Light on Blogging

Not that there isn't plenty to comment on, but dear friends have just given birth to a big baby boy and we're running errands for them in between cooing over the sproglet.

I'm stunned and saddened by the news of the death of Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. She was one of the best people in national politics. This is a loss for the nation.

I'm also waiting for someone, anyone, (Bueller?) among the Obamacans to recognize that they are combatting arguments that are not being made by the Republicans and letting through the really harmful stuff without even noticing it is being done.

For example, take Karl Rove's pronouncement about Hillary being the obvious and best choice for Obama's VP. Good ole' Turd Blossom - listen carefully to what he says but never trust his motives. With his promotion of Hillary, he:

• Made a very cogent and reasonable argument in support of a strong candidate based on a non-partisan and unvarnished evaluation of Hillary's considerable capabilities.
• Attached the Rove name to Hillary just when it would behoove the Republicans to have the CDS Obamacans go into hissy fits over that association.
• Praise Hillary and make the Republicans look more sympathetic to those of her supporters who are swing voters.
• Revived the "assassination threat" meme obliquely by describing a situation in which Obama has been killed or incapacitated.
• Drew attaention to the fact that Hillary is ready and raring to go as President, the most qualified person out there, while Obama suffers by comparison.

Obama is not being attacked on race or nationalism issues, as you would think from the kinds of responses coming out of his camp. He is being attacked on competency and readiness questions, and is being feminized by the Republican attacks. Obama is being called less ready than a woman to lead the country, he is being compared not to any old celebrity but specifically vapid and vain party girls, and his much vaunted judgment is being mocked as shallow, uninformed and dangerous to national security.

People who can be moved by simple appeals to racism/jingosim/xenophobia need no convincing when it comes to Obama. Those votes are already gone. What the Republicans are successfully pursuing are the people in the middle whose hearts do not go pitter-pat over narratives of hopey-changey. They want to have a solid reason to vote for someone. Obama is not offering solid policy choices, he is getting increasingly whiney and defensive, and McCain is plugging away on national security as his own selling point.

Affirmative action, not race, is the focus of the Republican assault, and the Democrats are letting themselves be railroaded again.

Anglachel

Beneath Contempt

So Howard Dean called the Republican Party "the white party". Strategically speaking, this insult (he has said it before in other situations so it is neither a gaffe nor an accident) is beyond tone deaf and is sheer political idiocy. This moronic mouthing off plays into every standard stereotype of an arrogant Stevensonian elitist and adds fuel to the race-baiting fires already burning through the Democrats' support this year, thanks to Obama's smear-and-run campaign.

This is a different claim than if Dean had gone after the Republicans as the "racist party" or even the "anti-minorty party", which is what he probably thought he was doing. By making an insult out of a biological fact instead of a pattern of behavior, Dean has declared that he (and thus Democrats as such, being as how he is the DNC Chair) think that "white" is a suspect and dangerous category of person. He did a crude inversion of racist claims about non-whites and it says a hell of a lot about the moral and ethical midden between Dean's ears.

What has Dean done? He has replaced political claims with personal morality, and has attached that moral condition to a biological one. One of the things this electoral cycle has thrown into relief is the way in which Stevensonians like Dean make shame stand in for policy, and reduce structural problems in society into questions of personal choice. This approach intellectualizes material problems, such as health care or just compensation, rejecting relationships of power or even common sense evaluation of actual living conditions in favor of finger wagging at the people on the short-end of the stick. Retrograde social beliefs (Guns & God!) are the reason for economic stagnation, not the gutless behavior of Congress or state legislatures. It looks aside from power relationships that keep socio-economic elites in control, and doesn't want to sully its pure ideas with "pandering" i.e., providing material benefits to woo rank and file supporters away from the other side. "You people" should know that we are your salvation from your benighted lives. You should be smart enough to know better than to vote for the other guy, and you can't be mad if we dump on you for being so stupid. If you won't do what you know you should do, I'm going to call you WHITE, so there!

This is both insult and challenge. It offers only stick and no carrot, and it does so by trying to shame people for inhabiting a condition they cannot change - their own skin. This is why racial categories are so deeply pernicious; how can you stop being you genetic condition? Race rather than racism, a condition rather than a behavior, is targeted with no way out.

This has to be the absolutely worst way to try to get people to abandon their cultural identification. It is reducing the complexity of an individual to a stereotype rather than teasing out the parts of that identity that can be built up in opposition to the artificial simplicity of that stereotype.

What can it mean for an incredibly privileged male of Northern European ethnic decent to snear that the main opposition party is the "white party"? He may imagine that everybody who hears this of course understands that he means a particular mode of societal privilege that is normative for how individuals are ranked and treated and which is encapsulated in a speech act that accompanies the term "white", which is not equivalent to genetic inheritance but is rather a socially constructed pattern of rules, behaviors, unarticulated expectations for relative treatment accorded to specific individuals without regard for their particularity, but most people think Howie just said, "White people suck." And how is it that Dean can exempt himself and all of his predominantly white and male cohorts from that incendiary claim?

Like it or not, Howard Dean has just made the claim that if you are white, you are A) racist and B) Republican, your actual acts and deeds in this world not withstanding. The only way to be relieved of this taint is to vote Obama. Not even Democrat - you must vote for Obama. If Obama should fail at the polls, then all "white" Americans stand indicted for racism because that is the only way he can fail and the only reason for failing to vote for The Precious is you're just a racist white Republican at heart.

The impulse among old-line Stevensonian leadership to accuse other people of racism at the drop of a hat, categorically condemning millions of white voters, will do nothing to bring voters of all ethnicities together to support progressive politics. This is a fundamental failure of this faction within the Democratic Party and is why we consistently lose national elections.

Anglachel

Above Reproach

As I've been reading posts and comments around the blogosphere, I've come across statements of frustration, even anger, that Hillary is very assiduously campaigning and fundraising on Obama's behalf even as the Obamcan Haters Club attacks her and Bill at every turn, the leaked memos merely the latest round of their fanatical derangement. Why does she keep helping this guy who has treated her and her supporters so shoddily?

There's a number of possibilities, all of which say good things about this amazing woman. First and foremost, I think it illustrates her incredible capacity for forgiveness, both personal and political. This is a political virtue without peer in a democratic order, because it is what allows opponents to continue to work together without tearing the polity apart.

This leads to the next reason, which is political practicality. In the morning, you have to get up and conduct the people's business, not obsess on your own desire for revenge. That your opponent is a petulant brat does not excuse you from your obligations. Hillary's dedication to her responsibilities as a public servant no matter the office is well documented.

From a more strategic perspective, this is a canny move on her part as she has graciously and very publically provided the Obama campaign with everything they have asked of her. She is conducting herself above reproach on every count, right down to exhorting her supporters to put their power behind Obama. The press and the Blogger Boyz may shriek it's not enough, it's all a sham, but the evidence is right there. You want to talk to my fundraisers? Here they are. You want public appearances? Tell me where and when, and I'm there. You want me to directly tell my supporters to vote for you? Done. She is not providing any opportunity for anyone to say she cost Obama a win.

Finally, I think it really comes down to her being a Party animal, who knows it is better to be in the White House than not, probably even more than the current "leadership" of the party can understand. It is her role and responsibility as a party elder and as the person leading the single largest group of rank and file voters to try to win every possible office for the Democrats. She evidently understands this far better than the preening idiots currently leading the party.

For all of the above reasons, plus whatever behind the scenes power plays that are going on (and the roll call vote strikes me as one of those plays coming to fruition), I am unsurprised by Hillary's performance since early June. I would expect no less than this from her. It is both personally honorable and politically astute.

Since I am a supporter and not a minion, and because I also have a duty to the conduct of my party, namely to ensure that it serves me and constituents like me with transparency, respect and attention to my interests, I can both respect Hillary's actions and decide for myself whether to support Obama and his faction. Until they can conduct themselves with the same level of excellence and party unity that Hillary has shown since Day One, the answer is No.

I remain a Clinton Democrat.

Anglachel

Veepstakes Bet

Gov. Kaine of Virginia.

• Will help with voters in VA, which becomes a must win state along with Colorado and Missouri to replace the lost delegates of Ohio and Florida. I don't think we will win either CO or MO, let alone VA, but that doesn't change the fact that they must be won. Will Kaine actually help? Not as much as Warner or Webb, that's for darn sure. Reports about Kaine's standing in VA leave me doubtful.
• Is Catholic and anti-choice, so will appeal to conservative voters, or so the thinking goes. The Catholicism is not going to be a factor one way or the other, as Hillary was the candidate who has the Catholic support. The anti-choice stance will give Hillary voters that much more reason to stay away.
• Is a bland non-entity who will not overshadow The Precious. Bingo, reason #1 for picking this guy.

Anglachel

Greater Than Their Self-Interest

Taylor Marsh, who has been getting a lot of shit for having thrown support behind Obama so quickly after Hillary withdrew, has provided her take on the "interviews" that Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, did with McCain and Obama. I find her comments to the point and not giving Obama an inch, and her observation about how McCain uses religion was excellent:

...about faith. McCain goes to the Vietnamese torture. A guy came in at one point, a guard came in, then motioned him to stay quiet, then loosened the ropes tying him. He came back later to tighten them. One day outside that same guard came next to McCain and drew a cross in the ground, then quickly rubbed it out. At that one moment, there were just two Christians. This is exactly what I thought McCain would do on faith. He did not talk about Jesus. He went to an anecdote, which talked about faith and torture, what Christians do in deeds.

This observation actually holds true for the contrast that McCain is going to draw through the entire campaign, a message he has been honing since at least May. It is of a piece with the article today in the New York Times about Democratic leaders wanting The Precious to put some real substance behind the hopey-changey message. It resonates perfectly with the Republican assault on affirmative action.

Experience vs. narcissism. Doing the right thing vs. indulging your self. Hard knocks vs. celebrity. Living by the rules vs. preferential treatment. Embodied faith vs. religion as a convenient tool.

I note that I don't think McCain actually lives up to any of the claims he makes for himself, but that is not the political point. The question isn't why is McCain doing this. It's about the only way he can argue since his specific positions are wretched, rewarmed Republican crapola. The question is why is Obama unable to respond? It's a lot more than "experience". Taylor grouses:

Obama could have had policy answers ready to help push forward why Democratic policies are grounded in humanity and morality, which proves why he'd be a much better president. Instead he offered his standard word fogs without any goal whatsoever, much like he did in the primaries where Clinton regularly cleaned his clock.

The problem here is that Obama has never had answers and doesn't give a shit about answers as this campaign is about nothing save gratifying his own ego. There is nothing greater for him than his self-interest. He doesn't give a damn about Democratic policies as he has stated (again, this is his own formulation) that his supporters are "Obamacans", not Democrats. His campaign has never been anything besides how wonderful he is and how awful you are if you don't agree.

I know, I sound like a broken record, but this all gets back to the argument I've been making all year about having a philosophy of government and political power that sees a need to use the power of the state to secure and improve the lives of ordinary citizens. If you simply don't believe that it is so, that public policy should be nothing more than artful structuring of choices (and not mandating that X shall be available for all, regardless), then policy as such loses its punch. One is as good as another, and all are mere bargaining chips in the hunt for bipartisan unity.

Obama could be as old as Methuselah, or even John McCain, and all that experience would not do him a bit of good as long as his campaign is about what the nation owes his precious self and not about what he intends to do for the country.

Anglachel

Not Welcome at the Party

This is, simply put, moronic. Via Steve Clemons of The Washington Note:

Obama to General Wesley Clark: Your Services Not Needed

General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark's personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.

Clark was informed by Barack Obama's people that there was no reason to come.

General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention. Rubbing salt in the wound even more, the "theme" of Wednesday's Democratic convention agenda is "Securing America."Wesley Clark's PAC also happens to be called SECURING AMERICA.

This is a mistake in my view. There are a lot of perspectives and competing agendas about how to direct America's next national security posture -- and General Wesley Clark should be one of the top tier names and personalities at the table.

Clark is loved by the netroots -- and I'm sure that they would hope that the Obama campaign will revisit this decision to exclude General Wesley Clark from the entire Democratic National Convention ageda.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: I have reconfirmed with General Wesley Clark's office that he has not been asked to play a role at the Democratic National Convention. His staff have told me that while his schedule remains tight, he would rearrange his schedule to help play any constructive role on any days of the convention if asked.

I was a staunch Clark supporter in 2004, was hoping he would run this time, and (when he did not), was very much wishing for a Clinton/Clark ticket in November. This is someone who was right about Iraq from the start, who has intelligent and unique things to say about foreign policy, and who is a workhorse for the Democrats. When Joe Lieberman lost the primary to Ned Lamont, Clark was one of the first to immediately throw his support behind Lamont and to warn Lieberman to respect the will of the voters. He later condemned Holy Joe in unequivocal terms for runningas an independent. He has thrown himself into fundraising and coalition building for the party, raising Democratic credibility with armed services members, and recruiting former service men and women into running as Democrats to blunt the perennial Republican claim that Democrats don't "support our troops."

Steve's point about the Obama campaign stealing Clark's signature line, just as they stole Big Dog's "Hope" theme, points up the insufferable arrogance of this crew. We'll take your slogan but you, the person who put substance behind it, we have no use for you. And, no, Clark's critical remark about McCain does not justify leaving him out of the convention, particularly as it was a comment that went to the heart of McCain's claims about his capacity for leadership, a comparison that is doing Obama damage. Are you honestly telling me we have time for Bob Casey Jr. to maunder on about the unborn in prime time, but we don't have time for Wes to deliver a speech about how the Democrats will deliver on national security?

Purging the party of the people who do the hard work and are respected at home and abroad is not the way to unity. How does the party benefit by treating a major league asset like Wes Clark like a second tier political enemy?

Anglachel

Taking Time to Think

A few people have contacted me about the lack of comments on the dog whistle post, or about why their comment wasn't released.

I am at 100 comments and counting on that post. I am not releasing them, but I am reading them and thinking about what they say. It's clear from the replies that I touched a very big political and cultural nerve, managing to piss off many, inspiring bizarre rants by others, and generally unearthing the importance of this policy to how the country as a whole and Democrats in particular are (and are failing to) address equity, race, economic comeptition, political strategy and related topics.

I'm trying to compose a post (most likely several posts) to talk more specifically about affirmative action and not just in the context of this election.

Anglachel

Resisting Civil Rights

There was a report by Alegre earlier today that language referring to gays and lesbians appeared to have been removed from the DNC platform and then reworded to say "same-sex couples" with reference to the Defense of Marriage Act. I've written before that the push for gay rights is looked at resentfully in some "liberal" quarters as being too, ahem, presumptuous, too pushy, making too many people uncomfortable. Kind of like every form of civil rights since, oh, forever.

I'm disturbed by the langauge that replaced "gay and lesbian". Why? Because it talks about a particular condition for receiving rights, being a couple. I don't like or trust the retreat from defending individual rights, the inherent rights of human beings, independent of a particular institution or social construct besides that of citizen.

I want to know which people decided to change this language. Was it a compromise? Was the original removal just an interim draft while new language was crafted or was it an actual attempt to remove defense of non-heterosexuals from the platform? The attachment of rights to marriage for anyone, not just same-sex couples (And where are bisexuals and transgendered citizens positioned in this rather rigid construct?) also leaves me suspicious.

I am watching the retreat of the Democrats from civil rights as such. Women of all socio-economic statuses are having their reproductive control bargained away. GLBT rights are being rejected as "politically unviable" even as individual states push forward. The rights of working class and poor men and women, regardless of color, religion, sexual orentation, etc., such as a right to health care or Social Security, are treated as "bi-partisan" bargaining chips. Privacy rights? Fuhgeddaboudit...

What I see in the Deaniac crusade is a failure to address fundamental protections while pursuing a feel-good approach that caters to those who have already made it (or who fantacize that they belong in that group), the Whole Foods Nation crowd.

It is as profound a change in this party as the Republican abondonment of its abolitionist roots.

Anglachel

Reeding Comprehenshun

Ur doin it rong.

The Incomparable Somerby gives E.J. Dionne and the rest of the Village Idiots a lesson in reading comprehension. Here is a long, dense and illuminating excerpt:

A TECHNICALLY ACCURATE COLUMN: But then, novels are everywhere in your discourse, happily recited by all. In today’s column, E. J. Dionne recites a new approved part of a long-running dime novel:

DIONNE (8/14/08): And there is that [Mark] Penn memo that speaks of Obama's "lack of American roots." Thankfully, Clinton declined to take up this idea, but John McCain's ads are now subtly toying with it.

Everyone is saying that now. But if you read the memo in question, Dionne’s presentation is basically bogus.

In fact, Hillary Clinton did take the bulk of the advice offered in that Penn memo. As we noted yesterday, the memo was written in March 2007. Josh Green was too dishonest to say so in his ballyhooed nothing-burger, but Penn explicitly said the following. This is rather basic:

PENN MEMO (3/19/07): We are never going to say anything about his background.

Buzz-kill! “We are never going to say anything about [Obama’s] background,” Penn said in the memo—and, throughout the rest of the year, Clinton never did. (Thus following what Penn’s memo said.) But she took other parts of Penn’s advice too. Here is the part of the (rather long) memo which Green was willing to quote in his piece (to read Green’s ballyhooed piece, just click here). Note again: Penn was looking for things the campaign could do “without turning negative” (our emphasis):

PENN MEMO (3/19/07): All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light.

Save it for 2050.

It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values. He told the people of NH yesterday he has a Kansas accent because his mother was from there. His mother lived in many states as far as we can tell—but this is an example of the nonsense he uses to cover this up.

How we could give some life to this contrast without turning negative:

Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century. And talk about the basic bargain as about the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child and that drive you today. Values of fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back.

Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t. Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy Fund. Let’s use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds.

But duh. No, Clinton didn’t spray the word “American” around in the way Penn recommended. But some flag symbols did appear, and as anyone alive on the planet would know, she did adopt that basic speech element about being “born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century.” In short, she did several of the most basic things Penn recommended in this memo. She avoided discussing Obama’s background—and she stressed her own middle-American roots. Penn thought this narrative conferred an advantage on Clinton, since it couldn’t be matched by Obama. (If you actually read the f*cking memo, you will see that he thought Obama gained an advantage from certain narrative elements that couldn’t be matched by Clinton. This is basic product advancement, written in an insider’s shorthand.)

In our view, there has been a great deal of vastly silly squealing about this particular memo. (No, we wouldn’t have written it ourselves. But then, we aren’t consultants—or product managers.) But as always, the silly squealing has been driven along by blatant misstatements about its contents—and about Clinton’s reaction. In this morning’s column, Dionne is careful to avoid saying that Penn told Clinton to criticize Obama’s “lack of American roots;” presumably, he understands that Penn told her not to do that, though many others have said different. This includes Green, who seems to have trouble telling the truth when the truth conflicts with insider narratives.

There is a great deal more in that particular memo that Dems would benefit from pondering. Green avoided these parts of the memo, and few others will mention them. But a new novel-chapter is being written in the days since Green’s nothing-burger appeared. Dionne has now become the latest to nudge the chapter along.

Here’s the new narrative: Vile Penn told Clinton to attack Obama’s lack of American roots. But thankfully, Clinton didn’t take his advice. In fact, he plainly told her that she shouldn’t discuss Obama’s background—that instead, she should stress her own roots. And Clinton followed both suggestions. She didn’t attack Obama’s background. (Although Obama’s campaign was soon spewing perfect bullsh*t about —omigod!— the Lincoln Bedroom, and was soon spewing tortured attacks about Bill Clinton’s business dealings. We can't see the memos about those discussions—and so we get to cry a good cry about the Penn memo, giving no thought to the things that were said inside the Obama campaign about those absurd Lincoln Bedroom claims.) And she did introduce the speech element about her own middle-American background. It’s hard to know why anyone would say that she didn’t follow that memo. Oh wait—we almost forgot! They say it because it’s part of a novel! Because the other kids will.

For the most part, Clinton did what Penn advised in that memo. But the children have their novel, and they’ll keep typing it up.

For me, this memo illustrates the difference between Hillary's campaign and pretty much everyone else. She presented herself as stronger than her opponents by talking about herself and what she meant to do, inviting the listeners to draw their own comparisons. They (not just Obama) talked about how horrible she was and how they weren't her, or else talked about how despicable this or that group of voters were for picking that "monster". Somerby flatly calls the Obama campaign on the carpet for their smears, pointing out that they discussions leading up to trashing the Clintons' personal integrity would make for some mighty interesting memos.

As I have personally seen from the bile and invective that arrives in my inbox from the Obamacans, that campaign is grounded in smear, fear and hate. It is telling that since he claimed the nomination in June, Obama has continued to campaign against Hillary, a relentless stream of innuendo, lies, and paranoia disseminated by his camp followers. Even this memo release has nothing in fact to do with trying to build up Obam for the general - it's all about continuing the war against Hillary. The weak reed that somehow the perfectly standard operations of the Clinton campaign (Play up your All-American Girl appeal, emphasize your life long involvement in the affairs of the country, make clear that you were born and raised in the Midwest, etc.) is giving aid and comfort to McCain is pitiful more than anything.

It is clear that Obama understands his weakness is within the Democratic Party. However, he doesn't appear to understand that continuing to attack the only person who can help him overcome that lack is not a winning proposition.

Politikul strategery - ur doin it rong.

Anglachel

NOTE - Somecomments got sent to my spam filter by accident. They are posted now.

Warning Shots

The Russian invasion of Georgia has been used as an opportunity by both Obama and McCain supporters to toss out largely irrelevant boasts about the respective candidate's effect on the situation along with unsupportable claims of readiness to take Hillary's 3:00 AM phone call. Seeing this military incursion through the US presidential primary prism is fundamentally wrong. Thanks to the Cheney administration's fundamentally cowardly approach to foreign policy, the US has little influence over Russia. This is about Putin staking out the boundaries of Russian influence, and the audience he is addressing is the EU.

The occupation of Gori - and the proximity of Russian forces to a major gas pipeline - was a warning shot to the EU to back off. While Europe and the US have been playing at regime change in Iraq where it has done no good for the West and has greatly strengthened hardliners in Iran, Russia has been gearing up for the real thing in its break away republics. The Crimea is a dangerous place to be.

A unified, well-armed Russia rolling in petro-dollars (petro-rubles?) regrouping into something very like the USSR at the height of its power is not something we expected to see after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 80s. Putin is a truly formidable character and an astute political actor, easily taking advantage of the self-inflicted weakness of the US after Bush's push to war with Saddam. Whomever is President in Russia, Putin is calling the shots.

Yet another unintended consequence of the neocons' bid for world domination.

Anglachel

Barking Up the Wrong Tree

It's a bit of an old topic, but I'm going to talk about dog whistles in politics. I missed out on the debate when it was still hot, so what I'm going to write is more of an analysis of political rhetoric than an answer to the blogospheric mudslinging. I'm inspired by two posts I partly agree with, partly disagree with, the first by PolC in a direct answer to Digby's inane arguments about the use and abuse of the term "presumptuous" when applied to Obama, the second a related and powerful post by the Incomparable Bob Somerby about the Democratic tin-ear for rhetoric.

What Digby et. al. wailed and rent their garments over was not racist dog whistles. They picked up a political term with negative connotations and then used it to make a false claim about a political claim - that any attempt to use language that questioned Obama's experience, qualifications and/or public demeanor were deliberate attempts to stir up racism in the listeners. First of all, the statements were whistling, but not about race. They also were exactly what they appeared to be - direct and clear criticisms of a candidate in an attempt to draw attention to perceived weakness. The glaring hole in the argument being offered was, in Freud's apocryphal phrase, that a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, i.e., sometimes the text is exactly what it seems to be. As Bob Somberby explained:

It was amazingly foolish to scream and yell about that Spears/Hilton ad—except to say that its foolishness shows that the GOP wants to distract you. It was especially dumb to discuss it in terms of race—to discuss its alleged “dog-whistle”—since that’s a claim that will almost surely strike most undecided voters as far-fetched, improbable, odd. It wasn’t smart to react that way—unless we don’t care who wins in November. If we only care about being “right” (in our minds), then that reaction made good sense, of course.

In past decades, liberals and lefties did this sort of thing quite often, as you might recall reading Nixonland. This week, we rushed to take the bait again, displaying our high-minded ways.

Earth to liberals: In that Spears/Hilton ad, McCain is calling Obama a lightweight. It’s what Walter Mondale did to Gary Hart when he mockingly asked, “Where’s the beef?” It’s what experienced candidates do when confronting inexperienced challengers. Unfortunately, we reacted in lightweight ways—by yelling race and seeking relief—and the numbers began to move. It’s how our side has lost elections at various times in the past.

"McCain is calling Obama a lightweight." Hold onto that thought, boys and girls, we'll come back to it.

PolC offers some examples of what Digby called dog whistles. Rather than arguing the racist content of the specific examples, I want to exmine the mode of political rhetoric being used. The examples are Reagan talking about "welfare queens," Reagan kicking off his campaign in Philedelphia MS with a speech about state's rights, Bush I's Willie Horton ad, Jesse Helm's "Hands" ad against Harvey Gantt, and Bob Corker's "Call Me" ad against Harold Ford. PolC Also tossed in the black daughter rumor about John McCain in 2000 and has discussed Bush II's mention of Dred Scott in the 2004 debates.

The first thing that strikes me about this collection of political arguments is that they very neatly fall into two categories - black/white sex and public policy. The Willie Horton ad, the rumor about McCain, and the "Call Me" ad have virtually no sub-text. It's all about rousing white voters' fears of attack. They have all the subtlety of a sledgehammer and are aimed at riling up voters and increasing turn out. They are about what the other guy will do to you or will fail to do for you.

The others are more truly dog whistles in that they primarily are intended to convey something about the candidate who originates the argument, something that goes against a more public argument and has more to do with policy than with race. The point of a dog whistle is that ordinary listeners will not pick up on the message, using racism to mask or deflect the policy argument. You can call them multi-layered in a way the other examples are not, because they have different emphasis to different listeners.

People who wish to act out racial resentments can listen to Reagan speak of welfare queens and be assured that this guy will go after those black cheats getting rich off other people's tax money. But, referencing Paul Krugman, the people who help keep the Republicans in power are not just voting racial solidarity, they are voting economic self-interest. The "white flight" from Democrats to Republicans gets higher in higher income brackets. The message that they get from the welfare queen remarks is that Reagan is going to cut off all the "undeserving" poor from the dole. Race is the wedge to disrupt economic solidarity in working class voters and begin dismantling the New Deal welfare state.

Likewise, Bush II's mention of Dred Scott was a statement to make clear to anti-abortion foes and to anti-privacy interests that he will stack the courts with judges who will oppose claims to individual privacy. Saving the unborn may have a visceral tug, but the policy goal is to undermine privacy protections as such, and Bush is making clear to supporters who may think he is too moderate what he intends to do to cement movement conservative objectives in the public realm. Helm's "Hands" ad is the most insidious as it manages to be overtly racist (no need for whistles) but the real message is about dismantling affirmative action as such. Racism is the fuel, but not the engine of that message.

Which brings us back to the arguments about Obama being presumptuous and a lightweight. The dog whistle here, to the degree that it is present (and believe me it will get stronger) is about qualifications for your job. It is an argument not about race but about affirmative action. McCain is never going to hint that Obama's race is a problem - it's all going to be about the education, the experience, the qualifications, the substance, the way in which McCain has earned what he has achieved (a load of horseshit, of course, but horseshit that can becomes some mighty powerful fertilizer) and how Obama has breezed in on celebrity, blatant fixing by party bosses and, hmm, just how did you get into Columbia, good chap?

The boogey-monster the Right has settled on for this electoral cycle is affirmative action. Abortion is pretty much worn out, gay rights is beginning to boomerang back on them, so they need a new angle of assault on the New Deal and the Great Society. I talked about this obliquely earlier this year and now I'll say it plainly. The Republicans have set up affirmative action challenges in key states that have been trending blue, such as Colorado and Missouri, because that is the glue that holds together their two overlapping core constituencies - whites who really are racists and whites who want to secure their economic status in the face of tougher economic times and an increasingly poor, female and non-white working class. It is also an argument that appeals to a sense of fairness - the most qualified should get the position, not someone to fill up a color quota. This is the issue chosen to counter the three key candidates the Democrats would pick from for the top of the ticket - Hillary (female and Clinton), Obama (Black and inexperienced with a lot of collateral personal baggage), and Edwards (white male, but promoting poor rights and with a bimbo problem on the side).

Obama is the candidate against whom this argument can be deployed most effectively. You Obamacans can scream bloody murder at me all you want, but it is simply a fact. His race makes the argument easier to make, but it is his muddy personal history, his razor thin resume, and his questionable electoral wins that make him vulnerable. As Somerby pointed out, the squalls of "Racism! Racism!" do nothing but play into their hands as well because the Republican argument isn't about race. It may appeal to racists, but affirmative action can be defeated even in California (in a way that gay marriage probably will not) because it is, at base, about economic competition and rules that deliberately confer advantage to a less formally qualified contestant. When Obama defenders can't get out of primary campaign mode and reckless accusations of racism (because some well-off white liberals really can be shamed into voting for someone just because he is Black), they do nothing but reinforce the Republican charge against affirmative action; that it is merely promotion of race, it is not about potential or character or disadvantage (In what world is Barack Obama "disadvantaged"?), but about pushing qualified students and job applicants out of the way for lazy non-whites. It is simple for them to work in xenophobia and jingosim, too, by talking about promotion of "illegals" over "citizens".

The dog whistle here is on behalf of McCain. He's earned this job and he will make sure that you get what you have earned, unlike these effete Democrats (sorry, that's always going to be part of the argument) who let themselves be bullied into placating interest groups and handing out unearned rewards. St. John the Maverick will give you straight-talk and an honest deal. On another day, I'll get a bit more into the "high-minded ways" that Somerby mentions because that, too, is part of the attack on affirmative action, one the Obamacans of Whole Foods Nation seem incapable of understanding.

Racist dog whistles? Sorry, Digby, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Anglachel

Digging

I fear I am not up to the excellence of the gardening and other creative work to be found at the Mighty Corrente, but I stay busy. Lately, I've been doing a lot of digging.

There are old planting beds along the south wall of the house that haven't had anything new planted in them since sometime in the 70s. It was mostly twigs, dirty crushed white rock and some out of control birds of paradise. Between our grubbing and the construction work, everything except a single shady tree has been removed. We started by digging up, sifting out and washing off the decorative white rock. Then we dug out a 3'x8' nail & glass impregnated patch of weeds near the back steps, just downslope of an old and prolific Meyer lemon tree. While the spousal unit leveled the ground and mortared a row of bricks in place, I sifted the detritus out of the dirt, separating river rock and good fill rubble from metal, glass and other garbage. The dirt itself is building up in a large pile, waiting to be mixed with manure and other amendments when it's time to plant.

The rubble went back to form a drainage layer. On top of that, we mixed some coarse decomposed granite given to us by a neighbor with most of the decorative rock scraped from the old planters and tamped it down into a firm yet water permeable walkway. Water is a big issue in San Diego. We use too much and don't use it wisely. Ironically, during the last drought in the 70s, many people ripped out plantings and paved vast swaths of what used to be lawns, or else laid down mile after mile of black plastic and covered it with crushed rock. This has created a situation both impossibly ugly and water-hostile, as any runoff goes right down the storm drains. The City is in the middle of a water emergency now. Our goal for the house is to put in a landscape with drought tolerant plants and do some aggressive water management, but I get ahead of myself.

The next task was to create a pleasant sitting area near the kitchen in the shadow of the sunroom bumpout. Right next to the sunroom steps, we excavated five wheelbarrow loads of hardpacked dirt and rhizomes from the old bird of paradise plant. That went into a large mound in the backyard. Next, in the wider area, we scraped away the top layer of construction crud (I could probably open a hardware store with the excess nails), weeds and junk. Into a different pile for sifting. The clean dirt underneath we raked and redistributed and made relatively flat.

We went to Home Depot and picked up eight bags of fine bark and two of cocoa bean shells. Back at the ranch, we mixed a quarter bag of cocoa bean shells into the regular bark, and then dumped the mix into the wider area (about 7'x16'). The rest of the bags followed, making a dense, chocolate scented base. Add two old benches we've dragged from apartment to apartment over the last decade and a couple of beat-up tables with uneven legs and we had ourselves a lovely spot for a warm summer evening. Mulched up like that, it keeps in the moisture for the Pittosporum that shades the area.

What's next? Sifting the dirt dug from the hole. I'm about 1/3 of the way through it. Rubble to fill up the bottom of the hole, then mix up a nice planting mix with the clean dirt and other stuff. For next to the stairs, probably some salvia - purple and dusty green against the saffron colored walls should be nice. Further along, in the part we haven't excavated yet, I'm planning an herb garden. The sitting area will get some colorful pots and plants.

Anglachel

Pots and Kettles

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russia's attacks against the former Soviet republic of Georgia have "substantially damaged Russia's standing in the world," President Bush told reporters Monday after returning from his trip to Asia.

Bush also warned Russia against trying to depose Georgia's government, saying evidence suggests Russia may be preparing to do so.

Bush said Russia's invasion of Georgia and the threat to Georgia's democratically elected government "is unacceptable in the 21st century" and has "substantially damaged Russia's standing in the world."

"These actions jeopardize Russians' relations ... with the United States and Europe," Bush said.

Bush to Russia: Reverse 'unacceptable' course in Georgia

Of course, these protestations would have a little more oopmf if Bush hadn't done the same thing to Iraq with even less cause. Just a thought...

Anglachel

Yes, it *is* about the fucking

The various blogospheric reations to the fact of John Edwards' sex life have left me rolling my eyes. There are several issues brought to the fore by the great non-secret finally being covered by the "respectable" press.

First and foremost, it is about John Edwards fucking someone besides his wife or, to be a little more anlaytical, it is about the persistence of male privilege. While it is the case that individuals should have a right to a zone of privacy in which to conduct their lives (a right that Hillary believes in and fights for, I might add), it does not then follow that nothing in that zone should be subject to examination and approbation. Acts that violate others' civil rights, behaviors that may be between consenting adults but which pose safety or health risks to others who have not consented, criminal behavior and so forth would not be protected. Additionally, behavior which is not criminal in any way may still be held up for ridicule - such as Larry Craig's bathroom stall seductions, Bill Clinton's adventures with cigars, and Newt Gingrich's penchant for divorce. Just because it is legal doesn't mean I can't think you are a putz and hold you in contempt. Should this private behavior be a fitness test for a job, public or private? Nope, though when said behavior is accompanied by a big dollop of sanctimonious hypocrisy you can't really blame people for being a mite peeved.

But that's not what we're observing here. What we're seeing here is an instance of male privilege. This story has been available for any intrepid reporter to investigate since last fall, but no one did. Why? Because some guy fucking around on his wife is simply part of what it is to be a heterosexual male in the US. No man can be blamed for wanting to get more ass, after all, or so the sentiment goes. I mean, a guy shouldn't and he doesn't mean to, but hey if the chick is there and isn't a total dog and she'll put out, what's a guy to do? The moment this becomes male privilege is when people who know the facts choose to use those facts instrumentally to structure outcomes that nothing to do with the original sex act itself.

Let me offer a different example, one not tied up with public figures. One of the reasons I left academia as a profession was the cynical use of the sexual exploitation of female students to advance academic careers. Easy access to young women who will exchange sexual favors (or who will be silent about sexual assaults) in exchange for grades is one of the unspoken perks of being a male academic. The professors (and graduate TAs) who do this are well known on any campus. No one bothers to change the dynamic because it is useful to other academics. They can strategically use the sexual behavior of their fellows to advance their own interests. They offer false friendship to exploited women, they can blackmail the other professors, they can use it as an argument to prevent grants being awarded or promotions conferred, and so forth. There is not one ounce of concern for the women being used - those "chicks" merely provide the occasion for deployment of the disciplinary practices. Male sexual privilege is not merely the power to extort sex from subordinate women, but is part of the relationship between the men themselves. I add that women also use this information for their own purposes, usually so they can become part of the "boys' club".

Back to Edwards. I read about Edwards' affair in several blogs, complete with photos of the women he was involved with, last year. There has been no secret about his infidelities, only a refusal by power brokers (in the party, in the press) to use it to Edwards' detriment, at least not publically. This stands in stark contrast to the way in which every utterance or appearance by Hillary was cast as reprehensible, even when the alleged behavior was simply invented. At the same time, the flip side of male privilege, the right to exploit, harrass, intimidate and threaten women as they please, was on display day after day. For example, why was Hillary accused of "pimping out" her daughter when Chelsea participated in the campaign, but Edwards' not-at-all-subtle use of Elizabeth's cancer for sympathy not treated the same way, especially given the common knowledge of his infidelity? Edwards was the first of the candidates to say he wouldn't support Hillary if she won the nomination, making allusions to her untrustworthiness (You know, that bitch who will do *anything* to win...), and playing on his own honest "man of the people" persona to justify his lies. Edwards enjoyed the gender double-standard to the hilt. Being honest that it was his arrogance and ego that "made him do it" after he has been caught out multiple times in his affair does not reduce his exploitation of his wife (and from all accounts, it sounds like Elizabeth knew the score, and so is no "innocent" victim), his hypocrisy in passing judgment on Bill Clinton, nor his disdain for his own party to think that he was just too wonderful to have this affair become a serious electoral liability.

I've been reading a lot of nasty posts and comments about how this must be some dirty trick by the Obama camp. I've also read how this is being done to Edwards to try to discredit him and his positions. I'm going to break with the conventional wisdom here.

Thank god somebody pulled the plug on that moron.

This guy was a walking, talking time-bomb who needed to have his public career cut short. I have heard a lot of bloviating from him about anti-poverty stuff, but haven't actually seen him do anything except run for president. I've watched him help trash the Clintons. I've seen him turn his back on the issues he claims to be passionately devoted to and endorse someone who doesn't give a fig about those issues. Had he been named VP, his fucking around would have been gleefully seized upon by the Republicans to tar all Democrats, never mind the questionable behavior of their own side.

It is the fucking and not just the hypocrisy. It is about the arrogance of men who think their sex lives are off limits while they tar and trash other men for the same thing and while they brutalize women for daring to challenge their authority. It is about male privilege and social and political double standards that says guys will be guys and all women are whores. It is about a Democratic Party that continues to beat up Bill Clinton, pretending moral outrage while frantically trying to secure their own power, yet gives John Edwards a free pass for behavior no less egregious.

It is about the ways in which fucking exposes the gendered conditions of power in politics and society.

Anglachel

Technical Service Announcement

I'm not doing so well because my cat still has not returned, but I've seen a few things in the blogs over the last week that require some clarification so people know what is an issue and what is not.

The Sitemeter malfunction from a few days ago is not a political issue. It was not limited to political blogs and sites, but was a general malfunction due to code that conflicted with IE. Sitemeter itself posted a news announcement explaining the issue. While the technical specifics may not be your cup of tea, I develop web sites for a living and they make perfect sense to me. Cross-browser scripting is difficult because the major browsers use different object models, and a tiny change in code can cascade in unexpected ways. I suspect they also have been working on code for the upcoming IE 8 release and some of that may have been inadvertantly pushed out.

Attacks on anti-Obama sites coming from computers that appear to have IPs operated by the Obama campaign. This could be an issue, but I'd advise caution. Why? Because this kind of thing leaves a footprint the size of Manhattan and thus most computer saboteurs would avoid it like the plague. Rule #1 in the badass computer geek rule book is never do a dirty deed from your own machine.

IP addresses can be spoofed, that is to say, someone can fake the IP address handed over by the visitor. Going through proxy servers can confuse who is visiting (AOL accounts, for example, are notoriously difficult to identify due to proxies.). Additionally, computers can be hijacked and used by a third party to conduct less-than-legal operations. Finally, IP addresses are not as exclusive and unique as you think - a single public facing IP address can serve up hundreds of web sites, though it is best for a major organization to have exclusive rights to an IP range. Thus, this could be something being done by another party to make an attack look like it came from those machines. Having spent the last two weeks battling back a variety of underhanded attacks on servers, spoofing the Obama IPs looks positively benign next to the damage that could be done.

On the side of "it really is what it looks like" is the, ahem, arrogance of the Obama campaign and the blatent rule breaking and bullying we have witnessed emanating from their camp for nearly a year. Their history of behavior makes the idea of these attacks plausible, especially as they tout their rad hi-tech skillz. (Which are not so rad, akshually).

If you think you have been attacked, no matter the culprit, document, document, document. Get start and end times, cross-reference attacks with other sites, and look for patterns in the activity. Damage is damage.

Two moderately interesting factoids:

1. We get fundraising letters from the Precious every three days like clockwork, or rather, the spousal unit does. I never get anything from them. It's the same letter every time and it goes straight to the trash. Isn't that kind of a waste of resources to send the same appeal that always gets ignored? What's really interesting is that almost all of the fund raising requests from Hillary came electronically, they came to both of us (though more to me as I was donating), and the requests were different each time.
2. Last week, we had a DNC canvasser show up on the doorstep, a fresh scrubbed and enthusiastic young 'un. The spousal unit answered the door and let the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed fund-raiser know that A) this household has voted Democratic since before said person was born and B) it's not certain that we will do so in November because of the behavior of Obama. The canvasser was relentlessly upbeat, but made clear that they were NOT working for Obama, that what we said was not news, and would we pleeeeeeeease donate to the DNC and/or volunteer to work on a local campaign? Sounded to us like the Precious is not doing much for downticket efforts.

Anglachel