10¢ a Dozen

The Whispering Campaign Insulting to ALL AMERICANS

David H. Stern, M.D. — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:54:48 EDT

There has been some progress on this front recently, as Senator Obama has taken a somewhat stronger tack in his response to this rumor. But in my opinion, it could be much stronger.

Here are the talking points I would like to see emphasized.

The "Obama is a Muslim" Rumor Campaign is Insulting to ALL AMERICANS:
It insults Obama by insinuating that he is lying about his background
It insults Muslim Americans by implying they are somehow less worthy as Citizens than others.
It insults non-Muslim voters by implying they are ignorant, bigoted, rubes who are easily fooled.
It insults the instigators, by revealing themselves to be unprincipled lying hacks who lack any respect for the voters they are trying to influence, and lack confidence in their ability to persuade with honest appeals. This is the politics we will change together this November, when you elect me President of the United States.

This is the type of response that changes the playing field. It would destroy the perception of Democrats as "soft" and unable to get down and dirty, while simultaneously elevating the level of discourse AND discrediting the opposition.

Can you get any better than that?

Great Contrast Between Candidates to Use Recruiting

David H. Stern, M.D. — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:03:19 EDT

I'm sure many here are still engaged in the arduous task of recruiting fence sitters and soft supporters of both candidates into being strong Obama supporters. The recent FISAsco has Obama "taking his lumps," (and rightfully so, I might add) and the MSM seem to be engaged in a coordinated campaign to minimize the actual differences between candidates.

Well, for Americans of nearly every stripe, Civil Rights is a major issue - particularly in the wake of the unprecedented assualt on Constitutional principles this nation has weathered over the past eight years.

For anyone doubting the significance of the differences between the two candidates in this area, take a look at this compilation of vote-rating for Barack Obama, and compare it to the same ratings for John McCain. These compliations come, courtesey of Project VoteSmart, and as you can see they have numerous tools for drawing comparisons on a wide variety of issues. So, if this is your first exposure to this tool, I hope you will find it useful in the coming weeks. Time is getting short!

In order to make use of this tool easier, I've prepared a one-page side-by-side two-year comparison sheet on Civil Rights Group Rankings for both candidates. Please feel free to copy, print, and distribute it as much as you like. (I prefer that you copy, rather than link to it, as my server's bandwith is limited. Thanks.)

Let's get out there, and get out the vote! (And make sure it is the right vote!)

Stop Underestimating Your Supporters Against FISA

David H. Stern, M.D. — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:08:51 EDT

Dear Sen. Obama, Around here, we call "misrepresenting the truth" a LIE. We also refer to utterances of deliberate half-truths as LIES. Your own nonsensical rationalizations for supporting this unconstitutional and Law-nullifying FISA Amendment were bad enough. Now we have your Washington Lawyer and adviser, Greg Craig trying to snow us with this:

"This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip," Mr. Craig said. "Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.

Senator, with all due respect, that kind of dissembling may work on the lethargic Washington Press corps, but your most active supporters know better. You know the FISA law does not expire, and you MUST know WE know the FISA law does not expire -- EVER!

PLEASE STOP TREATING US LIKE CHILDREN or television-addled passive junk-news consumers of whatever the Beltway Bandits want to feed us! We worked and scraped and gave our hard earned money to get you nominated so we could elect you to end that kind of dishonest and destructive political gamesmanship.

If you are going to insist on ignoring our principled dedication to our inherent and constitutionally defined rights and our insistence on equal protection under the laws for those who violate and those who are harmed by violations of the law - no matter how rich or powerful - then you need to explain yourself honestly. We will know when you are being honest, because you will make sense.

On this issue, so far you haven't come close. With every tired and cliched attempt at "spin control" you simply dig a bigger rut, and further sully your well-earned reputation, while throwing water on the fires of our enthusiasm for your campaign.

Does this really alter the political calculus in ways significant enough to more than counter the harm it is doing to both the nation and your core of support? Please explain how - we're all adults here!

Maybe you've miscalculated, and need to reconsider. Doing so now is far better than knowingly making this terrible mistake before it is too late.

Senator Obama, during the primary season, you publicly acknowledged that you lost momentum every time you started trying to "play it safe" by "going conventional". I fear you do not trust your own experience, or you have entrusted your strategies to advisers who will not even consider the obvious truth in that observation.

We didn't nominate you because we thought you'd be the best "politics as usual" candidate. 70,000 people did not gather along the riverbank in Portland because they wanted to hear you "spin" the issues. Nobody outside the beltway and the major media believes the garbage they throw out there, and we haven't for a long time. (Why do you think the major media news ratings have been plummeting for over a decade across the board?)

Before you became a front runner, you didn't offer the same old song and dance. You spoke to our real concerns and expressed commitment to real change. THAT is why we nominated you, and why we are committed to getting you elected. You need to remember that, and remind your advisers of it. And you need to demote or dismiss any of them who are not on board with that essential plank in your campaign.

Senator Obama, please end this charade, and return to your commitment to Us- the people we have been waiting for - the people you promised to represent.

Thank you.

David H. Stern, M.D.

FISA FLIP still disturbing.

David H. Stern, M.D. — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 04:34:48 EDT

Until now, I've refrained from posting on this topic, because I didn't feel like I had anything to add. However, this new quote from Senator Obama has pressed me into action:

"FISA, wasn't a shift in position, but the best compromise, that was available at the moment".

I remain a strong Obama supporter, as well as an admirer, but that does not make this comment or his position acceptable. Senator Obama can word it any way he wants, but his attempts to spin away from perceptions of a a "shift" amount to nothing more than the standard "white lies" that every politician uses regularly. Contrast the above quote with the one below from just a few months ago.

"I will support a filibuster against any FISA bill that contains retroactive immunity."

(sorry, I couldn't find the exact quote and date quickly enough - the expression of intent and certainty is completely accurate.)

There is absolutely no way to reconcile that unequivocal promise with his current position.

The problems with FISA go beyond Telecom Amnesty, but the latter is an easily digested and identifiable place to start. However, the other (more important) flaws in the law mean Obama's cooperation with the effort to strip immunity from the bill is more symbolic than substantive. By promising to work to strip the bill of its telecom amnesty provisions immediately after destroying his leverage for that fight with his unconditional vow to vote for passage of the bill, he managed to convert even this anemic gesture into an insulting charade.

This is not some minor and negotiable issue - or cannot be if one views the viability, integrity, and primacy of the constitution of the United States as the defining core principle that binds us as a nation.

There are plenty of areas for compromise and give and take. His "faith based initiatives" may be one example. But the Constitution is not a bargaining chip.

That is true, no matter what position you assume on the "political spectrum."

Senator Obama may think he can spin this issue away, or defuse it with non-sequiter disclaimers, but if that is the case, I'm afraid he is sorely mistaken.

The vote from people like me is secure. He may already have adequate funding in place. But we are not the Democrats in Congress, and we will not just lay down and allow our representativeswho are there cooperate with the continued destruction of the Constitution and the Rule of Law in this country.

If Obama wants to start his administration on an adversarial basis with his core supporters, that is his prerogative. But I fail to see the wisdom or courage in that path.

Thank you for allowing me a forum to express my sentiments, even when they are in conflict with the campaign.

The AMERICAN President AMERICANS Have Been Waiting For

David H. Stern, M.D. — Thu, 15 May 2008 02:05:24 EDT

Usually, when I post links to or quotes from other stories on the Internet, those links only serve as a launching point for interjecting my own commentary. This one is an exception, and for good reason: I have nothing to add that would further advance or enhance the argument.

This article by Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post, accompanied by

this commentary and analysis from Chris’ Inside-Out the Beltway

offer something far closer to perfection than anything I could possibly assemble.

Please read both of these fine articles, and pass them along to others.

Thank you.

DHSmd

The Empire Strikes Barack

David H. Stern, M.D. — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:31:37 EDT

I'm a little behind getting this up, especially since part three appears near its denoument, but this was too good to pass up:

I can't seem to embed this, so I just provided a link. No further comment necessary, excpet for a special shout out to my good friend Lisa Pease, from whose blog I learned of this great vid.

Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Rejects Voter ID Challenge

David H. Stern, M.D. — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:55:02 EDT

The BushCo Supreme Court has kept its perfect Anti-Democracy record intact with a rejection of challenges to Indiana's Voter ID law.

Tellingly, these laws are all Republican-inspired and promoted. We are told that these laws are necessary to avoid "Voter Fraud" which is so widespread that I have yet to see a single story about how it has affected an election in recent times.

These same Republicans recently reversed course and blocked the "Emergency Support for Secure Elections Act" from being reported out of committee. Apparently "Election Fraud"of the type that can induce massive shifts in vote tallies is not nearly as much a concern to these same Republican Lawmakers. While there has been no widely publicized cases of proven election fraud, the evidence for it has been pervasive and recurrent. What's more, it would be very difficult to prove, since the easily-hackable vote counting machines produced by Companies that are in turn owned by GOP-supporters (and in some cases, felons) offer no method of authentication.

It strikes us as more than a little hypocritical for Republicans to take such a two-faced stance on these issues, but we believe it should surprise no one.

All this does is provide yet another reason why we need to elect Obama President, and make sure he has very long coattails. But as noted earlier, we can't just go for a squeaker. We need more than 60% of the vote to feel any level of security that it will come out as a "win".

WORK TALK CALL EDUCATE DISCUSS RISK SACRIFICE COMMIT

on financing this campaign

David H. Stern, M.D. — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:51:36 EDT

I've worked for over a decade to educate myself and others about the depth and danger of corruption in the highest levels of our government. This corruption has separated our leaders from the voters — in terms of both interests and accountability. The consequences of these developments have grown more obvious with each passing year. One of those consequences has been a growing level of disinterest and cynicism about politics, along with a shrinking level of citizen engagement in the political process. These natural, but destructive responses have only served to accentuate the problem.

The primary source of this corruption is obviously money. A few people have a whole lot of it, and they use it to manipulate elections and legislative processes, exploiting the cost of getting elected.

Barack Obama has somehow managed to rise to his current level without excessive indebtedness to the same dominant financial interests that control most of the political discourse in this country, and people have responded. The remarkable popular support that has driven and financed his current campaign has only strengthened his independence from the usual sources. We have not seen this level of independence in a Presidential candidate since JFK - and he obviously didn't do it with financing from the public. So in that respect, Obama's independence is even more remarkable.

Big donors to campaigns all have a sense of ownership of that candidate's political career. Whether deliberate and conscious or not, the candidate/office holder shares that same sentiment on some level, especially as re-election time nears.

The "Big Donors" to Barack Obama's are the small donors. The bigger the total of funds that comes from those small donors, the greater their "ownership" of an Obama Administration and more importantly, the higher the level of confidence will be to fight those interests who seek self-enrichment at all costs in Washington. That confidence will not just be limited to the Administration - it will make itself felt in the Congress, as well - emboldening those "good" legislators who want to fix our country to act, and stay strong in the face of withering corporate media attacks. That spirit will begin to penetrate the culture of the bureaucracy, as well, but it will take time to reverse the damage done over the past sixty years.

As the Berlin Wall fell, and Soviet Communism crumbled under its own weight nearly 20 years ago, one citizen in the street being interviewed by the press, offered what I think should become one of the more famous quotes of all time:

"In the end, we all get the government we deserve."

In truth, the American people have been deliberately deceived, and officials - elected and otherwise - have abused power. But truly, America has done this to itself, by failing to shoulder the responsibility inherent in democracy: engagement. Critical analysis has too often been replaced by blind trust, because it is easier. Action has too often not been taken, because of all sorts of reasons. Financial commitment has not been made, because (fill in whatever excuse you want.)

Over the past quarter century, the most engaged segment of the population has been the right-wing "Christian" fanatic pushing an incredibly reactionary agenda. I think the results speak for themselves.

This is the core principle of the Obama campaign - one that most naysayers simply do not understand. President Obama is not going to fix anything by himself. He will need OUR involvement to continue beyond the election, in order to accomplish anything. Unlike most candidates, Barack Obama actually wants (and needs) ordinary citizens to do more than just vote for them and go away.

We are not electing a savior, we are electing a partner.

We now are faced with an historic combination of circumstances that simply scream for citizen engagement:

Unpopular and illegal war going badly
Disintegrating economic conditions
potential catastrophic environmental and energy situations
Massive disaffection with government, and a clear desire for a change in direction
An historically independent candidate for President, seeking to enable those very changes.

We may never see such an opportunity again. If we do, I can promise, things will be much worse then than they are now.

So, what are you waiting for?

My goal is to raise at least $5000 toward this effort. (The campaign suggested starting with a goal of $1000, but that does not accurately reflect the level of urgency I place on this campaign. If I could, I'd raise $100,000. Honestly, I was going to set it there, but I thought it would look a little presumptuous when the thermostat is sitting at zero.)

Will you please make a donation to help reach that goal?

Any donation, from $10 to $2500, makes a difference. The campaign will soon have 1.5 million donors. That is a lot of donors, but considering the number of people who stand to benefit (about 90% of Americans) it ought to be closer to 15 million.

So please, grab a credit card, and donate whatever you can afford today. I promise it will be money ~~well spent~~ intelligently INVESTED.

Thank you!

You have to see this (On Media Behavior)

David H. Stern, M.D. — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:49:03 EDT

I know it's on my "daily reading list" but this column from Glenn Greenwald just screamed out for sharing:

[This article is distributed for non-profit purposes only to those who have expressed an interest in receiving such material in accordance with Fair Use Copyright Practices.]

David Brooks' fictitious defense of his industry's behavior

Establishment journalists blame the interests of Americans for their coverage choices without having any idea if their claims are true. Glenn Greenwald | Apr. 18, 2008

As I've noted more times than I can count, the premiere manipulative, deceitful tactic of the Beltway pundit is the pretense that they are the Spokespeople for the Regular Americans, and that the pundits' views can therefore be assumed to be representative of how Regular Americans think, even when there is no evidence remotely suggesting that to be so and ample evidence suggesting that it is false, and the prime practitioner of this corrupt method is David Brooks. Today, in his New York Times column, Brooks again defends the tawdry, juvenile ABC "debate" and hauls out this tactic to do so:

But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry's windsurfing or John Edwards's haircut as clues about shared values. . . . When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he's one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

As always, David Brooks knows how "they" think and what's important to "them" -- so much so that no proof is ever needed for his claims. As always, it's not David Brooks and his childish colleagues in journalism who are interested in insipid, Drudge-like storylines. No, not at all. They so wish they could be covering weightier matters. But they can't, because those stunted, unsophisticated Americans out there -- the ones Brooks is able simultaneously to look down upon and understand and speak for -- don't want to hear about any weighty matters. They are capable only of thinking about whether Obama can bowl and whether Edwards likes his hair too much (and, of course, it's the very same media stars who spout this condescension about the Regular Folk who have decreed that Barack Obama -- and Al Gore, John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, etc. etc. -- are elitists because they look down on Regular Americans).

Leave aside the question of whether those who hold themselves out as political journalists ought to report on substantive matters and be guided by objectives other than maximizing profits. Even with regard to what "Americans" want, David Brooks has no idea whether what he's saying here is true and he also doesn't care. He asserts these matters as fact because his only goal is to defend his "profession" and his colleagues. Thus, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos and all the rest of them have no choice but to be as petty and vapid as they are because that's what "Americans" want.

All available data proves the opposite. As the media assault on Obama's "character" intensifies using the petty, cliched personality themes that are the hallmark of their leader, Matt Drudge, Obama hasn't appeared to suffer much at all. To the contrary, he has steadily gained on Clinton in Pennsylvania beginning with the lapel pin/Michelle Obama/Wright/bowling/"bitter" controversies. Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the political coverage fed to them by the establishment media, which is held in almost as low esteem as the Bush administration, and complaints are common that the political process has little to do with their lives. Though it never occurs to him, the fact that the David Brooks of the world can't stop fixating on bowling scores and haircuts -- while the country spirals into extreme economic insecurity and more deeply into a Middle East occupation which the country hates -- might be one reason why:

The public, in turn, sees a news industry whose corporations increasingly act like other businesses. News outlets in an era of fragmentation seem more prone to produce content designed only to attract a crowd. Alerts of journalistic failures are coming more frequently from politicians, bloggers, mainstream press critics and, with more ways to add their own voice, even citizens themselves. Perhaps most important, with more choices, the public can easily see the limits of what any one news organization is offering.

The reason the establishment press fixates on these adolescent themes has nothing to do with what "Americans" want. It has everything to do with the fact that it's what these journalists always do; it's what they're programmed to do; and, at this point, it's all the empty and slothful media stars know how to do.

Critically, they're not just assaulting Obama (and, before him, Clinton and Edwards) with randomly selected petty trash. It's purposeful and familiar: all of these Drudgian paper cuts are intended to expose Obama as an exotic, bizarre, effete, vaguely American-hating elitist who is out of touch with Regular Americans and plagued by a personality so unlikable that you can't possibly vote for him even if you agree with him on all of the issues -- just as was true for virtually every national Democratic leader before him. All of this happens while the media reverence for John McCain and his character, "strength," likability and integrity grow -- far beyond even the affection they acknowledge they have long harbored for the amiable war hero, George W. Bush, and which is obligatorily directed at the canonized Ronald Reagan.

As I wrote in Great American Hypocrites:

As always, Drudge rules their world and they become his echo chamber. If he selects a petty, personality-smearing story to trumpet, and the media (as they always do) dutifully follows, then that alone constitutes "proof" of the storyâ€™s importance, evidence that "plenty of people" care about it, which in turn justifies the media's continuous chatter about it.

Most certainly, the press will pretend to be above it all ("this is not something that we, the sophisticated political journalists, care about, of course"). But they yammer about Drudge-promoted gossip endlessly, and then insist that their own chattering is proof that it is an important story that people care about. And because they conclude that "people" (i.e., them) are concerned with the story, they keep chirping about it, which in turn fuels their belief that the story is important. It is an endless loop of self-referential narcissismâ€”whatever they endlessly sputter is what "the people" care about, and therefore they must keep harping on it, because their chatter is proof of its importance.

They no longer even need Drudge to lead the way. They find that path on their own now. Journalists like Brooks and his friends fixate on these issues because they're what interests them, because it takes no work and no thought to chatter about it, because they have been fed their trashy storylines by right-wing operatives ever since they formed their partnership with them during the Clinton sex witch hunts, and because the people who become media stars become media stars because this is what they do best (Digby has more on that here). Blaming the American public for the behavior of these journalists only compounds the deceit and scurrilousness of it, particularly given that nobody is more removed and insulted from what "Regular Americans" think than the coddled, pack-mentality media stars who fantasize that they are their spokesmen.

I was on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman this morning to discuss these matters. The video can be seen here.

UPDATE: One of the most deceitful aspects of this Brooksian "they-think" theme is that there is an actual, reliable method for ascertaining what Americans think. It's called "polling data." Making assertions about what "Americans believe" without resorting to it is inherently suspicious and typically intended to mislead.

Here is one poll in which the Philadelphia Daily News asked its readers what they thought of the way the ABC debate was conducted:

I don't know how reliable the polling method was, but still, that's rather decisive -- 85% said the debate was either "disappointing" or "terrible" due to its focus on petty matters. It's the exact opposite of what their self-anointed Spokesman, David Brooks, claimed they believe.

UPDATE II: Rasmussen Reports today:

The Democratic Presidential Primary in Pennsylvania is getting even closer. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows Hillary Clinton with 47% of the vote and Barack Obama with 44%. This election poll was conducted Thursday night, the night following a nationally televised debate between the candidates. Last Monday, Clinton was leading Obama 50% to 41%.

It's a bit difficult to maintain that Americans find the tiny personality assaults from Brooks and his friends to be relevant when, as those assaults are directed more and more at Obama, he rises more and more in the polls. There are, of course, other possible explanations, but this data along with that cited above offers yet more evidence to negate the self-justifying claim from journalists that they cover insipid, Drudge-like trash because that's what Regular Americans care about.

I'll note once more the media stampede back in late December/early January during which they proclaimed as a pack consensus that the various pre-Iowa "gaffes" of Mike Huckabee doomed his chances to win that primary. Days later, Huckabee won by 9 points -- because huge numbers of voters, quite plainly, find extremely unimportant the small-minded, pointless chatter on which national journalists obsess.

UPDATE III: Ironically enough, I was just on a show on News Channel 8 in Washington (which will be re-broadcast at 11:00 pm tonight) and the guest immediately preceding me was, as the host called him, "the great David Broder of The Washington Post." Broder had just returned from one of his sociological field trips -- this one to Western Pennsylvania -- where he studies the cute little voters "in the diners and barbershops" as though they're zoo animals and was there to report on what and how "they" think.

"They're a really interesting group of voters because they're very unpredictable," he said with a sympathetic smile, and then added that they don't really know the details of anyone's policies but they sure do have strong opinions. Unlike Barack Obama, there's nothing condescending about how our media stars think of the Average Voter.

In any event, Broder said that while some Pennsylvania voters talked about Jeremiah Wright, what they really cared about was the economic crisis and Iraq, and that not a single one of them -- not once -- even mentioned the "bitter" comments made by Obama in San Francisco that have been dominating our news cycle for more than a week. Moreover, Broder said that they cared about Iraq so much that it was an insurmountable obstacle for many of them for supporting John McCain no matter what other issues there are, since they want to leave Iraq, not stay longer. Both Brooks and Broder fancy themselves Spokesmen for the American Heartland Voter yet they don't seem to be on the same page, at all, concerning the beliefs and thoughts of the Regular People whom they represent.

-- Glenn Greenwald

Introduction

David H. Stern, M.D. — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:41:52 EDT

Hello, everyone! I am just now creating this blog - which I have put off doing for far too long.

I have lots of materials and lots of ideas to share, but unfortunately, it is very late right now, so I'm going to have leave that for later.

For now, some links to recent posts I've left elsewhere:

Focus, Focus, Focus My Unsolicited Advice for Senator Obama when dealing with Distraction Attacks.

Letters: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! - SalonComments on claims of Sexism in the Primary Race

I've thought some more about this: On Obama's "support" for Unholy Joe in the 2006 Primary

Connecticut Voters have themselves to blame... for their "Buyer's Remorse" about Holy Joe

Reassigning Penn is akin to rearranging chairs... How to View the Clinton "Shake Up"

WSJ.com Forums :: View topic - Obama's Wiretap Votes An oldie but goodie response to the Journal.

More later, I'm sure!!