I wish the President was announcing a strategic withdrawal, beginning in the morning, which is to say a withdrawal that made clear the consequences of any attack on our interests here or abroad, would be met with merciless retaliation.
Isn't there anyone in the administration with the wherewithal or honesty to admit that Afghanistan isn't a nation in the way anyone in the US or Europe understands the term. It is merely a designation of a landmass that is only recognized by foolish or craven Americans and Europeans who believe there's money to be made there. God has a cruel sense of humor making it an opium grower's paradise. The administration et al is not simply deluded, it's lost in a pipe dream.
This is George W. Bush's War, the opportunities that arose following the attack of the September 11th are gone. It is a very different world. I hope the President and his advisors will awake to the fact that it is 2010 and we've serious business to attend to at home.
I thought the President looked and sounded good yesterday and have only have a couple of words of advice.
One. No excuses. It makes no sense to mention and then repeat that he inherited the crippling deficit. Few people, including economists, understand the concept but one thing is certain, no one wants to hear excuses. Truthful or not, they sounds evasive. Two. No slice of life examples, i.e., single mom keeping her home. Too general. No one believes them or should, after the Clintons abuse of the "technique," it has lost all credibility and persuades no one of anything. Who is the single mom? Should she have had a house to begin with and can she afford one understand any condition? Obama should avoid making statements that can be interpreted in seven different ways, none of which he intends.
Just policy. Just the intent. Just move forward. He is now the President. Bush is the distant past. And, Clinton's luck in everything from a distracted, inattentive electorate and the economy to the weak and shivering Russia was too improbable to be repeated. It's going to be hard work and Obama must make it his work.
I think this may have been a hard day for Obama but I believe in the long run the Daschle's withdrawal is a good thing for the future of the administration. It was not the man's tax issues or petty theft at stake here, it is the notion of integrity itself. The car and driver were merely symptomatic of a deeper strain of corruption that can not be tolerated, if our message of Change is to be taken seriously.
If we're going to change the culture of Washington the "revolving door," pay-to-play culture must be torn out. There aren't bad Republican opportunists and good Democrat opportunists. It's my hope that Daschle's withdrawal will frighten away Democrats who have used their "public service" to enrich themselves. I don't begrudge anyone making a fortune, however I prefer they not make it selling access or influence.
Now, I'd like to see Senator Dodd be a little more forthcoming about his VIP home financing arrangement with Countrywide Financial. And, as a New Yorker, I'd like to hear Charles Rangel admit that he took advantage of his position to take possession of four rent-stabilized apartments. He can take action to correct it and we can move on.
Obama's election promises so much. But these promises can only be realized if we look at our party with colder eyes than the most partisan Republican.
If we have any sense of honor, if we truly believe in Change, we must demand that Daschle nomination be withdrawn, since his narcissism is such he won't withdraw it himself.
For more on Daschel,view of the world and public service see Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/01/daschle/index.html
Please circulate this site and yesterday's New York Times article.
Daschle confirmation is not only an insult to our intelligence, its a green light for more unscrupulous and possibly illegal behavior. Let's draw the line here.
Thank you,
Robert Sawyer
This isn't about taxes, it's about ethics. It's about encouraging or discouraging, deceptions large and small. What makes me increasingly angry is that the Daschel's advocates are rushing to defend what's truly indefensible. Read today's TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/us/politics/01daschle.html?hp and pay close attention to Schmer's comment. “We wish this didn’t happen,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is on the Finance Committee, “but he’s chosen such quality people that nobody minds taking a bit of an extra step to help get them in.” Senator Schumer has suddenly become very understanding but then he couldn't condemn Daschel without also condemning Rangel's curious management of his real estate or Rahm Emanuel's handsome earning servicing Bruce Wasserstein. Daschel is no Albert Einstein or even an Albert Schweitzer. I'm sure we have someone of equal "quality," but with considerable higher ethical values.
I'm expecting Obama to step in and start inquiring and shut down this revolving pay-to-play door, that open to all Democrats and Republicans who see public service as a means to make their fortune.
I am deeply disappointed by Obama's choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mr. Daschle has apparently grown not only fat but stupid since he lost his Senate seat and went to collect his reward for public service in the private sector—working as an "advisor" to financial services firms. Daschle's excuse for not paying taxes on the car and driver was, according to The Wall Street Journal, Saturday/Sunday January 31-February 1, 2009: "Mr. Daschle told committee staff that he had grown used to having a car and driver as Senate majority leader and didn't think to report the perquisite on his taxes, according to staff members."
Wonderful excuse. The man had not simply grown accustomed to having a car and driver but felt entitled to the perk. It's nice to think that the Obama's choice for this position has come to think like a plutocrat.
Daschle in any role in Obama's administration makes a mockery of the notion of "Change." I am deeply disappointed, and with invitation of other worthies, such as Mr. Geithner, there's reason to feel a little disillusioned. Rewarding those who deconstructed and then reconstructed our nation's economy to enrich themselves—from Robert Rubin and Geithner to their hirlings such as Daschle—offers few solutions and more of the same opportunism. Simply stated, they offer no way out.
It's time we told Obama so. To find out more about the company/people who paid for Daschle's car and driver, check out: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_March_1/ai_n11835345
This kind of revolving door pay-to-play nonsense suggests the Democratic majority will be no smarter than the Republican majority we just threw out of power. It also tells us to watch very closely what "green" energy companies receive tax and other financial incentives, and make sure that those companies aren't the same as those promoted by Al Gore and his new masters at Kleiner Perkins.
I was never happy with the selection of Mr. Emanuel as Obama's chief of staff and always thought him too closely tied to the Clinton administration. Now I fear he may become Obama's Roy Cohn, a brutal enforcer, driven by his own demons rather than any real values or principles. I think the Cohn analogy is is appropriate and we ought to be sensitive to it.
Although I am bothered by his role in the Blagojevich imbroglio, I am considerably more concerned by the services he performed for Wasserstein Perella. What exactly did he do to "earn" more than $16 million for two years of what I suspect was not very heavy lifting? Too many of Clinton's boys were richly rewarded for their services. What's more, Emanuel's failures and opportunism at Freddie Mac will certainly attract more scrutiny as Wall Street's collapse is more closely examined.
My question is, does Obama need the kind of baggage and unseemly opportunism that Emanuel represents?
I don't think so.
Apropos of the "Auto-Industry Bailout." I believe we should look very carefully at the players, particularly Cerberus, the private equity firm that bought out Chrysler, on very favorable terms. Before a dime goes to Chrysler, let's really understand Cerberus. Any group of men and women who name their firm after the Hound of Hell ought to examined very closely. They think we're idiots. Let's show the we're not. This is a firm that possesses and controls extraordinary wealth. Let them reach a little deeper into their pockets. Let's change the way our county deals with the rich who prey on our ignorance and inclination to let Washington "solve" our problems.
As a brand strategist and as a strong supporter of President-elect Obama's campaign, I was deeply disheartened by this story. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20081129/ap_ca/reinventing_clinton
The campaign had clearly and accurately described Senator Clinton's foreign policy "credentials" and exposed her desperate attempts to inflate them. Now, this strategy to rehabilitate her image and rephrase her expertise is cynical at best, dishonest at worst, and in the end, disillusioning. The facts about Clinton have not changed and I don't believe she will add anything substantive to Obama's administration. This is a clear example of putting "lipstick on a pig" and I was hoping, perhaps foolishly, that Obama could conceive of a politics that made such counterproductive actions unnecessary, and that treated his supporters with less contempt.
Perhaps the President-elect and his transition team ought to read a little more, and with a little more understanding, Lincoln's "building" a cabinet of his rivals. This strategy did not have a Disneyesque ending.
I remain hopeful that I won't wake up Monday or Tuesday to hear that Obama has actually offered, and Clinton accepted, the position of Secretary of State. If for no other reason such tactics suggests even more and less attractive, if that's possible, concessions to come.
Apropos of Senator Clinton for Secretary of State.
Are we so stupid that we’ve forgotten her story regarding her adventures in Bosnia? Have the fictions she invented regarding her the “role” she played in Northern Ireland escaped our collective memory? Why is Obama et al even considering the Junior Senator for Secretary of State? This isn’t political theater it is amateur theatrics. The curtain must come down now.
I am not so Machiavellian to believe that Obama will offer the position of Secretary of State to Senator Clinton, in order to rid himself of this "troublesome priest." Saying this, I did not work for Obama to see the return of the Clintons in any significant position, and in fact, have always argued against the illusion of their contribution to Obama's candidacy and victory.
My wife and I voted for and worked for "change." To see Clinton, someone whose consciousness, resides squarely in the 20th Century, seriously considered for a job that will require real substanc and , not an inefficient machines made up of what Camille Pagilia described as "sycophantish... nerds, geeks and vengeful viragos."
Here, at the beginning, is the time or Obama to show some real courage and take control of the Democratic party. His deference to the Clintons is terribly disappointing. (And, I'm writing as a New Yorker who has found no value in her performance as our senator.)
I find the notion of Senator Clinton as a possible choice for Secretary of State absurd, if not insulting. One because of the chaos it will create within New York State, although it will demonstrate, and once and for all that Mrs. Clinton saw the Senate as a stepping stone to the presidency and that expedience—the retirement of Moynihan gave her the opportunity she required and a complaisant State Democratic Party "closed the deal." But on a more serious note, the Senator, whose mental and emotional state remains locked in the 20th Century, is exactly the wrong person to articulate the promise of Obama's presidency out into the world.
And, on a purely practical level, I suspect the Senator's husband's rather vulgar grasping financial habits and practices, and those of his friends and colleagues, will not withstand a casual glance, let alone serious scrutiny. We have in Bill Richardson a fine candidate for the position—so this bit of political theater with Senator Clinton is an unnecessary distraction, unless it's true purpose is to expose the woman for what she is, an empty and vacuous vessel, and to demonstrate once and for all that she no longer brings anything of real value to the Party, in either the literal or figurative sense. Let her serve her term out, and then disappear—into academia or into one of her husband's global initiatives.
I just read the WSJ alert stating that Obama rejects McCain's call to delay the debate. Obama's response is brilliant and right. The President of the United States will seldom enjoy the privilege of delaying decisions to suit his purposes. Dire happenings in particular must be dealt with in real time. McCain's desire to postpone the debate is, at heart, the desire to avoid the debate.
The current crisis makes the debate even more importance, stripping it of it mere ceremonial aspect, and turning it an opportunity to measure each man's response to an event of such complexity, in real time, with limited preparation. I suspect McCain is simply unprepared at best and not well at worst.
As for the new WSJ/NBC poll that gives Obama a slight lead, I ask everyone to ignore all polling and to do what they can to ensure that Obama's win in November is Reganesque, which is to say an overwhelming; presenting his administration with a mandate to bring us the change we are working to achieve.
I should state at the top that I don't believe the recent polls—numbers in themselves are inherently deceptive and are used to deceived. Who was polled, what questions were asked, how the answers were tabulated following what methodology. To my mind they are pointless.
All of which leads me to believe that Obama et al, should stay on message. I would go so far as to say that it is unnecessary to answer any of McCain's or Palin's or their advocates' statements or charges. We should just move forward, move forward addressing the issues as we would address them and ignore McCain completely.
As a brand strategist I recommend we speak as if the outcome of the election is already known and the political theater is just that, an entertainment. We should focus on priorities and how we will deal with them. Obama et al should not even mention McCain by name—treat the man and his constituency as irrelevant. Nor should McCain's name be linked to the present administration—these tactics merely preach to choir—we have that vote. We have everyone damaged economically, emotionally and intellectually by the Bush & Co. The independents, the working class, deal with substance and with solid evidence. Let's provide it.
The issues, "reality," will earn us the election. I am annoyed by the tit-for-tat not because it is juvenile but because it is poor strategy. It makes us look defensive and uncertain. Rather than attack, let's define ourselves and rather than brawl, let's box. McCain could win with a wild roundhouse punch, but if we're smart we'll win on points.
I am still astonished at how quickly and neatly the primary season came to an end. All at once we find ourselves in the running. Now, that "We've done it. Now, let's do it." Let's make this ticket the winning ticket.
The advertising legend David Ogilvy once wrote that "Everyday he felt obliged to come up with a new idea for his clients." A generation later, Peter Arnell used to ask, "What have you done today?" I think we all need to commit ourselves, between now and November, and ask what can we do to put Obama in the White House? Small things and large—read the paper(s) to be as informed as possible when you argue for Obama's candidacy, raise a little money, whatever you're inclined to do but do something to move the campaign ahead.
I congratulate everyone who played a role in making this historic event, not only a reality but in doing helped create the future we're all about to enter.
If what I've read this morning in Goodwin' column: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/08/14/2008-08 14_barack_obama_blinks_in_hillary_faceoff.html
then, I think those of us who believe Obama can bring significant change, to both the Democratic Party and to our country, will be sadly disappointed. (See except below.) Anyone who has closely followed the politics of the 90s, know that many of the policies that Clinton had advanced—from the deregulation of banking and media and NAFTA, to the culture of greed and commodity worship—have come back to haunt us now.
Bush, as inadequate as he has proven to be, is no less a malignant force than the Clintons. Saying this, I implore Obama and those who advise him to assert his control of the party and deny the Clinton's their delusional belief that the Democratic party belongs to them. (Tell me, will Bill be flying to Denver from Kazakhstan or from South Hampton? )
From Goodwin's column:
Yet already the list of what Hillary wants and what Hillary gets is unprecedented for somebody who lost the nomination. She gets a prime-time address where she will be introduced by daughter Chelsea. She gets her own team to produce a hagiographic video of her.
Hubby Bubba gets a prime-time speech on Wednesday night. And Hillary gets a platform plank that uses "glass ceiling" language right out of her speech to suggest she would be the nominee if not for sexism.
A few more big-ticket items and she'll be the co-nominee. Maybe that's the point.
I don't want readers to think I am on an anti-Clinton rant. There's a method and, even a methodology, to my madness. If we accept the notion that we live in a highly fragmented culture—as opposed to a "mass" culture, then the notion that by providing the Clintons with a high-profile, highly influential role in the convention, we will somehow bring all Democrats to the table will prove false. The Clintons' appeal like that of all celebrities is as elusive as it is transitory. They are representative of a certain consciousness and a certain excess that many of us hope ended with the 1990s. It is critical for Obama to see them, and those on their payroll and those in their debt, as a obstacle to his (and our) success.
There is a political class that moves in and out of administrations and many Democratic operatives who enjoyed the Clintons' largess are working very hard to create the impression that the Clintons are indispensable. Those of us who truly believe substantial change is possible, also believe this is a false and self-serving assumption.
If Obama can not put control the Clintons and their ilk, many of us will wonder how he will deal with truly dangerous men such as Putin. I want to see Obama assert his leadership of the Party now.
I think we can anticipate and disarm any attack from the McCain camp or others who want to stop Obama. In fact, I think we, as a country, won't accept any more "Swift Boat kinds of attacks. Saying this, I am more afraid of the megalomanical Clintons, who will try to subvert our campaign. I was deeply disturbed when I read that Obama gave both Hillary and Bill a night to "strut their stuff," at our expense. )See Maureen Dowd: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/13/opinion/edowd.php )
As I've said and written from the beginning, not only can we win without the Clintons, I believe the Clintons will prove our biggest obstacle to overcome.
In closing, I'm a little surprised that Obama and his advisors still believe in the Clinton magic. The pair are as 21st Century as the SUV and McMansion.
Now is the time to jettison them, before they can further their mischief.
