked "by people who apparently had no memory that the 60s" didn't involve decking babies out in political onesies.

Didion was at pains to say that she did not think any of this was Obama's doing, nor to his tastes. He would, she speculated "welcome healthy realism" and achievable expectations. In our frenzy, we are doing him a disservice, expecting miracles "at a time when the nation can least afford easy answers." She recalled, the day after the election, an overexcited newscaster declaring that we now possess "the congratulations of all the nations." She likened this to the naivete of thinking we'd be regarded as beloved saviors in Iraq. But, she ended, "in the irony-free zone that our country has become, this is not what people wanted to hear."

Clearly, no one really did. At once, the other panelists were back to comparing Obama's election to the fall of the Berlin Wall (Pinckney), evoking Lincoln (Delbanco), celebrating "the passing away of religious tyranny" (Wills, I believe.) And they weren't wrong, of course, but the palpable self-congratulation in that room by some very fine minds was worrisome and uncomfortable and lacking in humility, and so Didion's measured caution was more reassuring than all the other rhetoric combined.

Afterwards I saw someone I knew slightly. She'd loved the event, found it wise, felt the panel had put into words all her feelings. "Joan Didion was kind of a downer, though," she said. The thing is that Didion, studying current euphoria with such a distanced eye but still able to feel moved, made me feel more optimistic then than anyone else.

That the Eastern elite could get behind. Why is this really ringing bells with me? More important, were these Didion's words or those of the post author? They sound like the dry and remorseless analysis I expect of Didion. I would like to read her prepared remarks - perhaps the NYRB will put them online. Her comparison of the reaction to Obama's election to the horrifically arrogant and self-destructive presumptions about the US invasion of Iraq strikes me as both accurate and prophetic. The irony-free zone that our country has become.

I trust Didion's eye for political truths and her unease does not make me optimistic in the slightest.

ht/ Amberglow.

Anglachel

Election Update

House races

• Sadly, Darcy Burner has conceded in WA 08. She kept it close and Dems should target that district in 2010.
• Kratovil has won MD 01.
• VA 05 remains undecided, with Perriello (D) ahead by a scant 646 votes.
• CA 04 is not loking good for Charlie Brown (D). He's down by 889 votes, but has not yet conceded.
• AK 01 looks like it will remain in Republican hands.

Senate Races

• Alaska - Stevens is definitely in trouble. There are thousands of absentee ballots yet to be counted and they are expected to deliver more votes to Begich. In addition, some Senate Republicans are already asking for him to be kicked out during the lame duck session. This is extremely good news. We will get this seat sooner rather than later.
• Minnesota - Franken keeps creeping up in the numbers. Now the gap is in the low 200s. It should never have been this close.
• Georgia is going to a run-off election. Can we say GET OUT THE VOTE? Every spare dime in the Democratic coffers needs to be dumped into that race. Yes, it's a long shot, but worth the investment.

Anglachel

Merkley Wins Oregon

As I predicted, Merkley wins his seat in the Senate race: Republican Falls in Oregon Senate Race. So, we officially have 57 seats.

In other good news, Alegre and Campskunk at Alegre's Corner point out that we have a shot at the Alaska Seante seat after all, even if Stevens manages to pull out this immediate win: Let's Welcome Our 57th Dem Senator, Jeff Merkley. Read the comments for the details, but it turns out that if a Senator or House Representative needs to be replaced in Alaska, the governor can't just appoint someone to fill the slot. A special election must be called within three months at the outside. So, the scenario is Stevens must step down due to his multiple felony convictions, Gov. Palin can scrounge amongst her political allies in Alaska to try to get a stand in but that person won't have very long to make a claim to the seat because a special election must be called so quickly. The current Democrat, Begich, is the front-runner and likely to win that election.

We're going to get that seat one way or the other.

Also, Chambliss continues not to receive 50% of the vote in Georgia, throwing it to a run-off election and Minnesota is setting up for a full recount. Dems better be prepared to go all out in Georgia to defeat Chambliss. It is pay back time.

Someone needs to go wine and dine the senators from Maine and make them a few offers they cannot refuse, such as promises of some plum committee assignments, if they will pull a Jeffords and go Independent to caucus with the Democrats. I'm sure there are a few assignments currently belonging to Joe Lieberman that he's not making very good use of and which might tempt one or the other of them, don't you?

Anglachel

Senate Races

Updated 11/6 7:38 PST: Merkley is going to win the Oregon Senate seat, as I predicted below. He is more than 36,000 votes ahead and his major counties are still not done being counted. This gives us 57 seats.

Georgia has not been called for Chambliss because he has not yet won 50% of the vote. If he fails to get that amount, there will be a runoff election between him and Jim Martin. Sadly, the third party candidate was a libertarian and so his portion of the vote will probably go to Chambliss, the scum bag who painted Max Cleland as some kind of traitor and terrorist sympathizer. This was one seat I wanted the Dems to pick up if only to balance out the karmic scales. What I do notice by drilling down into the county level data is that a number of the counties where Martin did well have not yet had all precincts report in, so his numbers may grow a little. In any event, if there is a runoff, all the Democratic powers that be had better get their butts down to Georgia to stump for Martin and try to turn the race. It's not often that you get a second chance.

North Carolina was a delightful win and both removes a total loser of a Republican and puts another Democratic woman into the Senate. More like this, please. It is particularly wonderful that the seat she won was previously held by Jesse Helms.

New Hampshire gave us Jeanne Shaheen and removed John Sununu. Another excellent exchange.

Oregon is a nailbiter to be sure, but Merkley may just pull it out. The chief reasons are Washington County with 22% of precincts still to report and a large population, Multnomah County, the most populous county in the state and 52% of its precincts still to report plus it is going for Merkley 2-1, and Lane County, home to Eugene, very populous, going strongly for Merkley, and has 55% of its precincts still to report. There are a lot of Merkley votes out there that haven't been counted yet.

The Udalls will be a solid addition to the Senate, particularly for environmental concerns.

Alaska is still not decided. There is only a 3353 vote margin betwwen Begich and Stevens, and if the outstanding precincts are Democratic ones, we may squeak this one out.

I've always regarded the Minnesota senate race as a joke all the way around (and not a particularly funny one), so I am unsurprised to see Franken coming up short. A recount may flip things our way, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Five more seats for 56 in January and three more that are possibilities that could bring us to 59. I think our best chance there is Oregon. The run-off in Georgia would be a dream if we could pull it off, so no reason not to take a bunch of money from war chests (hint, hint) and throw it into that contest. If we could take all four, that's 60, and we don't have to count Lieberman.

First off, we need to make the filibuster as onerous as humanly possible for the Republicans to uphold. No more gentlemen's agreement that we fold in the face of a possibility of a filibuster. Make the bastards sit their butts on the floor of the Seante and talk until they drop.

Next, start lining up the battles for 2010. It's going to take 2 years to get serious legislation written and vetted anyway, like Hillary's UHC, so plan to bring the big ones to the floor with the next Congress. Who to target?

• AZ - McCain. I've never much liked the guy and it's time for him to retire.
• FL - Mel Martinez. Make him work to defend it.
• GA - If Chambliss is vulnerable, so is Isakson.
• IA - Chuck Grassley. Better yet, appoint him to the cabinet, and let the Democratic governor appoint a Democrat to replace him. Then fire him.
• KY - Jim Bunning. We came very close to defeating Mitch McConnell this year. Let's keep pushing our luck.
• NH - Judd Gregg. Is there another high profile Democrat in NH who could be enlisted to do a Seante run? Let's turn New England blue.
• OH - Voinovich. Ohio is turning blue. Keep the trend going.
• PA - Arlen Specter. He'd be turning 80 and might like the idea of retirement. Let's encourage that thought

The danger is that some of our senators are going to be targeted as well. Schwartzenegger is term limited out as the Governator in CA and makes no secret that he wants to take away Boxer's seat. Blanche Lincoln will be targeted in Arkansas. Inouye and Byrd are no spring chickens, and we may be having to fill seats.

The Republicans have not had a filibuster-proof Senate majority since 1909, and yet Democrats have allowed them to run things like they have a super-majority. There is no excuse for not not putting forward the most ambitious agendas and daring them to stand in the way.

Act like a majority for once, OK?

Anglachel

Unequivocal Good

It is unequivocally good that John Sununu and Liddy Dole have been tossed out of the Senate and replaced by Jeanne Shaheen and Kay Hagan respectively.

We have two more Democratic women in the Senate and we got rid of aggressive Movement Conservatives.

Anglachel

House of Representative Updates

I like using a combination of the NYT Big Board and CNN's full state results. The first tells me where expectations were and provides an excellent overview of the condition of races, while CNN repotrs on party seat changes and allows me to see actual vote count.

---

Updated 11:12 PST:

CA 04: Open seat, Brown (D) is less than 500 votes behind McClintock with all precincts reporting. This will go to a recount.

CA 50: Called for Bilbray - no change of seat. (Bilbray (R) has 50% over Leibham with 100% reporting, so I'm not sure why this has not been called for Bilbray. This is a San Diego contest.)

ID 01: Called for Minnick. (Minnick is at 51% over incumbert Sali with 99% of precincts reporting. This would be a pickup.)

MI 07: Called for Schauer. This is a pickup.

NV 02: Called for Heller (R). Derby made a good run, but it was expected to stay R.

NV 03: Called for Titus. This is a pickup.

OH 01: Called for Driehaus. This is a pickup.

OH 15: Called for Stivers. No change of seat. (Stivers (R) ahead with 48%, Kilroy at 43%. 100% reporting, but still not called.)

OH 16: Called for Boccieri. This is a pickup.

VA 02: Called for Nye. This is a pickup.

VA 05: 50/50 with Perriello (D) a scant 119 votes ahead of Goode (R). This would be a major pickup as this was considered a safe Republican seat.

WA 08: 50/50 with Burner (D) 881 votes behind Reichart (R). Only 41% of precincts reporting. The district covers King County (Seattle) and Pierce County (Tacoma). The vote from Pierce County will favor Reichart and there are more precincts there to report, but King County favors Burner and has a larger population. This would be a pickup.

Anglachel

Update - There were 2 Louisiana districts that did not hold general elections yesterday due to the primaries being delayed by Hurricane Gustav. They ran their primaries yesterday instead. LA 02 is a strongly Democratic district and is not expected to go Republican. The Democratic candidate will be William J. Jefferson. LA 04 has been Republican, but is considered a toss-up, so may be a chance for one more seat. The contenders in December will be Paul Carmouche (D) and John Fleming (R).

Youth Vote

As I'm looking at CNN, I'm noticing that the youth vote is the most likely to vote for a presidential candidate other than Obama or McCain, 2% vs. the 1% of all other age groups.

This would be interesting to see age correlated with other demographic factors, such as gender and income.

Anglachel

Senate Races

9:50 PST - Switch to CNN:

MN - Franken 41%, Coleman 42% - 69% reporting

OR - Merkley 48% - 40% reporting

---

SD - Called for Johnson

AR - Called for Pryor

NC - Called for Hagan

NH - Called for Shaheen

NM - Called for Udall

VA - Called for Warner

SC - Called for Graham

DE - Called for Biden

IL - Called for Durbin

KS - Called for Roberts

MA - Called for Kerry

NJ - Called for Lautenberg

WV - Called for Rockefeller

TN - Called for Alexander

OK - Called for Inhofe

AL - Called for Sessions

KY - Called for McConnell

CO - Called for Udall

LA - Landrieu

TX - Called for Cornyn

House Races to Watch

10:36 PST - Shifting to CNN: And I will be calling it a night, kids. More analysis on the morrow.

ID 01: Minnick 52% over Sali - 50% reporting - pickup

MD 01: Kratovil 49% over Harris - 98% reporting. Pick-up unexpected

MI 07: Schauer 48% over Walberg 47% - 91% reporting. Pick-up

NV 02: Derby (D) 44%, Heller (R) 50% - 26% reporting - pickup

NV 03: Titus 48% over Porter - 72% reporting - pickup

OH 15: Kilroy 45%, Stivers 46% - 96% reporting - Pickup

OH 16: Boccieri 54% over Schuring - 86% reporting - Pickup

VA 02: Nye 51% over Drake - 89% reporting. Pickup, unexpected.

WA 08: Burner 53% over Reichert, 12% reporting. Pickup

---

AL 02: Called for Bright - Pickup

AL 05: Called for Griffith - Hold

AZ 01: Called for Kirkpatrick - Pickup

CO 04: Called for Markey - Pick-up

CT 04: Called for Himes - pickup Defeat of long-time incumbent Chris Shays

FL 08: Called for Grayson - Pick-up.

FL 16: Called for Rooney - Loss

FL 24: Called for Kosmas - Pick-up.

IL 11: Called for Halvorson. Pickup

KS 02: Called for Jenkins (R) - Loss

LA 06: Called for Cassidy (R) - Loss

MI 09: Called for Peters 51% - Pick-up

NC 08: Called for Kissell Pick up

NH 01: Called for Shea-Porter - Hold

NM 01: Called for Heinrich - pickup

NM 02: Called for Teague - pickup

NM 03: Called for Lujan - Hold

NJ 03: Called for Adler - pickup

NY 13: Called for McMahon pickup

NY 25: Called for Maffei pickup

NY 24: Called for Arcuri - hold

NY 29: Called for Massa - pickup

PA 03: Called for Dahlkemper - Pickup

PA 11: Called for Kanjorksi - Hold

TX 22: Called for Olson - Loss

VA 11: Called for Connolly Pickup

Settling In for the Evening

The Spousal Unit and I are settling into my study, getting our computers revved up, pulling up pages, and generally getting ready to watch the fireworks.

We should begin to get Senate and House results in about three hours.

Here's an interesting graph showing Senate and House party seats since 1855.

Here is a Wikipedia page on the House contests and predictions, with a probable 26 seat Dem increase. That would erase the losses since 1992.

I'll be updating and posting throughout the evening. There's evidently something really wrong with the Blogger commenting system, so if you can't get a comment posted, send it through the contact form linked in the top right-hand sidebar bubble.

Update on comments - I switched settings to put the comments in their own page. I hope this will will work more reliably.

Anglachel

Poll Report from San Diego

Not much to say, actually. It rained this morning, but that stopped by @ 11:00 AM. Me and the Spousal Unit went to the polls shortly after 12. There were no lines for either precinct that votes at our polling place. It's a pretty icky church hall so I will definitely be going the mail in voter route from now on. There was one very elderly voter who was having issues understanding the process and was being assisted by a poll worker, but everyone else appeared to know what they were doing. I always take a marked voter guide with me to make it easier to get the ballot marked quickly. It went without a hitch, taking me less than 4 minutes from receiving hte ballot to handing it back in.

Outside the polling location, at a proper distance, the No on Prop 8 people had the place staked out, with small cards to remind people to vote No. There was no way to get to the hall without passing one of these people. This is the measure I really want to see defeated.

In general San Diego news, the Union-Tribune reports that voter turn out is good, but that some voting machines are having issues. The one machine at our precinct was not being used but looked operational. There are complaints that people requesting mail-in ballots did not receive them and are having to fill out provisional ballots instead. No indication whether the people asking for mail-in are regular mail-in voters or new registrants.

Here is another article focusing on turn out in San Diego County. It might be as heavy as the 1976 election.

Anglachel

Voting Around Casa Anglachel

I didn't early vote or absentee vote this year because I want to check out the new precinct. My last voting place was an SRO hotel, very grubby, with a great decaying lobby that was always filled on election day with people lounging on the couches and chairs or taking over the hotel counter as impromptu voting booths. The cardboard booths on their rickety metal legs were always full, too. No big machines, no curtains in front of the boxes. San Diego County uses scanned paper ballots but provides touch screens for people who are unable to use a paper ballot. There is a physical trail for our votes.

I once voted there with a Diebold touch screen - what a pain in the ass! Long before we get to the possibility of voting fraud, let's talk about moronic user interfaces. It was the single most confusing moment I've ever had in a polling booth, and I'm in software development and I've voted using punch ballots in a dizzying array of layouts. Touch screens are slow, hard to read, violate standard computer interface conventions and have some of the worst color combinations I've ever seen on a screen.

Anyway, I'm probably going to shift over to permanent mail ballot voting to ensure I never miss a special election, but I like the ceremony of walking into a public polling place and casting my vote. Plus I like getting the little "I Voted!" sticker.

As I said at the end of my Lady Killers post, I have a few new rules for voting. I've never knowingly voted Republican in my life and am not about to start now, but I'm also not voting for Democratic men until they establish their pro-feminist, anti-misogynist credentials by sponsoring and voting for things that directly benefit women, and by publically and strongly fighting against things that do not. Watered down measures don't count.

So who and what am I voting for?

• Hillary for President as a write-in
• Susan Davis for the US House of Representatives
• Christine Kehoe for CA State Senate
• Lori Saldana for CA State Assembly
• Mary Graham for SD Community College Board of Trustees
• Sheila Jackson for SD Unified School District Board of Education

All the other contests are left blank.

State measures:

• YES - 1A - High speed rail.
• YES - 2 - Stopping animal cruelty. This was actually tough. I hate PETA and factory farming about equally, but it came down to the well being of the animals.
• YES - 3 - Children's hospital bond act
• NO - 4 -Parental notification and waiting period for minors seeking an abortion
• YES - 5 - Reducing nonviolent drug offenders sentencing, shifting to more treatment and less prison
• NO - 6 - Police money and power hodgepodge proposition. Too many things stuffed into one bill.
• NO - 7 - Faux "renewable energy" proposition. Does wierd things to power relationships of major state agencies.
• NO - 8 - Anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment
• NO - 9 - Victim rights revenge and hate proposition.
• NO - 10 - The T. Boone Pickens "make everyone buy my natural gas truck fuel"/Enron Energy Price Gouging memorial proposition.
• NO - 11 - Change the terms of how redistricting is done in California to guarantee Republicans have veto power over it even after they've lost electoral majorities. Also known as the preserving white conservative voting enclave proposition. Tell you what, kids, when Texas enacts this, we'll give it another look.
• YES - 12 - Guaranteeing house loans to veterans.

Local measures:

• YES - Prop A - Regional fire protection.
• NO - Prop B - Boondoggle for land developers to seize waterfront property
• YES - Prop C - Uses park revenue for park maintenance and upkeep, not put into the general fund.
• NO - Prop D - Keep alcohol off the public beaches
• YES - Prop S - Funding long term infrastructure support for local schools. WiFi in all schools, asbestos abatement, kitchen uprades, plumbing and wiring, etc.

Vote results will be reported late in San Diego. In San Diego County, votes will not be tallied at the precincts this year, but will be taken to a central location (a warehouse near the Registrar of Voters’ office) where they will have a 150 or so counting machines.

This will result in a very high beginning number for Dems given patterns of early and absentee voting (over 1/3 of voters have voted this way) followed by a downward slide as day-of and last minute voters (who, for various reasons, in this county will skew Republican) get physical ballots delivered and counted. San Diego is a huge county. If ballots from Fallbrook, Jacumba, Julian, Mount Palomar, Borrego Springs, etc., have to be driven in to Kearny Mesa, final tallies will be delayed for hours and late votes (again, because of housing patterns in the county) will favor Republicans.

Looking outside San Diego and California, I suspect this will be a pattern in many counties with an urban center and a large suburban ring with rural hinterlands, with urban (easily accessed) votes tallying for Dems and later (slower access) votes pushing up Republican gains. It will look like vote manipulation (and will provide cover for some manipulation) but in fact simply reflects voting habits. I do anticipate states with Republican administrations to challenge early and absentee ballots on "fraud" charges more than usual.

Anglachel

It's Not Their Place

Garry Trudeau reminds us all of the (in)famous article by The Village Queen Bee, Sally Quinn:

There's trashing and then there is trashing.

The Villagers were all afraid of the hicks from the hinterlands coming in and breaking the fine china:

Jackson was the first President to invite the public to attend the White House ball honoring his first inauguration. Many poor people came to the inaugural ball in their homemade clothes. The crowd became so large that Jackson's guards could not hold them out of the White House. The White House became so crowded with people that dishes and decorative pieces in the White House began to break. Some people stood on good chairs in muddied boots just to get a look at the President. The crowd had become so wild that the attendants poured punch in tubs and put it on the WhiteHouse lawn to lure people out of the White House. Jackson’s raucous populism earned him the nickname King Mob.

The Villagers looked at the selection of the chimperor as a reverse Jackson, installing the scion of a previous occupier from their own class to undo the "populist" damage of the Bubba from Arkansas. They cheered the coronation of C+ Augustus, who has most assiduously defended their class interests against the bottom 90% of the population. They eagerly joined Bush in trashing the economy, the nation's international integrity, the readiness of the military, the privacy of the population, the health of the environment. All that mattered to them, all that still matters to them, is putting the people they consider their social inferiors in their place.

The Village's selection of The Precious as their favored candidate should not be mistaken for any changing attitude towards the inferior and undeserving and most certainly not for approval of liberal democratic values. The praise for Obama is due to his embrace of High Broderism and his willingness to be a Very Serious Person on subjects like American military presence in the Middle East, Universal Health Care, privacy rights, regulation of corporations, and the social safety net generally.

Regard the media carefully. They did a lot of praising of Bush for his persona and folksy appeal while turning a blind eye to the rapacious assualt on the nation's wealth by the Movement Conservatives and being active cheerleaders for the Neocon assault on the rest of the world. Bush himself for most of it was treated as an affable, likeable onlooker to the bad things (assuming they were reported as bad or even at all) those other people (Cheney, Powell, Feith, Santorum, McConnell, Rumsfeld, Delay, et. al.) were doing.

Here is the narrative we will hear as regards The Precious - Oh, those bad, extremist, ideological Congressional Democrats, in the pocket of "special interests," refusing to support the oh-so-moderate and resonable requests of The Dear Leader. He's trying to be bi-partisan and they keep insisting on their populist agenda. They can't be doing this for rational reasons. [sotto voce It's because they are racists, you know.] If only they would see the need to impose austerity measures to restore confidence in the markets, and understand we need to stay in Afghanistan to confront terrorism, and quit trying to strangle business and innovation with those regulations.

The enemy will remain the lower classes, the people who trash things because they are trash, the Democrats will continue to be beaten up as the enemies of the state, and The Village's courtier culture will continue unabated, indeed, augmented by the willing cooperation of the Blogger Boyz.

Bob Somerby will remain very busy documenting the atrocities.

Anglachel

Sullied

The Incomparable Bob Somerby is one of the very few voices in Left Blogistan who rejects all truthiness and is willing to turn his criticism on his fellow bloggers for their unseemly desire to move out of remote blogospheric hamlets and into The Village. His take down today of Josh Marshall (no more jokes about who kidnapped him) is a thing of beauty, "Will someone stop Josh Marshall before he defends Bush again?"

Somerby reviews Josh's bizarre insistence that John McCain's campaign is worse than anything seen in American politics in 35 years, including Marshall's casual defense of both Bushes' excrable campaigns. I think Somerby misses a small point, that Marshall is not thinking of Nixon as the worst campaign, but of George Wallace. Why? Because it fits with the meta-narrative of dividing the electoral world into racists and non-racists, instead of into conservatives and liberals, or Republicans and Democrats, or some other issue-based form of political categorization.

Key Somerby quotes (but read the whole thing, it is powerful):

Here’s the rest of Josh’s original post—a post which helps define the broken soul of emerging “progressive” culture: [long cite of how the Bushes weren't involved in the Willie Horton or the Swift Boat Veterans smears.] That concluded Josh’s original post. It’s why this guy has to go.

First, it’s astounding to see the way Josh keeps defending the campaign of George Bush the elder. We know, we know—within the framework of the Village, this sort of thing makes you a Serious Person. But is there no end to the insults we must endure from these transparent strivers? ... Josh may be too young to remember these things; he may be too dumb to have read about them. But with his repeated defenses of Bush the elder, he is misinforming a whole generation of younger readers. We know! We know! Within the Village, this sort of thing makes you a Serious Person. But it’s time for this bullsh*t to stop. ...

Is the current campaign “the most dishonest” of the past 35 years? For a liberal or a Democrat, it’s insane to address that question without discussing the twenty-month War Against Gore—and yes, Josh understands that fact (link below). But Josh is making himself a career—and he’s willing to disinform you to do it. Within the Village, you become a Very Serious Person by disappearing what the Villagers did for twenty straight months during Campaign 2000. Josh understand that history well—and he knows enough not to discuss it. ...

Josh has played for you for many years on this score. In the process, he is emerging as the Sully of the pseudo-left. It’s long past time for this weird, creepy man to pack his satchel and go. At any rate, will someone please stop poor Josh Marshall before he boo-hoos, blubbers and cries defending Bush the elder again? Josh! George Bush 41 ran a scuzzball campaign! It was the start of modern GOP campaign culture. Our advice: Go away and grow some stones. Come back when you’re ready to say it. ...

[Cite of Josh repeating lies form Drudge] Good God! To this day, Josh continues to air that highlighted claim, which originally came from Drudge—a claim whose absurdity became clear within about ten minutes. (As an adept of The Cult of the Offhand Comment, Josh is also eager to throw in the "hard-working, white" quote.)

Hasn’t the public suffered enough from the actual Andrew Sullivan? Defending Bush, avoiding Campaign 2000, Josh makes himself a Serious Person. But you can’t build a progressive politics by respecting the need of people like this to shape-shift the recent past.

I don't think Somerby is wrong on any of these counts, I would simply push him further. He keeps hinting at it when he talks about the broken soul of emerging "progressive" culture, insults from transparent strivers, the frantic desire to become a Very Serious Person, the pseudo-left (a phrase Somerby has been using for several days), shape-shifting the recent past, and so forth. His focus is on the blogosphere and the straightforward lies of people like Marshall, Yglesias, Markos, Kevin Drum, Hamsher, Huffington, Atrios, Steve Benen, and Digby, the people who started exactly in the same place as Somerby (well, not Arianna) and who all of them, every last lying scumbag one, found out that the way to get invited onto TV, interviewed in big name news papers, sucked up to by political campaigns, was to join in the defamation of the Clinton/Gore administration.

It is more important to this group of the wanna-be punditocracy to be seen beating up that administration than to be critical of any Republican one. As we have seen over the last year, it is also more important to the Unity Democrats to defame these people than to actually unify the party into an electoral super-majority. It is this fact that Somerby criticizes by proxy in his contempt for Marshall and for the forces arrayed against Gore. He presents the media lies to expose the political lies.

To me, as I have been writing for months, the key lies with the psychosis of the Stevensonian crowd, who hate all things white and southern and who have seized the presence of racism (real and imagined) as the source of evil in the body politic. No lie is too much, no threat of violence too far, no manipulation of the process too crude in the Battle Against the Bubbas.

This is why we have the weird opposition to McCain and Palin, almost identical to the trashing of Hillary, focusing on racism and social status to the exclusion of substance. It can work if you have already decided that the poor and working class as such are not worthy of political representation. Exactly in the way that the Republicans have tried to make urban black populations stand in for everyone below upper middle class, trying to sully programs for lower classes by forcing programs benefitting those classes into grotesque blackface, now the Democrats are coming at this group from the other side, whitewashing their own class bigotry with the specter of the KKK.

Before Somerby guts, skewers and shish-kebabs Marshall, he nails Richard Cohen on Cohen's incoherent bloviating:

But why should anyone pay attention to anything Richard Cohen says? Having left the Republican Party for dead, this is the way he describes the modern Democratic Party:

COHEN (10/21/08): Ah, I know, the blues are not all virtuous. They are supine before self-serving unions, particularly in education, and they are knee-jerk opponents of offshore drilling, mostly, it seems, because they don't like Big Oil. They cannot face the challenge of the Third World within us—the ghetto with its appalling social and cultural ills—lest realism be called racism. Sometimes, too, they seem to criticize American foreign policy simply because it is American.

Still, a Democrat can remain a Democrat—or at least vote as one—without compromising basic intellectual or cultural values.

Talk about the lesser of two evils! According to Cohen, Democrats refuse to stand up to the teacher unions and indulge in irrational hatred of big corporations. They don’t have the guts to stand up to “the ghetto”—our own “Third World within.” And of course, they sometimes “seem to criticize American foreign policy simply because it is American.” This is an astounding portrait. And yet, despite these astonishing flaws, a person can be a Dem today “without compromising basic intellectual or cultural values!”

Look at who Cohen goes after - environmentalists, unions, black (ghetto) poor, and critics of American hegemonic power. Hmm, sounds like he doesn't like liberals. Sounds like he equates being against those things with being a real Democrat, calling people who want unionization (defense of working class) and policies to alleviate poverty (refusing to pathologize urban blacks or rural whites), protection of the environment and development of renewable energy (defense of life itself), and object to smacking around small countries (diplomacy, not bombs and assassinations) lacking in intellectual power and cultural values. Praising Reagan? Excusing the Bushes? That's all good.

Bob has it right. What this last political year shows us is how the Unity Democrats have Sullied liberalism.

Anglachel