Questions for President Obama

2008 Campaign

• Why do you think so many supporters feel let down by your presidency?
• Do you regret saying during the 2008 campaign that you'd close Guantanamo?

Banks

• Why shouldn't we break up the big banks given that they proved themselves "too big to fail" in 2008?

Bush Administration

• In declaring that we should "move on" lieu of investigating potential crimes by Bush administration officials, are you living up to your full responsibilities as our country's chief law enforcer?

Welcome Back, Mr. President

I went into our president's speech yesterday with middling expectations, given his forgettable last address, on Libya. That message about our latest military venture abroad lacked the  conviction and context many Americans were seeking and failed to soothe nerves about our constant willingness to invade countries in possession of oil reserves. (I don't recall Obama making a peep about the Ivory Coast massacres.)

But Obama's disappointing performance as the Democratic leader, let alone as a leader for all of us, is the primary reason for my initial lack of enthusiasm this round. I, like many progressives, feel let down – even hopeless – over the current administration's lack of results. The man who in his presidential campaign (2.0 now gearing up) seemed larger than life and promised us CHANGE has proven very much of the same old, same old strain. His growing list of false promises includes the ending of rendition, domestic electronic surveillance (now expanded), military tribunals, and exiting Iraq (now possibly to be extended). And Gitmo's still going strong. And the stimulus was watered down with tax cuts. And the health care "debate" devolved into screaming (literally) chaos until Obama stepped in at the eleventh hour. But he also never entertained the public option (which a majority of Americans support), instead mandating payments to our bloated, profiteering health insurance companies, which the Supreme Court may soon deem unconstitutional. And now, amidst ginned-up deficit chaos, Obama has given the farm away yet again, acceding to the Republicans’ most extreme demands before even beginning to barter.

But Wednesday's speech marked a shift away from this regression. It reminded me of another of his golden moments since entering the White House, his speech on race following the phony brouhaha over Reverend Jeremiah Wright. President Obama spoke words and struck a tone that gave me pause, rising above the fray in a lovely moment which finally helped Americans on all sides quietly reflect. Some, like me, found it awe-inspiring.

World Gleefully Mocks Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl for Hackitude (VIDEO)

Bill Maher the Latest to Join Kyl Pile-On

In an age in which the mainstream media seems all but asleep at the switch, politicians make a daily habit of lying their butts off whenever it suits them and rarely get called out for it. So it comes as a shock when someone prominent does get pegged for their whopper – although it’s often clever comedians Stewart, Colbert, or Maher who get there first, goading journalists and pundits into covering such stories as well. (Which is why so many people get their news from Stewart & Co. in the first place.)

A wonderful recent example comes in the form of Republican Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, who apparently got so whipped up in the current frenzy of false claims on the deficit that he made this especially outrageous statement about our boogeyman du jour, Planned Parenthood...

>> Watch the video at Gather.com

Gates Says Iraq Combat Soldiers Could Stay Past 2011

Secretary says Iraqis must decide "pretty quickly" what they want.

Eight months before pulling American combat soldiers out of Iraq and ending an eight-year war there, Defense Secretary Gates has signaled that the Pentagon is reconsidering. Our involvement has lasted longer and cost more American and Iraqi lives than the George W. Bush administration ever anticipated, with over 4,400 Americans dead, 33,000 wounded and the deaths of anywhere between 100,000 and a million Iraqi civilians.

The Secretary of Defense announced the possibility of an extension during his visit to Iraq on Thursday, alongside the top American commander there, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin. He said an extension could last anywhere from two years to permanency, thus acknowledging off-the-record reports of Pentagon deliberation going on behind the scenes... 

>> Read the rest at Gather.com

Rand Paul Said Wha?

Huff Post: Hear What Rand Paul Said Yesterday?

Insane. (Video below.) He was on Rachel Maddow - quite the get for her; he'd announced his candidacy on her show as well - and she pressed him on his view that part of the Civil Rights Act of the '60s was flawed. Specifically, the law forcing private institutions to desegregate. In other words, a diner can't turn away black people. Paul thinks businesses should be able to say "we don't serve your kind" to blacks, Jews, gays - take your pick. Insane.

I adore Rachel - she performs some hard-hitting journalism - and while most television pundits would have let Mr. Paul get away with endless hedging on the subject, she grilled him for a full 20 minutes to make sure we were all clear on his point of view. And I could not believe my eyes and ears.

What will be more depressing is if the man actually wins despite this - it's Kentucky, and Kentucky trends Republican. On a brighter note, the Democratic primary drew bigger numbers than the Republican primary, a possible sign that Democrats are more enthused about the race than their counterparts. We'll find out in November. If he's smart, the (D) nominee, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, will pound away on his opponent with this new piece of information every day until the polls open.

CNN's Non-News

The Wrap: "Campbell Brown Quits CNN, Falls on a Sword"

People yawned at this story. I yawned at this story. CNN is a joke, losing half their viewership in the last year if I remember correctly? Which makes me happy because it at least means people know ineptitude when they see it. I think CNN should go the non-profit route. They could be our BBC and no longer feel the need to dumb their content down for ratings' sake or to compete with Fox and MSNBC's bloviating. But as long as they make merely cosmetic changes to their programming, nothing is going to change.

It would be soooo nice to have a news network that performs reputable, fearless reporting. On the danger of corporate monopolies, need for campaign finance reform, failed drug war, unchecked lies of politicians and pundits, outdated minimum wage, our deranged health care apparatus, need for election reform, bloated war budget, insensible occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and on and on. There's no shortage of news to report on - let alone news not getting reported elsewhere. And this is due to media congloms' obsession with the bottom line, and failing in their obligations as the fourth estate.

Two Viable Political Parties: I Like Neither

And liberals can find a home in neither. Obviously not in the Republican party. But not really in the Democratic party either... Yes, there are liberals in the Democratic party, and wonderful ones, at that - Russ Feingold, Anthony Weiner, Patrick Leahy, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Marcy Kaptur, Barney Frank... But for a multitude of reasons, Democratic party leaders feel constant pressure to to move rightward. Even with a liberal, Nancy Pelosi, in charge of the House of Representatives.

The health care bill and where it currently stands is a case in point. Even though a majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress wanted a public option - or at least Medicare's expansion as an alternative - as of the last week the current bill contains neither. Why? Because of a few conservative Democratic senators. (Republican senators don't even bother.) In fact, only one senator - Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Dems, and so gets a committee chair - is responsible for the Medicare option being dropped. And this, after he extolled the virtues of just such a plan three months ago. He even says he dropped it because he saw how happy it made liberals! Great guy, that one.

And that's just one person. One conservative Democrat. After concession upon concesssion was made to the handful of Conservadems to begin with. Thus, essentially, giving those half dozen or so people all the power in the party.

Now that both options have been dropped, liberals like myself are crying foul, let alone over Medicare being dropped solely due to Lieberman's flip-flop. (And this, after defecting from the Democratic party, stumping for McCain for president and criticizing candidate Obama at the Republican convention.) Howard Dean - the man behind our expanded congressional majorities but ignored by the White House once Obama moved in - has called the bill a bailout for insurance companies and recommended a move toward reconciliation (majority rule) instead.

So the White House and some Democratic senators came out swinging - against Dean. Not against Lieberman. Not against Republican party members in Congress. Obame and company have chosen to come out swinging - not for the first time - against Dean, and the liberals he represents. Who have already given concession after concession to begin with.

Long story short: liberals are taken for granted in the Democratic party. And have been for decades now. We don't have a party. And the expectation from the party at large has been that we have nowhere else to turn, so we'll continue to accept being ignored, even abused.

It's BS! I don't have a viable political party. A party that, as Bill Maher often points out, does not embrace progressive - but also widely held positions - on a host of issues. Those include legalization of marijuana, universal health care, a scaled back war budget, strong anti-trust legislation, campaign finance reform, gun control legislation and much more. I'm tired of not belonging to a party that respects me. Not only that, I'm tired of a party that too often runs rightward, embracing the positions of the opposition. Bill Clinton ruled as a Republican essentially, and they still tarred and feathered him for it. Obama's ramping up the war in Afghanistan, backed off banking regulatory reform, allowed the public option to die, closed off to the possibility of prosecuting members of the Bush administration for possible crimes and so on.

I want a party with real progressive values. I want a party that won't make me feel bad for what I believe. I want a party that excites and inspires people. That isn't a shell of its former self. The Democratic party is none of that.

Chris Matthews Should Apologize for Cheerleading the Iraq Invasion

I know plenty of liberals who love the guy. There's no question that he's likable. And he's knowledgeable of the ways of Washington - I'm not arguing that.

But every time I hear Chris Matthews go off on what a mistake the Iraq War is, I can't help but wonder where all this gusto, outrage and skepticism was, back when it mattered? One line I'll always remember is his gung ho declaration that "We're all neo-cons now!" It was as Bush & Co. plowed headlong into this needless war. This is around the time he referred to Bush as "Lincolnesque." Anyway, we could have used you then, Chris. Perhaps you could have even have helped prevent the war, for all we know.

His crowing now over what a colossal foreign relations blunder Iraq's turned out to be is maddening to listen to and a fairly easy position to take now that anti-war voices are no longer the minority. For me personally, the only way Matthews' now perfectly safe display of outrage matters is if he acknowledges his unwillingness to ask the hard questions back when the case for war was still being made by the Bush administration.

Beware Of The Right-Wing Smear Machine... Stay Frosty, Guys

This morning's NY Times article about Newt Gingrich and company's disillusionment over President-Elect Barack Obama's Teflon image so far made for an exciting read. The article pointed out that Republicans' endless tirades against Obama's non-existent ties to the Blago scandal have so far gone up in smoke and that John McCain's defense of Obama didn't help matters. The article also said that with the nation's economy in dire straits, Americans are rejecting partisan attacks and want - "logically," per Mr. Gingrich - for Obama to succeed in getting the country back on track.

Music to my ears...

But I want to make clear that, despite the RNC's, Fox News' and daytime radio's lack of results, this doesn't mean they're giving up the ghost. Nor do they ever plan to soon. The endless whisper campaign - or should I say shriek? - from the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world continue unabated. And no matter how centrist the people President-Elect Obama appoints or adept he may be at evading ideological labels, the partisan attacks, and the lies from the extreme Right that Americans have grown accustomed to, will continue.

Bill Clinton triangulated with the Republican party over welfare reform, the crime bill, the Telecommunications Act, DOMA and Republican defense secretary, to name a handful of examples. But how far did that get him with the opposition? Had he pursued a purely liberal agenda during his eight years in office it's arguable he would not have suffered a worse fate in the hands of the Republican-controlled Congress. Gingrich, Dick Armey and their cohorts did everything in their power to destroy the man, finally culminating in his impeachment over a sex scandal.

My point is this: The incoming Obama administration cannot be lulled into complacency over the Right's blunted criticism's so far. And while there are many decent Republicans out there who are putting country first, there will always be individuals and organizations on the Right who are hell-bent to destroy any Democrat inhabiting the White House.

Obama cannot allow Republicans, at any point, to define his agenda in the public's mind. Nor should he believe (and I'm not claiming he is yet) that any overtures to the Right will quiet their concerns.

I can't help but wonder whether there's any way Democrats can counteract the high volume of the ultra-conservative message's being blared over the airwaves. Isn't Fox News, like any of the legitimate news networks, legally obligated to offer objective analysis in their programming? (And not in name only, i.e. "Fair and Balanced.") The air waves are, after all, owned by the public and leased out free of charge to media companies with the proviso that their work serve a public purpose. And it's the FCC's responsibility to ensure the networks live up to that promise. No one should be surprised that during the Bush years the FCC steered clear of regulating Fox and daytime radio, but with an incoming Democratic White House and Congress it's high time the FCC fully did its job.

I'll be waiting - with bated breath! - for the Federal Communications Commission to finally jump back into action in the new year. "Fair and Balanced," here we come.