So last week I was on Lexington Avenue by Grand Central in New York City, in the very shadow of the great investment houses and law firms, and saw an American mother out with her daughter begging, frantic, harried, desperate, in a sea of tailored suits and $300 shoes.
In the next few weeks we are all going to be bombarded with the mainstream media's assessment that the Edwards campaign failed because American voters disown his economic populism, do not see themselves in Edwards' depictions of American hardship, find his and his family's story of work and struggle and privation not compelling, but quaint and funny.
Expect it, it will come. And when it does, inevitably from the Larry Kudlows and Bill O'Reillys and the New York Times editorial page, I will visualize again that mother and daughter, clench my eyes shut, and think, remember them.
You thought the title of my diary referred to poll results? Why, isn't that funny of you. Actually, it's the number of months after their inauguration it would take Presidents Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. In the case of Senator Clinton the 59 is actually extraordinarily generous, considering it is based on her promise to, conditions allowing, withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2013.
I'll return to that in a moment, but since I've been able to hijack the attention of at least some you for a brief moment I want to discuss the way we talk politics at dailykos, and how far these discussions get from the brass tacks of real-world policy and what the candidates will and won't do should they be elected president, and how close they come to the bizarre chimerical world of TMZ, Britney, Paris and Perez.
Usually, I love dailykos rhetorical carnage. It's why I find myself so often contributing to it when I think it's worthwhile. And in truth, debate is positive when it helps us improve our ideas, sharpen our arguments, share our insights. But sometimes there comes a point when you just see rage for its own sake, and incitement for its own sake, even among people of good intentions, and it just becomes obvious that perspective has been lost.
Recently, specifically, the sniping between Edwards and Obama camps has just begun to get out of hand, totally disproportionate both to the realities of the two candidates' political situations and to their actual campaigns' positions with respect to each other. Specifically, I am talking about (1) the Edwards supporters who equate Obama with Clinton, or worse; and (2) the Obama supporters who insist that Edwards should get out of the race immediately to give their preferred candidate a clear shot. Both the Edwards and the Obama supporters who engage in these lines of argument do their campaign a disservice.
Realizing there is nothing more heinously unfair to do to a Clinton than quote their publicly stated position from the newspaper of record, and understanding that desiring to discuss the actual issues of the 2008 campaign only indicates my deep and abiding misogyny, ladies and gentlemen, I give you Senator Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq, stated succinctly:
"Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, now opposed; opposed troop increase; start phased withdrawal within 60 days of taking office, with the goal to have most troops out by the end of 2013."
The year 2013. Let that sit. Allow the word to drip from your tongue. Say it aloud. Feel the quiver in your spine as the meaning of it unfolds, and think carefully about the media refrain that there are no issues of substance differentiating the Democratic candidates.
I have conflicting emotions right now. Today while I was at work I was thinking over the New York Times article from earlier this week on the relationship of John and Elizabeth Edwards, and their effort to transcend personal grief and hardship by trying to make the world a better place, and I actually had to wipe away a few tears. I thought about how much they have lost, and how much they have given, and I hoped from the bottom of my heart their campaign would win and I could see them celebrating victory tonight. Not just for themselves, but for all of us in this country who suffer in the shadow of plenty. Instead, I saw Barack and Michelle Obama celebrating, and despite myself I felt not angry or aggrieved but proud.
Two years ago I was the bane of the John Edwards diaries on dailykos, criticizing--or more accurately, vituperatively attacking--his vote on the Iraq War, questioning the sincerity of his anti-poverty crusade and reminding kossacks at every opportunity of his DLC past. Now, he has my vote, my money, and should he make it as far as the February 5 primary here in New York, my volunteered time. On the issues that matter most to the future of the country, he leads with principle and conviction, and I am glad to admit that I was wrong.
There's a lot of rage that the Democratic leadership in Congress is not pursuing impeachment full steam ahead. While impeaching the President is right on the merits, and while we owe it to our Constitution to vindicate it from the Bush administration's lies and obfuscations, impeachment is far from symbolic. It's a battle that, if we fight, we must win. And just as importantly, it's one that we should not start until we're certain that we can win.
Ned Lamont is now the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut, for all intents and purposes. And I think he's going to win, whether against the sacrificial lamb the Republicans selected for Lieberman or in the far tougher three-way race should Joe decide to forego those last shreds of dignity. And moreover, I have to agree that--however much we might be disappointed it's not the landslide that briefly appeared possible--this is a victory of immense magnitude, showing that all the strength that incumbency, a fat warchest, and the most carefully nuanced and risk-averse platform in American politics can be overcome by a leftist with principles, conviction (and a few million dollars lying around). But there's a risk, and it's a doozy.
Tonight I saw George Mitchell on Larry King. Words fail to do justice to how depressing the quality of the discussion was, led by the eponymous senile gnome who has attached himself to CNN like a stomach parasite (Gollum did survive the end of the third Lord of the Rings movie, after all!), the smarmy jingoism of Virginia Senator George Allen (if I hadn't already resolved to give Jim Webb money previously, I would do so now), and the UN Representative of Syria to the UN, basically an immensely skilled liar (his essential point was how much better the Lebanese liked it when the Syrians ran their country for them).
As I'm sure we all know, the U.S. Senate debated the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage this week. And thankfully it didn't proceed to the floor for an actual vote, thanks to 49 Senators who are reasonable and half-way decent human-beings to whom I don't want to be excessively snarky because Goddamn, our side needs every warm body it can get. And yet at the same time, I want to suggest most of the Senators who spoke up against the amendment did not do so in a way that was at all effective either for (1) swaying their colleagues, or (2) defending their decisions to hostile constituents.
Much of what I'm going to say falls under the category of the same old story for people who read dailykos frequently and who have absorbed the basic critique of mainstream political strategy that gets made here all the time. But as none other than Margaret Thatcher said, "Sometimes that's what the truth is: the same old story."
For a piece the aim of which is to pull all us Democrats together, Tomasky's essay in the American Prospect is an untidy bundle. He takes a few potshots at multi-culturalism, re-tells the history of the twentieth century Democratic Party as the story of why his big framing idea is the one that works, and clutches to his breast cherished ideas of patriotism, self-sacrifice and community-spirit only a real ogre would cavil at.
People on DKos have been writing about this essay like it's the second coming. To me, it's straight from the paint-by-numbers of school of Democratic Party ideology. It's the remarketing of rhetoric we've all heard before. It's really very tired. And it leads straight to electoral Dukakisville.
What "Nuestro Himno" signifies is not anti-patriotism, it is patriotism. What Latinos can say about Bush's condemnation of "Nuestro Himno" is not "how dare you insult us as latinos", it's "how dare you object to our demonstration of love for our country?" Literally, (this sounds cheesy, but what the hell) it gives Latinos the opportunity to reiterate the Langston Hughes line and declare that they too sing America.
