Why Am I So Afraid

Why am I so afraid that the Democratic Party is shooting itself in the foot?

The Dems are far from perfect--in any time--but here we are in what has to be a Democratic year and it looks again like we are self-destructing.

We have two great candidates--one a hard working, never give up eager beaver, and one an inspiring, heart-leapingly brilliant stallion. Both have their merits. Both care for what Democrats are best at caring for--working people, children's and women's rights, financial realism.

Both acknowledge the health care crisis, the environmental depredations of the GOP, the huge lurking menace of a war that costs 12 billion dollars a day and gives us nothing--unless we are war profiteers or blow-yourself-up fundamentalists. Both are poised to take back the country from the plutocrats and their endless tax cuts for each other.

And yet we have had great candidates before--think Al Gore--and lost to the low-level conniving, smearing and swift boating of the GOP (Grandiose Old Plutocrats).

The GOP stands for nothing today but looting the national treasury for the rich. George Dubya Bush once addressed them as the "haves and have mores"--clearly he is one of them--but maybe he will have less now that the Carlyle Group is running out of money. Maybe he'll have a little rachmones for the have-less and have-nots, though I doubt it.

If anyone in Washington read history, they'd understand that any empire that spends more in war than on its people eventually goes down in flames. The Persians, Greeks and Romans proved it--see Herodotus--and the British, French, Belgians, Dutch and Germans proved it all over again in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But does anyone care?

Apparently not. It's a rule of history that when an empire gorges on guns and forgets butter, that empire winds up on the scrap heap of history.

Dubya could have learned this at Yale had he not been drunk or stoned all the time and figuring out ways to avoid going to 'Nam.

But he doesn't know and doesn't care. He thinks, "The surge is working." Dick Cheney and Condi Rice tell him so. And now McCain echoes them. And our idiot corporate press--which has no time to read or think or dig for information (too busy getting pix of Kristen-Alexandra's tattoos) doesn't give a shit either. Leave that to the book-writers. That's safe enough since Americans don't read--especially not big thick books about history.

Meanwhile our two clever candidates have been sucked into the rigors of campaigning. They're tired. Dog-tired. The stallion makes heart-stopping speeches. And the beaver just beavers along. remembering how she won over upstate New York when everyone called that impossible. And called her a carpetbagger. And the stallion is drunk on his own rhetoric. Why not? It's great rhetoric.

We need beavers and we need stallions. Beavers get the work done. Stallions inspire us. And they both have limitations. Stallions have fragile legs (think Barbaro). And beavers are nothing without their teeth.

It's not a matter of choosing between inspiration and hard work. We need both. We need to be inspired and then we need those who will never give up till they execute the inspiration.

Any fool knows that. The Democratic Party ought to know it too. And the sooner they bring the beaver and the stallion together, the better off we'll all be. There is no choice here. There ought to be no ego, no genderizing and no racializing.

Americans are neither black nor white. We are all as mixed as Brazilians. We are a honey-colored race--with Africans, Europeans, Asians and Native Americans intermingled in our DNA. That's the glory of America. If Dick Cheney is genetically related to Barack Obama, what more do we need to know? DNA only goes so far politically.

So let's stop talking about race and gender and let the beaver and the stallion both serve our country--in their own inimitable ways.

Comments

[simplysimon2]

Sorry, sexy, but only one of them is going to be allowed to grab for the brass ring and there is no way "the stallion" is going to make nice with "the beaver" with her bite marks all over his ass and she is loosing her teeth with lawyerly lies and stupid helpmates.

[Spidersweb]

Hillary represents the corporations that have contributed to her campaign. It will be more of the same, but with a pant suit on. Her goal is power.

[lovethesinner]

Erica, You are afraid because that's what that's what Bill and Hillary Clinton want you to feel. That's what John McCain wants you to feel. You are afraid because that's what "the politics of fear" wants you to feel. Fear is the basis of all neo-conservative / neo-liberal politics.

In an article entitled "The Obama Doctrine" the conditions that lead towards and away from this "mind-set" are outlined. In regards to foreign policy, they said:

"The Obama foreign-policy team describe... 'the politics of fear,' a phrase most advisers used unprompted in our conversations. 'For a long time we've not seen much creative thinking from Dems on national security, because, out of fear, we want to be a little different from the Republicans but not too different, out of fear of being labeled weak or indecisive,' another top adviser says. Identifying that fear as the accelerant of the Iraq War mind-set is the first step to a new and innovative foreign policy. John Kerry was not able to argue for fundamental change in foreign policy because he was consumed by that very political fear. Obama's admonition to Democrats is much like Pope John Paul II's to the Gdansk shipyard strikers -- first, be not afraid."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

Obama-Webb '08

[UrbanInterloper]

If the presidency requires both hard work and inspiration, Obama's got the goods. Hello? He's won the most delegates, the most votes (even if you include those disqualified states of Fla and Mich), and the most states. He's won more votes than any other candidate from any party! He's leading by every single metric there is. If that's not hard work, I don't know what is. Time to let the harder-working and more successful candidate get the nomination already, in my opinion. Clinton has been a hard-working Senator for New York, and in 2000, she campaigned hard there and won. You simply cannot say the same thing about her 2008 presidential bid (well, you can say it, but you'd be wrong). There's nothing wrong with admitting you've given it a good run and came in a close second. There's nothing shabby about being a Senator, and she can continue to serve the country and her state "in her own inimitable way," and if that position is no longer suitable to her, then she has other career options, of course.

I've also had enough Dem-bashing and I'm very disappointed to see it again here. "The Dems" aren't a monolithic group who share one brain, and I'm glad they didn't pre-ordain a candidate to be forced upon the rank and file. Unlike Republicans, Dems have different opinions and they discuss them openly, and they pledge allegiance to the U.S., not to the party's most powerful. That's a good thing. I'm glad the Dems can show this country what it's like to let democracy actually do its thing in an election, and what it's like to debate what's most important to the nation instead of competing for the titleof biggest loudmouth bully. In a lot of ways, the Dem primary in 2008 is the most interesting and truly democratic election we've seen in this country in a long time, more so than lots of presidential elections.

[magen]

So if you're sooooooo afraid, and as YOU said, we have two great candidates, and it seems like you want to stop the bickering for the ggod of the party, why can't YOU support the LEADING candidate?

[CookieWrites]

Because there is noooooooo leading candidate. There is just media spin which is spinning on behalf of Obama. There would be no problem is this was not a tie and bound to be a tie to the end. It's not the winner with the most ____ (fill in with delegates, superdelegates, popular vote, number of states, big states) that wins -- the winner is whoever has the requisite number of delegates. If Michigan and Florida are cut out of this as the only road to victory for a candidate, then the Republicans will take those states in the general election because the Democratic party will have alienated their own electorate.
Erica is right. The Democrats need to come together and recognize the voters want both of these candidates. If Obama really wants to bring "everyone" together, he had better find a way to bring Hillary to the table. If Hillary really wants to effect change she needs to change enough herself to partner with Obama. Time to come together for the nation, for the world. If not, then why should the Republicans and Independents believe the Democrats at all?

[kimbari]

Why is it always the black person who "had better" do something?

[katzenmom]

Thanks, Erica! Nice to hear some balance somewhere! God knows, we won't find it on the evening news. Nor are we likely to find news, either... I, too, am afraid. Afraid that America is fast becoming the most willfully ignorant country on the planet. Afraid that we are destined to follow in the footsteps of the Roman Empire. And afraid that as we crash and burn at warp speed (because it won't take 4 or 5 centuries in the Information Era), the world will pay us back for the disdain with which we have treated other nations and cultures.

So, I'll take the beaver, thanks. Because beavers have teeth and persistence.

[Nebris]

I'm afraid that 'beaver' is a really unfortunate metaphor in this instance, especially the 'teeth' part. Oy...

[jackbeanstalk]

Erica... we seem doomed to repeat history and not learn from mistakes. Frankly, this must be why many become drawn to the wisdom of the spiritual greats who have disciplined their minds and spirits to bring light in the midst of the darkest of times.

My solace comes from the ancient Vedanta teachings (Gita, Upanishads) I am currently reading a collection from Christian writers with genuine spiritual experience who wrote letters during the years encompassing the Great Depression and Hitler's rise to power in Europe. The 1948 collection, "Letters of the Scattered Brotherhood" speak to us with inspiration and light that helps dispel fear and encourages us to find our strength. We'll need it.

[LoganSackett]

I could not agree more. I wonder though, which of them will be able to put ego in check and take the VP spot? If the country were not in the boondoggle that it is in now I would go hands down for Obama. My only doubt is will he have what it takes to face our enimies should anything happen? I admit that I am more hawk than dove and I do believe in diplomacy which Obama will excel at. My question, or hesitation is will he be willing to go and kick some ass if needed, or will he talk us to defeat?
If we could get them both on the ticket, which is the only way we are going to beat Mccain, there combined strengths have the potential to make this country great again.
Who takes the top spot? Will we have the history making first woman president, or black president?
(Ego)
Just to rant for a moment, I am more then tired of the race card. I am well aware that prejudice is alive and well in America, but does it help or hurt to continue to have polls broke down the wat they are?

[UrbanInterloper]

To answer your last question, I would undoubtedly say hurt.

[BaldwinLover]

Erica is drunk on the Hillary Kool-Aid. Comparing Hillary to an "eager beaver" is laughable. Beavers aren't carnivorous, back stabbing, selfish creatures. Hillary's only goal is the White House and, if she can't have it, no one can. Hillary knows that this election is over and she will not be the nominee but she cannot afford to have a Democrat in the White House. She will not be able to run again until 2016. Her only mission at this point is to make Obama unelectable, so that she can run again in 2012. Between now and then, she will have ample time to destroy McCain and make the "it should have been me" argument.

[Binea]

Rhetoric ?

Time to Shine Light on Government Spending
Tuesday, October 23, 2007

By Amanda Kathryn Hydro and Jason Mercier

Everyone has heard of Rep. Don Young’s (R-Alaska) infamous bridge to nowhere— the congressional earmark that secured $231 million to build a bridge to an island inhabited by roughly 50 people.

But the bridge to nowhere isn’t the only egregious waste of taxpayer money. Citizens Against Government Waste found Congress allocated $2.4 billion to 24 pork projects this year alone.

Taxpayers usually have no way of finding out where their money actually goes or how it is truly spent. Government reform groups are trying to change that by pushing efforts at the federal, state and local level that would shine the light on government spending.

Enter Sen. Barack Obama, Rep. Ron Paul, Sen. Sam Brownback, Sen. Mike Gravel, Rep. Dennis Kucinch and Mr. John Cox. These presidential candidates have all embraced the concept of "Google government" by signing the Oath of Presidential Transparency— which is sponsored by a non-partisan coalition led by the Reason Foundation.

By signing the oath they are promising, should they win the presidency in 2008, that they will issue an executive order during their first month in office instructing the entire executive branch to put into practice the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, a Google-like search tool that will allow taxpayers to hop online and see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent on federal contracts, grants and earmarks.

Making the government more accountable to taxpayers, and more transparent, is a non-partisan issue, which is why a diverse, wide array of three dozen organizations from across the nation has joined the effort.

"Every American has the right to know how the government spends their tax dollars, but for too long that information has been largely hidden from public view," notes Sen. Obama.

Rep. Paul explains, "When government spends the people’s money, it must be done with utmost possible transparency."

Since these comments reflect such a basic principle of accountability, one is left wondering what Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have against providing taxpayers with details on how well their money is spent.

Along with demanding fiscal transparency from the federal government, taxpayers have the expectation that state and local governments will also embrace new technologies to make details about spending decisions and performance readily available at a click of the mouse.

This is why the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation’s largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, recently adopted model legislation to implement state versions of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. ALEC also adopted a model bill to require that the public have at least 72 hours to review tax and spending bills before they are voted on.

Several states have already moved forward with some form of transparency reforms, including Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Virginia, Minnesota, Hawaii, South Carolina, Nebraska and Oklahoma.

We all know government is plagued by red tape, isn’t efficient and doesn’t work as it should. Increasing transparency and accountability is a huge first step. But that is only half the equation. We also need policymakers to make significant changes after we all get to see the horror and reckless spending that will be revealed by shining the light on government spending and earmarks.

This means we’ll need leaders willing to cut under- or non-performing programs or activities in some cases. Initiatives at any level of government that pair transparency with accountability will set us on the road to performance-based government rather then our current system which is plagued by secrecy, wasteful spending and pork projects.

After losing the House and Senate in 2006, Republicans pledged to return to their fiscally conservative roots. Yet, with Sen. Brownback leaving the race, more Democratic presidential candidates have signed the oath than Republicans. Accountability and transparency should be embraced by both major parties.

Taxpayers are demanding that elected officials at all levels of government respect us enough to show us what they’re doing on our behalf. It’s our money after all.

Amanda Kathryn Hydro is Director of Policy Development for the Reason Foundation. Jason Mercier is Director of the Center for Government Reform for the Seattle-based Washington Policy Center.

Obama is a man we can trust and of all the candidates that signed the oath..Only Obama has made it this far.

[PauCK]

Yet again, back to David Gergens statement.­.."...demo­crats have a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory..." ( On Jon Stewart's Show. )

I am VERY disappointed in Hillary now as she seems, more than anyone, determined to trample on what started out as a respectful campaign, putting here own ambition ahead of the party and the nation.

Sure I rooted for her and voted for her in Florida ( not sure that matters ) I even put up a web site, http://flo­ridaforcli­nton.us I then added one for Obama as it looked like he may take the lead. http://www.floridawantsobama.com/ We need one or the other.

I will be VERY ANGRY at the Dems is they screw this up and screw America by allowing McCain to take us further into war because they can't play nice or just stick to their own plans and policies instead of bashing each other.

PLAY NICE you two....stop gambling our future over petty crap...and at this point it is ALL petty crap until one of you faces McCain. Then and only then, pull out all the stops.

I will not donate another cent to either until after the primaries because it is money wasted if they are using it to drag the party down.

[khutah]

First, how can Jong suggest that Obama is not a hard worker? Two books -- that he wrote by himself and not with some ghost writer-- distinguished academic record, roll-up-your sleeves work as a community organizer, law professor at U. of Chicago, law practice with a distinguished civil rights law firm, exceptional work as a state legislator and senator -- all by his mid-40's!!??? I think the real point is this: he's both an exceptionally hard working public servant, as well as an inspirational leader. Hillary only has half of the formula -- yes she is a busy little beaver! But I've come to the conclusion that her motivation is tainted by overweening personal ambition and a win-at-all costs determination, not by the public spirit and vision that permeates Senator Obama's career.

I'm also struck that many of my middle aged female friends are now supporting Obama, contrary to the myth that the women's lib generation is supporting Hillary. I'm astounded that some of my Republican female friends are becoming "Obam-icans." Although we'd be delighted to see a female president in our lifetime, not this one, not this time!

[ohdear08]

Thank God for Khutah! I can't help but find more than a little bit of stereotyping in Jong's dichotomy of the candidates, in which one works hard and the other is basically an oratorical David Copperfield "stallion". What is it about attending Columbia, Harvard and Stanford, authoring two books and passing up a cushy corp law firm to get in the trenches of public service in one of the least (financially) rewarding and tiers of American society? And how does a NOVELIST not see the off-putting, at the very least, irony in calling Hill a beaver and Barack a stallion?

[ohdear08]

Oooops. Don't know how I missed that "and" between "rewarding" and "tiers". My bad.

[jdnyc]

I fully agree. Obama has the integrity and the charisma to make change. These traits alone have caused him to raise the standard of the campaign and shed light on Hillary's destructive negativity. She is smart and "a fighter" but she has lost my trust (and the primary). Perhaps she should be in Obama's cabinet, so long as Bill Clinton stayed away!

[timinhi]

"[L]aw practice with a distinguished civil rights law firm?" You obviously have little knowledge of the practice of law. Obama was an associate attorney with the firm in question for approximately 2 years. He left to become a "street community organizer," whatever that is, without ever making partner. The truth is obviously that he washed out, and probably was asked to leave. You criticize Hillary for her "overwheening [sic] personal ambition and a win-at-all costs determination" as though your candidate, Obama, doesn't exhibit the same "qualities." How about his first campaign for Illinois State Senator? He promised the Democratic incumbent he wouldn't run if she chose not to run for Congress, and then when she decided to run for reelection instead of for Congress, he not only went back on that promise and continued to run, but he challenged the signatures on her candidacy petition and had her disqualified from the primary race. I wonder how the incumbent felt to get stabbed in the back with such "public spirit and vision." Anyone who wants to know how hard a worker Obama is should look into how he won the primary against his opponent in his U.S. Senatorial campaign, and then how he won the general election against Alan Keyes--especially how Keyes happened to replace the originally heavily-favored Jack Ryan as the Republican candidate at the last moment. Have you heard of actress Jeri Ryan of "Star Trek: Voyager" fame? Google it. Obama is all hype, and has had an incredibly

[miles120]

Well, having disagreed with you in the past, I think it only fair to point out how much I agree with you this time. There's no point in questioning your motives as others have done. I will, however, not get enthusiastic about your metaphors.

The Democrats are in a great position to eliminate McCain from all media for the next three months and convince America that a progressive agenda is in their best interest. But more likely what will happen is that the cat fighting will damage their credibility and the GOP's consistent if delusional message will triumph.

I decided two decades ago that I could never vote Republican, despite some libertarian tendencies. Unfortunately, the Democrats have never been able to convince me to join their party. Who knows, maybe the next three months will change my mind.

[QueenSerene]

I'm afraid, too. I'm also more afraid of the Democrats, then I used to be. I'm afraid of everyone that accepts corporate financial support for their campaigns. We are in such a sad state of affairs, mainly because we all know what the reality of politics is anymore. The emperor has no clothes and yet we are powerless to do anything about it. I would enourage people to log on to just 6.org and the Alliance for Democracy website. If more states would support the philosophy of Arizona and Maine when it comes to public support for candidates, we might actually give some power back to people. I just met Frances Moore Lappe and read her book Getting a Grip...She has much to say on these issues and remains a great inspiration to me and m,any others.

[HaveyouPerspective]

No need to fear, QueenSerene. Save that for the Republicans.

Obama is financed by the people and is therefore the peoples candidate. No lobbyist dollars have been accepted by his campaign.

[stormy7]

if you think that obama only gets his contributions from the people, you haven't bothered to research it. by the time the dems realize obama is not what he appears to be, it will be too late.

[hv112221]

I welcome the open debate in the Democratic party. It is inspiring that finally a party is talking about big ideas and being dependent on pollsters and other quacks.

And race does matter and we should all be talking about it just like gender and other issues also matter. If that doesn't fit into Jong's own ideals then she should rethink her beliefs and affiliations.

p.s. the stallion/beaver analogy is lame and meaningless.