Hillary's Baseless Basis for a Campaign

Two arguments by the Clinton Campaign really bother me.

1) The argument that the delegates they won in Michigan and Florida should count. This argument is absurd for so many reasons. First of all, the Clinton campaign had agreed before the contests were held that Michigan and Florida's delegates would not count, and said so publicly. We have never allowed ex post facto laws in this country, and the same principle applying there applies here. It is unfair, as most anyone could tell you, to change the rules of the game when you're in the middle of playing. Second of all, Obama 's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, so presumably he would get no delegates as a result, and he never got to campaign in Florida. As one has seen in Texas and Ohio, when he gets a chance to campaign he always cuts way into her lead.

2) The argument that it's somehow significant that Hillary has "won all the big states." This argument really only applies if she wins Texas and Ohio, so let's assume she does. Who cares? What possible significance is there in winning the "big states?" America has 50 states last time I checked, and voters in everyone of them. Why do the voters in the "big states" count for more? It's an absurd argument with absolutely no merit and I don't think anyone is really buying it. I guess it just bothers me that significant numbers of Americans support a candidate willing to stoop to this insane level of distortion. These arguments are the proverbial thread holding her campaign together. For all her polish and policy acumen, she stands on the brink of defeat. The absurdity of these arguments attests to her precarious predicament.

Man and his Environment

This article from the Jakarta Post illustrates the challenges that exist for getting environmental reforms passed, but also the potential to change course if the public can be activated.

Every country on the planet is facing environmental challenges at present. Human beings have always attempted to change their environment(s). We want things to work our way. If water runs in the wrong direction we divert it, if mountains are too tall we shorten them, if there's oil in the ground we dig it out. When Nietzsche said that "God is dead, and we have killed him" he could have been speaking not just about the metaphysical deity but also the understanding of god as existing within the essential processes of nature. The basic gods of Greek mythology were earth, air, fire, and water. By the 19th Century the Germans and the rest of the developed world had mastered these elemental forces. They had indoor plumbing and water towers, massive furnaces for making steel and indoor gas heating to keep old man winter at bay, hot air balloons and steam powered ships, and lastly massive civil engineering projects and railroads that vastly altered peoples essential understandings of time and space. In short, the gods of old were dead because man had mastered their powers.

Or so he thought. In the 21st Century humanity is gradually arriving at the understanding that controlling nature is impossible. We cannot make the earth do our bidding without suffering serious consequences as a result. We will have to learn to live in harmony with the earth in order to survive on this planet. Like Faust we do not understand the power before us when we conspire with the devil. Man can never know, see, or understand all. Our talents are vast, but we are not gods. Our future is not self-determined no matter how much we might wish otherwise.

Climate Change

This bears reading. Thomas Homer-Dixon is one of the best voices on the issue of climate change. He is not a scientist, but a political scientist. He understands the ramifications of what climate scientists are saying is happening to our planet as a result of our own mismanagement of mother earth, and he's trying to develop ways to avert the impending crisis of global climate change through policy changes. We have according to him 30 years in which to curb our greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise face catastrophe of the biblical kind. A number of presidential candidates have signaled that they will put policies in place to do this, but the public needs to become more aware of the dangers posed by our continued reliance on fossil fuels for energy production in order to get the kind of immediate changes we really need.

*Update* This report on NPR gives some local perspective on what climate change means for ordinary people. It's on potato farmers in Peru and how climate change is affecting how they practice their profession. Interestingly, Homer-Dixon predicts that the agriculture will be the first area affected significantly be climate change. This anecdote would seem to confirm that prediction.

Obama on Education. God this guy is good.

He just says all the right things, and says them in such an inspiring way. His capacity to lead this country is truly something to behold. Once in a generation type person.

Change v. More of the Same

America is looking for change right now, that's clear when one looks at almost any poll on any issue. As Obama v. McCain seems to be the most likely choice for the general election, it is interesting to ponder this issue of change because while Obama has marketed himself as the change candidate, McCain would seem to lay claim, at least in part, to that same title. McCain has always been a maverick. In 2000 he ran a very anti-establishment campaign based in large part on his bona fides as a straightalker, someone willing to say what made the most sense for the country and not just the most political sense for his party.

But ever since that campaign McCain has hewed more to the traditional line of the Republican party. After initially voting against the Bush tax cuts, he's now for them. After initially denouncing Jerry Falwell and his screed spewing brethren of the religious right, McCain visited Falwell's university to give a high profile speech showing his support for religious conservatives. McCain has been siding more and more with President Bush these days, most prominently on the "Surge" strategy in Iraq. Democrats have already said that they will brand the McCain presidency as essentially a continuation of the Bush years. If this mantel sticks it will be nearly impossible for McCain to win because whatever reservations the public has about Obama's experience Americans seem in this election to be far more worried about the essential question of what the next president will bring them: change, or more of the same?

The majority of American's want at least the beginnings of a withdrawal from Iraq, they want universal healthcare, they want education reform, they want to keep social security as is. On everyone of these issues McCain is in the minority. The American public certainly acknowledges his experience and expertise, but this is a democracy and the people want their government to serve their interests. He can run all the red phone ads he wants, he can trumpet on the highest heights his exemplary record of service to his country, but if he can't promise the American people anything new he won't stand a chance in the fall.

George W. Bush is certainly one of the least popular president's in American history. Nixon didn't even incite this level of personal animus. The hatred that democratic true-believers hold toward their 43rd president will be turned into a massive outpouring of support for Obama in the fall. They have to have this election. The 50 million dollars that Obama raised in February will look like chump-change by November. McCain meanwhile had his best fund-raising month ever and he only netted 12 million. What does this all mean? It means the democrats have the momentum, the passion and the excitement all on their side. When the public wants change can McCain really expect them to turn to the seventy year old who promises little in the way of new ideas? McCain is essentially running the we live in a dangerous world campaign, vote for the experienced old soldier to lead you through it.

But as the calender has turned to 2008 Americans have turned their gaze ever inward to the problems at home. They are weary of the War in Iraq and are facing what could be the beginnings of a stagflationary recession. 47 million Americans are without health insurance, 1 in 100 American adults is now in prison, the environment is in an increasingly perilous state, and this country continues to fall behind the rest of the world in terms of education and infrastructure, suggesting rough days ahead.

This would not be the first time that Ameica has looked to its young leaders in a time of crisis. Jefferson was 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Martin Luther King, Jr. was only in his 30s during the Civil Rights Movement, and Lincoln was only in his 40s when he worked to heal a nation torn apart by war. Obama would be 47 when he assumed office.

It's not just about change. I believe that Obama is a man of incredible talent. His life experiences have lent him a depth of understanding of both national and international issues that I view as potentially invaluable in helping him to repair the damage done by the present president. This is however a country of, by and for the people, and what they want generally goes. They want change in 2008. It's going to be hard for McCain to fight that.

Racism Test