Keith Olbermann's Moving Denunciation of Prop.8

America's New Face

AMERICA AT ITS BEST!!!!!

VICTORY!!!!!!

The Day of Decision: Predictions and Worries

After more than 4 years of following the remarkable and inspiring ascent of Barack Obama from an eloquent orator at the 2004 Democratic National convention to an almost President-elect of the United States, I am hopeful. I am hopeful that on November 4 America will have changed its face in a matter of hours. We have no idea what kind of president Barack Obama will actually be. But from what we have seen in this campaign we know that we will finally have a president who looks at the world through the prism of his own complicated background. As a result, he is a man inspired not only by raw political ambition, but also by intellectual curiosity. This curiosity and his balanced character can potentially make him into a great president who changes the direction of our country in bold ways. He would be a new face of America in the world: a kinder, a more hopeful face. Without further ado, here are some things to watch out for in the early hours of the election night, followed by predictions by some of the most prominent election pundits.

The early returns will tell us a lot about the outcome. If Indiana is too early too call by 8pm, it might be a very close election. This will mean that the turnout of African-Americans and newly energized Obama voters in Indiana will probably not have tipped this red state into a blue state. If, on the other hand, Indiana is called early for Obama, it will be a landslide. McCain has no chance of catching up. In the same vein, if Virginia is called for Obama by a comfortable margin this means that many rural voters in southwestern Virginia will have gone Obama's way and this might be the trend in other battleground states. If Virginia goes to Obama in a big way, that means the polls have been correct and we can expect the western states of COlorado, Nevada, New Mexico all to go to him putting him way above 300 electoral votes and up to 7% in popular vote. This, indeed, would be a landslide. The most comforting thing to me on the eve of this momentous election is the fact that Obama has multiple paths to victory. For example, Obama can lose both Ohio and Florida if he keeps all Kerry states, gets Iowa (which is he almost certain to do), Virginia, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico (281 electoral votes).

The thing that really worries me and makes me nauseous is the number of undecideds in almost all of the battleground states. In this morning's Mason-Dixon poll, in all of the states, Obama is up by a very small margin, but the number of undecideds way outnumber this margin. And guess what? Almost all of the undecideds are white. Some pollsters are convinced that these are whites who are uncomfortable with voting for a black candidate and they are "hiding" in the undecided category. If this is true, the question is: will most of them stay at home, or will they mostly break for McCain. If they break for McCain, we are in for an extremely devastating evening. An evening which will probably require a heavy does of anti-depressants and anxiety medication for months to come.

With this in mind, I turn to pundits who, even though God knows have been wrong, but have been in the business of elections and making predictions for decades. I am outlining their predictions below to comfort us and make us get to Nov.4 without getting an ulcer. The predictions include the electoral number for Obama and the number of seats Democrats are bound to pick up in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

George Will, conservative columnist:
Obama: 378 electoral votes (a huge landslide)
Senate: +7 Democrats
House: +21 Democrats

Matthew Dowd, former Bush pollster-turn Obama supporter:

Obama: 338 electoral votes (7% in popular vote)
Senate: +8 Democrats
House: +17 Democrats

Mark Halperin, Time Magazine writer
Obama: 349
Senate: +7 Democrats
House: +28 Democrats

Donna Braziller, Democratic strategiest
Obama: 343 Obama
Senate: +8 Democrats
House: +29 Democrats

George Stephanapholus, host of "This Week."
Obama: 353
Senate: +7 Democrats
House: +28 Democrats

So, every pundit predicts a landslide for Obama reaching well into the 300s, something unknown for Democrats. Also if Democrats manage to get 9 seats in the Senate, they will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Congress and can pass Obama's legislation with ease and truly change the direction of this country. But I am doubtful if they can achieve this. Watch the Kentucky Senate race: if the very popular Republican incumbent Mitch McConnell loses in Kentucky, it will be a Democratic sweep. This is why early returns from Indiana and Kentucky are so important.

Let this be my last post before the big day. The next post will either be titled: "VICTORY: AMERICA AT ITS BEST," or "AN IRREVOCABLE TRAGEDY."

Tonight

The only thing Obama has to do tonight is to make coherent statements, stay calm, and talk about issues. McCain will do the most damage to himself without Obama having to dirty his hands. If Obama does as well as he has done in the previous two debates and almost every public performance, he has this thing in the bag.

At an Obama Rally

I knew I arrived at the location when I encountered a young African-American man selling Obama t-shirts, buttons, hats. He was standing in front of a line that stretched for what it seemed like several miles. The line waiting to get into the Observatory Field in Cincinnati's Old Park mirrored the diversity of America: white, black, brown, Asian, young, old, middle-aged. An African-American boy was sitting on the grass near the line with his laptop doing what it seemed was his math homework. A woman in front of me was reading "A Brave New World." What was fascinating about the gathering was the energy: everyone was laughing, talking lively, cars passing by were honking their horns, and several middle-aged women broke out in a dance.

My brother and I arrived about two hours before the door opened and we were still way behind. When the door finally opened, people rushed, some running, to take the front seats. The day was absolutely beautiful. We waited in the huge field for what it seemed like an eternity, but was about 2 more hours before Barack Obama took the stage.

The noise of the crowd was deafening and a woman next to me kept shouting: "Oh my God, there he is." I realize that this man has almost a cult-like following. This is a movement. Not a political party. And it is this energy that made me convinced that he would be elected.

He seems much smaller in size than he appears on TV. He is tall, but his small shoulders and thin physique give him a non-intimidating posture. When he speaks he always looks around the whole circumference of the stadium making you think he always is looking your way. The aura of self-confidence and intense determination are almost visible around him as he speaks. He is aware of the power of his words: he waits for the words to reach you before moving on. His posture "as if always posing for a coin" (to quote Jon Stewart) reflects his intense concentration, but also the fiery ambition.

I think what is really inspiring about this man is not only his rhetoric, but his steely self-discipline, unwavering determination, and his seeming ability at social perception. While he speaks you feel like he is talking directly to you. While watching him speak I felt the power of mass politics to mobilize your emotions and make you personally invested in the political fate of the candidate.

David Brooks on Barack Obama

David Brooks has been considered one of the intellectuals behind the mainstream conservative movement in the US. This is the wing of the Republican party that has become fed up with the Religious Right's hijacking of that party, which to a large extent is to blame for the Republicans' diminishing prospects. As I said in my previous posts, I rarely agree with Brooks on anything, but the man at least makes coherent arguments and insights that engage even those who disagree.

On Monday, David Brooks gave an interview to the Atlantic Monthly in which he, to his great credit, lashed out at the ugliness of the Palin phenomenon that has dragged the Republicans--and everyone else with them--into the mud. Describing Sarah Palin as a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party" Brooks lamented the anti-intellectualism of today's Republicanism that has been embodied by 8 years of George Bush. Nostalgically remembering the time when even conservatives cherished learning and engaging with ideas, Brooks admits that both Palin and Bush, and those in their wing of the party, seem to despise ideas in their entirety. He shows considerable intellectual honesty when he admits that Sarah Palin is "absolutely" not qualified to be President.

The most interesting part of the interview is David Brooks' story of his encounters with Barack Obama. His observations, I think, show why Barack Obama is such a fascinating figure. I quote David Brooks at length:

"Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So i say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.

And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception."

Republicans Blame the Minorities

Every time I tell myself that nothing that comes from the Right can shock me anymore, the Republicans prove me wrong. Just when I thought that Palin-McCidiot smear fest has climaxed with not-so-subtle racist insults hurled at Obama, the Republicans came up with another strategy of deflecting the public's attention away from their culpability in getting us into this mess: blame the minorities.

The Republican attack on Fannie Maie and Freedie Mac's loaning practices are based on the premise that the main culprits behind the financial mess are the minorities, in particular the African-Americans who received mortgages they could not finance. The Republicans then tie the Democrats to the mortgage giants' lobbyists in arguing that it is the Democrats who are to blame for the mess.

First, there is no doubt that many people got in over their heads with the mortgages they could not afford. However, let us remember that they were roped into these deals by banks and mortgage companies who promised to keep their monthly payments low, betting on the continuing bubbling of their home prices. Let us also remember that the very core of the American identity, especially in the post WWII period, is tied to the ownership of home. Most Americans grow up with the notion that owning a home is equivalent to achieving "the American dream." Anything less than that makes you unsuccessful. So, to blame families--many of whom came from very under-privileged backgrounds--for wanting a piece of this dream at a time when the economy seemed to be doing great for everyone, is beyond moral reprehensibility. And to blame the Democrats' plans to make housing more available to the under-privileged and expand the middle class goes to show the extent to which the Republicans will go in keeping the "American dream" accessible only to the white, middle-class cream of America. According to this ideology, to make the American dream accessible to more Americans leads to nothing less than a Stock market crash.

It seems to me that the ripple effect of the mortgage mess is due not only to these bad mortgage loans, but to 1) the falling value of homes due to the previous over-speculation of home prices; and 2) the ability of banks to sell these mortgages to Wall Street and Wall Street's greedy repackaging of these toxic mortgages into bundles that were passed on further down the line, infecting the whole of the American and even most of the world's economy.

So it is the lack of regulation, which allowed for the tearing down of the walls between the different sectors of our economy--such as the banks and the Wall Street--and the dishonesty of banks in issuing mortgages that played a huge part in causing the implosion of the world's financial system. The tightening of credit throughout the market was a rational consequence of this implosion as every market player starts hoarding capital and becomes schizophrenic about giving loans to anyone out of fear that everyone's capital has become infected with these toxic assets.

So for the Sean Hannity-type of Republicans to blame the minorities, and implicitly the African-Americans, is nothing but another racist ploy to desperately cling to the White House by scaring the white voters into voting for McCain because "that one" (as McCain himself referred to Obama last night) is too risky (and gasp, too black). Despicable.

Palin's Campaign Turns into Media Witchunt

Sarah Palin has announced that she has a solution to the worst economic crisis to hit America and the world in the past 70 years. She will "put on her heels and take off her gloves" and attack Obama's character, doggone it! And if anyone in the media has anything to say about it, they are just East Coast elitists.

Sarah Palin's childish behavior would be funny had it not been so tragic for our country. Her rallies are turning into witch-hunts against those who dare criticize her. What's even scarier is that the racists who attend her rallies are becoming increasingly vocal. In his editorial this morning, Washington Post journalist Dana Milbank, a veteran journalist with a great reputation, reports that at her latest rally in Clearwater, Palin's routine attacks "have begun to spill into ugliness." As she lambasted Katie Couric and the mainstream media for exposing her utter ignorance and stupidity, the crowd of about 3000 descended upon the press tent, shouting abuse epithets, "waving thunder sticks!" A man in the crowd turned to an African-American sound man and shouted: "Sit down, boy!"

Considering Palin's associations with a church with a witchdoctor for a pastor, it really should not surprise anyone the type of crowds this chauvinistic thug draws. It is up to us the liberals, the media, as well as the conservatives who care about this country too much to let it be taken over by racist idiots, to shout her down and let reason prevail in November.

The Day McCain campaign Became Criminal

Today should be remembered as the day when McCain lost any remaining shred of decency and threw himself into a pool of utter vileness and became just another common criminal.

At a rally, McCain consistently asserted that Barack is "unknown" to the American people despite having written two memoirs, and having run a 17-month long campaign during which his whole life was displayed publicly (as it should be). The most disturbing part of the rally was when McCain asked the question: "Who is the real Barack Obama" and someone from the audience shouted "A terrorist!" We all know that the intellectual level of McCain supporters is that of a 5 year old with a slight mental retardation, but rather than stepping in and saying "That's out of line, sir..." McCain contorted his disfigured face into a smirk and carried on.

If you thought that this was the climax of this sad day for America, you were wrong. At another rally, being held at the same time, Sarah Palin was throwing the kitchen sink at Obama, trying to associate him with a man who was engaged in despicable acts when Obama was 8 years old and who served with Obama on two charity boards where many conservatives served. She said: "what are we going to do with him?" And someone from the audience shouted: "Kill him."

This should be remembered as the day when McCain and Palin became just two sad, racist, xenophobic, idiotic criminals with nothing but hatred spewing out of their disfigured faces. I will be truly ashamed to be American if these two get to run our exhausted country.

Bracing for Republican Stupidity

As McCain continues to trail behind Obama and Obama starting to surge even in places like Indiana and North Carolina (the latest poll shows a virtual tie in both states!), the McCidiot camp has announced an all-out frontal assault on Obama's character. In a shockingly blunt admission, one of Mcidiot's chief advisers said that they would "raise doubts" about Obama's honesty and integrity, and try to convince the American people that he would be a "risky" character.

I would be worried had the McCain people not proven to be so inept at hiding their real motives before. The whole obsession with Obama being risky cannot be divorced from their nervousness about his skin color. Every time they raise the issue of Obama's "riskiness" and try to paint him as "the Other" the left needs to call them out on it: you are racist, xenophobic, narrow-minded idiots who have nothing else to offer to the American people and instead have to appeal to the worst in America. Obama, on the other hand, with his message of hope, change, and substantive programs, appeals to the best. Every time, the Mcidiot camp raises any of the following issues--Reverend Wright, Ayers, Michelle's patriotism--the left has to step in and call them on it. Shout them down, and shame them into a corner. They should have no place in our public square, especially in times like these when the average American wonders if his/her money in the bank will be there tomorrow morning.

And how does McCidiot offer to calm our anxieties? By repeating the tired, and drained, attack that Obama had links with the "domestic terrorist" Ayers. The fact that this radical conducted his activities in the 60s when Obama was 8 years old and that they met while serving on the same board while a part of the same university, does not preclude them from claiming Obama's ties to Ayers' radical philosophy (despite the fact that Obama has repeatedly condemned his previous activities and even though Ayers is a respected member of the community in Chicago).

I would also be worried had this been 2004 and not 2008. The reason why these tactics worked against Kerry and will not against Obama are manifold, but it mainly has to do with a) timing and b) Obama's character. Obama showed his shrewd political skill by jumping into the race this election season: he gauged the thirst for change in America, something that Hillary miscalculated. His calm, deliberate, and genuinely nice character serve as a protective shield against idiotic attacks by people like Palin who open a bottle of champagne every time they manage to utter two consecutive coherent sentences without stumbling.

And the American people are tired. They want real solutions, at least attempts at solutions, and not these kinds of idiotic attacks. This is why I am convinced that this time, these attacks will not work. And the Obama camp has promised a pre-emptive strike on these attacks (please excuse the word choice here).

The Momentum Shift: Obama Widens his Lead

I know polls can be deceiving and sometimes outright wrong, but what I just heard on the NPR certainly gives me hope for November. The new Pew poll has Obama up by 7 percentage points, 49 to 42 %, the first time the Pew poll (considered one of the most reliable) has Obama in a statistically significant lead. What is more significant than this national poll, given the fact that we don't have national but electoral elections, are the new polls by the Quinnipiac University Poll from Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These give Obama a widening lead in all of the battleground states: keep in mind, all of the polls were taken after the first Presidential debate and McCain's disastrous decision to "suspend" his campaign during the bailout crisis.

The Quinnipiac University Poll released October 1st, finds Obama with an 8 point lead in Ohio and yes, Florida of all places. Even more significantly, the poll shows Obama with a whopping 15 point lead in Pennsylvania.

The reason behind Obama's widening lead is not only the economic crisis, but the public's increasing disgust with Palin. The same poll found that 51% say that Palin is not qualified to be vice president. As for Obama's performance in the first debate, 72% of those polled find it to have been "excellent" compared to 59% of those who say the same for McCain.

Again, a word of caution: polls are tricky things. They are shifty and can be quite deceiving. But the fact that we are only five weeks away from the election day gives me great confidence that these polls truly do reflect a tremendous momentum shift in the favor of Obama.

Republicans' Self-Destruction

Yesterday's dramatic defeat of the bailout bill on the House floor shot shivers down my spine and made me really worried about the future of our (and world's) economy. But, a small moment of gratification came when I realized that by defeating the bill, the House Republicans were self-destructing.

First, they threw McCain under the bus. In the past 2 weeks, McCain proceeded to "put the country first" by dramatically suspending his campaign, running around the Capitol Hill, pretending to frantically call people from his D.C. campaign headquarters, and railed against Obama's supposed exploitation of the situation for political purposes. He returned to the campaign trail yesterday, triumphantly claiming nothing less than a Napoleonic victory in rallying the Republican support for the bill. Literally, an hour later, the traders on the stock-market and millions of Americans watched the bill go down in one of the most memorable moments on the floor of the American House of Representatives. The market proceeded to lose more than 7% of its value, marking the greatest one day plummet in the history of capitalism. Thanks McCain for your wonderful and effective leadership. I guess experience does count.

More than wrecking McCain's campaign, the House Republicans probably destroyed the Republican party for years to come. While they voted NO primarily with their re-election chances in mind (and taking into account the anger from their constituents regarding the bailout bill) it is certain that their vote plunged the economy even further into the abyss. The fact that many of them justified voting NO by clinging to the right-wing narrow-minded ideology of Reagan that sees any regulation as the ultimate evil--the very ideology that got us to where we are--ensured that it would be the Republicans who would be blamed for the failure of the bill and the continuing deterioration of our collective economy health.

Yes, it is true that many Democrats also voted NO, but let's remember that the Democratic leadership lived up to its end of the bargain and delivered more than 60% of its caucus. Thus, once the voters realize just how necessary this bailout had been they will swiftly turn around and blame their representatives for furthering wrecking their daily lives. Voters are fickle. While many of them don't support the bailout right now, the polls show that most of them are simply confused about the details of it. Had the Republicans had the political courage and principles to stand in front of the American people and explain why this was necessary after the Bush Republican Party wrecked our economy, they might have gotten some political benefit out of it. This way they will be blamed for putting their re-election bids ahead of the country's interests.

David Brooks rarely says anything I agree with, but I couldn't agree with him more this morning when he said in his NYT editorial: "House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party." No amount of spin can save them from a devastating defeat in November.

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin--Hillarious

McCain is Unfit for Presidency

Friday night's debate between John McCain and Barack Obama showed once again that John McCain is as unqualified to run this country as Sarah Palin. His demeanor on that stage is just not worthy of a leader of a country that has had to endure 8 years of Bushies.

Consistently, Obama showed his deference to this supposed veteran of foreign affairs, but McCain could not conceal his contempt for Obama: not once, did he look at him, and every time Obama spoke, McCain smirked, grinned, and uttered incomprehensible sighs, shifting from foot to foot (but this might have been his exhaustion after having to stand for more than 10 minutes). McCain exhibited all the characteristics that the American people hate to see in their potential leaders: grouchiness, sense of self entitlement to the Presidency, contempt for your opponent as if he/she doesn't have as much right to be on that stage as you, and just overall sense of dread and pessimism. McCain was Reagan stripped of any optimism or good-natured humor.

The debate once again showed that Obama would probably be one of the best presidents we have had in a while. His answers were crisp and precise, but yet extremely thoughtful. This man is deliberate always weighing all possible perspectives before coming down with his own opinion. His hope in the good nature of the American people is genuine and it really comes across through his demeanor, especially his smile. At the risk of sounding superficial, Obama's smile alone would do so much to improve our standing in the world. Compare that to McCain's smirk that never leaves his face.

On Friday night, we had a chance to see two faces of America. I think the polls increasingly show which face the Americans want to present to the world after 8 agonizing years of W.

Proud to be a Liberal--West-Wing style

Courtesy of my friend's blog, here is a little stimulant for all those discouraged liberals out there.

Hitting back hard

Another response to Republican lies from the Democrats....

Why We Are in Trouble!

Watching parts of Sarah Palin's first interview with Charles Gibson from last night, I realized that we--the Democrats, liberals, independent-minded Republicans, and all thoughtful citizens of this country--are really in trouble.

Her answers consisted of moral certitudes, unflinching self-righteousness, and knee-jerk aggressiveness all of which belied the deeply seated intellectual insecurity. But it is exactly these traits that tap into the never-ending reservoir of the average voter who probably changes the channel while Obama attempts to give thoughtful answers on complicated issues, such as the role of Iran and Russia in today's world. There was not a hint of any sort of deliberation to Sarah Palin's worldview: she knows that there is evil in the world and she would help McCain rid the world of it. Her confused look after Gibson asked her if she believed in Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine reveals that this woman has never even questioned this man's dangerous and reckless black-and-white vision of the world. But it is exactly this certainty that appeals to many voters, and it is exactly this certainty that is undermining Obama's message.

The recent shift in McCain's strategy has been marked by an all out assault on anything Obama does, has done, or will do, without any regards for the so-called "facts" or the "truth." The result has been a complete chaos in both campaigns' messages, which is exactly what the McCain campaign wants. They have successfully thrown Obama off his message and tapped into the voters' fear that everything that politicians say will be a lie. They are fine with that because they have no issues to run on.

As Paul Krugman noted in his op-ed this morning, the way the McCain campaign has been run shows what kind of president he would be. Bush's 2000 campaign also muddled the facts, but you had to have a handle on arithmetic to understand that their tax policy was a big deception. This time around, McCain's campaign does not even attempt to hide their lies underneath a semi-truthful cover--they just simply lie and repeat it over and over again. Given the fact that Bush's 2000 campaign strategy in selling the tax policy later morphed into his strategy of selling the Iraq war, can you imagine what kind of policies McCain would employ, given the tactics of his campaign?

It is simply too scary to think about. But to quote George Bernard Shaw, "Democracy is a device that insures that we shall be governed no better than we deserve." And I am more convinced every day that this country does not deserve Barack Obama.

Obama Hits Back

Time for an all out Offensive

In the last few days I realized once again how overly optimistic I can get about the American voter. I actually hoped that most voters vote on issues, that they follow the campaign, and that they care about the specific plans the candidates are offering in improving their lives. Well, the Palin effect and McCain's bounce shows once again, as many of my friends (even on this blog) have noted, that many voters respond in a very superficial way. Despite Obama's outline of his specific policies during his acceptance speech, and the actual FACTS that are emerging about our economy (the abysmal unemployment rate, declining productivity, increasing rates of poverty), the so-called "independents" seem to be swinging McCain's way and are finding his sudden message of "change" (I wonder where he got that from) appealing. This can be explained by two factors. These voters (including many white women) are either completely and utterly uninformed or they hide behind Palin in justifying voting against an African-American candidate. There is no third explanation.

The fact that the issues and the actually state of our REALITY stands on the side of the Democrats and yet, the Republicans are rapidly gaining ground because Sarah Palin "makes us think like anyone can be President" really confirms my belief from 2004 that this democracy is in serious trouble. The fact that the Republicans at the convention treated the American people with such contempt--cynically adopting the change mantra, uttering blatant lies about the American people, denigrating the working class--and yet, they seem to have gained a considerable advantage tells me that many of our fellow voters are either completely uninformed, disinterested in what actually happens to this country, or simply stupid. Many of my Democrat friends have accused me of elitism for this observation, but I just don't know how you can explain this otherwise.

So, what are the Democrats to do? Obama has run a stellar campaign and has been on the message 100% of the time. He needs to keep doing what he has been doing so well: articulating in simplest terms possible how he will improve the lives of the American people. But at the same time, they have to release the so-called 527s. These independent organizations should serve as attack dogs who lower themselves to the level of superficiality that the Republicans are operating on (with a considerable success). They should flood the channels with TV Ads showing: 1) Sarah Palin's pastor saying that Israel deserves attacks because of God's judgment for not accepting Jesus; 2) the clip of Sarah Palin herself telling us that we are in Iraq on God's mission, and that the believers in her church should pray for the pipeline in Alaska that enriched her and her family; 3) emails need to be circulated outlining her record in Alaska while a small town mayor showing her to be an utterly incompetent mayor who drove the city's budget into a deficit, wasted millions of dollars, increased taxes, and tried to ban library books (all of these are true by the way).

Simultaneously, the Congressional Democrats have to go on a legislative offensive against the Republicans in Congress, the Bush administration, and McCain himself. How do they do this? By bringing to the floor of both the House and the Senate bills that are going to appeal to the American people (on health-care, energy independence, equal pay for women, etc), and forcing the Republicans to vote NO.

This is why for the life of me, I cannot figure out why the Congressional Democratic leadership walked away yesterday from the bill that would expand health-care for children. The Pelosi-Reid coalition has been a great disappointment in this regard. Their justification for walking away from the bill was that the Republicans would never support it and the President would veto it. Exactly!!! They should have brought that bill on the floor of both the House and the Senate, and Obama should have come to the Senate floor and invite John McCain to stand in front of the American people and vote NO on a bill that would expand health-care coverage for millions of American children. Another bill would be equal pay for women, the bill that McCain voted AGAINST in the past. Forcing the MCcain-Palin ticket to vote NO on one of the most important issues for the women of this country would destroy any possibility of Palin appealing to a single woman let alone Hillary supporters.

Then the 527s and local Democratic party headquarters should run ads against all those who voted against those bills, equating them with George Bush, and on the national level, the Obama campaign should run an ad showing McCain voting NO. And this should be inserted into the loop of Cable news on a daily basis.

But it strikes me that the Democrats have never been very good at using the little power leverage they do have on the Hill. The Congress can be pretty ineffective in forcing policy, but it is an extremely effective public relations machine that can cower the Republicans into submission or an outright defeat. Come on, Democrats! Show some frigging backbone here! And let's not have a repeat of 2004!

The Two Americas

The press needs to do its job this election and hammer the Republicans on their blatant hypocrisy that was displayed so cynically during their agonizingly long convention. For a party that accuses the Democrats on a daily basis of being "out of touch" with the ordinary people and their economic and cultural realities, the Republicans certainly displayed such contempt for the working class of this country that I think they are not fit to serve in any public office until they collectively apologize.

First all, a speaker after speaker uttered blatant lies against Obama. Guliani said (while twisting his already twisted face into an unexplainable grimace) that Obama "looks down" on small towns because they are not cosmopolitan enough. For a man who was a mayor of New York City and who, following his divorce, lived with a gay couple in a posh-part of Manhattan, to play the populist-cultural warrior card is not only transparent but is insulting to the intelligence of the American voter. Is it is possible that there are people out there who actually believe anything that comes out of that man's mouth?

Mitt Romney really topped the evening when he said that indeed change was necessary, but that we needed to change a "liberal Washington" to a conservative Washington. Another insult to the intelligence of the American people who, Mitt assumes, would not realize that it was the Republicans who had been in office for the past 8 years. His speech was also the most blatantly plagiarized version of Obama's change mantra.

But the climax came with Sarah Palin. This "pit-bull with lipstick" (her words) spent the most of her time denigrating the lives of millions of hardship-struck Americans. In particular, she (like Guliani) denigrated Obama's grassroots organizing in the South side Chicago showing blatant disrespect to hundreds of thousands of organizers who wake up every day to go to their low-paying jobs and try to be forces of change in their poverty-stricken communities. Her cynical, blatantly deceitful, and insulting behavior on that stage, should disqualify Sarah Palin from running a local Wal-mart let alone our troubled country.

Watching the sea of whiteness and oldness in that Republican crowd, I was reminded once again that in this election, the two parties do represent two different Americas. Of course, there are more than two Americas, but the demographic and ideological fault-line of this complicated country falls along the party lines. The Republicans have finally taken off their cloak of populism (despite still professing it) and came out for what they are: a party of business and corporate interests who deeply believes that working peoples' struggles are of their own making and that they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. This is also the party that has maintained its hold on power since the Civil Rights movement often due to its cynical and chauvinistic manipulation of the race card and still continues to do so (hence the uninterrupted whiteness of the crowd). The Democrats, on the other hand, are indeed a much more inclusive party, a characteristic that makes it less disciplined and less attuned to cut-throat manipulation of reality in order to attain power. They are the party that unites the lunch-box workers, latte-drinking professionals, gay/lesbian/ally activists, civil rights veterans, among other demographics (excuse my boxing in of peoples' identities here, but I do think it helps us see the complex reality in a more comprehensive way).

I have nothing in common with the Republican America. This is an America that looks at the world through its own self-definition and expects it to conform to its own idea of what it should look like. This is an America that believes that blue-collar workers like my parents should be left on their own and should not necessarily be guaranteed decent retirement. This is an America that believes that my gay and lesbian friends should not be allowed to visit each other in hospitals when, God forbid, something happens; or that they should be allowed to adopt children from under-funded and often abusive foster homes. This is an intolerant America that in its religious self-righteousness, puritanism, and ideological fanaticism despises any hint of intellectual curiosity and expects absolute conformity to its views.

The Democratic America is a more playful America. It is an America that is more self-critical, more intellectually curious, and more open to advice from other countries. It is an America that due to its diversity cannot maintain any ideological or religious homogeneity over its followers. As a result, the Democratic America not only encourages, but often insists on questionings what are often seen as the founding tenants of American life: values, family, religion, war on terror, etc. It is an America that is impatient with certainties, knowing that these result in tyranny.

I feel like I came to this country in search of the Democratic America and in the past eight years I have felt like this America has been under a continuous assault by the Republican America.

This is why there is so much at stake for me in this election.

The Obama Narrative

An excellently crafted video biography of Barack.

Why They Support Sarah Palin

When asked why she supports Sarah Palin for VP, a Republican supporter said:

"Well I love Sarah because she makes us feel like anyone can be President!"

This pretty much sums up the collective IQ of the Sarah Palin voting base.

Sarah Palin: McCain's Moment of Panic

Well now many of my fellow Barack supporters who had been nervous about Biden as the VP pick may rest assured since John McCain might have destroyed his chances by picking Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Sarah Palin is a rabidly right wing, gun-toting, environment-hating Republican whose ideology is sure to alienate everyone except for the most narrow-minded Evangelicals in the mold of James Dobson and Pat Robertson. This is a woman who believes that global warming is not caused by human activity and who adheres religiously (pun intended) to the imperialist credo that "man should rule over nature." In fact, she has fought hard to prevent government protection of polar bears (who doesn't like polar bears?) and has just recently destroyed a legislative attempt at protecting salmon from contamination. She has also fought for a pipeline that would pollute Alaska and stuff the already overflowing coffers of oil companies (accidentally, her husband works for BP despite assurances that he would stop working for the oil company if she won the governorship due to a possible conflict of interest--of course he later backtracked saying the family needed money).

Sarah Palin eschews any scientific thought by publicly proclaiming her belief in "intelligent design" and fighting to get it into our classrooms where it should be taught "alongside" evolution. The fact that evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY and "intelligent design" a story from children's coloring books doesn't seem to fit into her decision-making process. Makes you see what kind of president she would make (God forbid).

Rarely, have VP candidates had a major impact on presidential elections in this country, but in this case, I really think Palin will hurt McCain. And here is why.

1) McCain will lose the West. In the most recent issue of the New Yorker, Ryan Lizza traces the reasons why the Democrats have experienced a revival of their fortunes in the West and in particular, in places like Colorado. He interviews their recently elected Democratic Governor Ritter who argues that his rise to power and the ousting of the Republicans from both Houses in the state had to do with an internal Republican party rebellion by the "government pragmatists" as well as "moral pragmatists." The first are economic Republicans who are less concerned with abortion, gay rights, and other polarizing issues and more with the way the government governs and impacts their daily life. The second are more religious Republicans who care about social issues, but still acknowledge the lack of consensus in the country and are increasingly focused on pragmatic daily things. The key to Democrats' success in the state has been their ability to cut into the two of these voting blocs. And the amazing demographic changes in the state (and the West) will certainly increase these voting blocs: the state is being transformed by the influx of more skilled, high tech as well as hospitality business employees, as well as more affluent skiers who are buying their second-homes in the suburbs. With Sarah Palin, McCain has probably lost his shot at Colorado, New Mexico, and maybe even Nevada.

2) McCain's Gender Blindness. Hillary's supporters will now run towards Obama, literally. McCain's poor and blatantly transparent attempt to appeal to women voters in this country by his VP choice shows a gender misunderstanding so appalling that you would think the man lives in the Victorian era. This man, and his Republican cohorts, seems to believe that any woman can appeal to other women in this country, regardless of her substance: her record on abortion rights alone is certain to alienate any woman who might have been tempted to vote for McCain but cares about issues of women's rights. The fact that Palin herself calls herself a "feminist for life," shows a complete lack of knowledge of what the feminist movement in this country has been all about, and also points to Palin's eschewing of any serious analytical thought. The offensiveness of this cynical appeal to women was best described by Gail Collins in NYT this morning: "The idea that women are going to race off to vote for any candidate with the same internal plumbing is both offensive and historically wrong."

3) McCain's Judgment. I think the choice shows the decision-making process (if we can call it that) of John McCain and offers us an important glimpse into the way President McCain would make decisions. This was a decision that was impulsive, reckless, blatantly cynical, and motivated by political pander rather than knowledge, calculation, and judgment. I have a feeling McCain was sitting home watching Barack's speech on Thursday night and after realizing the extent of Obama's appeal and his profound impact on people's emotions, he jumped out of his chair, fumbled through his notebook, and called Palin to offer her the job. Compare this decision to Barack's careful deliberations on his VP nominee.

4) Ideologization of Politics. Finally, McCain's choice shows that his administration would be continuation of George W. Bush in that ideology and not expertise and the thickness of one's resume would be the primary qualifications for spots in the administration. After we have endured 8 years of an administration that gave the top FEMA job to a former Arabian horse association president, filled the Justice Department with anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-environment nut jobs, can we really afford 4 more years of an administration that would prize ideology above governance? This, I think, is the most potent line of attack the Democrats can (and absolutely should) make. It is also a legitimate argument.

As Collins suggests in her column, in VP debates, Biden should use the memorable line (used by Democratic VP Lloyd Bentsen against Republican Dan Quayle in 1988) against Palin: “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.”

Obama Delivers Again

Wow! That was probably the best piece of American political rhetoric I have ever seen in my life! I won't spoil your memories of that brilliant acceptance speech by my amateurish and long-winded analysis, but I think the most important part of that speech is Obama's forceful response to Republicans' idiotic, but oft-repeated and effective, charge that Democrats are weak on defense. Here are some several memorable quotes:

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

"You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need."

And my personal favorite:

"We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy."

Bill Clinton in all his glory

Bill Clinton just completely redeemed himself. What a superb piece of American political rhetoric. I just can't stay mad at the guy. I think both Clintons have redeemed themselves in the past two nights.

Fox News

I wonder if it is possible to have your local cable company scramble your Fox News Channel. I would pay extra for this service. I feel awful having a part of my monthly cable payment go to Fox News, the bastion of racist, homophobic, chauvinistic, and just plain moronic feelings.

Also, if I were Howard Dean I would have refused to issue accreditation to Fox News, since they are not a legitimate news network. Considering the fact that over 90% of Fox News viewers are already Republicans, I think it only would have helped maintain clean air in that convention hall. At the moment Obama was officially nominated to be the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, they were talking about "a missing toddler."

OBAMA NOMINATED, HISTORY MADE!!!!

Call me a sap, but I was moved to tears as Hillary Clinton stood with her New York delegation and officially put a stop to a roll-call vote, and moved to nominate Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States. As she uttered these words, the convention hall went into what it seemed like a delirious uproar. Of course, this was carefully orchestrated, but Pelosi's gavel really opened a new chapter in this country's history. As they showed many African-American delegates breaking down on camera, trying through tears to express their joy and hope for a better America, I realized how great the Democrats can be.

I was reminded of Hubert Humphrey's attempt to get the civil rights agenda adopted as the official Democratic platform in the immediate post WWII years; Lyndon Johnson's work for the passage of the Civil Rights Act; and the significance of Bill Clinton's presidency in advancing Civil Rights.

This is one of those days when I truly feel proud to be a Democrat.

Hillary's Brilliance

Well, I give credit where credit is due, and tonight, Hillary was great. She tapped into her supporters' immense support, and then gradually channeled it into her unconditional support for Obama. I think her speech echoed the video showed by Chelsea as she introduced her mother. The video opened with shots from Hillary's childhood, went on to talk about her campaign, and then blended into images of Obama (first Obama and Hillary and then Obama by himself). Similarly, in the speech, she opened with her own campaign, and tied it into Barack's story, warning her supporters (it seemed to me very genuinely) that this "is not a time to stand on the side-lines."

I think that there will always be some of her supporters who won't support Barack, but I think tonight is certainly a turning point. It is interesting that the Fox News website is not even headlining her speech (like all other major networks, including the BBC). That in itself is evidence to how successful the Democrats have been tonight in uniting.

Bill still worries me. He was on the floor tonight, looking on admiringly to Hillary. More about that tomorrow after his big speech.

The Childishness of American politics

Watching some of the most militant supporters of Hillary throw public tantrums because "their girl" wasn't picked, I am really reminded of how childish the politics are in this country.

The fact that Obama's policies are almost identical to Hillary's and that he would push the agenda at least as (if not more) progressive than Hillary, does not faze them. Hillary lost the primary and this reflects poorly on them. This election is about their personal feelings which have been hurt beyond repair. They have to be "acknowledged," "their feelings" respected...I have one message for them: GROW THE F$%#@$# UP!!!! Seriously!

In this election so much is at stake: the possibility of another war; getting out of Iraq; US' respect in the world; the composition of the Supreme Court for years to come; the state of workers' rights (currently non-existent), and the list goes on. But these people (like most of us) have been told from early on, that they are at the center of the universe, and that the world revolves around them. Well, it doesn't.

And if Obama doesn't win, we don't deserve to have better leaders. To quote Bill Maher: "The American people get the leaders they deserve. And they don't deserve very good leaders."

In Anticipation of Obama's Thursday Speech

Considering that Obama's acceptance speech will be delivered on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, I thought this would be appropriate. This is probably the best speech I have ever seen.

To All the Democrats Out there: Relax!

I think that everyone needs to take a moment, breathe deeply, and chill out. Obama's chances are not ruined, he is not headed towards defeat, and Hillary's supporters will not defect en masse towards McCain. (As a caveat, let me say that I have been guilty of the same pessimism as recently as my post "Worrying about November" below).

First of all, this is exactly the moment when voters (unbelievably enough) start tuning in, and this is why the polls are tight. The polls from way back in June can be tossed out the window because it was mostly hardcore Democratic/Republican activists who were paying attention. Secondly, close elections are a norm rather than an aberration in American politics. This is an extremely diverse country and winning the Presidency is difficult because one has to appeal to different social groups which often have incompatible self-interests. So, Obama is on the right track: he has done a good job of introducing himself to the American people, the Convention will be a wonderful success, and he will top it with an amazing acceptance speech in front of 75,000 people. Biden was the right choice given the political climate, Obama's perceived weaknesses, and the narrative the Obama campaign wants to tell to the American worker.

I don't know what it is (maybe our more thoughtful, academic nature) that makes us liberal Democrats so hesitant about our chances, so prone to pessimism that often degenerates into downright fatalism. The problem is that this mood--once it becomes widespread--turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. It echoes the cable television news cycle where a day begins with a "pundit" reporting that Hillary's supporters are angry at Obama and throughout the day, the idea is almost literally pounded into people's heads so that by the end of the day, Hillary's supporters really start having problems with voting for Obama.

So, get a beer (or wine), sit back on your couch, and enjoy what it promises to be a wonderful historic Convention. And think to yourself: Obama WILL Win!

Obama's Choice: Joe Biden

As I waited for my text message to go off, around midnight last night CNN broke the news that Joe Biden would be Obama's Vice Presidential candidate. Even though I expected Biden to top the list, I was a bit surprised that Obama would go with what it seems to be a risky candidate. Why risky?

1) Biden sometimes has no self-control when it comes to public speaking. He says things that (while some of them are pretty funny), can get you in hot water. Remember him saying that Barack was the first "clean-cut" and handsome "mainstream" African-American? This happened on the first day he announced his own candidacy for President and had to spend the next week backtracking from the remarks. Obama accepted the apology. Biden's record shows him to be a strong advocate of civil rights and the comment was just a poorly constructed attempt at a joke.

2) Biden's past has one dark spot that Republicans might exploit: the accusations of plagiarism. Having lived in the world of academia for the past 7 years (and condemned to spend the rest of my life there!), the mere mention of this terrible word sends shivers down my spine (I exaggerate of course). But back in the day, Biden was accused lifting a whole speech from a British politician without acknowledging him. Now, I am sure lot of politicians do this on a daily basis, but he got caught. On the other hand, the academia notwithstanding, I think the plagiarism charge does not really resonate with the population at large. And Barack knows this very well.

3) Biden's judgment on Iraq/the use of Bosnia as an analogy. This is actually my greatest concern about Biden. First, he voted for the war in Iraq. He later retracted his vote and apologized, something I admire in a politicians. (and something that Hillary never did for her vote). However, he then proceeded to call for a massive troop withdrawal from Iraq and suggested that Iraq be split into ethnic entities just like Dayton Bosnia. Biden consistently referred to Dayton Bosnia as a success story and a model for Iraq. WRONG!!! Post-Dayton Bosnia is a crippled, paralyzed, pseudo-state where the Dayton Constitution enshrined the Apartheid-like ethnic division of the country and stripped all individuals to their bare ethnic identities.

Biden's judgment on this echoes the larger strategy in the American politics: deal with only topical countries and once they are out of the headlines, stop following the progress and move on. But still use the country in which we messed up as a success story!

Now all these caveats notwithstanding, I think Obama knows what he is doing. Despite these gaffes (and most in D.C. and the country don't see these as gaffes to begin with), Biden has amassed a serious resume when it comes to dealing with foreign leaders. The American people are too distracted and plagued by the attention-deficit-disorder to follow any of these very closely, but the narrative of Biden's foreign policy experience is sure to vow many voters and assuage some fears that Obama is inexperienced.

Secondly, Biden's matter-of-factness and his Scranton, Pen, roots bide well for Obama's chances among some of the blue collar folks in the mining region of this battleground state.
And finally, and most importantly, Biden is excellent when he is in the attack mode. He does not pull any punches, delivers them with fiery speed and brilliant articulateness. This is exactly what Obama needs. He needs to stay above the fray and be the "nice guy" candidate (the polls show that most Americans do see Obama as a relatively nice person), while Biden rips into McCain.

So to all of my friends and Barack supporters, don't be alarmed: Biden is a great pick! Probably won't help Obama take the White House on his own, but will certainly help.

Comcast's Idiocy

It was only a post ago that I ranted about the way airlines in this country treat their customers. Well, I had just been through another horror encounter with a greedy, corporate monopoly that has become a victim of its own corporate success. I am talking about Comcast, the omnipotent cable/internet/phone provider in my great state of Illinois. In the last few years, Comcast has gotten a reputation on Wall Street as a tough competitor which had bought up many smaller companies all with the purpose of delivering great service to its customers. Yeah, right!

If you want a high-speed internet connection and cable TV in my area, you HAVE TO deal with Comcast. You have no choice. I first installed my internet/Cable service in June, but I recently moved, and that's where all hell broke loose. I called Comcast to ask for a service transfer the first day of August and they scheduled the transfer for August 16, which was more than two weeks away. Considering the fact that they are THE ONLY provider that offers internet/cable packages and that August is the move-in month in Champaign, I understood that they were busy.

In the meantime, a representative from Comcast called me on August 7 to let me know that my service had been moved up to that Saturday, August 9. I was out of town but they assured me that I didn't have to be home for the service to be started. My girlfriend was at home and had hooked everything up waiting for the service to start. Nothing: no Internet, no Cable. I called the company a few days later only to be told that they had never called me to move up my date! So, I either had imagined the whole conversation from the few days before, or they had missed their own appointment and were now lying to me. They assured me that the service would come on August 16.

This morning, as soon as I got up, I called them, asking for my service. A cheerful representative said that the service had been switched on. After connecting my box and my modem, I realized that there was not a trace of either Internet or Cable in my apartment. I called them again, only to be assured that I must have done something wrong, since their records showed the service had been switched on and the technicians "had already been in the area." After the tech department walked me through the installation, we both realized that indeed, there was no service. So they said a technician would be coming by. I waited for most of the morning and the afternoon, and they never showed up, or even bothered to call me.

So, once again, I reached for the phone and after getting through a maze that is their customer line, I got a hold of a human being. They said that my service had not been switched on since I had canceled it! What!!!! This is when I completely lost my cool to the amazement of my friends in whose presence I was making the phone call. I had been delayed, put on hold, lied to. In short, I had been treated like any other American consumer. (In fact, there is an entire Internet movement to bring the Comcast down. They congregate on a blog with a telling name: http://comcastmustdie.blogspot.com/).

After apologizing to the service representative for my tone (and assuring her that I knew it was not her fault), I proceeded to ask what I should do to get my internet and cable working. She said I should walk to the college bookstore and meet with their representative tomorrow morning and my service would be switched on 24 hours following the meeting. Unbelievable!

So, I am still Internetless and Cable-less. This really has very little to do with my spoiled ways of needing my Internet and Cable fix, but more to do with the way the whole system treats consumers in this country. It is amazing to me that in a country that boasts on a daily basis of being a consumer paradise, and a country whose economy is run by the ever-rational "market forces," which always favor the consumer, this kind of thing not only happens, but increasingly seems to be the norm.

Comcast is another example of a de-regulated monopoly completely out of control. It is another evidence that we need heavy government regulation of businesses, a strong anti-monopoly watch, and a strong federal-level consumer protection agency that Nader has been advocating.

This experience has made me look nostalgically on my experience of getting Internet in East Mostar. But I will leave that for another post.

Russia's Bullying

Russia's actions in the last week have shown once again that despite changing its ideological cloak in the 1990ies, Russia still remains a regional bully. Incapable of projecting its power outside of its traditional "sphere of influence," Putin's Russia is a country frantically trying to prove to the rest of the world that it still matters. If in the process of proving this, it murders thousands of civilians, destroys the infrastructure of an entire country, and demolishes its territorial sovereignty, so much the better (in the eyes of the over the top, macho, judo expert Putin).

Things seem to be getting worse with Poland reaching the deal with the US on the missile defense shield. I have always been opposed to this stupid program which seems to only further alienate Russia and the rest of the world from the US, but Russia's actions in Georgia and its response to the Polish-US agreement have made me rethink my initial opposition. If Russia was so bold as to invade Georgia (going well beyond the separatist province of South Ossetia), who is to guarantee Poland that it would not be next.

I think this is a remote possibility as Poland is a member of NATO and the EU, but given the deeply rooted anti-Russian animosity within Poland (and most Eastern Europe), Polish leaders were under an immense political pressure to conclude this agreement.

The events in Georgia can also be seen as a delayed reaction of Russia to the independence of Kosovo as they seem to be using South Ossetia to prove their point that Kosovo set the precedent in international relations. At the same time, the US is completely powerless (militarily, but more importantly, politically) to do anything about the situation but complain. Thus, I see the dire situation as another evidence of the diminished US' credibility after 8 years of the Bush administration. Thanks, W.

Worrying about November

I have been catching up on my political news, since I don't yet have cable or internet at home due to my recent move, and have become really worried about Obama's prospects in November. Most polls show him leading McCain by the average between 3-5 points which, historically speaking (most pundits agree), means absolutely nothing. In most elections that have ended in a landslide in the past, the polls at this time of the campaign would show Obama leading McCain by at least 10 point margin. On the contrary, the polls seem to be tightening in the most important states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and of course, Florida (I think the latter is already lost!).

What is even more worrying than these polls is the fact that race attitudes cannot be explicitly captured by these polls as most people refuse to admit they are racist. However, pollsters report that many low-income and surprisingly college-educated (Bachelors Degree level) whites mistrust Obama for one reason or another. I am not hesitant in saying that most of these white voters are blinded by their prejudiced attitudes towards race that makes them see Obama as the Other who cannot be trusted. This is blatantly evident in their pronouncements of Obama as a Muslim (despite repeatedly being confronted with the evidence to the contrary), as a flaming liberal, etc. They refuse to accept such evidence because then they would have to confront the real reason why they are not supporting him: because they are racist. I am tired of many left-leaning pundits walking on eggshells in analyzing these people's attitudes. They need to be called what they are, and if that shames them, then maybe they do have to be shamed, publicly.

In a year when a whopping majority of voters want change, hate the Republicans, mistrust McCain and agree on almost every issue that Obama espouses, a failure of Obama to pull a landslide (or even a victory) would be a devastating blow to this country. It would cement racial attitudes and show that many whites have not boarded the post-Civil Rights bandwagon, and embitter the world against the US.

But that is something we are already used to, after 8 years of Bush.

I still think Obama will pull a narrow win, but I thought it would be healthy if we stepped back and realistically looked at the reason why he seems to be failing to landslide McCain into oblivion.

Another travel rant

I just arrived in D.C. after being delayed for almost 5 hours at O'Hare--again!!! Initially, it was the weather and United did not even bother to put more than one customer service representative to rebook all the pissed off passengers. As a result, the standby list soon became an unmanagable mess as the over-worked, over-stressed out customer service representatives called names in a rapid succession, before people could even show up, skipping names. As the flights kept being delayed, something else caught my eye: the reasons for the delay kept changing. It was weather, and once the weather cleared, it soon became "servicing an airplane," or "mechanical error," etc.

Which made me think that there might be something else going on here. I am not saying the airlines are deliberately delaying flights, but it seems pretty certain to me that these delays are of great financial benefit for their profit margins. Think about it: the delayed flights allow passengers to accumulate to one flight instead of being scattered across flights and having half-empty planes fly around, wasting fuel, the cost of which had thrown some airlines to the edge of bankruptcy. In the past few years (especially the last month) airline executives have complained that their margin of profit is suffering from the inability to pack planes to the capacity. "Weather problems" seem like a godsend to me.

What is infuriating about the whole mess is the way the average American consumer reacts. Instead of demanding his/her rights be respected, the average American traveler shrugs his/her shoulders and accepts it as inevitable. In a conversation with one such passenger I suggested that in case of delays, airlines should be mandated to give us food coupons so that we don't spend money on overpriced airport food. He said that would be unreasonable since airlines are really hurting today. So this passenger did not think of her own interests before putting the interests of a major, multi-billion dollar corporation ahead of their own. This is another sign that the average Joe has internalized the "spirit of capitalism" to such an extent that he not only fails to protest getting screwed, he asks for more!

While seeing my name jump from one standby list to another today, I thought of the much stricter consumer-protection laws in the European Union. There airlines are required to accommodate the consumer in case of delays, including weather problems. And yet, most of these airlines stay competitive and offer amazing deals (you can always find dirt cheap flights between European cities where you only pay the taxes and fees) to their consumers. Of course many go out of business, but that's the nature of the trade.

And meanwhile, our government takes our taxes to subsidize the losses of our airlines and sits idly by, even supporting, their daily indulgence in screwing the passenger every which way! Unbelievable!

Incompetence the Hague Style

Today's initial appearance of the aged and exhausted Radovan Karadzic (his time on the run has not been kind to him) felt like a small consolation for the years of suffering he and his henchmen caused Bosnia. Today's short hearing disturbingly shows that the Hague prosecutors have not learned their lesson from the Milosevic trial: make it as short as possible. Milosevic's masterful prolonging of the process made the trial into a mockery and robbed the victims and historical justice of the final verdict. Milosevic may have died alone in a small, metal cell of the Hague tribunal, but he left this world engulfed in the mystery which he had worked tirelessly to build: was he indeed a victim of an international conspiracy? While the question seems ludicrous to most rational people, the question mark that marked the end of his life threw the whole Hague process into doubt.

Karadzic seems to intent to do exactly the same. First, he insisted on defending himself despite the fact he has "an invisible adviser" as he put it. This means he has a whole team of experienced Serbian lawyers who will be directing his defense behind the scenes. Secondly, the behavior of his lawyer and Karadzic himself made it clear that he intends to prolong the trial, a strategy that just might work given the fact that the UN mandate for the tribunal expires at the end of the year. For the Tribunal to continue its work past this deadline, another approval by the UN Security Council is needed and Russia has vowed to veto any attempt to prolong the jurisdiction of the tribunal, if only to spite the West. Karadzic knows this very well as it was shown on the night of his arrest when he said to one of the police officers guarding him: "If only I could have waited this out until the end of the year. The Tribunal would be shut, and I would turn myself in to the Serbian authorities."

This would not be so worrying if the Hague prosecutors were up to the task, and from what they have shown in the Milosevic trial and in the beginning of the Karadzic trial, they seem intent to screw this up! Even though they had 13 years to prepare a polished, proof-read indictment against Karadzic, the prosecution said today that it would "amend" the indictment, giving Karadzic 30 extra days to enter a plea! Just to enter a plea! And this was not even something Karadzic had orchestrated. It was the prosecution handing him extra time on a golden plate. Hopefully, the amending of the indictment means that they will try him for each charge separately (this way his siege of Sarajevo would be dealt with separately from the Srebrenica genocide), making it possible to bring out several verdicts, for each charge in the indictment. But even if this is so, why the hell did they wait until today to announce this!

In the meantime, as he laughs in the face of international justice and any sense of human decency, Karadzic will be enjoying the amenities of the Hague Hilton: daily access to a range of newspapers in Serbo-Croatian; a separate kitchen for him and his inmate buddies in case they want to prepare their own traditional Serbian meals and not eat Hague food; a personal doctor; and even a conjugal bedroom where his wife (or his Belgrade mistress) can come and see him any time they want; they can also call him from 9-5 each day.

I am strongly supportive of international bodies of justice, such as the Hague tribunal, but the thought of this trial turning into another legal mess with no end in sight makes me think that it might have been better if the Serbian security forces had dropped Karadzic in downtown Sarajevo rather than a Belgrade jail. Of course, after cutting his hair and shaving his beard. Legal niceties aside, but a part of me thinks that this might have been a more just ending.

5 Senate Races to Watch Out For

There are several Senate races in November that will determine how healthy the Democratic majority in Congress will be starting next year. Most of these races are currently leaning Democrat and considering that they are in traditionally Republican states show the trouble the Republicans are in come November. Let's take them one by one:

1) Alaska. This should be a no-brainer for the Democrats as their Senator, Ted Stevens, was indicted yesterday on felony corruption charges. He has also vowed not to bow out of the race basically handing the Democrats his seat. Considering the fact he is running against the popular mayor of Anchorage Mark Begich, this race seems to be the surest bet for the Democrats in November. Today's poll: Begich 50%; Stevens 45%, but expect Stevens' number to go way down as the news of indictment against him sinks into the minds of Alaskans.

2) New Hampshire. The incumbent Republican (previously very popular) John Sununu is trailing his Democratic challenger Gene Shaheen 11 points (52-41%). Sununu represents the old New Hampshire, but the state has becoming a suburb of Boston in a way and has started leaning Democrat. This coupled with a horrible reputation the Republicans have right now bides well for the Democratic chances to pick up this seat.

3) Virginia (my personal favorite). The polls shows that the battle between the governors, Mark Warner (D) and Jim Gilmore (R) will be a devastating Republican defeat come November: Warner 59%, Gilmore 33%. Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg said of the race: "This is over even before it began. This is an absolute disaster for the Republicans." The state will also be interesting to watch in the presidential election especially if Obama picks Tim Kaine, current governor to be his VP or Jim Webb, the state's current Senator.

4) New Mexico. This is a battle between two Congressmen, Tom Udall (D) and Steve Pearce. Currently, Udall is leading Pearce by 28 points in the polls. The Republicans had a more moderate candidate running in the primaries, but her loss to Pearce has almost guaranteed a victory for the Democrats.

5) Colorado. Congressman Mark Udall is a Democrat and is running ahead of Republican Mark Schaffer 7 points (48-41%). Colorado has moved towards the Democrats in the past few years, electing a Democratic governor, a Senator, and giving a Congressional district to the Democrats. In a year such as this, when the Republican brand name is about as popular as Kevin Federline, this race seems like another promising chance for the Democrats.

Currently, the Democrats have 51 seats and to be filibuster-proof after the next election they need to have 60, so the magical number is 9. This is going to be hard to reach, but not impossible. There are several other states where the Democrats can pick up a seat: in Texas, the race seems shockingly close as the incumbent John Cornyn is only 4 points ahead of his Democratic challenger. Susan Collins (Maine), Gordon Smith (Oregon), Elizabeth Dole (N. Carolina), and Norm Coleman (Minnesota. Here Al Franken has ran a terrible campaign, however) are only favored by small margins over their opponents.

But even without a filibuster proof Senate, the Democrats will be given the reins of power come November (including the White House, hopefully). It was about time!

Karadzic in the Hague

As the news broke this morning that Karadzic was transferred from Belgrade to the Hague, it seems as if a new chapter has been opened in the relations between Bosnia and Serbia. His extradition to the Hague coincided with a major decision by the Bosnian War Crimes Tribunal in Sarajevo that is now taking over some cases of the Hague Tribunal: the Sarajevo court sentenced seven Bosnian Serbs to sentences ranging from 38 to 42 years for their direct involvement in the Srebrenica killings. What is most encouraging is the muted reaction to these developments by the so-called supporters of Karadzic. Yes, there was some violence last night on the streets of Belgrade, but the scenes of scattered hooligans battling determined Serbian police looked more like an aftermath of a soccer match than an outbreak of nationalist-inspired violence. The forceful response of the Serbian police--as well as their impeccable protection of the US Embassy--bides well for the new Serbian government. What is most surprising is that this is all happening while the Serbian Interior Ministry is controlled by a Socialist Party (Milosevic's party) man. It seems that they are more determined than ever to move on beyond the horrific Milosevic legacy.

I have also observed the reaction in Bosnia with a sense of relief. A few days ago, a couple of thousand supporters of Karadzic gathered in the Sarajevo Serb suburb of Pale and staged a very peaceful protest. They protested for a few hours, and then went on home.

This is an important moment since it shows the pragmatism and de-ideologization of ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet in a terrible economy. Dissatisfaction with politicians crosses ethnic boundaries as a whopping majority of Bosnians see themselves as being regularly screwed by their government(s). It is particularly telling that the Bosnian parliament just a few days ago, voted to increase the salaries of its representatives while the unemployment reaches 40%, average pension drops to $100, and an army of young people continuously lines up in front of foreign embassies looking for a way out.

Thus, it is not so much that people are finally dealing with the past, but that the past is being run over by the oppressive present. And this may not be such a bad thing!

Obama's Berlin Speech: "This is our Moment. This is Our Time."

Nationalism as Therapy

As more details emerge about Radovan Karadzic's double life during his time on the run, it becomes fascinatingly clear that for this man nationalism offered a way to fashion himself as a mythical Messiah of his own people. As I wrote in a previous post, prior to the war, Karadzic tried (unsuccessfully) to penetrate the ranks of the Bosnian-Yugoslav intelligentsia: he attended poetry workshops at Columbia, wrote and published poems, and fashioned himself as a Bohemian. Along with his business partner Momcilo Krajisnik (who later became his deputy President of the Bosnian Serb Republic and is also currently in the Hague) he became embroiled in several business scandals. Apparently, he and Krajisnik used business loans to build themselves lavish homes in the Sarajevo suburb of Pale, which later became the headquarters of his murderous army. Reflecting on his prewar life is essential to understanding why this man not only embraced nationalist myths, but lived them: nationalism served as therapy for his inferiority complex. It allowed him to become a Messiah and in the process destroy the place which had reminded him of his own mediocrity: Sarajevo.

During the war, he would frequently recite his prewar poems to foreign visitors, boasting how he had predicted that Bosnia would descend into hell. The former US ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmerman remembers that Karadzic's vocabulary was peppered with images of violence and horror. Karadzic never tried to hide this. In fact, he seemed to reach almost orgasmic levels of pleasure in boasting about the horror his troops were visiting upon the city of Sarajevo. In this Youtube clip, Karadzics hosts the Russian ultra-nationalist poet Limonov on the hills above Sarajevo, recites his "Sarajevo" poem from the 1980s in which he had "predicted" the massacre, and even invites the poet to shoot the sniper at the civilians in the city.

During this time, he fashioned himself as a direct descendant of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, the 19th century collector of Serbian folklore and the founder of modern Serbo-Croatian grammar. Although Vuk shares the last name with Radovan, there is no evidence that they are related. But in Karadzic's mind, the same Serbian blood flew through their veins, authorizing the 20th century Karadzic to act on behalf of the Serbian nation. As his troops shelled Sarajevo, Karadzic would often play gusle, the Serbian single-string instrument that had been played by Serbian folklorists while they recited myths from Serbian history.

In today's article about Karadzic's double life in Belgrade, one of Belgrade's daily newspapers recounts the stories of Karadzic coming to a small cafe in Belgrade during his hiding, taking up gusle, sitting below the picture of himself (which the nationalist owner had put up there not knowing that the real Karadzic was his frequent visitor), and playing for hours on an end, drinking the Serbian plum brandy.

Karadzic's disturbing story is illustrative of the way in which nationalism helps an individual find purpose in life. For Karadzic, it was a form of therapy (I use this term intentionally given the fact that Karadzic himself was a psychiatrist) that helped him transform himself from an anonymous mediocrity to a mythical figure (in the eyes of his supporters, of which there are many in Bosnia and Serbia). Yesterday's announcement that he would defend himself at the Hague trial is a sure sign that he will use the trial to perpetuate this image of himself.

But the fact that he will remain in prison for the rest of his pathetic life is sure to throw this man into the abyss of anonymity. This will be the most just punishment for a man who fashions himself a Messiah of his people.

Obama in Israel

As our candidate touches down in Israel and the Palestinian territories, it is useful to remember that the only way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will ever end peacefully is for the US to have a President who will sacrifice the possibility of his second term--even his political career--to pressure Israel into ending the occupation of the Palestinian territories, stopping the settlements on the West Bank, and acknowledging (if only symbolically and financially) the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their pre-1967 borders. Of course, the actual implementation of the latter is an impossibility, but it is essential for the US, Israel and the larger international community to recognize the historical injustice. This in turn would undercut the central message of Hamas--which thrives on the Palestinian sense of victimhood--and help consolidate the Palestinian peace movement.

However, the crazy process we put our candidates through before they reach the White House as well as the amount of historical guilt this country has (justifiably) for the Holocaust, does not bide well for the peace process. Obama's own statements in front of the Israeli lobby in which he supported an "undivided" and Jewish Jerusalem (and later smartly backtracked on) signal the continuation of US' policy of unconditionally supporting Israel no matter what it does, no matter how bluntly it violates international law, no matter how much it continues to oppress the Palestinians, and finally, no matter the extent to which it works against US interests in the Middle East.

Carter was willing to sacrifice his political capital in reaching a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. But Carter's timing was impeccable. He had two courageous leaders on both sides of the negotiating table: Menachim Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat with the latter eventually sacrificing his life for peace with Israel.

Thus, timing is not on Obama's side. Both, the Israelis and the Palestinians seem divided, their peace movements never weaker, and their leaders extremely ineffective. It would take an immense amount of boldness, intellectual honesty, and political courage for an Obama administration to throw itself into a genuine peace-process.

The boldness and political confidence we have seen from Obama on this trip gives me some hope, however.

More on Karadzic's Arrest

The Serbian team for the cooperation with the Hague Tribunal held a news conference today in which they showed the picture of what Karadzic looks like today. He was arrested in Novi Beograd, a suburb of the Serbian capital where he had been practicing alternative medicine under an assumed name, Dragan Dabic. He even went to conferences and public events to talk about his supposed expertise in bioenergy, and published articles in a local alternative health journal. It is certain that ordinary people had no way to identify him as Karadzic, but it is equally certain that the previous government under the nationalist Vojislav Kostunica, protected him.

It is ironic that the new government of Serbia, which arrested him, is a coalition of the ardently pro-Europe Boris Tadic and the Socialist Party of late Slobodan Milosevic. Let's remember that Karadzic is basically a Milosevic creation: without Milosevic he would have been a nobody in Bosnia. It was Milosevic who provided the Bosnian Serbs with the intelligence services and the military infrastructure in building them into a para-state, funding their war effort, and giving them political legitimacy. In 1993 in the wake of the Vance-Owen plan, which Milosevic supported and tried to impose on the Bosnian Serbs in passing himself off as a peacemaker, Karadzic rejected the plan and earned the ire of Milosevic who later cut off all aid to the Bosnian Serbs. Milosevic's animosity to Karadzic and the rest of the Bosnian Serb leadership reflected the larger animosity to the Bosnian Serb leader on the part of the Serbian political elite who had always considered him uncouth, rude, and pretty crazy as well as unreliable. Karadzic was exactly that: unreliable and increasingly out of control.

It was Karadzic who stood in front of the Bosnian parliament in Sarajevo on the eve of the war, warning the Bosnian Muslim president Izetbegovic that if Bosnia was to choose the road of independence: "don't think you will not take Bosnia-Herzegovina into hell and the Muslim people into extinction!" I think these words will be repeated over and over again in Karadzic's Hague trial.

Karadzic was an extremely unhappy and frustrated man. He comes from a small village in Montenegro and moved to Sarajevo as a psychiatrist. Apparently, he did not fit well in his new city. He worked at the famous Kosevo hospital and failed to be promoted. Later, his former superiors would tell the media that he was a mediocre psychiatrist. If he was a mediocre psychiatrist, he was a terrible poet who liked to pass himself off as a Bohemian and a world-renown intellectual. He even went to Columbia where he studied psychiatry but also took classes in American poetry. This did not help him penetrate the ranks of the Bosnian-Yugoslav intelligentsia.

Misha Glenny, among other scholars, has argued that it was Karadzic's alienation from his urban space that caused him to hate Sarajevo. And Karadzic himself was open in his contempt for the city constantly referring to the Ottoman period when "Turks" lived in cities and Serbian peasants lived in villages. Hence, Karadzic held Sarajevo in a siege which lasted more than three years and which crippled the city. Civilians were murdered by his snipers on a daily basis and his military general Mladic ordered his troops over an open military transmitter to pound Sarajevo and drive people insane. During the genocide in Srebrenica, Mladic infamously said that "this was the time when we exact revenge on the Turks." And Karadzic fumed about the injustices the Turks had committed upon the Serbs several centuries earlier.

Well, the hand of international justice, no matter how frail and slow, did finally clinch this horrible man. His trial will be fascinating and will reveal new details about the war. Although I think it won't be as nearly as long as Milosevic's (I hope), since the international community wants a verdict before he dies or kills himself.

Here is what Sarajevo's main street looked like just minutes after the news of Karadzic's arrest broke.....

RADOVAN KARADZIC ARRESTED!

The wartime leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, a man responsible for so much blood and suffering, including the siege of Sarajevo and the genocide in Srebrenica, has finally been arrested in Serbia. Hooray! A great day for international justice, and the beginning of the end of animosities between Serbia and Bosnia!

Following the news of the arrest, spontaneous celebrations broke out in the streets of Sarajevo with people flooding the streets with cars, honking. This is a great catharsis for the people of Sarajevo, the city which Karadzic kept in a debilitating and murderous siege for three years.

Media's Navel Gazing: Stop it!

Will the media please stop navel gazing and shut up with its half-hearted self-criticism of their decision to cover Obama's world tour extensively. The mainstream media that the Right constantly describes as the Left, need to stop being so damn apologetic to the Right wingers in this country. To all of the envious, disillusioned Republicans who are dreading their debilitating loss in November and want to divert attention from Obama's popularity in the world, and Europe, the media have to tell the truth about their decision to send three most famous news anchors with him:

1) The world and the US are tired of watching the bumbling idiot George make a fool of himself and the whole country in front of the world: by massaging Angela Merkel's back, punching the air and snickering while proudly declaring the US to be the biggest polluter in the world, or asking the Brazilian president: "Oh you have blacks too?"!

Seeing Obama surrounded by throngs of Europeans (some estimates put the number of Berliners at Obama's speech Thursday at the staggering 1 million!) who are craving for better relations with the US will be like a breath of fresh air for Americans whose self-esteem has been flushed down the toilet by Bush's policies. It will also be rewarding to see an articulate leader, who is also an intellectual, represent our country when we can finally be proud, if only for the duration of his speech, of being American.

And in answering the constant complaints from the McCain camp that the media never followed him on his trips: watching McCain speak has as much of entertainment value as watching a drop of water drip from the facet, it either puts you to sleep or you want to urinate out of boredom!

The Debt Trap

The New York Times has started running a disturbingly insightful series on the mounting debt that has ruined millions of Americans, making their life hell and ensuring that our economy will continue its downward slide for years to come.

For years, this country's giant lenders spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising that targeted people in need, especially those with health care costs, in offering them teaser loans, promising to get them out of debt. But as people borrowed more, these same lenders jacked up their interest fees, digging these people even deeper into the quicksand of debt. According to the series, these lending practices have gotten completely out of control as average household incomes' have stagnated along with the value of their homes. In the past, many of these lenders did not depend on their loans being repaid since they sold off these loans and made money on their investment. As a result, they could bear the brunt of some borrowers defaulting. But the last few years have seen the real estate prices coming off their abnormal high (due to speculators), and at the same time, wages have become frozen, prices have skyrocketed, and many people have lost their jobs.

Rather than meeting their borrowers half way and agreeing to more favorable terms, which would help Americans get out of debt, these lenders have made astronomical profits on late fees, interest fees, and junk fees that go along with refinincing of mortgages.

But now, the ripple effect is ravaging the lenders as well. Finally, I say! It was about time! While there is no doubt that many Americans have gotten themselves into this mess by living outside of their means, it is absolutely undeniable that lenders have played a big role in getting them in this mess to begin with. Many Americans grow up with the notion that owning one's home is essential to one's self-esteem, which leads many to borrow hundreds of thousands in mortgage without first ensuring their job security. With their sub-prime mortgages, lenders have exploited the American dream narrative, racking up millions in CEO bonus pays.

To give you some perspective, here are a few statistics. Today, the total consumer debt in this country totals the staggering $ 2.56 trillion, which is up 22% from 2000 alone. The average household credit card debt is $ 8,565, up 15% from 2000. College debt has doubled since 1995 resulting in an army of recent college graduates who are forced to declare bankruptcy upon graduation: the average student emerges out of college with $20,000 in debt.

It is therefore undeniable that we are in this mess because of the greed of lenders and the Wall street. They prayed on the average American, profiting from the raising health care costs and luring people into debt, knowing that they would have to default. Well, now that millions of Americans can no longer pay their mortgage and monthly credit card bills, the banks and other lenders are also feeling the pinch. I feel bad that their CEOs might take only a couple of millions in bonus pay this year, but they so deserve to go completely bust. The bankruptcy law that they lobbied for (successfully and with the full support of the Democrats) has made it almost impossible for Americans to get out of debt.

I hope this crisis convinces all of us that tighter government regulation of the financial sector is essential for the sustainability of the economy. We need to remind Obama on a daily basis of this and pressure his administration (when he is President) to change the criminal bankruptcy law, and authorize the Fed to regulate lending practices.