Middle Earth Journal

2008-05-06T18:04:00.000-07:00

Middle Earth Journal is now inactive although the pamphleteers aren't. Jazz can be found at The Moderate Voice , Ron can be found at Newshoggers and Chuck can be found at Chuck For... .

MEJ

2008-05-01T19:24:00.000-07:00

Ennui, I've been afflicted myself several times in the last couple months. The Democratic Primary drags on, ugly. The economy is stinking. The stupidity of ethanol has gained traction. We are not paying attention to what is going on with oil trading. Our kids are dying in for one man's stupidity. Sometimes I want to either cry or break things or just sit.

Does blogging do any good? I don't know, to a certain extent it is preaching to the choir, it also gives concrete voice to what many cannot voice. Sometimes it is a fresh outlook or rationale, sometimes it is just reinforcement. Sometimes it seems an entire waste.

Ron has been one of my regular stops from the beginning and he flattered me with an invitation to post here. I 've been an irregular poster, trying to have something fresh for two blogs is difficult for me. I'll miss this place. I hope Ron decides to come back.

Anniversary and the end for now.

2008-05-01T10:47:00.000-07:00

This is the fourth anniversary of Middle Earth Journal and it seems like a good time to shut down for awhile. Jazz has a new a better soap box over at The Moderate Voice and I'm so discouraged I don't really have anything to say. I may be back - I may not, time will tell. I'm not really convinced it will really make any difference who is elected president in November. The country and the world's problems will not be addressed. We have reached Peak Oil and it's too late to avoid the pain. Climate change is real and the impact will be devastating. Now I don't know if it was ever possible to do anything about it but once again it's too late now. We are also at or near peak water and peak food. I think you could say we have reached peak people and there is nothing anyone can do. What will happen is the inevitable resource wars fought over not just oil but water and land where food can still be grown. They will make the War on Terror look like a minor play ground fight. So there is nothing I can do to make any real difference so I'm just gong to sign off for now. Thanks to everyone who has read and contributed to these virtual pages.

Dreaming of a Clintonless Democratic Party

2008-04-30T14:29:00.001-07:00

Still yet another reason to hope that the Clintons will simply go away:

It’s one thing for a good presidential candidate to embrace a bad idea. It’s worse when the candidate knows it’s a bad idea. It’s worse still when the candidate attacks her rival for failing to embrace a bad idea. And it’s the worst when the candidate feels so strongly about the bad idea that she starts running television commercials about it.

Of course he's talking about Hillary Clinton and her support of John McCain's incredibly stupid gas tax holiday. Now we know it's stupid because Fred Barnes thinks it's a good idea. It's so stupid that even Thomas Friedman thinks it's stupid and He's rarely right about anything. Jonathan Alter calls it what it is:
Political Pandering
Suspending the federal gas tax is a crass ploy for votes. Why Hillary Clinton and John McCain should know better.

Hillary Clinton has now joined John McCain in proposing the most irresponsible policy idea of the year—an idea that actually could aid the terrorists. What's worse, both of them know that suspending the federal gas tax this summer is a terrible pander, and yet they're pushing it anyway for crass political advantage.

Clinton and McCain have learned a destructive lesson from the Bush era: as Bill Clinton said in 2002, it's better politically to be "strong and wrong" than thoughtful and right. The goal is to depict Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist. By any means necessary.

I could highlight a long debate among economists on suspending the gas tax, but there is no debate. Not one respectable economist—and not one environmentalist or foreign policy expert—supports the idea, unless they are official members of the Clinton or McCain campaigns (and even some of them privately oppose it). To relieve suffering at the pump, send another rebate check or provide tax credits or something else, but not this.

So why is it so stupid? Alter explains:

* It's a direct transfer of money from motorists to oil companies, which are getting ready this week to again report record obscene profits. If the federal excise tax were lifted, oil companies would simply raise prices and pocket most of the difference. Clinton's proposal to recover the money with a windfall profits tax on oil companies sounds nice but won't happen. That tax was easily blocked by the Senate in December and would likely be blocked again.

* It offers taxpayers only peanuts. The Congressional Budget Office says the average savings to motorists this summer would be a total of $30. Did I miss something, or was that measly number somehow not included in Clinton's explanation of her support?

* It sends more hard-earned money to the Middle East, which is terrible for our national security. Remember, 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. How did they get the terrorist training? The madrassa indoctrination? Oil money.

* It worsens global warming by encouraging gasoline consumption. When you flee your house in 2020 because of flooding, remember which politicians pandered.

* It makes it more likely you'll have a car accident or will waste even more time in traffic. The proceeds from the gas tax go for highway construction and upgrades. Because the tax (24.4 cents a gallon on diesel fuel) was last raised 15 years ago, our infrastructure is a mess, with potholes and dangerous crossings practically everywhere. Thousands of repair projects will be further delayed.

* It will cost 300,000 construction jobs, according to the Department of Transportation. Makes it kind of ironic when Clinton starts her rallies saying she wants "jobs, jobs, jobs."

* It will cost the U.S. Treasury at least $8.5 billion and probably much more, according to state highway officials. For McCain that's no money at all—merely one month in Iraq. For Clinton it's money she's already spent. She has said in the past that any proceeds from a windfall profits tax would go for renewable energy. The $8.5 billion figure assumes the tax would be reapplied after Labor Day. Fat chance. The one-year costs are probably closer to $30 billion.

* It won't happen anyway because Congress isn't usually quite that stupid, and if it is, President Bush would veto the bill.

What I have heard few talk about are the reasons behind the sky rocketing fuel prices. Of course we have reached peak oil which I first discussed here almost four years ago. But that doesn't explain why the US is being hurt much more than Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. The reality is that oil costs a lot more dollars because the dollar buys a lot less. A majority of Americans now realize that the occupation of Iraq is responsible for much of our economic woes. That includes the price Americans pay for gasoline. The occupation of Iraq costs about three billion dollars a week. That money is all being borrowed driving up the national debt and driving down the value of the dollar. Now an gas tax holiday won't increase the supply of oil and if anything will decrease the value of the dollar driving up prices even more.

Now John McCain has admitted he doesn't know anything about economics so perhaps he doesn't realize how stupid the gas tax holiday is. I can't believe that Hillary Clinton doesn't know any better making her support even worse.

McCain's 100 Year "War". The reality of the Germany and Japan comparison

2008-04-29T15:57:00.000-07:00

Much ado has been made of the so-called John McCain "flip flop" regarding his position on the fifty or one hundred year war in Iraq. Josh Marshall made quite a case about this, hinging on the fact that McCain was apparently "against having U.S. troops remaining in Iraq before he was for the idea." As was pointed out by Hot Air's Ed Morrissey, McCain's position may have evolved in light of facts on the ground and, he proposes, people should consider the fact that McCain is talking about a difference between war, occupation and "presence" where Americans are not suffering casualties and the occupied country is more of a partner with the Americans, such as in Germany and Japan. This, however, is exactly the area where I feel McCain has a tremendous weak spot which will be exposed if the media ever gets over the "honeymoon" period they have with Senator McCain as Josh Marshall notably points out.

My problem with this theory has long been that the difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is not simply a difference of apples and oranges, but apples and aardvarks. They aren't even in the same phylum, class or family. This week I decided to go to some of the real experts on the subject and arranged a pair of original interviews. For the topic of Japan, I spoke today with Dr. John Dower in the first of a two part interview. (Look for a full interview transcript next week here on TMV.) Professor Dower is not some political hack or pundit. He is a historian and expert on the history of post-war Japan, the author of many numerous books on the subject, the recipient of multiple Pulitzer Prizes, National Book Awards and the Bancroft Prize, all on Japanese history in the modern era. In our brief introductory session this week I asked him if there was any evidence of an insurgency against Americans by the Japanese during the occupation period of 1945 to 1952, similar to the Iraq insurgency. His answer was short and to the point.

Zero. There was zero evidence of any form of insurgency against the Americans in Japan during that period.

He went on to describe some of the key differences between the two scenarios. They fall into three areas, which are also mirrored in the conditions we find in post-war Germany. First, there is the matter of how America treated the invasion and post-war occupation of these countries. The United States had pummeled Japan's major cities with air bombardments long before the nuclear bombs hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the surrender in 1945, America treated Japan as a defeated nation. No dissent was tolerated and control was absolute.

The second area is the response of the defeated country to the occupiers. Japan was in great danger of being totally destroyed by the Chinese. They had been fighting with China since 1931 and China's death toll at the hands of the Chinese is estimated to have been in excess of 15 million. China was ready, willing and able to wipe Japan off the face of the Earth and America was the only force standing in the way of that. Combined with the Emperor's orders to obey the Americans and recognize the surrender, we were very nearly welcomed with the "flowers in the streets" which we never received in Iraq.

The third factor is in the inherent national identity of the Japanese. They were already an incredibly ancient culture, dating back well past the time of Christ. There were certainly periods of internecine warfare in their feudal era, but there had been a national sense of "being Japanese" for ages unimaginable in comparison to the brief history of the United States.

None of these conditions apply to Iraq. Dr. Dower published a piece in the Boston Review back in 2003 (prior to the invasion of Iraq) titled "A Warning From History: Don't expect Democracy in Iraq." It turned out to be frighteningly prescient. Here's a brief piece, but be sure to read the entire piece to see exactly how well Professor Dower saw the future of an American occupation in Iraq.

Starting last fall, we began to hear that U.S. policymakers were looking into Japan and Germany after World War II as examples or even models of successful military occupations. In the case of Japan, the imagined analogy with Iraq is probably irresistible.

The problem is that few if any of the ingredients that made this success possible are present—or would be present—in the case of Iraq. The lessons we can draw from the occupation of Japan all become warnings where Iraq is concerned.

In a second interview we will have, which can not be disclosed yet, we find the same conditions mirrored in Germany. There was a vestigial insurgency in Germany, called Operation Werwolf, which was composed of The Heer and the Hitler Youth. However, it was immediately disavowed by Hitler's successor, Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz, and was widely considered a fiasco producing no notable results. The Germans, like the Japanese, are an ancient culture dating back to their struggles against the Roman Empire and beyond. And the American occupation of Germany was initially a brutal one, not even allowing the German police force access to guns. The Germans, like the Japanese, were in great fear of the Russians who they had slaughtered to the tune of tens of millions.

Again.. none of these conditions exist in Iraq. Our history of attempts at military occupation of Muslim nations has been dismal by comparison to our experience in Germany and Japan. And our methods today are much more "care bear" policies of rescuing the hapless Iraqis from their dictatorial ruler than imposing the iron fist of martial law.

John McCain's attempt to compare Iraq to these two historical periods should be pointed out to the public by the media. He is either being incredibly disingenuous, or he is demonstrating a shocking and dismaying lack of understanding of military history and its implications for our continued presence in Iraq.

The not so Reverend Wright

2008-04-29T14:22:00.000-07:00

Reverend Jeremiah Wright has not looked or talked like a minister in the United Church of Christ. He has looked like a ego driven huckster trying to get as much publicity as possible to sell his upcoming book. In the process he is making life very difficult for Barack Obama with the help of the corporate press and both the Republicans and the Clinton campaign. Was he in Clinton's camp all along or has he always just been in Wright's camp? In any event I think if you dusted his attempt to undo Barack Obama the last few days you would find the fingerprints of active Clinton supporters if not the campaign itself. Now Obama was very critical of Wright today and divorced himself from most of Wright has said the last few weeks.

"The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," he said. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

"They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs," he said.

"If Reverend Wright thinks that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either."

Will it be enough to halt the feeding frenzy? Probably not but Clinton may become part of the feed not the feeder if she becomes tied to this.

Remind me again - who's running for President?

2008-04-29T08:22:00.000-07:00

The vile and hateful John Hagee is not running for president - John McCain is. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not running for president - Barack Obama is. When John McCain tried to distance himself from John Hagee that was the end of it. But as Bob Herbert and Andrew Sullivan explain when Barack Obama tried to distance himself from Wright the corporate media, Reverend Wright himself or the Clinton Campaign will allow him to do so. And now we have this from Thom Hartmann - It was a Hillary Clinton supporter who arranged for for Rev Wright's appearance at the Press Club.

Hour One - Who arranged for for Rev Wright's appearance at the Press Club? Photo from the National Press Club's website and outed in a story by Errol Louis in today's NY Daily News, captioned: "Rev. Wright gets the inside story from Rev. Barbara A. Reynolds, the Speakers Committee member who organized the Wright breakfast. (Photo by John Metelsky)" According to Louis' article, Reynolds' website, which is now vacant of all text, had until today said that: "'My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you' to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency."

This from Errol Louis:
Is Jeremiah Wright a colossal disaster for Barack Obama or a press trick?

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted.

Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds.

A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister).

It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.

On a blog linked to her Web site- www.reynoldsnews.com- Reynolds said in a February post: "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency.

The same post criticized Obama's "Audacity of Hope" theme: "Hope by definition is not based on facts," wrote Reynolds. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time."

Is this just another example of dirty Rovian politics on the part of the Clinton campaign?

About that permanent Republican majority

2008-04-29T07:59:00.000-07:00

Karl Rove's dream was a permanent Republican majority. After nearly eight years of the Bush/Cheney cabal the reality is far different. Fewer Americans identify themselves as Republicans than at any time in the last 20 plus years. And when you look at those between 18 and 29 it looks even worse.

It's no secret that Republicans have a brand problem; the gap between Dem and GOP party identification is greater today than at any point since the vanguard of the Reagan revolution, when Republicans held a double-digit advantage. Researchers at Pew have put a decade's worth of data through their analytical minds and come to the conclusion that the leading edge of the Democratic edge is among young voters. This isn't surprising, but it is noteworthy. Consider: Voters under 30 in the Midwest are twice as likely to call themselves Democrats as they are to identify as Republicans. 63% of women under age 30 identify as Democrats versus just 28% who call themselves Republicans. Democrats even have the affiliation of a majority of young men.

As Jazz explains over at The Moderate Voice:

Among voters ages 18 to 29, in 1992 the split was 47 to 46 in favor of the Republicans. Today, Pew Research is showing that same demographic as breaking 58 to 33 in favor of the Democrats.

[.....]

Politically, today’s cohort of 18-to-29 year olds came of age during the Bush presidency. It has turned them into Democrats.

Neocon Hillary - 2008

2008-04-28T13:29:00.000-07:00

Two years ago I wrote Neocon Hillary where I discussed Justin Raimondo's commentary in the American Conservative Magazine, Hillary the Hawk. He quotes from a Hillary Clinton speech given on January 18, 2006.

“Let’s be clear about the threat we face now,” she thundered. “A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime’s pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not—must not—permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.” To be sure, we need to cajole China and Russia into going along with diplomatic and economic sanctions, but “we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran—that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Now it may appear that Hillary as made a move to the center but the Boston Globe reminds us that not much has changed.
Hillary Strangelove

AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the rhetoric in a campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC's "Good Morning America" that, if she were president, she would "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel.

This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media coverage. But it reverberated in headlines around the world.

It was not only dangerous but she sounded more like Dick Cheney or William Kristol that someone trying to get the Democratic nomination for President. At a time when it is becoming obvious to a vast majority that neocon policy and ideology has been a dangerous failure are the Democrats really going to nominate someone who talks like Dick Cheney? If the corporate media has it's way the answer is yes but it went virtually unreported.

Al Franken is a funny guy

2008-04-28T13:04:00.000-07:00

But he's gotten even more funny since he decided to run for the Senate. Check out Ladies Logic for some information on how that Senate bid is going. Franken apparently neglected to pay his corporate taxes in a couple of states for several years.

The DFL is at a cross-roads in the Senatorial campaign. They can either find another candidate between now and their state convention, they can find someone to run a primary challenge to Franken (which will no doubt help Senator Coleman perserve campaign funds since he won't have a challenger until September) or they can stay with a Franken campaign that is self destructing at a rapid rate.

Note to Democrats: I don't care how good the polls look. You have to vet your candidates before you put them up against somebody with Norm Coleman's street cred. He may be vulnerable, but you've at least got to make the effort to find a candidate who is somewhere in the realm of reality in terms of political viability.

Mid Stream Radio

2008-04-28T08:03:00.000-07:00

The trouble with being a citizen journalist is it's a part time gig and doesn't pay the bills. Mid Stream Radio has been a success, one of the top shows in it's time slot but the real world has gotten in the way and Jazz and I simply don't have the time necessary to keep the show going. Today will be the final show so tune in for the good byes.

The DNC Primary Process

2008-04-27T23:39:00.000-07:00

A lot of people are sick and tired of the Primary by now and it seems even more are disgusted with the system the DNC uses. Hillary Clinton made sure the Primary was pushed up way early, she was campaigning in fund raising and national attention from the 06 election forward and the only chance anybody had was to come out early also. This isn't the fault of the DNC, it is simply a reality of having an "inevitable" candidate.

The stupidity of Florida and Michigan has been exposed for what it is, though blame keeps accruing to DNC. This cost should deter any further such behavior. If it does not, plainly natural selection will soon have to begin operation within State legislatures. There are some very good reasons the system is designed as it is, for Democrats.

Proportional delegate selection seems to offend some folks, they'd vastly prefer a winner take all system. There are some very nearly fatal flaws in such a thing for Democrats, it strongly encourages the 50%+1vote that Republicans favor and the Clinton/McAuliff crowd operate under. The upshot of that thinking is very narrow majorities, majorities that evaporate at the first opportunity and create the need for crisis manufacture. This also discourages campaigns from maturing, they are eliminated early and campaign stumbles are fatal. Depending on the point you pick in the path of the Primary so far, this could have killed either campaign before now. The biggest problem with a 50%+1 win is the number excluded from consideration, that 50%-1 can get pretty bitter about being ignored.

The small state start off offends nitwits like Florida and Michigan, they're ever so important they should get to go first. That is exactly the problem with them going first, only the heavily financed and well connected campaign will make it through a big state Primary, very nearly ensuring corporatist status quo candidates will be the only ones competing. While we might not be surprised that the Republicans prefer their campaigns to be such, Democrats don't - mostly. It means, at the least, the stifling of other voices in the campaign. Perhaps a Kucinich will never have a chance in a Presidential Primary, but his voice should not be silenced - it is an important part of Democratic politics (or pick your 2nd tier candidate to replace Kucinich in the statement). Sometimes a candidacy will take off because it is heard, Obama may not have had the resources to start out in a large state. That might please the Clinton camp at this point, but evidence shows it would not have been a good thing for the Party at large.

Once things like small state starts and proportional delegate selection are in operation the potential for near ties occurs. Two strong and appealing campaigns make it nearly inevitable so that means pledged delegates of nearly the same numbers would enter a Convention with no "out" available. This means a deal would have to be reached, a deal that would not be the result of a public winning of delegates unless you propose to go to the 50%+1 vote model. Under proportional delegate selection the +1 would represent the narrowest possible majority meaning an offense against the -1, a potentially more damaging result than having the Party's automatic (super) delegates be decisive.

There is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the status of the super delegates, they are elected by the people not some high powered insider clique. The Party insiders are elected by the State Parties composed of people elected by County Parties through PCPs who are elected by the residents of Precincts, the elected officials won State races as US Representatives, Senators, or Governors. These are not unrepresentative people, they simply are not elected in the Primary.

Caucuses have drawn the ire of many, particularly Clinton supporters. Caucuses have several advantages that are not considered, the first is affordability. MI and FL wound up disqualified because their State Legislatures decided to ignore the rules and make State financing of the Primary contingent on their date. A caucus could have been financed by a State Party, but not a General Vote Primary, the State Parties were hamstrung into going along in order to have such a vote (the truth is both State Parties wanted to go along, anyhow). A Caucus puts control in the State Party's hands, not the State government's hands - who by law cannot mandate a method - but can blackmail a result. DPO made it clear that rather than risk DNC sanctions the Party would caucus, the Legislature backed away, DPO refused to bow to any suggestion of blackmail and had the caucus alternative to do so.

The public nature and commitment required by caucusing has been blasted. The candidates wear a (D) after their name, it is a Democratic Party process and it is important that the candidate selected be Democratic in mindset. If the people involved in the process have to do so publicly and with a time commitment it pretty much ensures that people who have given the matter real thought will be the ones participating. Because the only requirements are a (D) and a commitment of time and dedication the process is not exclusive of anyone, it is simply most likely to attract the participation of those willing to put effort into it. I'll admit to preferring the wider participation of a General Primary, but an entirely reasonable wish that those included were more thoughtful and dedicated people than actually do participate. There is a trade-off and quite rationally the trade-off is narrow which ever side you come down on. I've heard people state that this violates the privacy of voting, it may not afford it, but it violates nothing. It is entirely legal and correct as a process of the Democratic Party, which is not the Federal Government.

If you want to play in Democratic politics you are simply going to have to accept a level of messiness. It is the nature of the Democratic Party, it is the nature of any Party that tries to be reflective of a wide membership. Sometimes that membership holds parties with directly opposed views, the 2nd Amendment is a perfect example of such a situation and the Party struggles to include both and it is a struggle. In many instances the tension between ideas results in better answers, sometimes only uneasy truces, and sometimes explosions. But this is the Democratic Party. The Republican model is something else and if it seems a bit more orderly, there is also the result of the last 7 years to take into that consideration. I will take the Democratic messiness.

In short, if you're looking for an efficient and orderly process the Republicans have one, and if it is that important to you to have it, all it takes is an (R) after your name and a certain fondness for the last 7 years to have it. If you think the Republicans have chosen good candidates with their system I suggest you reflect on who they've put up in your memory. I'm a Democrat and I'm not insulted that it's easier to herd black cats in a dark room with a stick than it is to manage Democrats, I happen to like it in fact. (I've never been impressed by sheep)

Fixing the Process

2008-04-27T15:44:00.000-07:00

No matter how many times we come back to the question, there seems to be no right answer as to how the Democrats could "fix" their presidential primary process, nor if it actually needs to be fixed at all. Yes, the current situation looks like a mess and has most of the chattering class all atwitter. Then again, a few months from now it is still entirely possible that the process will produce a nominee whom the vast majority of the party gets behind and this will all seem like a silly, unpleasant memory.

But the question still has some merit. Even if the process proves to be fundamentally sound, there's always room for improvement, eh? (See: Mousetrap, Better.) It's a question which is tackled yet again today (albeit in a snarky, sarcastic way) over at Talk Left by Big Tent Democrat. You have to dig through some serious bitterness about how the process is so unfair to poor Hillary Clinton and so advantageous to big, mean old Barack Obama, and the piece was apparently written as satire, but there are some good bits in there to consider.

The solution to the problem is simple - we should change the Presidential nomination process to a pure popular vote system. This would end all the silly calendar nonsense. You want to go first? Be my guest. That is not going to change the fact that California has the most people.

This would also let states decide if they wanted to pay for a real election (a primary) or wanted instead to hold a phony election (a caucus). It gets rid of superdelegates. Heck, it gets rid of DELEGATES period. It gets rid of every unDemocratic feature in the process (no overweighting rural districts or urban districts or any district.)

Finally, it eliminates the importance of incompetents like Donna Brazile.

Leaving aside for the moment the necessity of eliminating Donna Brazile from the process over the centuries to come (for having the temerity to suggest Obama might be winning) how would this popular vote concept work out? Unlike the national election, which will apparently be saddled with the electoral college until the next Constitutional Convention (read: "forever") there's really nothing stopping either party from changing their rules in any given state whenever the spirit moves them.

So, is it somehow bad that California has so many people? In a winner takes all, electoral college type system some have certainly made that argument. But the irony in BTD's complaint is that it really would have no effect on any one's chances in such a hypothetical popular vote scenario. As long as every Democrat who wanted to vote cast their ballot and they were all counted, what matter where they live? If there are a total of 40 million votes are cast across the nation in the primary and your candidate gets 40 million and one, then you win! No muss, no fuss.

How about the elimination of caucuses? Let's face it... the caucus system stinks up the joint this year if you are a Clinton supporter and it's the cat's pajamas if you favor Obama. But there are still some fundamental problems with them. Caucuses are an appendix of the democratic process, dating back to a time when getting out to vote often involved a horse. Some are better than others, but few are as bad as Iowa where you don't even get privacy to vote and must do so in front of friends, neighbors and employers - sometimes right in their living rooms. Even without that glaring flaw, any system which requires you to show up to vote within a tight time schedule, regardless of your work schedule, is pretty well rotten at its core.

I understand that BTD is mostly just angry about what appears to be the imminent demise of the Clinton campaign, but the Democratic party could do far worse than to set aside a good block of time for rules discussions at the convention this year. They can't force the states to conform to a standardized process, but they could definitely point out some of the worst problems and urge them to reform. One of the only other alternatives would be to give up and do winner take all primaries in each state like the mean old Republicans do, which, had it been the case, would have long since put Hillary into the nominee's seat.

But of course... that would be unfair.

None of the above....

2008-04-27T13:44:00.000-07:00

....or what if none of them are electable!
I suggested below that Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy of making Obama unelectable might be working but in the process she was making herself even less electable than he. But what about John McCain. Now here is a candidate that should be unelectable. He is in favor of continuing an occupation that over two thirds of Americans want to end. On nearly ever issue he promises to continue the policies of a president who has the highest unfavorable reading ever recorded. And the few remaining Bush supporters don't trust him. As Frank Rich pointed out this morning 27 percent of the PA Republicans showed up to vote against John McCain in a primary that is all but meaningless.

I made a prediction two years ago:

I'm not going to predict any individuals but I will predict that the election will be decided by at least two strong third party candidates. I'm not saying one of them will win but they will decide the election. Of course it won't be the first time, Ross Perot's race gave Bill Clinton the win in 92 and Ralph Nader gave the election to George W. Bush in 2000.

This time it will be different there will be two strong third party candidates, one on the left and one on the right. If Hillary gets the nomination there will be a large chunk of the Democratic base will be looking for an alternative.

I was wrong - no strong third party candidates have materialized. So who will decide? Those who simply decide not to participate. McCain's best chance is against Hillary. Many Republicans who might not vote will to keep Hillary Clinton out of the white. Hillary has managed to offend the black voters and the urban white voters. Obama will not inspire the Republicans as much and may pick up some Libertarian and even Republican votes. The only thing that Hillary's campaign has accomplished is to make her the least electable of the three.

As for me - I won't vote for Clinton or McCain and I won't be a part of inflating Ralph Nader's ego. For me it will be none of the above. I will work hard to make sure that progressive Democrats are elected to the House and the Senate.

Update
It's the Independents stupid.
I'm an Independent and I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. I think this is about right.
CLASH OF THE INDEPENDENTS

April 27, 2008 -- It's electability, stupid.
That's what Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have been spinning to super-delegates and anyone else who will listen since she lost her grip on once-inevitable nomination.

There's just one problem – when it comes to independent voters, those crucial swing votes in swing states, Hillary doesn't hold the electability edge: Barack Obama does.

Independent voters favor Obama by a 2 to 1 margin over Hillary – 49% to 24% – according to a NBC/WSJ poll taken after the Jeremiah Wright scandal in late March. His approval rating among Republicans is almost twice Hillary's as well – 19% to 10%.

Crossover appeal is the key indicator of electability – especially for Democrats. Despite Democratic dominance of Congress during most of the 20th Century, no Democratic president managed to win more than 51% of the popular vote, with the exceptions of FDR and LBJ. What's the lesson? Democrats especially depend on Independent voters and even some centrist Republicans to win the White House.

That's true now more than ever: Independent voters are the fastest growing and largest segment of the American electorate, as detailed in former Clinton and Bloomberg pollster Doug Schoen's new book "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System."

Obama's Independent edge has already had an impact in key 2008 swing states like Virginia, where independents made up 22% of the February 12th open primary. Obama won their support by a 2 to 1 margin, on his way to a 64-35 blowout victory.

As I said above Hillary is the least electable of the three candidates. She has alienated large portions of her own party, Independents will not vote for her and she can anticipate virtually no cross over votes. And Joe Gandelman talks about the very thing that made me go from Clinton to Obama.

And — also something we have noted repeatedly in our posts here — Clinton generates another reaction among many independent voters who detest the Rovian-style negative campaigning politics of division, seeming use of code words, and personal destruction (now widely covered in news reports as the Clinton campaign seeks to drive up Obama’s negatives more than make the case for her strengths against McCain):

Update II
More on McCain's problems.

Wildflower Break

2008-04-27T08:21:00.000-07:00

After a week of below average temperatures we had a pleasant day in the low 70s on Saturday here in the Pacific Northwest. I took the opportunity to head to the woods and check out the wildflowers. The most exciting find was two rare Calypso Orchids also known as fairy slippers. The flowers themselves are about the size of a quarter.

Also in bloom was the Fawn Lily

and the Giant Trillium.

In which universe?

2008-04-26T21:38:00.000-07:00

John McCain has a tough job ahead of him. The Bush kool-aide drinkers are down into the mid 20s. Bush has the highest disapproval rating ever recorded but McCain needs the kool-aide drinkers. St John must distance himself from George W. Bush to win but if he alienates the Bush cultists he can't win anyway even if Hillary attempts tom throw the election his way. OK, the cultists and the hard core rednecks won't vote for Obama but the might just sit it out. Tony Snow had his debut on CNN today and said McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush on the easy stuff like Katrina. But here was the shocker. Who does Snow think could help McCain? The only man in the US less popular than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney. Come on Tony, you are going to have to do better than that. In which universe would Dick Cheney be an asset to McCain's campaign? Certainly not this one.

Who's unelectable?

2008-04-26T17:39:00.000-07:00

It's become obvious who the Rethuglicans want to run against in the November general election - it's Hillary. For example:
Popular Vote Gives Clinton an Edge
By Michael Barone
It wasn't always that way. Initially the Republicans thought that Obama would be an easier target and were helping him knock off Hillary. That changed in late 2007 when they figured out that Obama would be a formidable candidate.

Hillary Clinton's strategy has been to paint Obama us unelectable and they have done everything in their power to make that so. They may have had some success but in the process have made Hillary even less electable - her campaign has alienated an important part of the Democratic base.
Party Fears Racial Divide
Attacks Could Do Lasting Harm, Democrats Say

In addition her campaign tactics have offended many Independent supporters like me and Libertarians who are looking at Obama won't vote for Hillary. Hillary Clinton has to be seen as the one who is most unelectable in November and it is the result of her Karl Rove style campaign. She had a lot of baggage to begin with and she has taken on even more in the last few months.

Even after her win in PA she contiues to lose support and donors to Obama. I am forced to give more credance to the conspirisy theory that she knows she can't get the nomination but want's to make sure Obama loses in November so she can run in 2012.

Sorry Hillary, it won't work. I have come to the conclusion that the Democractic Party would be stronger without you and Bill and all of your baggage.

Update
What John Cole says!

Just Say No

2008-04-24T18:04:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'm still alive. I haven't posted much lately because I'm sick and tired of all the news revolving around the cluster fuck that the Democratic nomination has become when there is real news out there. We are still losing the war we should have fought in Afghanistan because we don't give up on the disastrous occupation of Iraq which is even worse because we are doing exactly what the Iranians want us to do. No one is willing to admit that the war is over and the Iranians have one so we continue to spend US blood and treasure to support the truly pro Iranians, ISCI, the Badr ~~Brigade~~ Organization's fight against the Iraqi nationalist al-Sadr. Well al-Sadr has had enough:
Al-Sadr may restart full-scale fight against US in Iraq

BAGHDAD - Muqtada al-Sadr is considering setting aside his political ambitions and restarting a full-scale fight against U.S.-led forces — a worrisome shift that may reflect Iranian influence on the young cleric and could open the way for a shadow state protected by his powerful Mahdi Army.

A possible breakaway path — described to The Associated Press by Shiite lawmakers and politicians — would represent the ultimate backlash to the Iraqi government's pressure on al-Sadr to renounce and disband his Shiite militia.

By snubbing the give-and-take of politics, al-Sadr would have a freer hand to carve out a kind of parallel state with its own militia and social services along the lines of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a Shiite group founded with Iran's help in the 1980s.

It also would carry potentially disastrous security implications as the Pentagon trims its troops strength and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally shows progress on national reconciliation.

Even the US Army has conceded that the success of the surge was due to al-Sadr's "cease fire". The right, including Condi Rice, have been quick to label Sadr and JAM cowards. Sometimes what appear to be cowardice is wisdom - why get annihilated by superior power when you can live to fight the war on your terms another day. The "cowards" of the Mahdi army are capable of taking Iraq back to pre-surge violence in short order.

Back to the Clinton/Obama battle closer to home. When no one thought Obama could win he was treated kindly. The honeymoon is over. I quick trip over to memeorandum shows almost nothing but attacks on Obama.

I supported Hillary Clinton until January and said I would vote for her until recently. I still believe that the Democrats must regain control of the country. That said I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in November even if it means John McCain will be the next President. The Democratic party and progressives(liberals) need to regain power but with out the Clintons and the DLC.

Jeff Merkley and President McCain

2008-04-23T07:56:00.000-07:00

Jazz and I will be talking to Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley on Mid Stream Radio this morning at 10:00 PDT. You can call in at 646-595-3963. It has become even more important that Senator Gordon Smith be defeated in November since it appears that the Republicans have nominated the only Republican who could possibly win and that the Democrats will nominate one of the only two candidates who could possibly lose.

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton can win at this point. She was carrying a lot of baggage going into this campaign and has picked up a lot more. And is the US ready for a black president? Looking at the results of first Ohio and now Pennsylvania I suspect the answer is no. Obama will simply not get the vote of the white working class voter. I would like to blame Hillary's Rovian campaign for this but I can't. The Republicans would have played the card in the general election.

The only salvation for this country is for John McCain to have a very hostile House and Senate.

Oregon Radio

2008-04-23T07:39:00.000-07:00

Today on Mid Stream Radio, (1:00 pm Eastern, 10:00 am Pacific) in the second half of the show we will be interviewing Jeff Merkley, a Democrat who is running for the United States Senate, hoping to unseat Republican Gordon Smith in November. We'll be covering some issues of local interest to Oregonians, as well as some of the larger issues of the day which Mr. Merkley will have to vote on if he is elected to the Senate. Jeff is currently the Speaker of the House in Oregon.

In the first half of the show, we'll welcome back my boss over at The Moderate Voice, Joe Gandelman to get his take on how Pennsylvania played out and what it portends for the future of the primary race.

If you would like to submit questions for either guest in our always lively web chat during the show, you'll need to make sure you have registered for a free user account at the BTR home page and grabbed a nickname for web chats. You can also call in during the show to (646) 595-3963.

See you on the radio.

Finally they notice

2008-04-21T08:47:00.000-07:00

Via upyernoz at Rubber Hose the New York Times has finally figured out what many of us have been saying for months - the US and the Iranians are on the same side in Iraq.
U.S. and Iran Find Common Ground in Iraq’s Shiite Conflict

BAGHDAD — In the Iraqi government’s fight to subdue the Shiite militia of Moktada al-Sadr in the southern city of Basra, perhaps nothing reveals the complexities of the Iraq conflict more starkly than this: Iran and the United States find themselves on the same side.

The causes of this convergence boil down to the logic of self-interest, although it is logic in a place where even the most basic reasoning refuses to go in a straight line. In essence, though, the calculation by the United States is that it must back the government it helped to create and take the steps needed to protect American troops and civilian officials.

Iranian motivations appear to hinge on the possibility that Mr. Sadr’s political and military followers could gain power in provincial elections this fall, and disrupt the creation of a semiautonomous region in the south that the Iranians see as beneficial.

The American-Iranian convergence is all the more remarkable because of mutual animosity. The United States says that Iran has backed thousands of attacks on American troops in Iraq, bitterly opposes its nuclear program and has not ruled out bombing Iran if Iranian policies do not change. Meanwhile, at the level of senior officials at least, Iran takes quite seriously its depiction of the United States as the planet’s Great Satan.

I made this observation below:

They are constantly ranting about Iran but they have and continue to do all of Iran's dirty work in Iraq. They toppled Iran's arch enemy, Saddam, they put the most pro-Iranian elements in Iraq in power and they continue to defend those elements with US blood and treasure.

and upyernoz explains:

for years the iranian government has backed the same iraqi government as the u.s. over a year ago, bush met with the leader of what was then called the SCIRI (now called the ISCI) to pressure them to join the maliki government. the SCIRI/ISCI is one of the most overtly pro-iranian group in iraq. the members of the ISCI's militia, the badr organization, actually draw their pensions from the iranian revolutionary guard. bush was, quite literally, pushing iranian agents to become part of the u.s. supported iraqi government.

The Bush administration is supporting a group that is literally on the payroll of the Iranian government - the Badr Organization.

I have to wonder if al-Sadr remains in Iran because the Iranians won't let him return. The last thing the Iranians what is as al-Sadr in power.

Quote of the day

2008-04-21T07:48:00.000-07:00

I discussed Condi Rice's playground bully moment below and Jazz did it over at The Moderate Voice. Juan Cole's reaction is the quote of the day:

Has Rice ever said anything about Iraq that was true or useful? Even as she was talking up 'improved security' in Baghdad, mortar shells were falling about her in the Green Zone.

On the Radio Today - John McCain's Temperment

2008-04-21T04:46:00.000-07:00

The kerfuffle over Senator John McCain's history of having a nasty temper continues today from over the weekend. Over at The Corner we find a shot at defending "Punk McNasty's" history of flare-ups. (That name comes from a combination of nicknames the Senator received a a younger man, as admitted in his own writings, not some slur come up with by yours truly.) Today on Mid Stream Radio (1:00 PM Eastern, 10 AM Pacific) Ron and I will be discussing this issue, including the column I published this weekend pondering John McCain's Shinebox. We'll also try to have one of McCain's supporters on with us for the opposite view.

In the Corner piece, we find Mark Salter furiously backing away from some quotes he gave to the reporter who wrote this lengthy piece on the subject. However, some of the direct quotes attributed to him may be hard to wash off the walls. We'll try to get to the bottom of this today.

Remember, you can listen in using the widget in the upper right column here at Middle Earth Journal, or from the show's home page. You can call in with questions or comments of your own during the show at (646) 595-3963. You can also participate in our always lively web chat during the show, but in order to comment in the chat you'll need to have registered for a free Blog Talk Radio user account at their homepage and grabbed a nickname in advance. See you on the radio!

Jack Ohman on the ABC "debate"

2008-04-20T21:06:00.001-07:00

Comicspage.com

Bring em on!

2008-04-20T20:38:00.000-07:00

I have spent the last several years trying figure out if the Bush/Cheney administration and the neocons are stupid and delusional, just plain crazy or if there is some bizarre method to their madness. I'm beginning to think it must be all of the above. They are constantly ranting about Iran but they have and continue to do all of Iran's dirty work in Iraq. They toppled Iran's arch enemy, Saddam, they put the most pro-Iranian elements in Iraq in power and they continue to defend those elements with US blood and treasure. The latest example is this:
Iraqi Army Takes Last Basra Areas From Sadr Force
But of course they didn't do it alone.

BAGHDAD — Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad strongly endorsed the Iraqi government’s monthlong military operation against the fighters.

By Saturday evening, Basra was calm, but only after air and artillery strikes by American and British forces cleared the way for Iraqi troops to move into the Hayaniya district and other remaining Mahdi Army militia strongholds and begin house-to house searches, Iraqi officials said. Iraqi troops were meeting little resistance, said Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad.

While the administration talks about about Iran's support for al-Sadr the Iranians are laughing. They like al-Maliki's government just fine since it is supported and controlled by the pro-Iranian ISCI and Da'wa party. The Iraqi security forces are primarily members of the Badr Brigade - a creation of the Iranians.

While that is stupid it is not nearly as stupid as this:
Secretary of State Rice Mocks Muslim Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a Coward

BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward on Sunday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.

Now the American and British air strikes may have driven the Mehdi army underground but only to fight another day. The always stupid and incompetent Rice has just poured gasoline on embers which will flare up even sooner resulting in the deaths of both Iraqis and Americans. This administration is criminally stupid and incompetent.