Farewell John Edwards//And the Truth about Mano e Mano

John Edwards withdrew from the Democratic Presidential campaign today, saying the time had come for him to "step aside so that history can blaze its path".

His eloquence and sense of history is not surprising - it became clear when Edwards indicated, earlier this year, that his favorite book was I. F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates. The choice of such a book bespeaks a philosophic depth and appreciation of history that is all too rare in our politics.

Edwards' withdrawal now leaves the field to just Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. We should all see just how different this makes the Democratic debate, literally, when Obama and Clinton have the stage to themselves in the California debate on CNN tomorrow (Thursday) night. Just the two of them.

Not mano e mano, however. But not mano e mano for the reason noted by Democratic strategist Peter Fenn on CNN a few minutes ago. Fenn thought Obama v. Clinton would not be mano e mano because Hillary is a woman, and therefore their contest could not be "man to man".

But that was never the meaning of mano e mano - which means not man to man to but hand to hand (mano as in manual, by hand).

But Barack Obama v. Hillary Clinton will not be truly mano e mano - hand to hand - either.

It will be ideas to ideas - the ideas and presentation of Barack Obama v. Hillary Clinton. Although there is a lot to admire in the record of Hillary Clinton, and what it would mean to have a woman in the White House, I think Obama's ideas and his capacity to inspire will carry the debate on Thursday, the primaries on Super Tuesday, and the day we vote for President next November. When it comes to ideas and igniting the better angels of our nation, Obama has the upper hand.

Obama's Record: Why Voting 'Present' Is Meaningful and Not the Same As Not Showing Up

Barack Obama's 136 "present" votes in the Illinois State Legislature - in which he voted "present" rather than "yes" or "no" about passage of bills - was a hot topic in last night's Democratic debate on CNN in South Carolina. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both jumped on Obama for his "present" votes, and Edwards, in particular, spoke of the "present" votes as the same as Obama's just "not showing up" for the votes.

I have never served in government, but I've been an active participant in academic governance for more years than I care to remember (all faculty are, and I have also been Chair of the Department of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University for the past six years). So perhaps I can shed some useful light on this issue.

In a sentence: in academic governance, abstaining (the equivalent of voting "present") is a highly meaningful type of vote, one which usually bespeaks considerable contemplation of the issues, and is therefore utterly different from not showing up for the vote.

To give further detail: In the academic world, personnel committee meetings - in which reappointment, promotion, and tenure matters are considered - are the most important issues upon which members of a faculty vote. So important is the participation of faculty in such issues, that faculty who do not attend can be reprimanded, and worse, by the administration.

In contrast, in any matter upon which faculty vote, the choices are "yes," "no," and "abstain". Why would someone vote "abstain"? The reasons usually stated are the abstaining voter is in favor of the matter proceeding, but has some problem with some part of it, large or small. These sorts of abstention votes are clearly often the result of intense deliberation and careful consideration by the voter - or, the complete opposite of just not coming by to vote.

This struck me as exactly what Obama was trying to explain last night, as he was being pounded by Hillary and Edwards on his "present" votes. He clearly said he was in favor of one of the bills for which he voted "present," but had a technical problem with its means of implementation.

I think it's important that the media and the American people understand this.

Obama's record certainly is not perfect. In the vote in the US Senate about labeling Iran a terrorist nation last year, Obama indeed did not show up to vote. I wish he had showed up and voted no. (But Hillary, who did show up, voted "yes," and John Edwards is no longer in the Senate.)

But, if voting in academic governance is at all similar to voting in the Illinois State Legislature - and democratic voting processes usually do have a lot in common - it is completely wrong to characterize Obama's "present" votes in Illinois as not showing up or evading responsibility.

Dems Rock Out on CNN in South Carolina: All Three Excellent, But Obama Scored Best

Well, all three of the Democratic candidates came out swinging in South Carolina on the CNN debate tonight, and it was a pleasure to see.

Especially for Barack Obama, who has needed to be more forceful in the debates. He took on Hillary about the attack on his statements that the Reagan Presidency was revolutionary - correctly pointing out that he didn't say he agreed with Reagan's ideas, but was pointing out that his Presidency had captured something in America which was "transformative". This is important for Democrats to understand, and Obama is right that he may be in the best position to do this. Obama also took on some of Bill Clinton's more outrageous attacks, saying he sometimes wasn't sure which Clinton he was running against.

But Hillary, for her part, gave another strong performance. Her finest moment came when she passionately said she wants all Americans to have health coverage. I actually agree with Obama's position on this more than Hillary's (Obama wants national-government health care to be voluntarily rather than mandatory on adults), but admire Hillary's passion on this issue.

And Edwards had one of his best nights, as well, pivoting from attacking Hillary to attacking Obama, and taking advantage of his not being party to their disagreements to appear the most statesmanlike.

So all three rose to the occasion tonight, and made me feel happy, once again, with the thought of any of the three in the White House.

But because a powerful debate from Obama was generally missing prior to tonight, and for the way he handled himself with grace and humor and style under attacks from both Clinton and Edwards, I'd give the debate tonight to Obama.

Saturday Night at the Polls: Dems and Repubs in Nevada, Repubs in South Carolina

Some short takes on the results of today's three caucuses/primaries:

1. I'm less interested in Romney winning the Republican caucus in Nevada than I am in Ron Paul coming in second. Support him or not, that's a powerful, additional rebuke to Fox News, ABC News, and all other mass media that have derided and belittled the support for his candidacy. Still waiting on Fox News and ABC News, in particular, to apologize to the American people. (Fox News: you excluded Ron Paul from the debate in New Hampshire. He came in second in Nevada today. You still have nothing to say?)

2. Hillary won in Nevada, but she and Obama are still just about the same in delegates. One candidate who is not the same is John Edwards - coming in with 4 percent of the vote in Nevada. That's a remarkable drop for someone who came in second in Iowa. Although there is a lot that I like about John Edwards' candidacy, I think America would accomplish something truly revolutionary with either a woman or an African-American in the White House that we would not with John Edwards.

3. I'm glad McCain won in South Carolina, if only because his win was just desert for the disgraceful political campaign Bush's people ran against McCain in 2000. But there's more than that. I'm glad Huckabee lost. Sorry, he's very likable - but he doesn't believe in evolution. (Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, either, but that doesn't let the arrogant media off the hook.)

High Point of Dem Debate in Las Vegas: Hillary Says Bush is Pathetic

A very satisfying debate among the Democratic big three - Clinton, Edwards, and Obama - on MSNBC in Las Vegas tonight, with the best line delivered by Clinton. She volunteered that Bush going to Saudi Arabia to see if the Saudis might help keep our gasoline prices down was "pathetic".

It's not that I like to see name calling. But sometimes a single word perfectly nails a feeling. It certainly is one that I and countless Americans now have. The President's management of our foreign and economic policies, both singly and together, has indeed been pathetic.

Obama and Edwards were good, too. But it's becoming increasingly clear that Hillary is the best Democratic debater. Obama's medium is the political speech, not the debate. And Edwards seems - I don't know, too one-dimensional in his debate tone.

This does not by any means indicate that Hillary will get the nomination. Performance in debates is just one of several important factors in winning nominations and general elections. Obama's inspiring speeches, and his resonance with JFK, will continue to be very significant assets in this election.

But it's gratifying to see Hillary Clinton command that stage. She may not only be the best Democratic debater, but better than any of the Republicans, as well.

Why the Democrats Won't Be Voting in Michigan Tomorrow

That's right. The Republicans will, the Democrats won't. Be voting in the primary in Michigan tomorrow, that is.

How can that be?

Democrats punish Michigan for early primary
Leaders vote to strip state of all delegates for violating party rules

That Associated Press headline in December says it all. Michigan Democrats sought to hold their primary on January 15 - tomorrow. This violated Democratic Party national rules that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina could hold primaries or nominating caucuses (such as Iowa's) prior to February 5.

So ... the national Dems "punished" Michigan by saying, hey, we won't permit you to have a primary this year, period. Meaning, if Democratic voters go the polls in Michigan tomorrow, their votes won't count.

Excuse me?

Who is punished by this? Looks to me as if it's the voters of Michigan, and anyone who thinks a primary is a better way of selecting delegates than a smoke or whatever filled room.

To make matters worse, all of the major Democratic candidates with the exception of Hillary Clinton agreed not to campaign in Michigan, and withdrew their names from the ballot. Good for Hillary!

But what's the matter with Obama and Edwards?

They didn't want to antagonize Iowa and New Hampshire, who were unhappy about Michigan joining them as an early primary state.

Aw, what's the matter, Iowa and New Hampshire's feelings were hurt?

Of all the stupid things that beset our political process, depriving people of their vote ranks among the most inane.

Democracy is difficult enough, without party bosses making it even harder. Kudos to the Republicans for holding their primary in Michigan tomorrow. And Democrats - wake up!

PS - "The Democratic National Committee has yet to sanction Florida's primary on Jan. 29..." This from a comment yesterday in the Sun-Sentinel.

Only in America...

The Surprising Secret of Obama's Success

I've been thinking about another contributing factor to Barack Obama's burgeoning popularity.

Barack Obama has served part of one US Senate term.

John Edwards served a single, full term in the US Senate, and was an unsuccessful candidate for Vice President.

Hillary Clinton is serving in her second term as US Senator, and was First Lady for Bill Clinton's two terms as President.

=======

Barack Obama clearly has the least experience in national public office (less than Edwards and Clinton) and/or running for national public office (less than Edwards) and/or close proximity to national public office (Hillary Clinton).

And that is precisely why he is the logically best candidate to represent hope, and something new in politics and in the Presidency.

If this analysis is at all correct, it means that Bill Clinton is actually hurting Hillary by campaigning for her (because he reminds people of Hillary's lack of newness). It also means that there's not much that either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards can do to change things - to get ahead of Obama - since they cannot very well erase their past.

If this is correct, Obama will be unbeatable for the nomination, and will likely be our next President, unless the Republicans nominate a candidate radically as new as Obama, which seems unlikely.

Since I intend to vote for Obama in the New York primary - as indicated in a post here the day before Christmas - I welcome this.

The Iowa Speeches

I thought I would briefly assess the five speeches given tonight by the major contenders in the Democratic and Republican debates.

In order that the speeches were given:

Romney: workmanlike, professional, gracious concession speech

Edwards: not especially gracious (he didn't congratulation Obama), impassioned

Clinton: comprehensive, gracious, dignified

Huckabee: relaxed, homespun, plainspoken and effective

Obama: passionate, inspiring, powerful

So, I thought all the speeches were good. But Edwards was a little disappointing in his failure to acknowledge Obama, and Obama's was the most inspiring - at least, to me.

Obama's speech beautifully captured what was most important about this evening: that American has moved on to a new plane, with a different approach to the challenges that face us. It almost doesn't matter what the specifics of this approach may be. At this point in the campaign, the conveyance of the feeling that change can happen is more important than the specifics. As Marshall McLuhan put it years ago, the medium is the message. And this, indeed, may be what separates Obama from Edwards, and from Clinton, too, and give Obama the nomination.

The same is true for Huckabee versus all of the Republicans other than Ron Paul. Huckabee sounds different. He seems more a person of the people than Romney or McCain.

The primaries are just beginning. Most of the possibilities prior to tonight are still in play. But the speeches we heard tonight give a good inkling as to where we may well be heading.

I'm Voting for Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary

I'm voting for Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries. Since I live in New York, that won't happen until February 5, 2008. But with the Iowa caucuses and other primaries coming right after New Year's, I figured I might as well come to a decision and announce it now.

It wasn't easy.

First, as I wrote back in March, I think Americans should work for the best candidates in both parties, so as to have the best possible choice on general election day. In the Republican party, there has been and is only one candidate I could ever support - Ron Paul. His respect for the Constitution and the First Amendment, his opposition to the war, make him far and away the best Republican, and in many ways the best candidate, period, running for President in this election.

In contrast, I would be happy with any of the Democrats. In comparison to any of the Republicans other than Ron Paul, any of the Democrats would make a far better President.

So the choice of whom to support among the Democrats is much more difficult. Beyond the positions of the candidates, which are different only in nuances, there is the question of what the election of a candidate would symbolize and accomplish in a larger political sense.

Three of the Democrats are members of groups which have been treated unfairly by American political culture - and American society in general - in the past. Bill Richardson is Latino. His election would do the country and the world good for that reason alone. But his standings in the polls are very low, he has no Internet support to speak of (unlike Ron Paul), and therefore I would say his chances of getting the Democratic nomination are nil.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on the other hand, are leading in the polls. Both candidates have enormous wellsprings of support.

Hillary Clinton's election would have the wonderfully beneficial effect of putting a woman in the White House - as President. Barack Obama's election would have the equivalent effect of making an African-American our President.

Which statement to the world, which redress of American wrongs, is more important?

To some extent, comparing the mistreatment of women and blacks in our culture is comparing apples and oranges. But, all in all, I think African-Americans have received the worse treatment. They were brought here as slaves. We fought a Civil War to free them, but they were hanged in the South, anyway, for decades after the war. Their leaders - Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers - were assassinated. Nothing like that has ever happened to women as a socio-cultural-political group.

I therefore think that the election of Barack Obama as President of this nation would make the most powerful possible statement - to the world, to the future, to the past, to ourselves.

Beyond that, I like Obama's style - his quick wit reminds me of JFK. And there are a few of Hillary Clinton's positions and actions that I'm not very happy with. She should not have voted in favor of labeling Iran a terrorist nation, as President Bush requested. She should not have even considered legislation cracking down on violence in video games. This last might seem like a small issue, but when Bill Clinton was President he signed the Communications Decency Act into law - an act so afoul of the First Amendment, that even the Supreme Court struck it down.

I like just about all of the positions of John Edwards, now in third place in most of the polls. I'm impressed that he says I. F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates is one of his favorite books, because it bespeaks a philosophic depth and appreciation of history. I like most of the positions of all of the Democrats, as I said above. But none of them as President would bring the kind of rectifying electrifying revolutionary change as the election of Barack Obama.

I'm a registered Democrat in New York, and on February 5 I'll be voting for Obama.

And the Pre-Primary Presidential Debates Ends With ... Almost a Snore, But a Great Line from Obama

The Republicans put on their last debate before the January 3, 2008 Iowa Caucuses yesterday - in Iowa - and the Democrats followed suit today.

I had trouble keeping my eyes open for the Republican debate, which is saying a lot, since the debate was on in the afternoon, I don't usually take siestas, and I had gotten a good night's sleep the night before.

But I can't think of anything new I heard from any of the candidates, except maybe Alan Keyes, who is an elegant speaker but somewhat out of his league (if not his mind). Huckabee seemed less exuberant than usual, Guiliani seemed tired, and I still can't help thinking that Mitt Romney may be a Cylon, quietly prepped in some Battlestar Galactica back room. I thought at the beginning of this crucially important election process that Ron Paul and his respect for the Constitution made him far and away the best Republican candidate, and the only one I could ever vote for, and I feel absolutely the same right now.

Meanwhile, I like just about all of the Democrats, more or less, in contrast to the Republicans. But none of the Democrats lit any new fires today. Actually, I thought Biden and Dodd were better than usual, and I would not be at all unhappy if either got the nomination, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

It's pretty much between Obama and Hillary - with Edwards still a possibility - and I'd say the best exchange in either debate came when Obama was asked why, if he's such a future-focused contender, does he have several (Bill) Clinton administration appointees as advisers in the Obama campaign.

Before Obama could answer- Hillary quipped, I wanna hear that...

And Obama shot back- I'm looking forward to you advising me, as well...

That struck me as something JFK might have said - which in my book is a good thing, indeed...

And so the sun sets of this first chapter of the run for the White House, 2008 ...

I'm looking forward to what Iowa Caucuses tell us on January 3.

See also Something New: How About We Look for the Best Candidates in =Both= Parties?

Obama Has Best Line in Democratic Debate on CNN

Well, the self described "best" team of political commentators on CNN said Hillary Clinton had the best night in the Democratic Presidents debates in Las Vegas just concluded, but I disagree.

Hillary was indeed excellent, and did have memorable lines - most notably that the other Democratic contenders are ganging up on her not because she's a woman, but because she's ahead - but I thought the best line belonged to Obama, and certainly has the most important meaning for the future:

Pressed by Wolf Blitzer about energy choices - in particular, the problems of disposing nuclear waste - Obama insisted that he and the American people not be bound by the confines of current technology. Obama challenged Blitzer to think big, and have an open mind as to what we could do to technologically improve our energy situation in the future.

Maybe it's because I'm an historian of technology, maybe it's because I'm a science fiction writer, but I found Obama's point very profound and indeed crucial to improving our future.

Meanwhile, in general, the debate was about the strongest we've seen among the Democrats, so far. And, although I don't agree with some of Hillary Clinton's positions - especially her Senate vote declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "terrorist" (the last thing we should do is give the Bush administration any more license for military action) - I was moved by what she said about what her election would mean for women in America. It is long since time that a woman was President of this country, and, although Hillary Clinton is far from perfect, her election would be revolutionary and healthy if for no other reason than she is a woman.

So perhaps Hillary Clinton did slow Barack Obama down a bit tonight. Debates are clearly not Obama's medium - he gives much better speeches at rallies than answers at debates. Edwards and the other Democratic candidates were fine, as usual, but did not light any new fires. Kucinich can indeed lay claim to being against the war, and on the best side of the important issues, from the very beginning. In a better world, he would be at least among the top three candidates running for the Democratic nomination for President.

Edwards Calls Out Hillary Clinton in "Politics of Parsing" Video

Infinite Regress reader Phil Holland brought the following Edwards ad to my attention. I could live without the irritating music, but otherwise the video does a good job of showing the double-speak and waffling in Hillary Clinton's positions.

Democrats in Phila: Best Moments: Obama & Planet Earth, Edwards & Hillary Doubletalk

Two best moments in the Democratic debate in Philadelphia tonight, just concluded a few minutes ago on MSNBC:

1. John Edwards was by the far the best he's been in this campaign, and by far the most effective on the stage tonight, in taking on Hillary Clinton. He refused to back down down from his press release headline that Hillary Clinton double-talked, and gave ample examples - the most telling of which was her inexcusable vote for a bill that empowers the Bush administration to start going down a path that could well lead to war with Iraq. Others on the stage, including Obama, was not as clear or as passionate as was Edwards on this point.

2. But Obama had a moment when he was given a question near the end about whether he believed in life on other planets. He answered that he didn't know, but he did know that there was life here on Earth, and we needed to do more to take care of that. Fine answer - and I say this even as committed science fiction author...

Biden continues to impress with his toughness (especially on Giuliani tonight, and I give Kucinich credit for saying, yes, he once saw a UFO (even though I've seen no really convincing evidence myself). And Mike Gravel should have been there (MSNBC ruled him too low in the the polls and finances received to participate - bad move).

I thought this was the best Democratic so far, and I'm looking forward to more.

Dems Debate in Dartmouth: Gravel Proud to Stick Credit Card Cos, Kucinich Lower Voting Age to 16, Edwards Shines

You gotta love Mike Gravel. Asked by Tim Russert how he could run for President and be trusted with the nation's fiscal responsibility, when he ran up a big unpaid debt, Gravel proudly shot back - hey, look who got stuck with that debt, I stuck the credit card companies with a $90,000 debt, and they deserved it!

Second best point from an underdog - or maybe it was the best - came from Kucinich, who said he not only favored lowered the drinking age to 18, but the voting age to 16. I seriously support such a lowering of the voting age - I've been saying for years that it should be lowered to 14 - an age at which, according cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget, people have completely adult reasoning processes, and have had them for at least two years.

Among the top tier Democrats, I thought John Edwards did splendidly tonight. He comes across as the most human - the least political - and made some points against Hillary and Obama on stopping the business as usual in Washington. I especially liked Edwards' solution to the social security crisis: rather than raising the cap (it's currently $97,000+), create a window, in which income earners won't pay social security tax above the current cap, until they reach a much higher level of income.(I actually most favor Ron Paul's solution of letting people below a certain age opt of social security - but Edwards' is at least an innovative solution, which doesn't punish people in the upper middle class).

Hillary was good tonight, Barack was not. He was often indistinguishable from Hillary, and he lacked Edwards' passion. Edwards could be set to become the main Democratic alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Emmys Marred by Fox's Heavy-Handed Censorship

Sadly, the most striking thing about the Emmys on Fox tonight was the three times they cut off a speaker, and went to a lame shot of a glittering black ball on the ceiling.

The first time, presenter Ray Romano was saying something about Frasier- cut to the glittering ball.

The second time, Katherine Heigl had just won the Emmy for best supporting actress for Grey's Anatomy. "Shit...," she started to say from her seat in audience- cut to the glittering ball.

These two instances were annoying. What, are we the American people all children, that we cannot hear such language? Is there a scintilla of evidence that children are in fact harmed by hearing such words?

But the third cut was far worse. Sally Field, on stage to accept her Emmy Award for best actress for a drama - Brothers and Sisters - was talking about the pain of war, and dared to say that, "if mothers ruled the world, maybe there would be no more godda-"

Cut to the glittering ball. We're not allowed to hear the phrase "goddamned war," even though war is just that.

David Chase, up on stage at the end of the Emmys for The Sopranos' much justified win as best dramatic series, mused ... "and, hell, let's face it, if the world and this nation were run by gangsters, maybe- maybe it is...."

My wife immediately observed - Chase must have heard what they did to Sally Field.

The Federal Communications Commission, under whose unconstitutional rule the networks are afraid to treat Americans like adults, are certainly political gangsters. Someday, I hope soon, an enlightened President and Congress will banish the FCC into the has-been of history, the bygone affront to democracy, it deserves to be. Ron Paul would certainly do that, and I'd hope John Edwards, Barack Obama, or one of the other good Democrats.

In the meantime, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences should think about moving the Emmys telecast to cable.

Joan Baez Sings "With God On Our Side" in 1966: Suggested Campaign Song for 2007-8

Joan Baez's 1966 performance of Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side"...

I don't know how you can not be moved to tears by this song and Baez's performance. She has the voice of angel. And Dylan's words are the most powerful refutation of war as a moral instrument ever written.

Dylan first performed the song at Town Hall in New York City, April 12, 1963. Joan Baez took him by the hand and out on the stage of the Newport Folk Festival for an extraordinary performance of the song on July 25, 1963. You can see a clip from it in Martin Scorsese's 2005 No Direction Home bio-documentary of Dylan.

Here in 2007, the hope expressed at the end of the song that, "If God is on our side, He'll stop the next war," remains unfulfilled.

Ron Paul, the only one of the Republicans, and Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and to a degree any of the other Democrats, could make that happen if elected President. They could stop this unconstitutional war, started in lies.

Ron Paul could use this song as a campaign song. So could Dennis Kucinich. I hope one of them does.

The lyrics are here.

See also Joan Baez Sings Dylan, Lennon, Earle, and Speaks Obama at New York Town Hall Concert

John Edwards Responds to Bush Address via Commercial

Good for John Edwards for buying air-time on MSNBC tonight to respond to President Bush's address to the nation about Iraq.

The formal Democratic response came from Jack Reed, and it was fine.

But why shouldn't John Edwards - or any of the other candidates - avail themselves of the opportunity to address the nation by buying air-time? What is the difference between buying air-time to specifically respond to the President, and buying air-time for any other political commercial? There is none, other than the response to President is far more important.

And John Edwards is, strategically, ideally situated to give this response. Unlike Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who in the end voted to continue funding the war a few months ago, Edwards was out of office and did not. (Obama, not in office when the initial, unconstitutional war powers were given to Bush by Congress, is at least untainted by that. Of the candidates then in office, only Kucinich of the Democrats and Ron Paul of the Republicans understood the Constitution well enough to vote against those initial war-enabling powers.) True, it was no doubt easier for Edwards being out of office a few months ago to oppose the continued funding of the war then, but it was nonetheless courageous, given that he was already running for President.

The difference between commercials and news coverage has never been that great, given "infomercials" on the one hand and politically biased reporting of organizations like Fox News, on the other. From the point of view of American viewers, what matters is what candidates and Presidents say, not who pays for it.

John Edwards was therefore courageous tonight not only in responding to the President, but in utilizing the medium of the commercial to do it.

Talking About Media Misreporting of Ron Paul this Tues Night in Manhattan

Hey - a heads-up for everyone in the New York area, with an interest in the mainstream and Internet media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election, and its current percolating campaigns:

I've been invited to talk to the New York City Ron Paul Meet-Up group at 7:30pm this Tuesday - in particular, about the media's misreporting and in one case outright attack on Ron Paul, and what can be done about it.

I'll be talking at the Village Pourhouse on 11th Street and 3rd Avenue (southwest corner) for 30-45 minutes, followed by 15-30 mins for questions and answers.

The meeting room will be spacious. The general public is welcome. Admission will be free.

I think the media coverage of our election campaigns thus far should be of concern to anyone who values our democracy.

Ron Paul and his supporters, in particular, have received less than truthful treatment from a variety of media. ABC News and its affiliates has had the greatest confluence of misreporting, and I'll be talking in particular about ABC's posting of misleading photos, reporting of Internet poll results which left out Ron Paul's standing, and, in the case of ABC radio talkshow host Mark Levin, about his urging listeners to call Ron Paul headquarters with hostile comments. In short, I'll be discussing the many abuses I've been loudly blogging about here for the past weeks.

Readers of Infinite Regress also know I'd be outraged about such media malfeasance whomever I supported, but I do support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President. That's easy for me to do, for two reasons. 1. I think our country's disregard of the Constitution - whether it's trampling on the First Amendment or going to war without the Declaration of War required - has gotten us into enormous difficulties. Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party with a lifelong commitment to supporting the Constitution. 2. My second reason for supporting Ron Paul for the Republican nomination is that the other Republican candidates are simply impossible for me to support - three of them don't believe in evolution, and most support the Bush administration's continuation of the war in Iraq. (In all honesty, the last Republican I voted for in any election was John Lindsay in the 1969 NYC mayoral race. He won, and soon after switched his affiliation to the Democrats.)

But there are Democrats I admire in this Presidential election, too. Indeed, any of them is easily better than any of the Republicans, with the exception of Ron Paul. But the three leading Democratic contenders - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards (in that order for me) also have qualities that would make me consider their candidacies very seriously (not to mention Al Gore, who at this point is not in the running). And "second-tier" candidates Kucinich and Biden have much to commend them, too.

Accordingly, I'm urging everyone to work for the best candidate receiving the nomination in each party. And in the happy event that this happens, we can then decide in the general election who is better - the Democrat or the Republican - to lead this country.

But, whichever candidate you support, I hope you agree that our democracy is best served by truthful media coverage. How can we make a rational decision when we're fed misleading and false information? When that happens, we are being starved of the basis of our democracy.

It would be good to see you on Tuesday. And I'll be posting a postscript here to my talk later Tuesday night or early Wednesday.

complete YouTube video of my talk

Further details on two of the above points:

ABC's Abuse of American Electorate to Be Included in my Curriculum This Fall

Something New: How About We Look for Best Candidates in =Both= Parties?

Dems Debate in the Iowa Morning

The Democratic Presidential debate in Iowa yesterday morning - on ABC-TV - was a fine, articulate exchange. But it had no real surprises, and certainly no knock-out punches.

I continue to be impressed with Obama's position as an outsider - not going along with conventional Washington wisdom on how to deal with world leaders, and correctly putting out that it was the traditional Congressional way of doing things that got us involved in Iraq in the first place. (And kudos here to Bill Richardson, for pointing out that we should have had a Declaration of War - as required by the Constitution - something which only Ron Paul among the Republicans seems able to point out.)

But Hillary continues to be appealing as well, for different reasons. The more Karl Rove attacks her, the better Hillary looks - and responds. Her point about knowing how to beat the Republicans is very well taken. (Well, Gore beat the Republicans too in 2000 - certainly in the popular vote - but no doubt not by the margins that Bill Clinton achieved in 1996 and 1992. My preferred Democratic ticket for 2008, by the way, would still be Gore and Obama.)

John Edwards continues to say good things. I still don't find him as compelling as Obama or Hillary - but his voice deserves to be heard, and the polls in Iowa show a three-way tie among Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.

The truth is, for my money, any of the Democrats are easily better than any of the Republicans, with the exception of Ron Paul.

Democrats Debate in Chicago -Hillary: "I'm Your Girl!"

Bravo to Hillary Clinton for breaking through our pc linguistic constraints, and making it ok for people to say "girl" again in public discourse about adults!

Here's how it happened in the Democratic Presidential debate in Chicago on MSNBC earlier tonight, which I caught on rerun -

1. As I expected, I missed the kind of YouTube questions from the last Democratic debate. The questions in tonight's debate were ok - the best came from AFL-CIO union members - but the questions asked by moderator Keith Olbermann had no surprises. I'm flatly predicting we'll be seeing fewer and fewer of these "old time" debate formats as the campaigns progress.

2. But Hillary and Obama each had excellent moments:

a - Hillary said that, if you want a candidate who won't attack other Democrats, but will concentrate Democratic fire on the right wing, then- "I'm your girl!" A liberating master stroke! With that phrase, Hillary showed she's comfortable with her gender, not bound by stereotypes of the recent past (in which "girl" was unacceptable as a phrase to describe any woman), and ready to lead. It may take more than linguistics to win this election, but that moment was a galvanizing, linguistic triumph for Hillary Clinton, and may actually help liberate our culture from some of its "politically correct" shackles.

b - Barack Obama was also had one of his best moments when he held to his position about going into Pakistan if need be to fight terrorism and get bin Laden. It's all hypothetical, of course, but Obama demonstrated in that moment that he was not a Washington insider (like Dodd and Hillary) who would be bound by conventional wisdom.

3. Edwards said some good things about health care, but he's not yet catching fire, of having really decisive moments as did Hillary and Obama above, and time is running short. Fot different reasons, he seems to be in the same difficult position as McCain.

4. Mike Gravel refused to fill out the AFL-CI0 questionnaire, and was not invited. Technically, then, Gravel's absence was his responsibility. But I'm still not happy about it. I don't support Gravel, I find his comments often rambling and less than coherent, but his powerful anti-war position deserves a presence on any Democratic debate stage. More of an effort should have been made to get him up there.

Overall, both the Democratic and Republican debates have been informative and even stimulating, and I'm looking forward to more.

Digg