December 8, 2015

Media ramping up fear campaign. Like 2003 trying to force candidates to frame militantly

There was a long article by Noam Chomsky in FAIR in 2005.

The Military-Industrial-Media Complex

This is only one section of a long article that is a good read.

“Waving the flag”

Those patterns were on display in 2003 with the Iraq invasion, when FAIR conducted a study of the 1,617 on-camera sources who appeared on the evening newscasts of six U.S. television networks during the three weeks beginning with the start of the war (Extra!, 5-6/03):
Nearly two-thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and only 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; counting only U.S. guests, the ratio increases to 25 to 1.

Less than 1 percent of the U.S. sources were anti-war on the CBS Evening News during the Iraq war’s first three weeks. Meanwhile, as FAIR’s researchers commented wryly, public television’s PBS NewsHour program hosted by Jim Lehrer “also had a relatively low percentage of U.S. anti-war voices—perhaps because the show less frequently features on-the-street interviews, to which critics of the war were usually relegated.” During the invasion, the major network studios were virtually off-limits to vehement American opponents of the war.

For the most part, U.S. networks sanitized their war coverage, which was wall-to-wall on cable. As usual, the enthusiasm for war was extreme on Fox News Channel. After a pre-invasion make-over, the fashion was similar for MSNBC. (In a timely manner, that cable network had canceled the nightly Donahue program three weeks before the invasion began. A leaked in-house report—AllYourTV.com, 2/25/03—said that Phil Donahue’s show would present a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. . . . He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives.” The danger, quickly averted, was that the show could become “a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”)

At the other end of the narrow cable-news spectrum, CNN cranked up its own pro-war fervor. Those perspectives deserved to be heard. But on the large TV networks, such voices were so dominant that they amounted to a virtual monopoly in the “marketplace of ideas."

More about how the Phil Donahue show got cancelled for being anti-war. In the lead up to the Iraq invasion MSNBC did not want anti-war voices leading on their network.

Phil Donahue On MSNBC Firing: Chris Matthews Was 'Threatened' By Me

Legendary talk show host Phil Donahue appeared on HuffPostLive Thursday to talk about his firing from MSNBC, the media's role during the Iraq War, and his fraught relationship with Chris Matthews.

Donahue was a rare anti-war voice on television during the run-up to the war, but he was fired in early 2003, even though his show was a highly rated one on the network. A leaked memo later revealed that NBC executives considered him a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."

As it turned out, one of the people reportedly pushing for Donahue to leave was Chris Matthews.

I love that Donahue pointed out to Chris Matthews that criticizing a leader is necessary and does not mean one hates their country.

There is already some of that going on now.

More about that:

Chris Matthews’ Role in MSNBC’s Donahue Firing

Gabriel Sherman’s piece in New York magazine (10/3/10) on the cable news wars includes a bit of history on MSNBC‘s firing of progressive host Phil Donahue in 2003; an internal memo at the timeworried that the showwould be “a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.” Sherman focuses on MSNBC personality Chris Matthews–who sometimes claimshe was opposed to the Iraq War–and his desire to get Donahue fired:

"Donahue’s problems only increased when Chris Matthews let it be known that he wanted Donahue off the air. Matthews was a rising force at the network, with a reported salary of $5 million. He cultivated former GE CEO Jack Welch and had the ear of NBC CEO Bob Wright. (The two summered together on Nantucket.) Matthews saw himself as MSNBC‘s biggest star, and he was upset that the network was pumping significant resources into Donahue’s show. In the fall of 2002, U.S. News & World Report ran a gossip item that had Matthews saying over lunch in Washington that if Donahue stays on the air, he could bring down the network."

Any person, any politician questioning Bush or his push to war was not considered a good American. It's starting to feel a little like that lately.

Reporters are pushing candidates to talk about ISIS and terror.

Bernie Sanders called them on it. I realize that they are going to keep on until all candidates sound hawkish. But good for him for trying to overcome the media ISIS blitz.

Sanders. I Will Not Buy Into ‘Their’ Plan To Ignore America’s Problems To Talk About ISIS

Sticking once again to his populist economic message in two speeches at New Hampshire universities, Sanders warned that the all-powerful “they” are using ISIS to distract voters away from America’s systemic problems.

“As a nation and as a people, we have got to understand that our country faces a myriad of very serious problems… if you turn on the TV, what they now say is, ‘Well we’ve got one problem, it’s ISIS,” Sanders said, launching into a sarcastic impression of the “they” on television this week.

“‘We don’t have to worry about old people not having enough to eat. We don’t have to worry about having more people in jail than any other country. We don’t have to worry about the disappearing middle class. We don’t have to worry about economic and wealth inequality…we don’t have to worry about institutional racism, or a broken criminal justice. We don’t have to worry about that. All we should focus on now, 24/7, is ISIS,’” Sanders said.

“Here’s what I say,” he went on, “I say that ISIS must be destroyed and I say that we have got to build a coalition which destroys ISIS. But I say that we are a great enough country and a smart enough country that we can destroy ISIS at the same time as rebuild a disappearing middle class. We can do both.”

In the video above from the Huffington Post, Phil Donahue quotes Chomsky saying that if a president wants to go to war....he can go to war.

It's our job as citizens to make sure all voices are heard.

December 5, 2015

Iraqi blogger tells of leaving Iraq for Syria, and then on to the next country as a refugee.

The consequences of our invasion of Iraq are more obvious all the time. It was a disastrous decision led by a bunch of hawkish Bush advisors and approved by Democrats too fearful to stand up to Bush's popularity after 9/11.

Most of us who were here as the invasion of Iraq began were reading the blogs by Iraqis. One of the most read was Baghdad Burning by a blogger who called herself Riverbend.

I keep her blog bookmarked, though she only posted once since 2007.

Thursday, April 26, 2007 The Great Wall of Segregation.

Which is the wall the current Iraqi government is building (with the support and guidance of the Americans). It's a wall that is intended to separate and isolate what is now considered the largest 'Sunni' area in Baghdad- let no one say the Americans are not building anything. According to plans the Iraqi puppets and Americans cooked up, it will 'protect' A'adhamiya, a residential/mercantile area that the current Iraqi government and their death squads couldn't empty of Sunnis.

The wall, of course, will protect no one. I sometimes wonder if this is how the concentration camps began in Europe. The Nazi government probably said, "Oh look- we're just going to protect the Jews with this little wall here- it will be difficult for people to get into their special area to hurt them!" And yet, it will also be difficult to get out.

The Wall is the latest effort to further break Iraqi society apart. Promoting and supporting civil war isn't enough, apparently- Iraqis have generally proven to be more tenacious and tolerant than their mullahs, ayatollahs, and Vichy leaders. It's time for America to physically divide and conquer- like Berlin before the wall came down or Palestine today. This way, they can continue chasing Sunnis out of "Shia areas" and Shia out of "Sunni areas".

I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere. We didn't know what our neighbors were- we didn't care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night.

On a personal note, we've finally decided to leave. I guess I've known we would be leaving for a while now. We discussed it as a family dozens of times. At first, someone would suggest it tentatively because, it was just a preposterous idea- leaving ones home and extended family- leaving ones country- and to what? To where?

How are we supposed to forget that our country did this with the cooperation of the media and both major parties?

I can only imagine my feelings if this happened here in our country.

Thursday, September 06, 2007 Leaving Home.

The last few hours in the house were a blur. It was time to go and I went from room to room saying goodbye to everything. I said goodbye to my desk- the one I’d used all through high school and college. I said goodbye to the curtains and the bed and the couch. I said goodbye to the armchair E. and I broke when we were younger. I said goodbye to the big table over which we’d gathered for meals and to do homework. I said goodbye to the ghosts of the framed pictures that once hung on the walls, because the pictures have long since been taken down and stored away- but I knew just what hung where. I said goodbye to the silly board games we inevitably fought over- the Arabic Monopoly with the missing cards and money that no one had the heart to throw away.

I knew then as I know now that these were all just items- people are so much more important. Still, a house is like a museum in that it tells a certain history. You look at a cup or stuffed toy and a chapter of memories opens up before your very eyes. It suddenly hit me that I wanted to leave so much less than I thought I did.

.....Syria is the only country, other than Jordan, that was allowing people in without a visa. The Jordanians are being horrible with refugees. Families risk being turned back at the Jordanian border, or denied entry at Amman Airport. It’s too high a risk for most families.

...We were all refugees- rich or poor. And refugees all look the same- there’s a unique expression you’ll find on their faces- relief, mixed with sorrow, tinged with apprehension. The faces almost all look the same.

The first minutes after passing the border were overwhelming. Overwhelming relief and overwhelming sadness… How is it that only a stretch of several kilometers and maybe twenty minutes, so firmly segregates life from death?

How is it that a border no one can see or touch stands between car bombs, militias, death squads and… peace, safety? It’s difficult to believe- even now. I sit here and write this and wonder why I can’t hear the explosions.

I doubt anyone would describe Syria that way today.

At that point in 2007 it was estimated there were 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria seeking a safe haven. But then they learned the same powers that invaded Iraq were working with Syria to make it harder for Iraqis to enter that country.

Monday, October 22, 2007 Bloggers Without Borders.

Syria is a beautiful country- at least I think it is. I say “I think” because while I perceive it to be beautiful, I sometimes wonder if I mistake safety, security and normalcy for ‘beauty’. In so many ways, Damascus is like Baghdad before the war- bustling streets, occasional traffic jams, markets seemingly always full of shoppers… And in so many ways it’s different. The buildings are higher, the streets are generally narrower and there’s a mountain, Qasiyoun, that looms in the distance.

....The first weeks here were something of a cultural shock. It has taken me these last three months to work away certain habits I’d acquired in Iraq after the war. It’s funny how you learn to act a certain way and don’t even know you’re doing strange things- like avoiding people’s eyes in the street or crazily murmuring prayers to yourself when stuck in traffic. It took me at least three weeks to teach myself to walk properly again- with head lifted, not constantly looking behind me.

....Within a month of our being here, we began hearing talk about Syria requiring visas from Iraqis, like most other countries. Apparently, our esteemed puppets in power met with Syrian and Jordanian authorities and decided they wanted to take away the last two safe havens remaining for Iraqis- Damascus and Amman. The talk began in late August and was only talk until recently- early October. Iraqis entering Syria now need a visa from the Syrian consulate or embassy in the country they are currently in. In the case of Iraqis still in Iraq, it is said that an approval from the Ministry of Interior is also required (which kind of makes it difficult for people running away from militias OF the Ministry of Interior…). Today, there’s talk of a possible fifty dollar visa at the border.

Iraqis who entered Syria before the visa was implemented were getting a one month visitation visa at the border. As soon as that month was over, you could take your passport and visit the local immigration bureau. If you were lucky, they would give you an additional month or two. When talk about visas from the Syrian embassy began, they stopped giving an extension on the initial border visa. We, as a family, had a brilliant idea. Before the commotion of visas began, and before we started needing a renewal, we decided to go to one of the border crossings, cross into Iraq, and come back into Syria- everyone was doing it. It would buy us some time- at least 2 months.

Riverbend's words when she was hit with the full realization that her family were truly refugees.

By the time we had reentered the Syrian border and were headed back to the cab ready to take us into Kameshli, I had resigned myself to the fact that we were refugees. I read about refugees on the Internet daily… in the newspapers… hear about them on TV. I hear about the estimated 1.5 million plus Iraqi refugees in Syria and shake my head, never really considering myself or my family as one of them. After all, refugees are people who sleep in tents and have no potable water or plumbing, right? Refugees carry their belongings in bags instead of suitcases and they don’t have cell phones or Internet access, right? Grasping my passport in my hand like my life depended on it, with two extra months in Syria stamped inside, it hit me how wrong I was. We were all refugees. I was suddenly a number. No matter how wealthy or educated or comfortable, a refugee is a refugee. A refugee is someone who isn’t really welcome in any country- including their own... especially their own.

Riverbend's blog was made into a book.

Riverbend's weblog entries were first collected and published as Baghdad Burning, ISBN 978-1-55861-489-5 (with a foreword by investigative journalist James Ridgeway),[2] and Baghdad Burning II, ISBN 978-1-55861-529-8, (also with an introduction by James Ridgeway and Jean Casella).[3] They have since been translated and published in numerous countries and languages. In 2005, the book, Baghdad Burning, won third place for the Lettre Ulysses Award for the Art of Reportage and in 2006 it was longlisted for the Samuel Johnson Prize.[4][5][6]

Baghdad Burning has also been made into several dramatic plays, mostly produced in New York City. BBC Radio 4 broadcast a five-episode dramatisation of her blog, "Baghdad Burning", on the "Woman's Hour" Serial, on each day from the 18th of December, 2006 until the 22nd of December, 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverbend_%28blogger%29

She came back to her blog one more time in 2013. It was a sad kind of post with some understandably bitter overtones.

Tuesday, April 09, 2013 Ten Years On.

Looking back at the last ten years, what have our occupiers and their Iraqi governments given us in ten years? What have our puppets achieved in this last decade? What have we learned?

We learned a lot.

We learned that while life is not fair, death is even less fair- it takes the good people. Even in death you can be unlucky. Lucky ones die a ‘normal’ death… A familiar death of cancer, or a heart-attack, or stroke. Unlucky ones have to be collected in bits and pieces. Their families trying to bury what can be salvaged and scraped off of streets that have seen so much blood, it is a wonder they are not red.

We learned that you can be floating on a sea of oil, but your people can be destitute. Your city can be an open sewer; your women and children can be eating out of trash dumps and begging for money in foreign lands.

We learned that justice does not prevail in this day and age. Innocent people are persecuted and executed daily. Some of them in courts, some of them in streets, and some of them in the private torture chambers.

We are learning that corruption is the way to go. You want a passport issued? Pay someone. You want a document ratified? Pay someone. You want someone dead? Pay someone.

She asked if we as Americans are safer. She said she moved on from Syria before the heavy fighting.

Finally, after all is said and done, we shouldn't forget what this was about - making America safer... And are you safer Americans? If you are, why is it that we hear more and more about attacks on your embassies and diplomats? Why is it that you are constantly warned to not go to this country or that one? Is it better now, ten years down the line? Do you feel safer, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of the way (granted half of them were women and children, but children grow up, right?)?

And what happened to Riverbend and my family? I eventually moved from Syria. I moved before the heavy fighting, before it got ugly. That’s how fortunate I was. I moved to another country nearby, stayed almost a year, and then made another move to a third Arab country with the hope that, this time, it’ll stick until… Until when? Even the pessimists aren’t sure anymore. When will things improve? When will be able to live normally? How long will it take?

Invading Iraq was a wrongheaded decision that has had grave consequences. Those who voted yes to this invasion were warned about the instability that would come to the Middle East.

And we are supposed to simply forget it all happened?

December 2, 2015

What Rahm, Plouffe, and Messina did to the DNC chairman who had just given us big wins.

I'm seeing Rahm in the news a lot lately in not so favorable a light because of the inexcusable death of Laquan McDonald

He has always had an intolerant attitude toward the left in the party.

Jim Messina is a leader of Priorities USA, a super Pac.

David Plouffe is employed by Uber.

Back to the story of how Dean was treated as the new chairman was introduced.

It was January 2009. Howard Dean was in American Samoa fulfilling his promise as DNC to visit all states and territories.

Every Democrat should be alarmed at the way the new chairman, Tim Kaine, was announced at the DNC. It was done without the knowledge of the outgoing chairman, it was done apparently at the request of certain Obama advisors.

It had the effect of sending a message to the many supporters of Dean's campaign that he was not only not going to be rewarded for such a great 2008 win for the party....but he was not even to be around for the announcement as the party moved forward under Obama.

I have never forgotten this incident because it speaks to the careless treatment of those who do not please certain party leaders.

From Herding Donkeys, pp 205-207.

First I quote Berman on why this kind of treatment was so telling. In reality this paragraph follows the others I quote in the book.

Dean's snub didn't matter because of one man's bruised ego or thwarted ambitions. Rather, his shabby treatment would come to represent a broader abandonment of the party's grassroots base, especially as Obama packed his White House with well-worn veterans of previous administrations who embodied longevity over innovation and connections over change...

These are the guys who gave the orders. Did Obama know? He should have known.

On January 7, White House political director Patrick Gaspard, a former top labor organizer from New York, called DNC executive director Tom McMahon. Gaspard told McMahon that Obama planned to name Virginia governor Tim Kaine as his new DNC chair and wanted to make the announcement at the DNC the following day. Gaspard asked if Dean would be around. Dean's planning to be in American Samoa, the last U.S. territory he'd yet to visit as DNC chair, McMahon responded. (He'd logged 741,000 miles on the job.) Should he postpone his trip?

If he's already planning the trip, don't tell him to cancel, Gaspard replied. It would be better, in other words, if Dean wasn't there. Administration officials didn't want Obama to face any questions at the press conference about why Dean hadn't received a plum position in the White House. One snub led to another.

Gaspard, ironically, worked on Dean's campaign in 2004, but now served a higher office. "The decision was made by Rahm and Plouffe and (deputy chief of staff) Jim Messina", said the senior transition member. "I was specifically told by a senior administration official, 'It comes from those three guys. They specifically want to do this to Dean.'"
Even the new Camelot wasn't above a little revenge.

Karen Finney, Dean's communication director was in the back of the room. She was upset. Obama complimented Dean, and thanked him for working with Rahm. Finney wondered, according to Berman, why he could not have said that with Dean beside him.

December 1, 2015

Learning the wrong lessons from 1984. DLC's “false cause fallacy” has harmed our party.

However the primary turns out..no matter who wins it...I have learned a lot more about our party's attitude toward those of us who question too much. There are many here who are in effect saying the primary's over, Hillary won. They feel there's really no need to continue, it's over.

At least the party leaders aren't holding press conferences saying that Bernie will never be president. It's getting close to that though.

Just as in 2004 those of us who question present Democratic policy are considered questionable members of that party.

That's a sad situation. It does not bode well for the party in the future. Where's the desire for new ideas, new people with fresh thinking?

The rhetoric from party leaders and from the Democratic think tanks has gotten old and stale. It all boils down to liberals can't win....that the only way we can win is to be more like the other party.

That is baloney.

From Salon earlier this year:

America’s anti-liberal myth. Why Dems learned the wrong lesson from 1984

Your calendar says it’s 2015, but it’s always 1984 in mind of the New Dems. These are the economically conservative Democrats that include centrists like the old Democratic Leadership Council, Third Way and financial sector-centric elected Democrats (plus Robert Rubin, the Rubin-launched Hamilton Project and associated advisers on the policy side). As always, they are again invoking 1984 to conjure images of a grave danger to Democrats’ ability to win elections in the form of ascendant progressive populism.

The New Dems’ scare story goes something like this: In 1984 Walter Mondale lost 49 states because he ran as a Super Liberal. Democrats would have kept losing if the New Dems had not formed to take control of and steer the party. In 1992 Bill Clinton ran as Centrist Man and Democrats started winning elections again. Now, economic progressives who prioritize other things before Wall Street’s approval are causing trouble. If these progressives Democrats represent the party it will again be banished to the political wilderness and forced to relearn the lesson of the ’80s and ’90s.

This premise is not only wrongheaded, in important ways it’s backwards. The temptation not to relitigate something that is, after all, over 30 years in the past is obviated by 1984’s continued role as the go-to cudgel against progressive Democrats. The New Dems’ reliance on the ’84 cautionary tale is illustrative of an under-appreciated dynamic in the struggle between the progressive/populist coalition and the Wall Street wing: there never really was a big, public “fight for the soul of the party” in the 80’s and 90’s.

This part sounds so familiar and true:

Forever 1984

As Democratic losses demoralized the party faithful, the New Dems’ shifted from trying to sell their agenda on the merits to claiming that their self-proclaimed “centrism” was the only way a Democrat could hope to win. (They were fond of stating the obvious truth that a candidate can’t do too much to advance anything good or help stop anything awful, unless they can first get elected — as if it was some kind of discussion-ender that proved their claim that only New Dems could win.) Unfortunately, their assertions were all too rarely challenged and quickly gained traction, prominence and, finally, conventional wisdom status. Challenging them now may be late but better late than never.

The False Cause Fallacy:

The “false cause fallacy” is From’s stock-in-trade. A bad thing happened and Al From was sad. His friends in the White House lost their jobs (which couldn’t have been a pleasant experience, but was not in and of itself proof of anything). When a good thing eventually happened it had to be due to what Al From had done in the interim. And what From was doing before the bad thing happened is irrelevant. That’s just science right there.

A fairly small group of men took over the party's platform in the late eighties. They had the wealth of corporations behind them so they would not need the ordinary folks in the party. They did not have to stand for anything that might keep them from winning.

Because of that policy most of us lost big time. They are still saying the same things that didn't work, still calling for us to be more "bi-partisan" and even more scarily..."post-partisan."

The latter means being just like the other party, beyond partisanship.

The primary is not over, no one should be pretending it should be over. There should be no inevitability factor for any candidate.

November 22, 2015

Bernie on creating a caring nation. And me on the harm of the inevitabiity aura.

Not just "I’m in it for myself."

What Is Actually Radical About Bernie Sanders’ Democratic Socialism Isn’t the Socialism

Subtitle:

It isn’t a particularly radical political vision—it’s an unflinching commitment to democracy.

“I think what you’re talking about,” Sanders said, “is creating a nation— it’s pretty radical stuff—in which we actually care about each other rather than looking at the world as, ‘I’m in it for myself. And to hell with everybody else.’”

The brouhaha over Sanders’ self-identification as a “democratic socialist” has largely missed what is truly radical about that identity. It’s not the socialism. Sanders has never used the “S” word with precision—for him, it seems to be simply a shorthand for robust investment in public services and the common good.

That shorthand has proved remarkably useful, allowing him to distinguish himself from liberals and most Democrats, while pointing out that much of what he calls socialism is already deeply embedded in American society in a variety of popular programs and institutions, most notably in public libraries and parks, in the Social Security and Medicare programs, and in various aspects of the military. The ambitious agenda he has laid out would amount to “the largest peacetime expansion of government in modern American history,” as the Wall Street Journal has noted.

More:

Though they are very different in their approaches to achieving it, Sanders shares this commitment to a radical version of democracy with Saul Alinsky, the activist and organizer who made Chicago his home and has played an outsized role in our recent national politics.

....It may be that neither Alinsky’s ground-level strategy nor Sanders’ effort to build a broad, national coalition can reverse our march toward increasing inequality and the concentration of power among elites. It may be that a political revolution of the kind that Sanders predicts is an impossible dream.

....On the other hand, perhaps only a grand vision of “the world that should be” is equal to the scale of the challenges we face. Perhaps “millions of people at every level,” as Sanders offered at the conclusion of his University of Chicago talk, can indeed come together to foster a healthy democracy, redistribute power and make the American political system work for all people.

I have no idea what's going to happen as the primaries end.

I do know that the polling that has been so overwhelming since the debates is not really giving a true picture yet.

I still think I was right when I said at the start of the primary....we are in uncharted territory as far as polls and predictions go.

I think Bernie's idea of having a democracy in which the regular everyday people are valued as much as the super billionaires is not going to be easy to achieve.

I quite frankly think our party is making a mistake in trying to make one candidate seem totally inevitable while basically giving little attention to the others.

The trend seems clear, though: inevitability should not be something a candidate wants.

Hillary Clinton was the inevitable candidate in the 2008 race and the status did her more harm than good. Mitt Romney, the GOP’s inevitable candidate in the same year, wound up limping across the GOP primary finish line dogged by Rick Santorum of all people—only to lose after being seen as an out-of-touch, robotic and wooden joke on the campaign trail.

....Jeb Bush, meanwhile, has become a walking joke for his passive weakness in the face of Donald Trump’s insults, and his country-club white-collar tone and demeanor compared with Trump’s brashness.

Inevitability is bad for candidates. It makes them careful, comfortable and defensive. No modern candidate should want it. If a candidate is fortunate enough to hold a lead in an intra-party presidential primary, they should follow the opposite of their instincts and their consultants’ advice and stay hungry: hold rallies, initiate bold legislative proposals and make provocative statements to win a news cycle or two.

The American people have an intense anger at elites right now, and they feel both culturally and economically insecure. Inevitable candidates run the risk of incurring their anger as the entrenched elites who need to be removed. It’s perhaps the most dangerous position for a modern presidential candidate to hold.
Inevitability Comes Before a Fall in Modern Presidential Politics

I see posts recommending that since the polls are all so immensely in Hillary's favor that there is no need for other candidates to even bother.

I see it this way. If the party considers Bernie not to be a Democrat, then they must think of me that way as well. How very sad. I've always voted Democratic. Bill Clinton said we can fall in love in the primaries and fall in line in the general election. I have always done that.

People should hesitate before implying that Bernie Sanders and his supporters are not Democrats.

November 18, 2015

It's like an overwhelming play to enforce Hillary's inevitability. Polls, unions, endorsements...

from Senate and House Democratic leaders are meant to enforce and reinforce and then remind us again that Hillary is inevitable.

It's my opinion.

It started after the first debate when the internet went quickly and overpoweringly for Bernie.

At first I figured that well, it was so obvious that people would soon catch on. But with our media seemingly speaking with mostly one voice, we would not know there were those who realized that these massive changes seldom occur overnight in politics.

I have no idea how the primaries will end for the Democrats. I am fully in support of Bernie Sanders because he is saying things I believe to be true. I know what happened the last time we went against the Florida Democrats and supported Howard Dean. I know we were never really welcome by local Democrats again. I understand why they are that way.

All too many care far more about not making the Republicans around here upset than they actually care about winning. In my opinion that goal of going along to get along has given the Republicans in Florida almost total control of the Legislature and of the state.

I know. Someone's going to call my post sour grapes. I prefer to call it a look at the reality one side simply refuses to acknowledge. I have always felt polls could control questions, demographics, means of contact and pretty much get certain results.

I do know that in politics there is no sudden huge overnight surge and change in a candidate's popularity. The polls the day after the first debate were a shock. The endorsements came quickly, almost as though it was all organized.

The only people I talk to around here are Republicans. There is a great lack of Democrats. Most of the Republicans in my area are tea party types. They are independents. There is one characteristic they share.....they like straight honest talk.

But I have noticed one thing. They do not like Hillary Clinton. They like Bernie Sanders. I have no idea if they would vote for him, but they would not vote for Hillary.

They don't like Jeb! either. I guess you could say they are tired of dynasties.

Me, I am just tired. There were some rough times during the last 3 primaries I spent here at DU...and I often contributed to them. I had strong opinions. This time is different. There is ridicule, there is actually hatred.

I see posts recommending that since the polls are all so immensely in Hillary's favor that there is no need for other candidates to even bother.

It's different this time. As it was in 2003, there's a feeling that those of us supporting an "outsider" are going to hurt the party. But when I see people complaining that Bernie is not a Democrat, I want to say then let the party leaders remember his votes with the party. Let them remember that he voted with the party though at first they did not really want him to caucus with them.

I see it this way. If the party considers Bernie not to be a Democrat, then they must think of me that way as well. How very sad. I've always voted Democratic. Bill Clinton said we can fall in love in the primaries and fall in line in the general election. I have always done that.

People should hesitate before implying that Bernie Sanders and his supporters are not Democrats.

I keep thinking about all these young people who are excitedly supporting Bernie. I wonder if the Democratic party will embrace them or shun them.

Will they welcome these folks to the party and accept their fresh ideas?

I read an article today about the dangers of inevitability.

Inevitability comes before a fall

The trend seems clear, though: inevitability should not be something a candidate wants.

Hillary Clinton was the inevitable candidate in the 2008 race and the status did her more harm than good. Mitt Romney, the GOP’s inevitable candidate in the same year, wound up limping across the GOP primary finish line dogged by Rick Santorum of all people—only to lose after being seen as an out-of-touch, robotic and wooden joke on the campaign trail.

....Jeb Bush, meanwhile, has become a walking joke for his passive weakness in the face of Donald Trump’s insults, and his country-club white-collar tone and demeanor compared with Trump’s brashness.

Inevitability is bad for candidates. It makes them careful, comfortable and defensive. No modern candidate should want it. If a candidate is fortunate enough to hold a lead in an intra-party presidential primary, they should follow the opposite of their instincts and their consultants’ advice and stay hungry: hold rallies, initiate bold legislative proposals and make provocative statements to win a news cycle or two.

The American people have an intense anger at elites right now, and they feel both culturally and economically insecure. Inevitable candidates run the risk of incurring their anger as the entrenched elites who need to be removed. It’s perhaps the most dangerous position for a modern presidential candidate to hold.

November 16, 2015

Mark Penn's strategizing...are we seeing it again?

He's not overtly part of Hillary's campaign this time around. He is connected strongly to a polling firm used by the DNC. He's known for dirty tricks, and he's known for his ugly policies.

Repost from not along ago, because I don't think Penn is done yet.

He is no longer with Hillary Clinton's campaign. But he's involved with a company that does Democratic Party consulting.

But now he’s come in from the cold, at least sort of. The private equity firm he oversees, the Stagwell Group, has purchased SKDKnickerbocker, a consulting firm that is synonymous with Democratic Party politics. In an interview with The Daily Beast on Thursday, Penn said he’ll be giving advice on how to grow the business but will still be watching his former client from the sidelines. “I’m on good terms with both of them,” he said, referring to the Clintons. “But I am not advising the campaign.”

He waited until after Tuesday’s debate to talk about the campaign because he thought the criticism of Clinton had gotten “out of sync with reality.” After months of seeing television clips of her under stress, at Chipotle, or answering questions on emails, he said the debate gave Clinton an opportunity to be seen unfiltered, and “as the leader she is.” While she has tacked left on key issues, like trade and the environment, he credits her with standing firm on a no-fly zone for Syria, refusing to reinstate Glass-Steagall in a nod to Wall Street, and pushing back on capitalism and the strength of the American economic system. “The Hillary who won the debate took a lot of the best of ’08 and combined it with some of the best new issues of ’16,” he said.

Penn is also teaching a graduate class in polling strategy.

Mark Penn is no longer her campaign guru, but he's still testing the waters for Clinton.

He is teaching a graduate course at George Washington University, “Interpreting and Strategizing with Polls,” where he currently has his students crafting polls and memos addressing the question of how Clinton should position herself in what so far is shaping up to be an outsider’s election.

Students in Penn’s class, which a POLITICO reporter attended last week, are in the midst of formulating a poll “to determine the state of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and to determine the effectiveness of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign messages and how it affects the general voter.”

I'm glad he is hands off on campaign policy because these excerpts from his strategy for winning in 2008 were very questionable.

We win women, lower classes, and Democrats (about 3 to 1 in our favor).

Obama wins men, upper class, and independents (about 2 to 1 in his favor).

Edwards draws from these groups as well.

Our winning strategy builds from a base of women, builds on top of that a lower and middle class constituency, and seeks to minimize his advantages with the high class democrats.

If we double perform with WOMEN, LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS VOTERS, then we have about 55% of the voters.

Actually gearing a campaign to the lower classes and to one gender is a terrible idea.

A partial summary from later on in the memo:

1) Start with a base of women.

2) Add on a base of lower and middle class voters

Contest the black vote at every opportunity. Keep him pinned down there.

The Atlantic has more on Penn's 2007 memos

Penn Strategy Memo, March 19, 2007: More than anything else, this memo captures the full essence of Mark Penn's campaign strategy--its brilliance and its breathtaking attacks. Penn identified with impressive specificity the very coalition of women and blue-collar workers that Clinton ended up winning a year later. But he also called Obama "unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun," and wrote, "I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Penn proposed targeting Obama's "lack of American roots."

This guy needs to keep his distance from any campaign with those attitudes.

Just a thought, just an idea based on past actions.

It's hard not to think of the the man in the middle.

November 8, 2015

Mark Penn's terrible horrible no good strategy for winning in 2008.

He is no longer with Hillary Clinton's campaign. But he's involved with a company that does Democratic Party consulting.

But now he’s come in from the cold, at least sort of. The private equity firm he oversees, the Stagwell Group, has purchased SKDKnickerbocker, a consulting firm that is synonymous with Democratic Party politics. In an interview with The Daily Beast on Thursday, Penn said he’ll be giving advice on how to grow the business but will still be watching his former client from the sidelines. “I’m on good terms with both of them,” he said, referring to the Clintons. “But I am not advising the campaign.”

He waited until after Tuesday’s debate to talk about the campaign because he thought the criticism of Clinton had gotten “out of sync with reality.” After months of seeing television clips of her under stress, at Chipotle, or answering questions on emails, he said the debate gave Clinton an opportunity to be seen unfiltered, and “as the leader she is.” While she has tacked left on key issues, like trade and the environment, he credits her with standing firm on a no-fly zone for Syria, refusing to reinstate Glass-Steagall in a nod to Wall Street, and pushing back on capitalism and the strength of the American economic system. “The Hillary who won the debate took a lot of the best of ’08 and combined it with some of the best new issues of ’16,” he said.

Penn is also teaching a graduate class in polling strategy.

Mark Penn is no longer her campaign guru, but he's still testing the waters for Clinton.

He is teaching a graduate course at George Washington University, “Interpreting and Strategizing with Polls,” where he currently has his students crafting polls and memos addressing the question of how Clinton should position herself in what so far is shaping up to be an outsider’s election.

Students in Penn’s class, which a POLITICO reporter attended last week, are in the midst of formulating a poll “to determine the state of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and to determine the effectiveness of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign messages and how it affects the general voter.”

I'm glad he is hands off on campaign policy because these excerpts from his strategy for winning in 2008 were very questionable.

We win women, lower classes, and Democrats (about 3 to 1 in our favor).

Obama wins men, upper class, and independents (about 2 to 1 in his favor).

Edwards draws from these groups as well.

Our winning strategy builds from a base of women, builds on top of that a lower and middle class constituency, and seeks to minimize his advantages with the high class democrats.

If we double perform with WOMEN, LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS VOTERS, then we have about 55% of the voters.

Actually gearing a campaign to the lower classes and to one gender is a terrible idea.

A partial summary from later on in the memo:

1) Start with a base of women.

2) Add on a base of lower and middle class voters

Contest the black vote at every opportunity. Keep him pinned down there.

The Atlantic has more on Penn's 2007 memos

Penn Strategy Memo, March 19, 2007: More than anything else, this memo captures the full essence of Mark Penn's campaign strategy--its brilliance and its breathtaking attacks. Penn identified with impressive specificity the very coalition of women and blue-collar workers that Clinton ended up winning a year later. But he also called Obama "unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun," and wrote, "I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Penn proposed targeting Obama's "lack of American roots."

This guy needs to keep his distance from any campaign with those attitudes.

November 8, 2015

Decided to edit this post.

Someone please let SKP know I cared enough to try. Afraid to take a chance right....got a few heads up.

Maybe I'll post Ginny-dog later.

November 2, 2015

Speaking of Tony Blair..our New Dems proudly called pro-war folks in our party "Blair Democrats."

Tony Blair is having a rough time right about now.

He's being called to account for his role in a war based on lies that they knew would destabilize the middle east.

Time for some of our country's leaders to likewise be held accountable.

This article by Will Marshall shows just about how screwed up things were in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq using lies.

Will Marshall wrote this for the Washington Post in May 2003 as a spokeman for the DLC.

He called it The Blair Democrats: Ready for Battle

He brags on our country's Democrats who voted for the war, and he named them Blair Democrats as a compliment. I have posted this before, but it needs to not be forgotten. It shows how the think tanks making our party policy were able to take a situation based on lies and misinformation.....and turn it against those of us in the party who opposed them.

The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush. But Karl Rove shouldn't get too giddy, because it may be a boon for some Democrats, too.

The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush. But Karl Rove shouldn't get too giddy, because it may be a boon for some Democrats, too.

After all, four of the leading Democratic presidential contenders -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards -- not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq. This position put these "Blair Democrats" in sync with the vast majority of Americans who said they would much rather attack Saddam Hussein's regime with United Nations backing than without it. And it puts them at odds with what Kerry called the "blustery unilateralism" of the president, which combined with French obstructionism to rupture not only the United Nations but the Atlantic alliance as well.

...Like Bush, these Democrats did not shrink from the use of force to end Hussein's reign of terror. Like Blair, they saw the Iraq crisis as a test of Western resolve and the United Nations' credibility as an effective instrument of collective security. Their "yes-but" position on Iraq irked the antiwar left and some political commentators, who prefer the parties to take starkly opposing stands on every issue, no matter how complicated. But the Blair Democrats faithfully reflected Americans' instinctive internationalism. While neoconservatives may yearn for a new Augustan age based on unfettered U.S. power, most Americans still see strategic advantages in international cooperation.

Here's the other part, where these "policy makers" used the Iraq invasion to denigrate those in our party who fought so hard against this fiasco. This was disturbing.

Just as the swift liberation of Iraq has strengthened the Blair Democrats, it has weakened the party's antiwar contingent, whose worst fears failed to materialize. The outcome deals a near-fatal blow to the presidential prospects of Howard Dean, whose staunch opposition to the war thrilled Iowa's left-leaning activists but is out of step with rank-and-file Democrats, about two-thirds of whom approve of the war. Moreover, because 75 percent of all voters back the war, the odds that Democrats will make Bush's day by serving up an antiwar nominee as his opponent in 2004 seem long indeed.

The writer is president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.

We, the anti-war protestors, were right back then.

I have encountered no sense of vindication, no "I told you so", among veterans of the anti-war protest of 15 February 2003 in response to the events in Iraq. Despair, yes, but above all else, bitterness – that we were unable to stop one of the greatest calamities of modern times, that warnings which were dismissed as hyperbole now look like understatements, that countless lives (literally – no one counts them) have been lost, and will continue to be so for many years to come.

More from the link, from 2007:

In a statement attached to yesterday's 229-page report, the Senate intelligence committee's chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), and three other Democratic panel members said: "The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al Qaeda terrorists."

In addition to portraying a terrorist nexus between Iraq and al-Qaeda that did not exist, the Democrats said, the Bush administration "also kept from the American people . . . the sobering intelligence assessments it received at the time" -- that an Iraq war could allow al-Qaeda "to establish the presence in Iraq and opportunity to strike at Americans it did not have prior to the invasion."

Now we are supposed to go along with the rhetoric that our social safety nets are harming our economy, and we are supposed to pretend that the votes for the Iraq war were just a mistake. Guess we are supposed to overlook the massive cost of war as they blames seniors and the needy and poor for the deficit.

I want to hear truth now. I don't want anymore pretending that Iraq did not happen.