Today

Just got home from gathering with friends, a re-watching and champagne, and food. And we all sang, and joked, and the most cynical of friends celebrated hope.

I'm watching Barack and Michelle enter parties and say words and look wonderful. (While I love writing and saying President Obama, I still feel a closeness and an inclination to call him Barack)

When I picked the boy up from school today, he told me about watching the inauguration. And the reason that the schools watched it is clear: this country elected and inaugurated our first black person to our highest office. This represents a closure of wounds, an opening of opportunities, a flowering of inspiration.

Is there anyone who was not moved to tears watching black residents of DC crying and celebrating today? Say to yourself "I don't discriminate". Say to yourself "I am not to blame for slavery or Jim Crow". Whatever you say does not matter. The fact is that in our nation's capital, an entire population has been disenfranchised and mostly invisible- right up to today.

That matters.

But there is more. Today is even bigger thank that.

Today is also the end of the Bush presidency, and everyone should be able to agree, an historic one. This has been a radical presidency, an administration that has not flinched from formulating new arguments, enabling the power of the White House to take steps that were momentous departures from much of what we have seen in our history, and in our system of law.

In his speech today, Barack drew a clear line, he ended it. It was not merely a rebuke- it was in eery sense of the word a place to end and start anew.

That's not even all of it, though. The election of Barack Obama is the result of what I believe is a tectonic shift in American politics. The "villagers" in Washington didn't understand it, maybe they still don't . Barack is the candidate who understood it, who grasped it, who chose to lead a changed people.

He said today that the time has come to set aside childish things, that tired dogmas of the past were done. That the questions posed by the men at our pulpits- is government too big? or too small?- meant nothing anymore, that the question is, what works?

I've been listening all month to pundits wondering if he's a liberal or a moderate, a hawk or a dove, if the "liberal base" would be angered by his pragmatism. And the thing is, they have no idea what all this means, what I really think we have voted for.

We have voted for human dignity and common purpose. We have voted for optimism, not idealism. We have voted for strength, and we have voted for an open table.

We have voted to be competent and practical, but more, we have voted to be one, in this country and with the world.

There are no labels that fit exactly what we have voted for, but our founding documents can speak to it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So today we started anew, and we have a chance to make significant change in the world. We gotta do it together, and I believe we have a president who wants to lead us.

We shall see, we shall see. Today feels really good, though.

01.20.09

High clouds scattered across blue sky in lovely Thousand Oaks. The air feels clear, not dry as it has been. Watching the former presidents enter the inaugural seating, and really want to remember this. All of it.

My hope: that we are witnessing the return of competency. That the new administration will continue to welcome all voices to the table, while guiding according to solid principle. That the American people hold on to this upswelling of hope and commitment and the desire to work hard and move forward together. That this election is evidence of a paradigm shift in American politics- a shift that was evident throughout the campaign, but Washington insiders did not understand.

Moving vans in front of the WH on the teevee at the moment. President Clinton and his wife, the Secretary of State, have entered. Waiting for President Bush, followed by our President Elect.

What a day.

Update: 8:29
Love to see the mall so full. Love to see residents of DC out and celebrating. Can't imagine what it must feel like.

Update: 8:32
It would really suck to be George W Bush today. He has to go to a party where they're celebrating his departure.

8:39
First glimpse of the man. He looks appropriately somber and perhaps a bit whelmed.
He's just entered, and the tears are starting.
8:46
Di Fi welcoming the croud. "our work is not yet finished, but future generations will mark this morning... the dream that was echoed from the steps of the Lincoln memorial finally (something) the walls of the White House"

Here comes Warren.
While I appreciate the points he is trying to hit, this is actually a fairly uninspiring prayer. I have high standards for prophetic speech.

8:53
'RETHA!

8:59
Vice President Biden

9:03

Tis a gift to be simple
'Tis a gift to be free
'Tis a gift to come down
Where we ought to be
And when we find ourselves
In that place just right
We will be in the valley
Of Love and delight.
When the true simplicity
Is gained
To bow and to bend
We shall not be ashamed
To turn and to turn it will
Be our delight
'Till by turning and turning we
Come 'round right.

9:05
Mister President
Amen.

President Barack Hussein Obama

In 2004, I saw him speak and knew he would be our first African American President. And I am so proud of my country tonight- there are really no words.

I haven't blogged in weeks, I don't know why. Tonight, as I heard him speak again, I heard what I knew I would hear on the day we elected this man.

He said to the people "whose votes I did not earn, I hear you." He will never pretend you do not exist. He will never stand before you and say, "I earned political capital, and I'm going to spend it."

He said to all of us, this is our moment to move- not to stop and rest, this is not the achievement. The work will be pulling our country back together and putting it back on track, and all of us need to work toward that. All of us have to put our shoulders to the wheel.

This day- this is the promise. It remains our task to fulfill it.

And now that I have dried my tears of joy and started looking at California returns, I have to lament that at this moment, Prop 8 seems to be winning.

On the day that we stood up for inclusion and honesty and progress, we may have also written segregation into the California constitution.

I suppose numbers can still change. And I am staying up, for the recently married woman that I worked outside polls with today. I am keeping my fingers crossed and hope alive. But I fear we may have done a really bad thing in this state.

More tomorrow.

Joe v. Sarah!

Still not recovered from a nasty bug, so my brain isn't churning out sentences of any merit. I am, however, awake enough to weigh in on the much anticipated VP debate.

Of course Biden wins, because he actually merits the place at the podium, because he knows what he's talking about and his debate prep was surely limited to not appearing condescending to the right's delicate flower/pit bull. He did a fine job, was commanding and sure, and human.

Palin, for her part, didn't deliver any huge embarrassments. When she used the phrase "rears its head", she mercifully was not referring to Putin, at the very least. She did the hokey accent and vernacular, blah blah blah. I'm not the person to sell with "I will be a great VP because I have children", but I suppose there are people who think that's a qualification, so she used it, repeatedly. I know when and where she stretched the truth or made outright misstatements, but I understand that a large portion of the country doesn't follow various details.

McCain needed a game changer, though, and she is not the one to deliver it. The campaign is working as though its base of wingnuts can really deliver this thing, but they can't. Not at this stage of the game.

The word all over the intertubes is pretty much the same, some saying it better than others, all in agreement that the race is still Obama's. So rather than delving deeper, I'll leave you with two bits that are off the main story.

Atrios was out last night, but preloaded discussion threads for users to discuss the debates live. Here are the titles for the threads, which cracked me up this morning:

20:15 Time to choose your debate drinking word.

20:55 If you chose "also" as your debate game drinking word, consider calling the ambulance right now.

21:15 "You know" was probably a bad choice, too.

Second item: Yesterday on Thom Hartman, guest Stephen Spoonamore gave a compelling interview on our voting systems, and how very insecure they are. Spoonamore's a life long republican, and a major architect of security systems for Mastercard and various other things you use every day. Last month, he testified under oath that the Ohio vote was probably hacked and flipped for W. In fact, he believes with certainty that Kerry won Ohio. Coverage of the case can be found at Bradblog.

This item is just here to remind you to remind every single person you know of voting age that their vote counts. If it isn't close, they can't steal it and get away with it. For every single point win, there's an opportunity for a stolen state. If you know any voters in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, or any of the light blue to trending red states, remind them of this.

Hi, I'm a member of the "Hateful Left"

Over the course of the Bush administration, I've repeatedly started and repeatedly stopped an essay or a letter on a theme that feels so huge to me, I can't ever get it concisely into words. I'm not sure I can today, but speeches at the Republican National Convention have picked scab after scab, and so I think I'll try to get this theme out, let it be my summation of two weeks of conventions.

My theme has always started with the words George Bush doesn't want to be my president. This week I have come to the conclusion that John McCain doesn't, either. Once I would have thought that, as different as we are, he'd at least assume that "willing patriots" included people like me. At the end of a full week of speeches by his surrogates and supporters, I am left with the inescapable conclusion that that John McCain, if he existed, is now too beholden to the radical community organizers who get out the ideological vote. The rest of us, you moderates and faithful liberals, you whiners, you 70% of the American public, have been cast aside.

Once the campaign of 2000 ended, when George W Bush took the White House still promising to be "a uniter, not a divider", his method for unity was creative: all citizens who disagreed with anything he said or did simply ceased to exist. All decisions were explained with The American People want..., any challenge to a decision was met with, The American People want.... Each time he made a decision, he chose the path guaranteed to be met with the greatest controversy and opposition, and then sneered at any opposition for not trusting his judgement for the sake of The American People.

(Except in his first stem cell decision, summer of 2001. This time, he made a wishy-washy 50-50 call, because The American People had to include both Nancy Reagan and James Dobson.)

When the March For Women's Lives brought over a million people to the National Mall in support of a vast array of policies: comprehensive sex-ed, access to contraception, canceling the deadly global gag rule, and yes: protecting Roe v Wade, We didn't expect the president to acknowledge us, really. He was up at Camp David, anyway, and even though he always acknowledges the comparatively tiny annual anti-abortion demonstrations in DC, it would have been a stretch to think he'd give us a wave.

What we didn't expect was that the media would for the most part ignore the sheer massiveness of the March, or that Karen Hughes would be trotted out to respond. The American People, she said, understand since 9/11 that the US is different from terrorists because we value a Culture of Life.

When challenged her words later, she said she had never compared pro-choice citizens to terrorists- which is true, strictly and carefully speaking. What she did, and what she was not challenged on, was sweep our very citizenship out from under us by excluding us from The American People.

The Bush administration, with back up from the press, did this consistently throughout his first term. There was no thoughtful opposition to the invasion of Iraq: there were Anti-War groups and Pro-America groups. Meaning that my position was, by default, Anti-American. Dixie Chicks CD burning rallies? Pro-America! Get a camera out there! March on the White House by veteran's groups? Never happened, as far as the administration and the media were concerned. A recent analysis of guests on the major news outlets during this period found that opposition to the invasion was consistently presented by foreigners. That is, Americans presented to us by the news media almost uniformly supported the invasion.

It's like being in a dream, where you keep trying to scream, but no sound comes out. Is it any wonder so many of us took to the streets?

This rhetorical exclusion continued apace until finally, Bush redefined the terms. After the election of 2004, rather than attempting to pretend that The American People wanted anything in unanimity, he said he would work with everyone, if they supported his goals. Which meant not Goals, like dealing with Social Security in such a way that the government meets its responsibilities, but specific policies: private accounts for all.

At least this time he was honest.

After the summer of 2005 (Camp Casey, Katrina, and falling poll numbers- trifecta!) surrogates like Mary Matalin, rather than ignoring us entirely, went on the air to offer cheap analysis and faux pity. It's just so sad, these people. They're so angry. Bush began to at least acknowledge that some of The American People disagree with him, on a lot. But that does not mean his style of governing changed, nor has the rhetorical exile for most of us. The press continues to court the fiction that opposing Bush on anything is "leftist" or "extreme", even when poll data belies that.

The party George Bush leads enjoys this kind of with us/ against us bravado, and has no desire to change it. In fact, the party's strength has always been in hardening that rhetorical divide- there is no political gain, for them, in respect for differences, in bipartisanship, in synthesis of ideas.

The mythology of John McCain lies in his perceived rejection of such division. Working across the aisle, all of that. This week, however, a week when he presumably needed to both fire up the Base and make an appeal to moderates and independents, the convention has been about nothing except defining, once again, the The American People who attended his convention and debasing the rest of us.

President Bush, confined to a few minutes from a remote location, still managed to remind the delegates why the campaign mattered: The Hateful Left is obviously still a threat, and John McCain won't let them win.

(Which is interesting, because on what may be described as McCain's two signature issues over the past 4 years- immigration and torture- he capitulated not to any Hateful Left, but to the nationalist right and President Bush, respectively.)

Romney sneered at us. Guiliani made fun of us. Sarah Palin skinned us like a recent kill. The Senator from Arizona? He made some noise about respecting Obama for what he's accomplished, but it rang empty when followed up with the willing patriots line. Let's face it: Patriot means, to them, whatever they've decided it to mean this week. Willing Patriot means supporting whatever it is they want to do this week. If they win, we are headed straight to rhetorical and practical exile, once again.

McCain does not have the Rove-built get out the vote organization that Bush did. He's counting on those red meat delegates and the Focus on the Family email list to win this thing. They do not want to hear that the other side has a rightful seat at the table, nor will they work to elect anyone who won't harden the divide.

I look forward to packing away my giant Sharpies and giving up the need to march in the streets. I'm hoping that we can have an administration for all Americans, one that won't pretend that faithful opposition and valid counter arguments don't exist, that won't seek to define everything outside of their preferences as "fringe", "left", "hateful", "angry". I am hoping that under such a presidency, I would lose the scream stuck in my throat feeling, and actual work could be done in the federal government, for the betterment of our country.

John McCain, like George Bush before him, does not seek to be my president. To my way of thinking, he doesn't deserve the office.

Who's more scary: the racist "base" or the guys at the top?

The other night at a barbecue, a man asked me, regarding Obama:

Do you really think he'll live through his first term?

I answered first, I certainly hope so. Second, and more importantly, I don't think fear is a rational basis for making such a decision, so I don't contemplate that question very much.

It is very likely true, as Dave Neiwert posits, that when Obama takes the office, there will be a far-right backlash, sort of the '90s on steroids. It is also possible that we will avoid another Oklahoma City, and that presidential security is strong enough to thwart assassination. After all: meth-heads plotting assassination last week were arrested before they could leave their hotel room.

But Neiwert has a frightening post today on those meth-heads: why, when the FBI wanted them charged with conspiracy to assassinate Senator Obama, the Rove appointed US attorney declined.

Amy Goodman was charged this week with Conspiracy to Commit Riot for the crime of stepping off the convention floor and into the street.

These men had a plan and the equipment to carry it out, the fed has weapons and testimony to convict with, and the US Attorney declined?

Another funny thing: When a black man in prison sent a threatening letter containing baby powder to John McCain, Troy Eid brought down the full force of the law, complete with press conferences and public declarations that "We won't stand for threats of this kind in Colorado."
But when it’s a claque of white men with rifles, disguises, and all the accoutrement of a conspiracy – as well as open admissions to it – Troy Eid isn’t worried. After all, they just a bunch of harmless, tweakers, right? … Just like little Timmy McVeigh.
But then, when you’re a Karl Rove operative promoted to deliver justice the Republican way, as Troy Eid is, that’s the way the scales fall. As Marcy reported at the time, Eid in fact nearly didn't get the Colorado job because of concerns about "improper lobbying."
His failure to take this matter seriously is itself a serious matter. When law-enforcement officials let this stuff slip by, they send a dangerous message to other would-be plotters out there. And next time, they may in fact be more competent.

I really don't know what else to say.

From emailed comments

The best way to save the Republican Party now is to destroy it. In the marketplace of ideas, social conservatism is a viral infection contaminating the GOP. It represents an evolutionary dead-end whose logical conclusion is fascism if not outright totalitarianism.

Is it not obvious that the imposition of the evangelical ideology--any fundamentalist ideology for that matter--lies in direct opposition to a free people in a democratic land? Our Constitution, specifically the separation of church and state, no longer serves as a bulwark against the morality police, who seek to impose faith-based notions such as creationism upon those of us with rational minds.

Social conservatives aim to constrain freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom to pursue happiness. These freedoms live at the heart of an entrepreneurial and economically strong America.

No doubt, the diktat the social conservative movement wishes to impose upon ALL us Americans is antithetical to a free market system, and therefore exists as hypocrisy within the Republican platform. Privatize profits, socialize losses, and make religion the opiate of the masses.

Indeed, this has been a dark eight years of Orwellian doubletalk. Enough! I’m voting for Libertarian Bob Barr.

P.O.W.

Since this campaign is, apparently, not about issues, but about fashion and POW status, I felt the need to share.

Regarding Sarah

If you want to keep up on Palin news, Talking Points Memo is probably the best place to bookmark. Such news is slow in coming, because the campaign has decided that shielding her entirely from the mic is their best bet right now, but there are muckrakers around the country digging up bits. Bits which go entirely unanswered by the campaign, which may be as telling as the bits themselves.

I'm going to quote one of their posts at length here, because it's a very very good one. Submitted to Josh from a friend:

Campbell Brown isn't the story - people are underestimating her, as they always have. No, the story is that Tucker Bounds went on national television without material to answer what is maybe the simplest, most straightforward follow-up question any reporter can ask: "What's your evidence for that assertion?" And I suspect that the reason they canceled Larry King is not to punish CNN (it doesn't work that way) it's that they still couldn't come up with an answer to the question by the time his show aired.
Now look at this comment from McCain honcho Steve Schmidt to Katie Couric last night: "Members of this campaign went to off-the-record lunches with reporters today, and they were asked if she would do paternity tests to prove paternity for her last child. Smear after smear after smear, and it's disgraceful and it's wrong. And the American people are going to reject it overwhelmingly when they see her."
First of all, that's the first time I've heard anyone in the campaign/political press throw out the notion of paternity tests. So Schmidt is to blame for bringing that issue into the mainstream. If anyone is smearing the candidate, it's Schmidt. This is as cynical a tactic as I've ever seen in politics.

Update: I made the mistake of turning on the teevee and checking the web at the same time, and I'm about to vomit.

The teevee is giving me (predictably) a slew of surrogates explaining why American Women Will Love Sarah Palin, and the "journalists" are buying into the mommy-wars-blame-the-media shit.

Meanwhile: why the fuck aren't they asking whether she has a preacher problem? What about whether she has a fringe-freak secessionist problem?

It is the economy; now let's ditch the stupid

I had a very interesting task assigned me a couple of months ago, by our friend Mack. He was preparing a paper for a Senate hearing on the futures trading market and whether speculation was driving up prices. He asked me to read the paper and make sure it was in English, essentially. That a reasonably smart person uninvolved with the markets could actually read the thing.

(I should disclaim before I go further that the analysis below is from my brain, not Mack's. He may or may not agree with what I have taken from this experience.)

I think the single most surprising part of this exercise for me was learning how much of the market is unregulated- the parts of the market that have brought the most staggering returns for a few people at the tops of their pyramids. The few people whom Alan Greenspan lauded for the "creative" products they packaged and sold, the very products which now are the most threatening to the stability of our economy. As explained on today's NYT opinion page:

Today, regulatory authority is divided among the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, state banking regulators and state insurance regulators. That’s too many players.
What’s more, this balkanized system supervises only half of the relevant financial universe. It neglects investment banks, hedge funds and institutions like mortgage companies that issue asset-backed securities. The assets of these unregulated entities total about $10 trillion — which is the same amount we see on the regulated side.
The unregulated institutions pose particular risks because they are highly leveraged and financed primarily through short-term money markets rather than customer deposits. And unlike big banks, many of them do not disclose their finances to the public.

This is something I didn't understand until I delved into Mack's paper, and I'll wager that most Americans don't, either.
The second most impressive thing that I took from reading this paper was not a surprise, but an illumination. The markets don't hold my interest the way, say, politics does, so I hadn't ever thought about it, but securities markets and commodities markets do not operate on the same principles.

Duh, says you. Well, sure. But the reason I hadn't thought much about it is that I'm not a commodities investor. My family is the typical passive investor model: 401ks that are diversified according to our choices, and if we buy anything else it's with a sort of Motley Fool philosophy: the market always, eventually goes up, so buy what you know and don't be afraid to hold, etc.
What I failed to realize is that the market doesn't just mean traditional securities anymore, it also includes securitized risks and futures, packaged and moved over from the commodities market.
And make no mistake: the passive investor doesn't belong in commodities. The futures market is not a hold and wait game, it is not a place for long term investment. It is not a place for Motley Fool readers. Mack likens it to a Nascar track, and the new investors (large funds that end up in, say, my 401k) are like little Ford Focuses with untrained drivers, jumping into the race without regard for the danger they're causing.

Many pundits have noted that in this election season the GOP is, in effect, asking Americans to just give their failed policies another chance. Forget accountability, they mean well, and if you can just ignore the past few years and our current realities and remember that they're the party of pragmatic no-waste government and personal responsibility, you'll see the very need to continue down their broken and debris-strewn path. Nowhere do they make this case louder than on the broad and complex topic of the economy.

They continue to broadcast that rewarding entrepreneurship (and what is Andrew Mozillo, if not an entrepreneur of the highest order) and trusting the "free" market will mean that we all can get rich- just watch the money flow and the trades grow. They toss around the threat of socialism. What they want you to fear is a country where government takes care of, and controls, the decisions of every citizen- which isn't socialism, they're actually invoking communism, but whatever.

What they want you to forget is that in this country, right now, industry's major losses are socialized for the greater good, and almost no responsibility assigned to the major players whose wealth is almost unimaginable to most of us, and whose decisions lead directly to the loss and collapse you and I pay for.

And they fail to point out that almost none of us know the rules of the game, and that once our playing dollars are gone to the guys who invented the rules and benefit most from them, we will also have to bail out their failures. In this game of Monopoly, our losing turns replenish the bank, which buys up the properties that the winners ditch after they take the Free Parking money. If we pass Go again, we try to buy up the bank's properties again. But the Free Parking guys always return, buy us out according to rules we still don't understand, and erect a bunch of hotels.

Again: many eminently more qualified than me have explained this very clearly, over and over again. It's time for all of us to start talking about the costs to the country and society, and to what sensible reform might look like. Which is why this NYT editorial today caught my eye.

I know Americans for the most part don't enjoy wonkiness. I know that sloganeering is employed throughout campaigns because it largely works. But the fact is, we are going to have to ignore the slogans of both parties and understand what a pickle we've found ourselves in, and demand some real reform in the regulation of the markets. Again, from the Times:

The next president must first create a single framework for the major financial borrowers, administered by the Federal Reserve alone. This wider regulatory umbrella should be more conservative. In particular, the minimum levels of capital and liquidity that financial institutions are required to maintain should be higher than they have been in recent years. And the institutions should put in place better and more detailed systems for reporting — internally as well as to regulators and the public — on all the risks they are taking.
These steps, as they make institutions more stable, will also reduce their financial leverage and thus their ability to generate earnings. Their managements won’t like it, but the institutions — and, indeed, the entire financial system and the Fed itself — will be less exposed when severe turbulence hits the financial markets again.
For its part, the S.E.C. should require that publicly owned financial institutions provide more data in their quarterly reports. Any risks that the institutions retain, whether on or off their balance sheets, should be disclosed. And they should better explain the methods they use to determine the values of their own assets.
To fulfill its wider supervisory role, the Fed should also be given the authority to collect data from firms that are not publicly owned, including hedge funds and commodities trading firms.
Finally, much stronger restrictions should be imposed on the kinds of predatory mortgage-lending practices that preceded this crisis. The Fed recently proposed new rules for banks that would, for example, require better verification of borrowers’ income and reduce onerous prepayment penalties. These rules should be applied to all mortgage lenders. For those institutions not managed by the Fed, the rules should be enforced by other federal agencies or state banking regulators.

A key political factor is in the 2nd paragraph above. Tightening up regulation will mean that management at the top of these institutions will have a tougher time generating earnings. They will fight hard, should any reform package be placed on the table. We will be told that the proposed regulation "inhibits entrepreneurship" and is therefore Anti-American.

But we're going to need to ask ourselves, when we talk about entrepreneurship and the American Dream, are we talking about imagination and creativity and earned rewards, or carpet bagging?

It seems to me that any system that enriches the very, very few and then corrects their failures with public money is an example of the latter. And I hope this country is grown-up enough to ditch the slogans and face that.

End note: Mack was, ultimately, depressed by the results of the Senate hearing. The results, he said, were just shallow talking points and didn't address complex market realities at all. So if the hearing was any indication of our readiness to ditch the fluff and pursue reform, it didn't bode well.

Unsurprisingly, the hearing was chaired by neo-Republican hero, Joe Lieberman.

Told you so

Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.
"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

They won't run on issues because they can't run on issues: all of their positions are proven failures. So they're hoping you'll like their outfits.

Rick Davis is on my teevee right now, reminding me how mavericky John McCain is. And if by "mavericky" you mean stubborn and irresponsible, sure. I'll give him that.

The militarization of St Paul

The raids on DFHs from Food Not Bombs and the like was followed on Monday with tear gas and pepper spray, heavily armed cops marching in formation and herding what looks like anyone out-of-doors into impossible corners, arrests of journalists including Amy Goodman and at least one AP photographer, buzzing helicopters and big black humvees- a rather impressive show of force to bring out for a constitutionally protected display of assembly and speech. Greenwald has a ton of key links in his post: video and audio, local and web-wide coverage, so best to visit him for the particulars.

I've been at major marches, and I cannot imagine how I's have avoided trouble if police were lobbing tear gas and herding us into corners for arrest. But then, the police don't seem to have been there to keep people out of trouble. They seem to have been there to fight a preemptive war, on crazy dirty fucking hippies and the journalists who cover their presence.

While there is no accounting for crazy, and sure it's possible that a few people may have been drawn to St Paul to create some havoc, it is simply not believable that the city was under the kind of serious threat this kind of presence would warrant. I don't know much about St Paul's mayor or its police force, but I do know that the FBI was there, and so it seems obvious that the heightened state of alert was their doing. Perhaps the St Paul police were really convinced that there were large-scale plans for violence and anarchy. Perhaps the FBI is, once again, the president's private police force.

Is it me, or do the FBI's weekend raids remind anyone of Tom Delay calling out Homeland Security to track Texas legislators?

What is the advantage to the GOP from this kind of abuse of power? It's highly unlikely that any march would garner much national coverage, the media has been focused on hurricanes and Sarah Palin, why worry about a bunch of DFHs in the streets?

I think the lunatics at the head of the republican party, lacking any issue positions that would go over with the majority of Americans right now, are pushing more fear of change. They aren't getting enough traction with "Obama's black, and maybe his church is scary". So they're hoping for a scene that will recall the late '60s, and put the fear of hippie radicals in every middle-aged mind. That's why they keep dragging up Ayer's name, even though there is no there there. That's why surrogates were openly speculating about floor fights at the democratic convention, and whether the scene would be another Chicago '68 melee.

As it turns out, we on the dem/liberal side do conduct ourselves fairly well, and last week's convention was a hue success. But if they can still scare people with images of war in St Paul, well, why not give it a try?

I really hope that the sheer number and randomness of the gassing and arrests backfires. And I hope that if the '60s spring to the American voters minds, the images remembered will be of police dogs and water hoses, and bullets flying into crowds in Ohio.

When the Grand Old Party comes to town

College students, hide your laptops and whatever you do, don't stay with a bunch of friends in a single house. Because freedom of assembly is not guaranteed to dirty fucking hippies.

Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald are in Minneapolis, and when word got 'round of SWAT raids on 5 DFH houses, they took their cameras and hit the streets.

Black clad, heavily armed officers entered without warrant, handcuffed occupants and laid them face down on floors for up to 45 minutes. Laptops and political materials confiscated, no charges filed, except for two people who will be charged with "conspiracy to commit riot", a vague statute which has, apparently, never been used up to know, and which will almost certainly face a constitutional test in the courts after this weekend's raids.

Glenn's post has video and links to local coverage. Jane has more.

I was at an end of summer pool party yesterday, and talking with a man who's political cynicism was palpable. You know the drill: both parties corrupt, no difference, we're screwed. I made a rather impassioned plea for practical engagement over cynicism: of course we can screw it up if we win, on any number of fronts and in any number of ways. The point is to try, and to put your support behind the candidate who lays out ideas that you believe are most likely to give good results.

"But it doesn't bother you that they can record all of your email and collect all of your data and spy on you without reason and," etcetera.

Of course that matters to me! It matters deeply to me! Which is why I cannot fathom allowing the party that has worked so hard to strip us of constitutional protections to retain power.

This weekend's raids underscore this for me, in dramatic fashion. Police in Denver may have behaved badly with protesters, and the DNC may have been overly aggressive in keeping the scene media-friendly for the candidate.

But the RNC will preemptively attack anyone who may pose a political threat: through political prosecutions approved by the justice department, and by raiding groups whose crime is, say, non-violent political protest.

The RNC is criminal. Their use of local and national law enforcement is criminal.

Wondering what kind of media coverage this story will get.

Why does God hate Republicans?

Here they are, trying to protect marriage and man's right to plunder, and yet: on the heel's of the anniversary of Katrina, Gustave is headed for land.

WaPo:

Republican officials said yesterday that they are considering delaying the start of the GOP convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul because of Tropical Storm Gustav, which is on track to hit the Gulf Coast, and possibly New Orleans, as a full-force hurricane early next week.
The threat is serious enough that White House officials are also debating whether President Bush should cancel his scheduled convention appearance on Monday, the first day of the convention, according to administration officials and others familiar with the discussion.

via TPM:

"The Republicans can't seem to get a break when it comes to August and when it comes to the weather," said Rove, a FOX News analyst. "I know this is being thought a lot about in Washington and at the White House and discussed and I suspect they will monitor it carefully and figure out what to do."

And Greg says,

Yeah, Katrina (which hit in August 2005) was really rough on those Republicans, no question about it.

I was in Crawford, Texas, when Katrina hit. And I watched him fly overhead on his way to Arizona, where he presented McCain with a cake that both of them discarded after the photo op.

And unlike Bush and McCain, the people on the ground in Crawford that day were sorting batteries and blankets and non-perishable foods, loading buses and vans for immediate delivery to New Orleans.

I love New Orleans, really great memories of that city. So Katrina felt personal to me- self involved white woman that I am.

And if- and I say if- if the convention next week is in any way adversely affected by a storm like Gustav, I will take it as a sign that karma or the gods and goddesses have some scores to settle.

You could take it as a random act of weather, sure. But as a feminist ACLU member, I've been taking blame for years, and I would love th chance to spread it around.

For Theresa

Because Theresa likes a story, and I really want her to see the whole thing.

The day

Initially, I gave Bill Clinton's speech a B, because Bill is capable of great, soaring oratory, and I grade him on a curve.

Then I realized that Bill probably toned it down specifically because the night was not supposed to be about him. It's Biden's night, and Bill left some air in the room for Joe to use.

Biden did what I hoped he'd do: he came out strong and explained who he is and what he believed in, and then he began to sharply draw the lines and contrasts that need to be deeply carved into the national conversation over the next two months.

This administration has appallingly low approval ratings, holding steady in the high 20s-low 30s for about three years now. The only reason McCain has any footing at all is that his campaign has been able to keep McCain's image separate from McCain's actual policy judgments, which are almost identical to President Bush and Vice President Cheney's.

He has the same foreign policy advisers, essentially. His economic advisers advocate more of the same. And Biden's right: his judgment has been proven wrong on key foreign policy and domestic issues repeatedly over the past few years.

The Dems need to keep reminding everyone of where we're at, and who brought us here. Biden started the chorus off nicely.

Also, Angry Mouse. Angry Mouse sings a rousing chorus, too.

Biden

One thing I forgot about Biden: He can be pretty damned adorable.

Three More Reasons I'm Voting For Obama

I didn't vote for him in the primary.

I didn't advocate for him in the blogosphere until he won the nomination.

But damn it, I'm fired up. I'm ready to go.

And I'm proud to be an Obama supporter. I'm proud to say you will hear no condemnation from me about Barack Obama between now and November. I am proud to aspire to be Obama's biggest cheerleader on DailyKos.

I've already given three reasons for supporting Obama.

Well, here are three more:

One: Michelle Obama. We need this woman to be our First Lady. Brilliant, beautiful, accomplished, inspiring -- and dare I say it, as good a speaker as her husband, if not better.

The role of First Lady is a critical one, or at least it can be, with the right First Lady.

This country's second First Lady, Abigail Adams, was credited with being a powerful influence on her husband and a voice for women in our young democracy:

I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

Eleanor Roosevelt damn near ran her husband's presidency toward its end.

Jackie Kennedy brought grace, sophistication, and French food to America.

And Hillary...Hillary showed this country that behind every powerful man, you better believe there's an equally powerful woman helping him along the way.

We need Michelle Obama, and her beautiful daughters, to bring vitality and joy back into the White House and across America.

Two: Hope and Change. I have mocked Hope and Change. Empty rhetoric, pretty words.

But I was wrong.

After two days of the Democratic Convention, I understand that now. I'm becoming a believer. Some speakers have been better than others, but many have sought to lay out the clear choice in this election: the past or the future.

McCain offers the past. War, dependence on foreign oil, tax breaks for the rich. And fear. Lots of fear. Fear of the terrorists and the Russians and Iraq and Iran and black men and free women and gay marriage and science.

But Obama offers us the future. He offers us the chance to believe that we can do more and be better. I don't know if Obama can deliver all of the dreams he has dared us to dream. I'm a pessimist by nature. But I'd rather hope for a brilliant future than fear we are forever trapped in a dismal past.

Three: Hillary Clinton. I didn't need her speech last night. I was one of her strongest supporters, but when Obama wrapped up the nomination, I jumped on board.

But still...

Last night, Hillary spoke to me. She inspired me. She made me laugh. She made me cry.

She spoke about the Seneca Falls Convention, where our long struggle began. She quoted Harriet Tubman, one of my favorite women in history. She urged us to keep going, keep fighting, keep standing up, keep trying.

Because one day, we're not just going to put cracks in the ceiling. We're going to shatter that damned ceiling once and for all.

And President Obama is going to help us do it.

She articulated what she stands for, which is why I voted for her, and she said -- in the clearest and plainest of words -- that Obama shares her values. My values. And McCain does not. No way. No how. No McCain.

Hillary made me proud, last night. Proud to have supported her, and proud to be supporting Obama now. But most importantly, she made me proud to be a Democrat. And that's something I haven't felt in eight years.

Because we are the party of the future. We are the party that put 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling.

We are the party of hope and change.

These are my three simple reasons. I'm sure I'll think of more.

What are yours?

Cross-posted at DailyKos

Calling all PUMAS: you're embarrassing me

The McCain camp's big strategy for this week is to use the simple little women it can get near to sow discontent in the Democratic party and peel away feminist support for Barack Obama. And the disgusting thing is that there seem to be quite a few simple little women lining up to help them do it.

Witness the ad they released: a Washington nurse and Hillary delegate, telling you "It's okay" to vote for a man who voted against the Lebetter legislation on equal pay this year.

Witness the pandering "Happy Hour for Hillary" party they're throwing in Denver.

Are you all so stupid that you don't understand you're being used? Are you all so self-involved that you don't notice when you're being lied to?

Got a problem with Obama referring to someone as "sweetie"? What about McCain referring to his wife as a cunt?

You wanna buy the idea that he will support Roe v. Wade? Did you watch the Saddleback forum? Have you listened to anything he has said on the subject during his entire public life- other than one comment in 1999? How about checking something easy- like his campaign website?

"Country before party"? So you think that the economy is swell, war is good, and if we deregulate everything except equal pay we'll be better off after 4 years of McCain? And that's why you were supporting Hllary Clinton?

I understand that there is an argument for acknowledging your disappointment. I know that you aren't fond of Obama, for whatever reason. But if your answer to all of this is to let the Republicans use you, you're an embarrassment.

Michelle

Michelle Obama knocked it out of the park last night. Anyone who could be reached must have been touched by her speech.

Of course there are the hystericals: the Nobama Puma narcissists and the set partisans. But if a democrat or independent or even republican with any opening in the head or heart watched her last night, I fail to imagine how they could come away without a new admiration for the woman.

Off for family fun today, and can't wait for tonight.