Hillary Clinton wins New Hampshire: why that is a good thing

It's still anybody's game

Don't let the somewhat misleading title of this post convince you that I'm a "Clinton" democrat, longing for a return to the pro-business, anti-labor, right-of-center policies that indirectly brought about the rise of the freakish beasts that are today's Republicans. Hillary Clinton is my very last choice for the Democratic nomination. (And yet, she still comes in ahead of any of the Republicans.)

The Clinton campaign is not a forward-looking campaign. Hillary and hubby, just by their very presence, harken back to the good ol' days of the Clinton administration.

(And, whatever you may think of Bill Clinton, his 8 years in office were a time of relative peace and prosperity. Besides, it was reassuring to have a president that was smarter than I, regardless of how I felt about his policies. Alas... today such a sentiment seems like a luxury...but I digress.)

Hillary's campaign, despite its recent bleating about "change," offers the same old "triangulation" drivel that has slowly transformed the Democratic party from a populist coalition of the middle class, racial minorities, labor unions, and college-educated progressives to what it is today: a hackneyed, watery version of the Republican party. The Clinton administration defined and gave prominence to so-called "moderate" Democrats. These are the Democrats who buy into the Republican system of corporate lobbying, pandering to religious wingnuts, and for-profit military intervention. The milktoast Democratic congressional leaders (chief among them, the pathetic Nancy Pelosi) are the legacy of the Clinton policies of compromise.

So why is it good that Hillary won in New Hampshire?

Well, there are a few reasons...

1. When Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses, five days previous, the national media all but declared the nominating process to be over. Republicans like the perpetually-wrong Bill Kristol were already developing lines of attack that they could use in the general election. Now, with the nomination still in doubt, the Republicans, who are having fits over which of their slate of losers should get the nod, are further discombobulated because they don't know who they will run against this fall.
2. With the race still up in the air, it gives other Democratic candidates a chance to get into the mix. John Edwards or Bill Richardson might win a primary somewhere along the line. If there are more viable candidates, voters will start to actually believe that they can make a difference. That can only be good.
3. Lastly, and most importantly, with no clear frontrunner, the debate will continue as each candidate searches for the message that will lift him/her above his/her rivals. This means that, with all their polling and message testing, the campaigns may actually listen to what the hoi polloi are saying.

Personally, I'm pulling for John Edwards. And, please note, Barack Obama's surge in the days before the Iowa caucuses came after he started adopting much of Edwards' populist rhetoric. If Edwards can somehow identify himself as the real populist and show Obama to be the Johnny-come-lately...well, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

But, no matter what happens, with no pre-ordained nominee, the Democrats will have to keep exploring the issues, debating, and listening to voters.

As we used to say in my old stomping grounds of Klamath Falls, Oregon: ain't nuthin' wrong wit dat.

¡Se atreva a esperar!

Es siempre peligroso a esperar demasiado, especialmente cuando implicando las políticas norteamericanas. Los acontecimientos pasados dados, parecería ser un recado del tonto a tener la fe en la publica general crédulo.

Ya lo sé esto muy bien. El día después de la "reelección" de Junior Bush fue un de los más peores de mi vida. No podría creer que bastante de los votantes norteamericanos aceptarían las mentiras de Karl Rove que los criminales podrían robar la elección. Un día negro, verdaderamente.

Pero, cuando se considera la manera que los acontecimientos despliegan en las elecciónes primarias, hay quizás unas pocas razones a ser optimista.

Primeramente, adverte que los republicanos han moderado sus declaraciones con respecto a la inmigración. Aunque los republicanos trataron hacer un asunto del xenofobia de su base ignorante, el monstruo que ellos crearon parece odiar ellos y sus políticas corporativas corruptas más que odia los mexicanos.

Lo que ha sido

Caso en punto es la campaña de Tom Tancredo, lo quien que deliró contra los hispanos, acusando ellos de traen terrorismo y crimen. Ahora, Tancredo ha vuelto a su hogar en Colorado, allí lamer sus heridas y cuidar su odio. Mientras tanto, Mike Huckabee, el "guerrero cristiano" continua dirigir en los sondeos nacionales con su mensaje de populista.

Los democratos, aunque nadie los acuse de valor, nunca han adoptado el asunto. Prácticamente, ellos reconocen que el futuro de política electoral exitosa debe incluir los hispanos; hacer de otro modo significaría el fracaso y la derrota. Los republicans aprenderán eso muy pronto.

Entonces, es posible que la manera en la que hablamos sobre la inmigración cambiará. El énfasis cambiará de cómo mantenerlos fuera a cómo integrarlos y aceptarlos.

Lo que será

Quizás, estoy engañado (algunos nunca aprenden, ¿no?), pero estoy optimista que el futuro, y la manera en la que la elección va, augura buenas cosas: un tiempo de la curación y la justicia, un tiempo de conciliación, un fin al temor exagerado.

Si nosotros lo creeremos, podrá venir a pasar.

(Perdóneme por favor para mi español malo.)

Al Qaeda: neo-conservative marketing tool

What is al Qaeda?

Can anyone answer that question? To be sure, there are many interested parties that are very eager to do so. Junior Bush and the neo-conservatives have a neatly packaged definition of al Qaeda that they pitch to gullible Americans in order to reshape the United States into their idyllic totalitarian state. Rudy Giuliani is basing his entire presidential campaign on that definition.

But what is al Qaeda, really?

First, there is the history

We know that a group of militant Muslims, the mujaheddin, came into being back in the 1980s as a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Using a program dubbed Operation Cyclone, the Central Intelligence Agency (what a nice group of people, eh?) armed and funded these Afghani mujaheddin, who were conducting guerrilla operations against the Soviets.

Bin Laden: son of privilege and heir to power

One of the military leaders of the mujaheddin was Saudi prince Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, the son a a billionaire Saudi businessman, "made his bones" conducting military operations in the rugged Afghani terrain. (And, say what you want about him, Osama bin Laden showed a lot more physical courage fighting in Afghanistan than did Junior, getting drunk in the National Guard barracks in Alabama and staying far, far away from the war he claimed to support in Vietnam.)

But, throughout the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, there does not appear to have been an organization known as "al Qaeda."

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was left with a structure and an army of followers. Rather than squander (from his point of view) these resources, or allow them to dissolve, like all power-hungry men, he looked for a new set of causes against which to direct them. It is hard to know his motivation, and impossible to know the secret alliances and betrayals that brought about the transition, but bin Laden eventually set his sights on Islamic resentment toward the United States for its imperialistic hegemony over the Middle East and its support of Israel, for which many Arab Muslims reserve their hottest hatreds.

The first time the name "al Qaeda" came to prominence in American public perception was in the trial of bin Laden and four other individuals for the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In order to try bin Laden in absentia, the US Department of Justice employed the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which required that there be a criminal organization of which bin Laden was the head. Prosecutors pointed to a loose association of veterans of the struggle against the Soviet Union who were attracted to bin Laden's anti-imperialist, pro-Islam message as evidence of such an organization. Voila! Al Qaeda was born.

Junior gets a royal gift

On September 11th, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his organization struck at the US again, killing over 3000 people in an horrific attack. It was at that point that "al Qaeda" was transformed from a nebulous and obscure entity used as a legal term to seek justice into a phantom threat, a bloody shirt, and a rally point for simple minds.

Junior: son of privilege and heir to power

Junior and the neo-conservatives recognized that bin Laden had given them a royal gift. And what an apt gift between sons of privilege! Immediately Junior's gang began to use al Qaeda, that shadowy, undefined enemy that "hate[s] us for our freedom," to justify unprecedented powers for the executive branch of government, to curtail personal freedoms, and to bring about their wet dream of an invasion of Iraq.

And, boy, did it work! Look at where we are today: Junior has admitted to tapping phone calls in the United States without a court warrant, torture is now being debated as a legitimate interrogation tactic, ostensible members of "al Qaeda" (including American citizens) are being held in American military prisons without access to legal counsel or judicial review. And with over 600,000 people dead, we are still bogged down in the Iraq misadventure. All in the name of fighting "al Qaeda" and terrorism.

Politically, the term "al Qaeda" is used like a cudgel to beat cravens like Nancy Pelosi back into their corners whenever they start to display any signs of listening to their constituents. And "al Qaeda" is the verbal ejaculate that all Bush supporters spit out in their red-faced apologies for this disastrous presidency.

"Al Qaeda" has also been used to tag any number of the Bush gang's military adventures, stretching all the way from the Phillipines to Iran. Other countries have even gotten into the act. Marshal law in Pakistan, anyone?

And, every so often, a video tape of Osama bin Laden finds its way into the world media from some shadowy, unidentified sources, wherein he supposedly makes threats and denunciations. Often, these tapes appear at politically convenient times, from a Bush perspective.

But don't think that all the benefits flow in one direction. The Bush reaction to 911 and its hyper-vilification of bin Laden has endowed bin Laden with a heroic status among angry Muslims. Bush and bin Laden, brothers in privilege, are each empowered by the actions and banter of the other.

Conclusion

If we consider that the Bush administration consists largely of business executives and corporatists, it becomes all the more apparent: "al Qaeda" is just a marketing term that the neo-conservatives are using to sell fear.

To be sure, Osama bin Laden and his gang of criminals are still out there, doing whatever it is they are doing. But it is not at all clear, in fact, it's doubtful, that they have any real network that extends beyond their own petty but dangerous gang. They're just another gaggle of criminals that should be found and prosecuted. There is one thing of which we can be sure: Junior and the neo-conservatives don't want to catch him. (Case in point, Tora Bora.) If they did, it would rob them of perhaps the last arrow in their quiver of lies.

The hopeful factor in all of this is that Junior and his people may have gone too far. Indeed, there are some indications that terms like "terrorism" and "al Qaeda," having been so thoroughly over-used, they may be losing their effectiveness.

As Americans slowly awaken to the realization that they don't need to be afraid, there is going to be a reckoning. That's bad news for Junior, bad news for Osama bin Laden, and bad news for the plutocrats and corporatists that brought all this to pass.

Ultimately, the Bush gang's enthusiastic and greedy abuse of people's horror and fear will destroy them.

Congratulations to Senator Barack Obama

In spite of there being more important things to talk about than the glitzy beauty pageant that is our nominating process, in spite of my candidate, John Edwards, finishing second, and in spite of the crimes of the Bush administration being, as yet, under-exposed and festering, today I want to talk about what happened last night in Iowa.

Last night I was a bit disappointed that John Edwards had not won. I still believe he is the best candidate for the United States, and is tough enough to fight back when the Republicans begin their filthy smear campaigns.

But, this morning, I find myself dewy-eyed and emotional as I consider Barack Obama's victory last night in Iowa.

Check out his victory speech:



Can anyone deny that the man has charisma? Eloquent, handsome, intelligent, and, as far as I can tell, sincere. And it is just possible that his victory is an indication that something is afoot in this country...something that I had given up on after the cruel and horrific travesty that occurred in November 2004, when the forces of ignorance and bigotry were triumphant.

First, consider the turnout. For the Democrats, the turnout was a record 220,000! That is roughly twice the number of Republicans that turned out (114,000) and far more than was projected (150,000). One reasonable interpretation of the significance of the huge turnout is that this is a repudiation of the Republicans generally, and of Junior specifically. People want change!

Now, consider the disappointing showing for Hillary Clinton, who was considered the inevitable Democratic nominee as recently as 3 months ago. This is delectable for so many reasons.

1. The Republicans, who seem to have bought into the "inevitable" meme far more than Democrats ever did, will be ever more adrift and rudderless without their favorite bogey-woman to point at and shriek. Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan is probably, at this moment, hung-over and vomiting as his world spins around him. No Hillary? But how can I sell this load of s**t without her?
2. The losers and defeatists in the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, Paul Begala, et cetera) have been handed a defeat. These are the "triangulators" that, for the past 2 presidential elections, have conceded some 227 electoral votes to the Republicans because they believed that Democrats couldn't compete in so-called red states. These are the people who fought tooth-and-nail against Democratic National Committe Chairman Howard Dean and his "50 state strategy" (which, oh by the way, won the Democrats a majority in both houses in spite of DLCC whining). These are the people who sucked up to corporate lobbyists like the half-assed Republicans they are. Obama's victory repudiates them. (I'd like to think it would shut them up, but I'm no dreamer.)
   
3. Corporate lobbyists and beltway prognosticators are, yet again, shown to be the fools that they are. Although they hate Hillary (and I can't understand why, given that she serves them so well), they know she won't stray too far out-of-bounds. Obama is a wildcard, and because of that, he scares the hell out of them.
4. Congressional Democrats, and most especially cowards like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, had better wake up and smell the coffee. Grass-roots Democrats are tired of compromise and surrender. It is time to stand up and fight. Time to expose Republican lies, corruption and hypocrisy. No more conciliation, no more holding hands with fake patriots.
   

Lastly, and most importantly, consider what Obama's victory says about the American people. In this extremely racist country, Democrats and the independents and principled Republicans that caucused with them, looked past skin pigmentation toward an African-American man that offered hope, principles, and virtue. Mike Huckabee's tired victory, brought about by Bush hold-outs and ignoramuses, seems meaningless and trite in comparison. The American people want a change. The Bush/Rove formula of victory through fear and division is dead.

For me, personally, John Edwards is still the best choice, and I will support him for as long as he remains in the race. But, I can get behind Obama. (Besides, Barack does not have Edwards' baggage of a miscast vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq). If Obama gets the nomination, I'll be behind him all the way. And, if his support is an indication that my countrymen have moved toward virtue and hope, and away from fear, hatred, and bigotry...well, maybe the world isn't quite as ugly as I'd feared.

Congratulations, Senator Obama.

Whoop-di-doo! Iowa caucus time!

Judgement Day in Iowa

Well, today is Judgement Day for some dozen or so presidential aspirants. Sort of.

The obscure caucus ritual that lends Iowa its 15 minutes of fame every four years begins in just a few short hours. Iowans will gather and express their support for one or another of the human-like avatars that are today's candidates.

No one is sure how it will turn out with either party. So, here are my predictions. First the Republicans:

• Mitt Romney - Bye bye, Mitt. Tonight is the beginning of the end. Romney will lose out to Christo-Facist Mike Huckabee in Iowa. Then he'll go on to lose to John McCain in New Hampshire. Then he'll drop out. Sorry, Mitt. Being filthy rich only gets you so far, even with the Republicans.

• Mike Huckabee - Tonight's winner. But, in the long haul, a flash in the pan. His aw-shucks Christian fakery works well with Iowa's home school crowd, but doesn't sell with the more sophisticated (read "educated") voters in New Hampshire. He'll be king for about 5 days, just like Pat Robertson was when he beat out Daddy Bush for second place in Iowa back in 1988. New Hampshire will be the beginning of the end for the Huckster.
  

• John McCain - Tonight is not his night, but he'll bounce back in the "miracle" of New Hampshire. When that happens, don't make the mistake of thinking that New Hampshire Republicans are enthused about him. It's more that New Englanders, even the Republicans among them, are realists. They see Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson as losers. McCain is their only hope for victory in the general election. In fact, I think McCain will eventually be the GOP presidential nominee. In Iowa, however, McCain tanks. The Christo-Fascist base of today's GOP have never forgiven him for dissing Junior.

• Rudy Giuliani - Rudy's not even trying in Iowa. He knows a lost cause when he sees one. Giuliani has apparently pushed all his chips into the Super Tuesday pot, where he hopes to have a big day thanks to "moderate" Republicans. A daring move that shows a lot of faith: just as Huckabee's Christian armies place their faith in their warlike god, Giuliani imagines that there is some vast hoarde of GOP social moderates that will materialize and place him on their shoulders. I think it's a dream. Karl Rove and Junior, with their slash-and-burn politics, drove the last of the moderates out of the GOP after 2004. Rudy will drop out after a disappointing showing on Super Tuesday.

• Fred Thompson - No signs of life here. He'll tank in Iowa, then again in New Hampshire and then quit. His campaign is already making noises about it. The aristocratic Republican fantasy of a new sock puppet has come to naught.

Now, the Democrats:

• Hillary Clinton - She's got the money to keep fighting, but she loses tonight in Iowa. She'll fight like hell for New Hampshire and she may well win there. Her fate will be decided on Super Tuesday. So much depends on how rank-and-file Democrats perceive her. Has her political "triangulation" alienated her from her party and made her seem too compliant in the Bush administration's misdeeds? Well, that's the way I feel about her. Let's see what other Democratic voters think.

• Barak Obama - He has a very good chance of winning in Iowa. The latest Zogby poll has him on top. If he doesn't win Iowa, however, his prospects become dim. He needs to win the caucuses to get the Big Mo with all those fat campaign donations. He is trying to win without getting mean and nasty. (Noble, I suppose, but I want retribution and accountability. The Bush administration must be made to pay for their crimes! Spare me the hopeful soaring rhetoric! The Bush crime family must hang!) If he wins Iowa, he's got a real shot at the nomination. If he loses, he isn't out yet, but New Hampshire looms large.

• John Edwards - I think Edwards is going to win Iowa and surprise everyone, just like Kerry did in 2004. The Edwards campaign is well organized and dedicated. If he does win Iowa, Big Mo will bring him along, past New Hampshire, where he probably won't win, into the South Carolina primary, where he has a very good chance, as a son of the South.

• Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson - None of these is going to win in Iowa, nor in New Hampshire. I like Dodd and Richardson, and I love Kucinich. But these campaigns aren't going anywhere. Speculation is that Richardson and Biden are angling for cabinet positions in either a Clinton or an Obama administration. Dennis is the valiant Don Quixote. Dodd is probably setting himself up for another run in 4 or 8 years.

Well, there they are. My prognostications are just like my advice: worth every cent it costs, and free to you!

Let's see how it all turns out...

Another man done gone

Daniel Fierro

Last night I got the news that a friend of mine, Daniel Fierro, whom I had known for some 3 or 4 years, was found face-down and naked in a river in Humbolt County, California sometime in the middle of December. He had been there for about a week and it took another week to identify him, as there was no identification on the body. Foul play is not suspected. The police investigating the incident speculate that the cause of death was either hypothermia or drowning.

According to those close to him, Daniel had suffered a number of setbacks in life recently: he was devastated by the dissolution of a romantic relationship and his business enterprise was faltering. He had placed himself on suicide watch several times in the recent past.

It's not clear yet that Daniel intentionally took his own life, but it seems likely. The police investigation found that he had purchased a quantity of over-the-counter drugs and alcoholic beverages before abandoning his car in a parking lot and setting out alone into the northern California woods.

Besides being deeply sorry for Daniel's family and friends, I am perplexed and confounded.

Although I was not a close friend, Daniel was someone for whom I had genuine affection. He had charisma. He was funny. He seemed to know people everywhere. He loved to play cards, and was one of my favorite poker buddies. He greeted people with a smile, and treated them with respect.

My friend, Dave Hauth, and I were discussing the event last night, trying to make sense of it. (A futile effort, I suppose.)

Dave said, "Well, you know, his life was just falling apart."

"But, Dave," I replied, "all of our lives fall apart."

And it's true, right? We all have times when everything around us crumbles and we fight with despair. Yes, Daniel's life was crumbling. Yes, he was facing terrible trials and turmoil. But what was it that caused him this time to succumb? Why did he submit to despair?

In my youth, I would have said that it was weakness that brought about Daniel's demise. I would have said that, in the end, he lacked the courage to face what was to come. But now that I've got a few big defeats of my own in the log book, I know that anyone can succumb. There, but for the Grace of God, go I, as the saying goes.

For some reason, when Daniel went down this time, he couldn't get back up. In those dark times of our lives, whether we see it or not, the path to oblivion is always there. Daniel saw that path and determined that the irrevocable comfort it offered was preferable to the misery and anguish that he must have been experiencing.

Well, he is gone now; passed beyond to the Great Whatever. And those of us that he left behind must scratch our chins and wonder, for whatever time is left to us, about what it was that called to him.

Go with God, Daniel.

Ring in the new: Hello, 2008

Today, our beautiful blue marble has completed another revolution on the way to universal entropy. And here we are, sailing through the cosmos, oblivious in our one-dimensional perception of time, and blithely unaware of our part in the Larger Scheme of Things. Welcome, 2008.

I'm hopeful that, in the world generally, but especially here in the United States, awareness is growing that there is a commonality among human beings, that cultural and religious divisions are less significant than are the basic human need for food, shelter, and love. Yes, love.

Sometimes I have to remind myself not to give up hope. Historically, humanity has relapsed many times into darkness. Bloodshed, cruelty, and ignorance have fed the beast that resides within all of us. And it may be that the beast will bring about our ultimate demise.

But today, we've made one more circuit of the solar orbit and, although I haven't checked the headlines this morning, it appears that Ragnarok has not come to pass.

And, who knows? Maybe, if we have ears to listen, there is a teacher among us who can lead us forward to a better world.

Thrown like a star in my vast sleep,
I opened my eyes to take a peek,
To find that I was by the sea,
Gazing with tranquility,
'Twas then when the hurdy gurdy man came singing songs of love,
Then when the hurdy gurdy man came singing songs of love;

Histories of ages past,
Unenlightened shadows cast
Down through all eternity,
The crying of humanity
'Tis then when the hurdy gurdy man comes singing songs of love,
Then when the hurdy gurdy man comes singing songs of love; --Donovan

Happy New Year, everyone!