He starts the presidencing /before/ he's even inaugurated.
..and I was going to say something about artificial peasant's dialect drawl, failed attempt at splicing popular "can do" tropes with "reconciliation" and "unity" - but I'm busy trying to find a good spot to stab myself in the head with an icepick. My apologies.
...closing Guantanamo, ending torture and rendition, restoring habeas corpus, rejuvenating surveillance oversight, withdrawing from Iraq, applying the rule of law to political leaders past and present -- but it's at least as important that this be accomplished in the right way, that our constitutional framework be restored. That means restricting the President's role to what the Constitution prescribes and having Congress fulfill its assigned duties and perform its core functions.
Let's see how long it takes before someone starts harassing Greenwald for prejudging Obama's skill as emperor.
"There will be cc's and not bcc's," said Antony Blinken, a top Biden adviser, referring to the practice in the current administration in which Cheney aides receive e-mails on key matters, but without other recipients knowing the vice president's staff is involved. "There is not going to be a shadow operation."
Biden aides said the senator from Delaware does not intend to take on a defining issue, as Al Gore sought to do with his "reinventing government" initiative, which aimed to improve the efficiency of the federal bureaucracy. Biden's team says such a project distracts from a vice president's ability to serve as a general adviser to the president.
Instead, they said, he is likely to take on special projects. They cited as an example Gore's work in the Clinton administration in helping negotiate an agreement with the Russian government to stop it from selling weapons to Iran.
[Joe Biden:]After next Tuesday, the very critics he has now and the rest of America will be calling him something else - they will be calling him the 44th president of the United States of America, our commander in chief Barack Obama!
But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
(read: Digby's on the fifteenth bout of Martinis, and has too many tears in her eyes to write.)
Asian stocks have risen following the election of Democrat Senator Barack Obama as the next US president. (in- line text: "There are hopes the US will bounce back, helping exporting firms"). (...) However, not all markets rose. India's Sensex index fell 2.8%, and in Europe, where shares had risen strongly on Tuesday, the markets were also down. Both the FTSE 100 in London and the Cac 40 index in Paris were down by about 3%.
/Change /
Shares in New York rose on Tuesday as people in the US went to the polls for the presidential election. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 305.5 points at 9,625.3.
Doug Kass, founder and president of hedge fund Seabreeze Partners Management, said the Wall Street rally was an "Obama bounce, not an Obama rally".
"It's growing clear that the recession is going to have a shelf life unlike the last recessions in both scope and duration," he added.
(i.e., sigh of relief and creeping realisation that no more government- sponsored boosts will take place in the medium to long term. Similar scenarios should take place in the Middle- east as the Iraq mandate expires in December.)
Melby tror at Obama vil legge sterkt press på de andre NATO-landene om å bidra mer militært. Han spår at Norge vil bli bedt om å delta i alle typer operasjoner, med unntak av krigsoperasjoner i Sør-Afghanistan. (Melby thinks Obama will put heavy pressure to get the other NATO- countries involved militarily. He predicts that Norway will be asked to commit troops to all types of operations (in Afghanistan) - with the exception of war- operations in South- Afghanistan.)
- Norge argumenterer for de kollektive institusjonenes betydning. Nå vil de samme argumentene bli brukt mot oss. Amerikanerne vil si at hvis man mener at NATO er viktig, må man vise solidaritet. Det kan ikke være slik at bare noen nasjoners soldater driver krig og dør, sier Melby. (- Norway argues for the significance of the collective institutions. Now the same arguments will be used against us. The Americans will say that if you think NATO is important, you must show solidarity. It won't do if only the soliders of some nations go to war and die, says Melby.)
For norske politikere tror han det vil bli «tyngre å si nei» til Obama enn til Bush. (Melby thinks it will be "heavier to say no" to Obama than Bush)
Personally, "I think" it will be easier for everyone to tell the US to go fuck themselves, for the simple reason that we did not - and do still not - oppose the Iraq or Afghanistan projects in their current forms just because it was led by Bush. There are other reasons having to do with the fact that NATO will not be a substitution for the UN, and we will not endorse an expansion of NATO in either military or economical terms.
So the next big question will be what eventually will replace US damage control, as well as floundering european attempts to turn the EU into a military union.
Some would hope that the result is a more cautious direction based on inclusion, and not an expansion of influence - but who knows..
Anyway. Congrats, the US. You still suck, but at least some of you aren't proud of it. I salute you.
For the record, I really do not care about Joe the Plumber’s background. All he did was ask a candidate for President a question, something I wish everyone got the chance to do at least once in their life.
Unfortunately, commenters on the former kool- aid divers' blog can't seem to get the point. Because Joe Schmoe appeals to some undocumentable quality in the American Psyche (read: he appeals to stupid idiots who can't think for themselves) - when accusing Obama of ruining small businesses in little America. And that means he's not just someone who receives loads of air- time and plugs from the McCain campaign - oh, no. That makes him a public persona, who is fair game when it comes to entirely legitimate personal character assassination. Which was completely and utterly not all right before when the Frosts (Democratic poster- family for subsidized health- care with predictable benefits for the insurance companies) received that same horrendous treatment from the Right.
In fact - comparing what happened to the Frosts - hiding in their yard and digging through their trash - is completely different from exposing mr. Joe Average as a /possible hypocrite/ and tax- evading scumbag without credibility. Because this time, it's an election, and so much is at stake; there's an election coming, you see. Where the fate of the entire world will be decided(!).. or something.
So just meeting the Joe Plumber reasoning with - you know, facts and stuff. Explaining that increasing the tax- burden on the big businesses and higher earners will first of all not affect the smaller businesses (like, sub a small African country budget smaller). And that increasing the tax burden, as well as creating a progressive tax- system - is Obama's clever trick for magically financing a more broadly available health- service (read: a subsidized insurance plan. And thus releasing small businesses from part of the cost of employing people).
I mean, can't be having with that either. Because... people are too stupid to get it. Ha.. ha. *sigh*
"Bless your heart sir, my son is in Iraq fighting for your right to protest."
This is Sara Palin, speaking at a Right- wing Rally in Estero, Florida.
You might think that the Gop- campaign is gauging their audience carefully, and stoking the barely contained rage in this part of the state directed at Cuba - but you're wrong. This is what the Right is all about. And nowehere in the audience is anyone saying, I don't know.. "you're a fraud, Mrs. Palin! You're fighting to abolish my right to free speech right here in the US, in the name of open- ended, undeclared wars launched at random presidential whims. Your government is the most secretive in history, it actively opposes clear laws governing spying and wiretapping, even of American citizens - while purporting to protect the American public! You're a cheat and a fraud, Mrs. Palin! And.. mmmmffff.. Secret Service piggies..aaarrrh!".
Oh, no. Can't be having with any of that.
Really - when did the US turn into a pack of cowed wimps?
(Soundtrack - Entombed: Left Hand Path. "I am my own God Master slave and I will be beyond the grave No one will take my soul away I carry my own will and make my day")
Like I mentioned in the previous post - looking at the surveillance state issues from a little distance makes the context for the debate into a natural victory for the ones advocating unlimited executive power.
But in a shorter perspective, there are different considerations and mechanisms that do not necessarily take understandable shortcuts because of how ruined the debate is - in fact, the support for destroying the constitution could not be more explicit.
After Obama's endorsement of the FISA amendment bill (that would delegate the legal definitions of a court, and the issuing of a legislative framework, up to the president's office), there was a stream of Obama- supporters suddenly coming out in favour of the bill.
There were different reasons for this. John Cole of Balloon Juice would at first take it on face value and accept what Obama's campaign said (the standard: "I'm not a lawyer, so I'll trust the political insider who sounds like he knows what he's talking about"- excuse) - that the bill restored FISA under the law (which is the old trite point that since what the president does now cannot be illegal, it's under the law, and therefore it's fine). And that only the "immunity" provision (for the telecoms who did the surveillance illegally) was "onerous", which Obama would wov to oppose, even if it was ensured passage (which even Obama admitted).
Strangely, many supported this "practical" explanation, and came out forcefully to defend it in the usually friendly tone on the left. By as usual calling everyone who would disagree with Obama as nay- saying morons.
Besides, they would argue, this is the democratic leadership's fault - not Obama (Obama isn't a leader.. yet, so he can't be blamed for cravenly selling out the constitution, unless he did so when he's dictator, or something). Bollocks.
Skip forward one day, after the reactions come in, and the argument morphs - now it's not a problem that Obama wants dictatorial powers with the executive branch - the argument is that it's necessary to appease the republicans and vote against the fourth amendment now - so that they will be unable to hurt the democrats by saying they are weak on terrorism in November. And as Glenn Greenwald documents through careful search of perfectly available news- articles - this thinking originates from the democratic leadership - Reid and Pelosi - as well as Obama's campaign. Obama- supporters once again jump on the train.
Skip forward another day, and Keith Olbermann - who earlier would rail against "lawless dictatorial powers" and granting "criminal immunity for lawbreaking" if your wallet is deep enough - for the privileged and connected - when talking about the many attempts earlier by the democratic leadership to front and pass this bill. Keith suddenly changes tune, and finds that this is part of a secret plan of Obama's to be able to "get" the telecoms back in the end. (Comeuppance in the States - not just for Christians!).
The plan would be divined like this - John Dean (from the Nixon administration) would suggest that the new FISA would maybe, perhaps, be unconstitutional in itself, or that there were provisions in the law that might, on closer reading, allow civil liability if not criminal liability. (I'm assuming he's thinking about how the pending lawsuits are based on seeking damages for exposing customer records in violation of federal law (which gives standing), which wouldn't be removed by immunising the telecoms from criminal proceedings regarding FISA, and so open the question of whether the amendment would be legal - but don't quote me on that. Besides, we've heard this before - when the democrats was in minority - just give us time, and we'll reverse all the horrible laws. What are they waiting for this time?)
Keith then seized on that and suggested there was, with Dean as weight behind it, a secret plan in motion by Obama to get the telecoms in the end, and that therefore we should now give up the fourth amendment the democratic leadership needed a majority before they could pull off.
Therefore further exploration of this argument expectedly leaves us back where we started - it's simply good for winning in November. Since that's all that matters - and the democratic leadership has done the following analysis: the left will vote for them anyway, the right are nuts, but the vast majority of America actually hates the fourth amendment, so therefore it's most beneficial for the democrats to please that "center". Not unlike the strategy that lost them the last election, they are simply aiming for the path of least resistance, in the belief that keeling over to every republican demand will strike a balance between being strong on terror, and being balanced and measured in comparison to the "right", and therefore place them in the center (which is why Obama must absolve himself in front of the AIPAC as well, and what makes John Lieberman a centrist - and probably what makes Bush a "man of the people", and not a privileged frat boy with an adopted texan accent).
While in truth, the democratic candidates running against the repbulican party (or their own candidates who could just as well have changed their party without anyone noticing even the change in label) on a substantive (relatively speaking) platform of clear opposition to lawbreaking - with an appeal to conform with the legal framework that the west in general has been based on for several hundred years - are winning easily over otherwise safe candidates, even in republican territory.
Which means that the perception of the "center" that exists in the beltway is, for one, completely faulty. But that also - and get this - the rule of law and opposition to mafia politics is a universal and uniting policy among both republicans and democrats. Who would've guessed?
Skip forward to the day before yesterday, and John Cole at Balloon Juice turned about, and slammed Obama as a craven weakling with a populistic streak of the most contemptible sort. And I throughly endorse that.
Because - the analysis that suggests it's beneficial to trade the constitution for a democratic win in November - that rests on the assumption that the american electorate - and the democratic voters and supporters who are flogging that message - are as weak and useless that they would agree when a politician decides to kill the fourth amendment for political gain. Gain that these same voters would be, obviously,, instrumental in providing.
For once, since they're dealing with calculating politicians and not politics based on cult- worship (mostly), as well as politicians dependent on their followers adopting their narratives - this can therefore be challenged and changed. In other words, it's not inevitable that the democratic leadership should cave on this (although they of course already have, and it will take more than tentative changes of opinion on the web to make an impact).
Meanwhile, Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd filibuster the final vote on the FISA amendment, and a final vote comes down after the fourth of July recess.
"[W]e do not abuse and we treat detainees humanely and comporting with the law."
Well, I mean, two out of three isn't too bad.
Meanwhile, the Congress insists on picking up on the public opinion, and the small horde of military and civillian traitors to the cause, and tries to confront the administration. On war crimes and ignoring the law - the usual european elitist chant, and the raving of the lunatic american leftist fringe.
And everyone is pissed at Clinton for poisoning the last few weeks with another bout of personality- based trash, and so driving on the Obama campaign's "we're not like them" narcissists, and removing any and all debate from the public sphere.
The election of the first African American president will signal the end of the era of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. And nothing could be more fitting.
Also, congratulations to Senator Clinton, who in my view showed Democrats what a fighter looks like. This is the closest primary in history and despite what the bloviators and the gasbags have been saying for months, she had not only a right, but a duty, to fight on until the end for the half of the Democratic party that supported her. Clinton too was an historic candidate who inspired millions of people and she has my admiration.
If I might digress a bit and say one word about the Clintons, who to many are personas non grata in the Democratic Party now. Whatever happens, Bill Clinton will still be the 42nd president of the United States and the first two term Democrat since Roosevelt. That's never going to change. (...) Clinton will officially end suspend the campaign on Friday, (which is perfectly in keeping with the usual timing of these things contrary to the gasbags' ahistorical and overwrought blathering of last night.) We will see what the Republicans have in store for us. And maybe we can start behaving like ourselves again.
You mean, and vote for Bush twice because you're scared to death and want big brother to take away your rights, kill the brownies, save the world, and make it all better?
Family fights are always painful, but they are usually easily healed as well. Here's to the end of the Long March of 2008. It's been real.
Clinton’s camp insisted Obama shouldn’t get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama’s team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.
For feminism, democracy, liberty and.. stuff. Yay.
Perhaps I misread the public mood and what they want more than anything is for everyone to get along. But I have to think that part of McCain's popularity with the independents is they perceive that his method of "reaching across party lines" is that they think he'll knock heads together and force people to bend to his will. I don't know if Obama running to the right, as Democrats are wont to do in general elections, will counteract that particular style of leadership. Something different is called for.
"Uh, maybe Obama should just drop the whole campaign, and start focusing on real political issues, like aggressively abusing racial sentiment, but in a good way, and establish a character for himself as another father figure - like Cosby - and then also sort of become a progressive candidate, like it's.. because McCain is still believed to want to reach across the aisle by most republicans, and we know that means they trust the man to force his opponents to see reason, and we need to emulate that in the progressive campaign, just in a nicer way... man I don't even know what to write about any of this anymore. Can people please stop calling me an establishment hack in the comments section!"
Sit down and have another martini, digby. Jesus.
...
I don't think this is digby:
But it is a Hillary supporter commenting on the rules and bylaws committee's decision.
"I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues."
WIDGETIZE