MediumSkinFade

Donating to Obama IS NOT ABOUT Obama

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:35:34 EDT

I know many of you, like myself, have been disappointed with a few of the votes cast recently by Barack Obama; specifically FISA. To some extent, the bloom is off the rose a bit. However, chalk me up in the group of people that believes this is actually a good thing. I've never been too big a fan of placing all my eggs in one basket. Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, which means his success translates to the implementation of a Democratic Party political agenda. As of now, that is a political agenda that is vastly more popular than the initiatives being pushed by Republicans. It is imperative that we provide Barack with the means to effectively respond to the upcoming ad blitz.

I've seen this movie before and I don't particularly like the ending the first time. The Republicans are gearing up for a massive August ad blitz that will be used to "define" Sen. Obama. One of the disadvantages to being relatively new to the national political landscape is that Barack is more susceptible to being biographically "defined" by the Republican Party. Here's a rundown of how the Republican ad blitz will unfold; I can name that tune in about five notes:

HUSSEIN!!

PATRIOTISM!!

DOESN'T SHARE YOUR VALUES!!

SCARY BLACK PREACHER!!

SECRET MUSLIM!!

Let's not lose the forest for the trees.  If you, like myself, have been disappointed with Barack's recent specific votes, I'd ask you to consider donating to the following causes instead:
1. Securing universal [or, at a minimum, near universal] health care.
2. Securing [or frankly, even caring about & movings towards] energy independence.
3. Veterans Benefits [Veterans are quickly becoming the new Republican Party version of a fetus--they care about you from conception to birth, but after that, you're on your own].
4. Ending the war in Iraq [as opposed to the hallucinatory idea that we should maintain a large, long-term presence ala Korea/Germany].
5. Not instigating a war with Iran.
6. Progressive taxation.
7. Women's reproductive choice.
8. Bringing back some semblance of government regulation [as opposed to the ridiculous, Phil Gramm, 'let-the-free-market' dictate everything form of conservatism].
9. Allowing poor John Paul Stevens to retire [for the love of god, the man's about 673 years old--can we please elect a Democrat?  I think he'd might like to step down].
10. Fiscal responsibility [some might say sanity].

There are obviously many others, but I'm sure that everyone gets the drift; especially if you're either a registered Democrat or Independent.  Please use the link below to donate [or go to the website itself if not comfortable using mine].  Thanks.

Hope everyone has a fantastic weekend.  Take care and, as always, keep up the good work.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Sincerely,

Jeff Cronin

WaPo Ombudsman Responds to Criticism of Obama Hit-Piece

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:32:49 EDT

Deborah Powell, the Washington Post's ombudsman, responded to criticism the Post had received for its article concerning Barack Obama's home mortgage.

The story that originated the criticism ran on page A3 of the July 2nd paper & was titled: "Obama Got Discount on Home Loan."

Where do I even begin with both the story and Howell's analysis of the story? Neither of the articles are exactly moving targets.

I won't even dissect the original WaPo article, which was a gutter-level smear through innuendo masquerading as investigative journalism.

Howell provides some context under which the original story was written, but gets to the meat of her analysis near the end of her critique. The circular logic is simply priceless.

In the second to last paragraph, Howell states:

Readers deserve to know everything pertinent The Post can find out about Barack Obama and John McCain's finances. In that context [the public deserving to know everything pertinent--brackets mine] and in the context of the home mortgage crisis, the story had news value.

Moving to the last paragraph, Howell concludes:

Still, the story had a negative cast to it. It also lacked the important context that other wealthy and savvy borrowers could have done as well under similar circumstances.

Let me attempt to wrap my noodle around those two statements.
Think about those sentences for a moment.

I, the reader, as a member of the public, deserve to know everything pertinent about public officials getting sweetheart deals, specifically, I assume, because of
the home mortgage crisis. In that context, Howell writes that "the story had news value".

Howell then pivots off of that statement to conclude that "other wealthy and savvy borrowers could have done as well under similar circumstances" [could have done just as well=no sweetheart deal].

So, unless I'm completely dense, Howell has just admitted that "the story had a negative cast to it" while maintaining its newsworthiness. Ostensibly, Howell admits that the condition that needed to exist [Sen. Obama receiving a sweetheart deal] for the story to be pertinent did not, in fact, exist.

This article was a hit piece.

I'm sure that it wasn't meant to be a hit piece. I'm sure that everyone involved had the best journalistic intentions, although I'm not sure what is worse: the smear by innuendo nature of the article or Howell's insistence that it was "newsworthy".

I was reading through a message board of a Jake Tapper story the other day concerning Sen. McCain and his Pittsburgh Steelers comments. There were multiple posts in which the posters trotted out all the greatest hits: "Rezko", Bitter-Gate", "Lapel Pin" & "Michelle not Proud of America" to diminish Sen. Obama.

However, now they had a new one--"Sweetheart Deal". Short. Easy to understand. Encapsulating multiple problems and themes into one word.

You can't put the genie back into the bottle now, WaPo [not that you're even trying]. Howell should be ashamed of this story and the implications it has for the quality of journalism at WaPo in that it was able to make it to press. This story should have been killed.

And it's, frankly, the type of hit-piece that someone needs to lose their job over. And people wonder why readers are abandoning newspapers in droves.

VOTE. VOLUNTEER. DONATE.

McCain Uses POW Staus as Sword & Shield

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:30:11 EDT

Ridiculing the McCain campaign for their performance this week is a bit akin to being set loose at a pinata, except with a big club and no blindfold. The McCain campaign is the political equivalent of low-hanging fruit.

That said, one thing that I have never criticized John McCain for is the use of his former POW status to promote his campaign. It's gripping, unusual stuff that works as a narrative bridge for Sen. McCain to connect with voters that often seem riveted by the tales. As far as I'm concerned, Sen. McCain has every right to exploit his former POW status for political gain. Frankly, I wouldn't expect anything else; it's good politics.

However, we are long past the time where the McCain narrative that he is "reluctant" to talk about his experiences should receive any coverage in the media. That train left the station a long, long time ago.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single day on the campaign trail when Sen. McCain does not bring up his former POW status completely unprompted.

The problem isn't that he repeatedly invokes his experiences unprompted, but rather, that he does it in such a crass politically pandering way. And then when he gets called on it, he recoils into his cocoon of "reluctance". For example, when a reporter on the "Straight-Talk Express had the temerity to ask Sen. McCain how his experiences were relevant to his present job pursuits, McCain reacted thusly:

McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency.

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

McCain then collected himself and apologized for his initial reaction.

"I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences," he said, noting that he has huge admiration for the "heroes" who served with him in the POW camp and said the experience taught him to love the U.S. because he missed it so much.

"I am always reluctant to talk about these things," McCain said.

This is the typical McCain dodge; using his POW status as a shield. He invokes it, along with the flash of anger, whenever he doesn't care to answer a question. And he does it often.

I mention this because McCain had the flap over recounting his experiences incorrectly in an interview in Pittsburgh this week. Sen. McCain was simply asked what came to his mind when he thought of Pittsburgh and somehow turned that into a story about being a POW [but he's reluctant to talk about these things]. This is how the encounter was reported:

Asked Wednesday by KDKA-TV's Jon Delano what first comes to mind when he thinks of Pittsburgh, Mr. McCain said, "The Steelers. I was a mediocre high school athlete and I loved and adored sports but the Steelers really made a huge impression on me, particularly in the early years."

Sitting by his wife Cindy, the senator then told a story about his 51/2 years as a POW.

"When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the pressures, the physical pressures that were on me, I named the starting lineup -- defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers -- as my squadron mates."

Of course, the story wasn't true. According to McCain's previous tellings, it was the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers [a story he has recounted on numerous occasions, including in his most recent book and HERE]. It was basically a crass pander to a political swing state audience. Much like Hillary and sniper fire, Sen. McCain simply changed the story to fit present circumstances. However, unlike Hillary, McCain seems to think of himself as the last honest man in politics and above this type of crass political pandering.

This is McCain using his former POW status as a sword; bringing up his experiences unprompted to fit a campaign narrative that he wishes to push.

But what makes this story especially maddening is not that McCain brings up the experiences unprompted; or even that he occasionally fudges the stories to fit present political circumstances [a charitable conclusion, I think]. No, it's that when he's called on it, he attempts to crassly use the same experience as a shield from criticism.

Hence, this inexplicable statement put out by the McCain campaign when called on the lie:

The senator's mixup with the Steelers "was an honest mistake," a campaign spokesman said yesterday. "If bloggers want to make fun of John McCain because he forgot which team he used under torture, that is their right."

WOW!

Where do you even begin with that statement and its sheer audacity. So, it's not John McCain's problem because "he forgot" the team he used [which is almost impossible]. Rather, it's the bloggers that "want to make fun" of Sen. McCain, which, I assume means, asking legitimate questions about his retelling of the story and how he could have mixed up the teams.

Notice also, that the statement throws in the phrase "under torture" in an attempt to demonize anyone that deigns to question Sen. McCain's recounting of his experiences.

And by the way, how pathetic and weak is it that the presumptive Republican Party nominee can only muster a 'the bloggers are picking on me' response?

Frankly, this use of John McCain's former POW status as both a sword and shield is borderline unconscionable. And, it's not that different from how President Bush and Karl Rove used patriotism as a bludgeon to keep the MSM at bay in the run-up to the Iraq War.

At long last, is there ANYONE in the MSM that will have the guts to call the McCain campaign on their rank political opportunism?

I certainly hope so; before it's too late.

VOTE. VOLUNTEER. DONATE.

John McCain's Fraudulent Bait & Switch

""""Jeff C."""" — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:47:37 EDT

John McCain has basically turned into a used car salesman. I mean, he already has the comb-over; all he needs now is a good plaid sports coat to complete the deal. I would suggest this one for Grampy McSame.

I've basically given up on the notion that the media will challenge McCain on his statements about issues such as social security, let alone his brazenly deceitful bait & switch on economists' support for his "economic plan" [which I feel compelled to place in quotes].

So, Sen. McCain is running around the country touting his "Jobs for America" plan & his promise to balance the budget by 2013 thusly:

And I am convinced that we can do that. Our economic plan has beensupported by 300 economists and five Nobel laureates. Now, they havesupported our economic plan. There are those who don't agree with it ordon't believe it, who don't believe our economy can improve, who don’tbelieve that ingenuity and entrepreneurship of Americans can beunleashed. I do.

First, about the only thing the McCain economic plan will unleash is about $4 TRILLION of new debt to saddle future generations with over that time-frame. Second, there's a problem with those 300 economists and five Nobel laureates that support the plan.

They don't!

The McCain campaign has engaged in a classic form of bait & switch. The scam goes something like this:

The 300 economists were given a 403 word statement of extremely broad economic principles, such as support for free trade, and signed on in support. Their signatures were then attached to the 15 page "Jobs for America" proposal. McCain then goes out on the stump and touts the economists support for his "Jobs for America" plan.

So, what's in the 15 page proposal that is not in the 403 word statement?

How about the gas-tax holiday? No, that wasn't in there.

The promise to balance the budget by the end of his first term [which, by the way, is one of the centerpieces of the 15 page plan]? Nope--that's not in there either. In fact, one of the signatories that McCain cites stated [when actually informed that his signature was being used to tout McCain's entire plan]:

"He's not going to balance the budget," Albrecht said.

One of the 300 economists and five Nobel laureates that support the plan stated:

"I would describe myself as an Obama supporter," he explained. "Maybe I shouldn't have rushed into signing the letter."

Perhaps, although it's a bit difficult when the McCain campaign is so actively engaged in hiding the ball.

So, I have no allusions that the media will cover the fact that a jaw-droppingly cynical fraud is being perpetrated on voters. Why would they? It's not as if the national economy is in shambles and this is a presidential candidate's economic plan. I mean--hey . . . we only just suffered through the worst June economically SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why talk about blatant deceit when you can flog the 'Straight-Talk Express', 'maverick', 'putting the country first' narrative? I mean, Sen. McCain's honor is beyond reproach to his base [the media].

Because if we looked into facts, we might just strip away some of the fantasy narrative and see a disingenuous political opportunist blatantly lying about the most important issue facing the country.

But hey, he was a POW so . . . . never mind.

Sen. Obama's Growing Enthusiasm Gap

""""Jeff C."""" — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:07:30 EDT

Hello All:

A quick thought before the holiday.

Barack Obama has a growing enthusiasm gap. Not with John McCain mind you; his support would have to completely flat-line before it would sink below the enthusiasm of McCain's supporters; who have the collective enthusiasm of a group going for a root-canal. No, the enthusiasm gap is with his own supporters [myself included]; and our view towards Sen. Obama during the primary campaign compared to their view of him at the moment.

Sure, I don't think anyone has abandoned Sen. Obama. I still write the occasional blog in support of Barack and will certainly cast my vote for him in the fall. However, the frequency with which I'm donating to his campaign and expending energy on his behalf has markedly decreased. I've been disappointed with Sen. Obama's rightward tack since clinching the nomination. I understand why he's doing what he's doing [although I disagree with the political effectiveness of the strategy and strongly believe he is doing incredible damage to his political brand].

It seems to me that the Obama campaign, which to now has been quite forward thinking, has allowed itself to be drawn to the "center" based on what constituted the "center" in previous elections. Unfortunately, the "center" in American politics has drifted increasingly rightward over the past thirty years; which means it's somewhat of a false floor. And the only way to have the debate on Democratic Party turf is to strongly advocate progressive positions and pull the "center" back to a more traditionally center place.

Prior to this year's campaign I was a fairly apathetic [at least politically] registered independent that leaned towards the Democratic Party, although I did not always cast my votes for a Democrat. I gave money [for the first time] to the DCCC in 2006; a whopping sum of $50. This year I have given the maximum $2300 during the primary campaign, blogged, did volunteer work and raised an additional $1500 through my Obama Fundraising Page.

In short, I have expended a considerable amount of time and energy; time and energy that could easily be allocated to any number of other endeavors in my life. I did this [such as making some contributions on my credit card--I know, I'm not a smart man, but that's for another diary] because Barack was able to tap into the general dissatisfaction with the political process that many people genuinely held. I think there are millions of others out there that were there for the political taking, but just didn't see anything worth getting excited about. Barack expertly tapped into that dissatisfaction with Washington in general, and, politics specifically.

I started my Obama page in January. This is what I wrote then:

Barack Obama and I are committed to changing the political process with a campaign built on a broad base of support from ordinary Americans. We believe the only way to bring about lasting and needed change in our government is by rejecting the typical Washington-style slash and burn politics; by seeking to inspire voters by highlighting our possibilities rather than preying on our fears; and, by tapping into the hard work and ingenuity that has served us so well. But this can only happen with your help.

Today, I ask you to stand with me and believe that government can be more than driving up your opponent's negatives; that government can be more than lowest common denominator partisanship. Our government is a direct reflection of who we are. Our elected leaders represent us. It is not enough to merely replace a president with an "R" next to their name with someone with a "D" next to their name.

Those words seem kind of overly simplistic and, frankly, silly now. Maybe that's for the best. Maybe the old adage that 'Democrats fall in love & Republicans fall in line' is correct. I certainly wouldn't take any pride in some dreamy, wide-eyed idealistic losing campaign. The most important thing is to win. However, I have quite a bit to do during my day.

Like most people, I'm quite busy. I also have about $100K in law school loans and can't really afford to give any more money away. So, it's not too difficult to find an excuse not to donate to Sen. Obama's campaign. And not that I'm a harbinger by any stretch, but I think there are a lot of people out there like me. Sen. Obama isn't going to lose our vote. But he can lose our enthusiasm. In the end, that might be just as bad because it was the enthusiasm that allowed Barack to prevail over Sen. Clinton in the primary.

Maybe I'm wrong; perhaps it was inevitable at the end of a long, hard-fought primary campaign to lose a little steam. I certainly hope so. However, if I were with the Obama campaign, I'd be concerned.

Sincerely,

Jeff Cronin

Sen. Obama's Growing Enthusiasm Gap

""""Jeff C."""" — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:02:31 EDT

Hello All:

A quick thought before the holiday.

It seems to me that the Obama campaign, which to now has been quite forward thinking, has allowed itself to be drawn to the "center" based on what constituted the "center" in previous elections. Unfortunately, the "center" in American politics has drifted increasingly rightward over the past thirty years; which menas it's somewhat of a false floor. And the only way to have the debate on Democratic Party turf is to strongly advocate progressive positions and pull the "center" back to a more traditionally center place.

I did this [such as making some contributions on my credit card--I know, I'm not a smart man, but that's for another diary] because Barack was able to tap into the general dissatisfaction with the political process that many people genuinely held. I think there are millions of others out there that were there for the political taking, but just didn't see anything worth getting excited about. Barack expertly tapped into that dissatisfaction with Washington in general, and, politics specifically.

I started my Obama page in January. This is what I wrote then:

Barack Obama and I are committed to changing the political process with a campaign built on a broad base of support from ordinary Americans. We believe the only way to bring about lasting and needed change in our government is by rejecting the typical Washington-style slash and burn politics; by seeking to inspire voters by highlighting our possibilities rather than preying on our fears; and, by tapping into the hard work and ingenuity that has served us so well. But this can only happen with your help.
Today, I ask you to stand with me and believe that government can be more than driving up your opponent's negatives; that government can be more than lowest common denominator partisanship. Our government is a direct reflection of who we are. Our elected leaders represent us. It is not enough to merely replace a president with an "R" next to their name with someone with a "D" next to their name.

Those words seem kind of overly simplistic and, frankly, silly now. Maybe that's for the best. Maybe the old adage that 'Democrats fall in love & Republicans fall in line' is correct. I certainly wouldn't take any pride in some dreamy, wide-eyed idealistic losing campaign. The most important thing is to win.

However, I have quite a bit to do during my day. Like most people, I'm quite busy. I also have about $100K in law school loans and can't really afford to give any more money away. So, it's not too difficult to find an excuse not to donate to Sen. Obama's campaign. And not that I'm a harbinger by any stretch, but I think there are a lot of people out there like me. Sen. Obama isn't going to lose our vote. But he can lose our enthusiasm. In the end, that might be just as bad because it was the enthusiasm that allowed Barack to prevail over Sen. Clinton in the primary.

Sincerely,

Jeff Cronin

John McCain Debates John McCain

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:07:06 EDT

Hello friends:

Here are a few clips of jaw-dropping reversals that would be a bit more comical if the consequences of electing the speaker of them weren't so dire. These clips aren't terribly negative or ominous; just Sen. McCain in his own words. I strongly encourage everyone to forward them to five friends that are not supporters of Sen. Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=any3LY_zlqg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

I actually like and respect John McCain. In a way, I feel for him. He's had to navigate a tricky course in order to secure the Republican Party nomination. Unfortunately, in gravitating to the right and embracing positions that he previously denounced, he has subsequently shredded his most positive attribute--his reputation as a 'straight-talking' 'maverick'; although I believe that was always more a media-driven fiction than reality.

Either way, the 'Straight-Talk Express' is more akin to the 'Pander Express' these days. Regardless of what John McCain truly believes, the mere fact that he is now fully beholden to the Bush-wing of the Republican Party is reason enough to do everything to support Sen. Obama.

As an aside, I encourage everyone to send their thoughts and prayers--or good kharma, to our firends in the Midwest. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure.

Also, if anyone should feel inclined to donate to Sen. Obama's campaign through my page, I will match your contributions up to $10 for the campaign and $10 for flood relief.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Hope everyone is having a wonderful weekend. Keep up the good work and, as always, take care.

Jeff Cronin

Memo to Democratic Party Members of Congress

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 10 May 2008 18:02:27 EDT

TO: Democratic Party members in Congress that are interested in keeping their jobs

FROM: Someone stating the obvious

For those of you that were too dense to figure it out earlier, the past few weeks should have made everything clear for even the densest among you to miss. That is, the Clintons are toxic for the DemocraticParty; and not just a garden variety of toxicity mind you--but rather anuclear winter form of 'there's nothing left but Keith Richards and cockroaches' toxic.

Hillary's been singing an oldie but a goody[at least for the Republican Party] for the past few days. I can namethat tune in five syllables: triangulation.

It's the old "third way" back with a bang. In its most recent iteration, I believe Hillary has referred to it as her "Goldilocks" idea with regards to the gas-tax holiday. She referred to her hare-brained scheme thusly:

"You know, Sen. Obama says we shouldn't do it and it's
a gimmick. And Sen. McCain says we should do it, but we shouldn't pay
for it," Clinton said. "I sometimes feel like the Goldilocks of this
campaign: Not too much. Not too little. Just right."

Every democrat by now should be very familiar with this scam. It's the same scam that cost the democrats about sixty congressional seats and nine governorships during the Clinton presidency.

It goes something like this: you artificially split the difference between the republican and democratic positions. You offer an "alternative" while simultaneously knee-capping others within your party. Your fellow party members are now left with their deals, notwithstanding the gender inequity of the statement, swinging in the wind.

Despite the obvious drawback of leaving the people in your party hanging out in the wind, there's a less obvious and more damning consequence. That is, it artificially moves the line on the political continuum rightward. This is especially damaging when liberal/progressive policy views are ascendant.

That's how policy such as DOMA, AUMF, the Telecommunications Act, the Welfare Reform Act and the Anti-terrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act come to be seen as "bi-partisan" legislation.

That's how what constitutes mainstream Republican Party ideas now are those that would have only been considered by John Birch Society wingnuts a generation ago. Because the so-called "fighters"
allowed the political center to be dragged way to the right while they simultaneously double-crossed those in their own party that went out a limb for them.

It's time for this hideous race to the bottom to end. It's time for democrats to start being democrats again.

Just walk away democrats. Don't look back. Get as much crap as you can stuff into the car, grab the kids and beat it out of Dodge. You don't have to take the abuse any longer. Everything will be alright.

Traitorous Republicans are Breaking the Law

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:51:38 EDT

This little nugget appeared Tuesday in The Indianapolis Star. It was titled "Hardcore Republicans Voting Democrat":

Jim Adams, 36, voted for Hillary Clinton to keep the race going beyond Indiana. He's a McCain backer and enjoys watching the Democrats fight.

"In the end, I think McCain is going to win," Adams said, and then referred to controversial statements by Bill Clinton and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor. "Bill can't keep his mouth shut, and the reverend can't keep his mouth shut."

Notwithstanding the fact that this is illegal under Indiana election laws, albeit considered unenforceable by most experts, it's time to challenge these republicans and force them to sign affidavits under penalty of perjury. Here's the Indiana election law:

IC 3-10-1-6

Eligible voters

Sec. 6. A voter may vote at a primary election:

(1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or

(2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.

Yes, Jim Adams, 36; you just broke the law. By the way, aren't the republicans supposed to be the "law & order" and "family values" party?

It's time to start prosecuting the Jim Adams' of the Republican Party and hold them accountable for their willful violations of the law. Not only is this entire "Operation Chaos" nonsense completely ridiculous, it's frankly traitorous; and, attempts to undermine the exercise of the most important right in American life.

This is a right for which individuals have fought and died in order to obtain. This isn't funny or cute. It's illegal and traitorous; and should be treated as such.

With Us or Against Us

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 03 May 2008 12:15:08 EDT

Seems like a no-brainer to me. I throw my hat in with the "against" folks.

In case everyone hasn't already heard, Sen. Clinton--tired of co-opting John McCain's campaign material, dusted off one of President Bush's golden oldies during a campaign speech in Indiana the other night. The line was in reference to her gratuitously pandering "gas-tax holiday" idea.

Always one to double down on a bad bet, Sen. Clinton stated she would introduce legislation in Congress, which she framed this way:

I want them [meaning Congress] to tell us, are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies?

Don't we already have enough experience with a president that refuses to admit they're wrong and plows ahead despite all evidence to the contrary? How's that been working out for us?

OK--put aside for the moment that the "them" to which Sen. Clinton refers is a Congress that is controlled by the Democratic Party; the party of which she is a member.

Put aside that the "us" to which she is referring are members of the Democratic Party that support her.

Put aside that the Speaker of the House, a democrat, has said the proposal is going nowhere.

Put aside that no one actually believes Sen. Clinton's proposal is a good idea, which more than likely includes herself. In fact, 150 economists across the political spectrum independently put out a petition stating what a hare-brained idea this is.

Putting aside all that, is there really anyone left out there--with the exception of the most dyed-in-the-wool Clinton supporters, that honestly believes Sen. Clinton is placing the interests of the country or her party ahead of herself?

Aren't we long past accepting this type of cheap gimmickry from our elected leaders? If not, this is exatcly the type of vote-buying crap that we deserve.

The "Gas-Tax Holiday" is the Defining Issue of the Campaign

""""Jeff C."""" — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:04:17 EDT

The current Clinton campaign spin, which actually means the Clinton campaignitself, is that they have a political "winner" with regards tothe "gas-tax holiday" issue. Never mind that the McCain-Clinton proposal hasbeen universally panned as the crassest form of short-term pandering.

Sen. Obama has a put out a response ad that I believe is largely ineffectiveand walks right into a trap that has been set by the Clinton campaign. InSen. Obama's ad, he mocks the amount of money that the average driverwill save on gas and decries the McCain-Clinton proposal as typical
Washington game-playing [which is exactly what it is].

However, Sen. Obama has exposed his flank with the ad. It allows the Clinton campaign to respond with the kind of mock-outrage and tsk-tsk'ing for which they have no peers. The Clinton campaign response, which I'm paraphrasing, goes something like this:

Well, Sen. Obama might not think that $30 is much money, but to working families struggling to make their mortgage payments and put food on the table it's a welcome break.

The response plays right into the perceived weakness of Sen. Obama [which I happen to think is ludicrous]; which is, that he doesn't understand the struggles of blue-collar workers and cannot connect with them.

The intrepid folks at Talking Points Memo reported the spin from the Clinton campaign in today's conference call this way:

Is Hillary gaining politically by her support for a so-called "gas tax holiday"?
On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin claimed that the campaign's internal polling shows that it is.
"We're seeing in our polling that working people appreciate the fact that Senator Clinton understands the incredible economic strain they are facing," Garin said.
Also, Garin sought to spin one of the main arguments against the gas tax holiday -- the fact that it saves consumers a negligible amount on average -- as a further sign that Hillary's in touch with blue-collar workers.
"It may not seem like a lot to some people," Garin said, adding that "every penny counts."
The fact that Hillary supports the gas tax holiday because she understands that the meager average savings involved do matter to ordinary folks is likely to be core Hillary spin as the gas tax argument continues to unfold.

Sen. Obama needs to put out a response ad that basically squarely hits back on the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign spin. No one actually believes that Sen. Clinton thinks this is a prudent policy choice. However, because the Clinton campaign's internal polling shows that this is a good political issue, then Sen. Clinton is willing to crassly milk it for all its worth.

Never mind that no one actually believes that its a good idea. Sen. Obama should be hammering this issue because it plays right into the worst stereotype with regards to Sen. Clinton--and fairly, I believe. That is, that she is willing to do or say anything in order to win an election. That every decision she makes is not about what's best for Indiana, or North Carolina, or America; but rather, what is best for her.

She has the same position as John McCain on this issue.

She was with John McCain in voting to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

She was with John McCain in voting to authorize this disastrous war.

Why? Because she believed it was the right thing to do? No--it was because it was the politically expedient thing to do at the time for her; damn the consequences for the country. Republican policies have been a disaster for blue-collar folks for the past eight years. The Democratic Party will not win this year simply by being republican-lite.

That's why today's conference call should be so damaging to the Clinton campaign. Chief Strategist Geoff Garin only stated what many folks already know: that the Clinton campaign is pushing this proposal because their internal polling tells them it helps Sen. Clinton now.

It's really this simple: Sen. Clinton is doing what she thinks is best for her; Sen. Obama is doing what he thinks is best for America.

Think about the question posed by TPM and the answer for America and states such as Indiana & North Carolina:

Is Hillary gaining politically by her support for a so-called "gas tax holiday?

When she wins; we lose.

As always folks take care and keep up the good work.

Jeff Cronin

John McCain's Hyper Macho Posturing

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:52:51 EDT

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is generally thought of as "an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive overreaction to a problem."

With Sen. McCain's recent--and borderline loony, comments that he will be "Hamas' worst nightmare;" it's becoming increasingly clear that John McCain will cut off America's nose to spite its face.

Sen. McCain made the comment while dishing out a little red meat on a conference call with conservative bloggers. The comment, made in the context of criticizing Barack Obama, is as follows:

All I can tell you is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States ... I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas' worst nightmare ... If Sen. Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

This statement is not just wrong-headed and foolish, but rather, incredibly dangerous and destructive. It's exactly the kind of foreign policy perspective that spends far too much time seeking to punish others for perceived slights and too little promoting our own bests interests.

Matthew Yglesias had an interesting, and what I believe should be the predominant, reaction to Sen. McCain's comments in his blog at the Atlantic yesterday:

As well as being kind of scumbaggy, this way of looking at the world reveals a seriously flawed foreign policy outlook. Consider Saddam Hussein. He's a bad dude. And which American president is his worst nightmare? Well, it's George W. Bush. Thanks to Bush, Saddam got booted from power and killed. Compared to George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Dubya was a disaster for Saddam. But of course Dubya's Iraq policy has also been a disaster for the United States of America, whereas Clinton and Papa Bush ran policies that made us better off. International politics shouldn't be conceived of as some nutty zero-sum race to the bottom where our goal is to make Hamas cry -- the question is who are we trying to help and do we have ways to do it. Probably the worst thing that could happen to Hamas would be for it to be supplanted by some more radical group like al-Qaeda. But that wouldn't help Israel or the United States, any more than getting into a self-destructive conflict with Iran is a good idea just because it might make some bad Iranians suffer.

Unfortunately, Sen. McCain's loony comments seem to form the prevailing view over the past eight years. Everything is about retribution. It's about punishment. It's about taking an eye for an eye. What it's not about is taking actions that promote the long-term interests of the United States and its allies.

It's time for a little nuance. It's time for a little "turn the other cheek". What it most definitely is not time for, is John McCain's retributive views on dealing with the people that he doesn't like.

John. C. Reilly's police officer in movie "Magnolia" debates these issues aloud in a voice-over narrative near the end of the movie. John McCain could learn a thing or two from this statement:

And what most people don't see is just how hard it is to do the right thing. I have to take everything and play it as it lays.
Sometimes people need a little help.
Sometimes people need to be forgiven.
And sometimes they need to go to jail.
And that is a very tricky thing on my part . . . making that call.

Very tricky indeed.

Isn't it about time to turn the page on the needlessly self-destructive "lock 'em up and throw away the key" crowd? Aren't we long past realizing that this sort of hyper-macho, bring-'em-on posturing has been a disaster to the long-term prosperity of America? Do we really want another hot-tempered practitioner of sandbox diplomacy in the White House?

John McCain's foreign policy world-view, and domestic policy view for that matter, is a retribution-based folly that would only ensure this country's continued moral erosion around the world and make us all decidedly less safe.

The policies and worldview of John McCain are America's worst enemy.

Sen. Clinton & the GOP Attack Machine

""""Jeff C."""" — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:22:23 EDT

Just a few quick thoughts this fine Sunday afternoon.

By now everyone has heard the Clinton campaign's endless justifications for the attacks on Sen. Obama, regarding particular topics of national importance--such as flag pins and William Ayers, as necessary because that's what the GOP will do in the fall. I'm not even going to cite anything because it's such a commonly accepted paradigm of the Clinton campaign.

Does this make a lick of sense?

As I pondered this notion, it reminded me of conversations I used to
have with my mom when I was eight. They unfolded roughly as follows:

Conversation #1

ME: Mom, can I [fill in the blank]?
MOM: No
ME [whining]: Butttt . . . Timmy does [fill in the blank]
MOM: If Timmy jumped off a bridge, would you jump also?

Conversation #2

ME: Mom, can I [fill in the blank]?
MOM: No
ME [whining]: Butttt . . . Timmy's mom lets him do [fill in the blank]
MOM: Then maybe you should go live at Timmy's house

I respectfully submit that perhaps it is time for Sen. Clinton to go live at Timmy's house.

Sen. Clinton May Have Secured My Vote

""""Jeff C."""" — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:45:51 EDT

I'm wavering in my support for Sen. Obama.

I've been leaning towards Barack Obama for a few months now. However, Sen. Clinton, in a speech today highlighting the importance of the Pennsylvania Primary on Tuesday, said the words that these ears have longed to hear:

Continue reading:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/sen-clinton-may-have-secured-m.php

Jay Carson's Letter to Tom Shales

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:29:22 EDT

Instead of posting the entire blog, I'm leaving a link to Talking Points Memo where the story is currently #4 on the reccommended reader list.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/jay-carsons-letter-to-tom-shal.php

Hope everyone has an opportunity to read it. Keep up the good work and, as always, take care.

Jeff Cronin

Why Nash McCabe Makes Barack Obama's Point

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:24:27 EDT

Instead of posting the entire blog, I'm leaving a link to Talking Points Memo where the story is currently #2 on the reccommended reader list.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/why-nash-mccabe-makes-barack-o.php

Hope everyone has an opportunity to read it. Keep up the good work and, as always, take care.

Jeff Cronin

My Case Against John McCain

""""Jeff C."""" — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:54:16 EDT

What seems to matter to Sen. John McCain is not what something is, but rather what it is called.

In truth, why wouldn't he think that? Why wouldn't he believe that that he can repeatedly conflate Shiite militants with Al-Qaeda in Iraq? He is, after all, running to largely continue the policies of our current Conflator-in-Chief.

It's not that John McCain doesn't know the difference between the two sects; it's that he is willfully conflating the two to fit his desired political narrative.

If you'd like, continue reading the diary at Talking Points Memo at the following link:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/my-case-against-john-mccains-r.php

Sen. Clinton's "Media Bias" Narrative

""""Jeff C."""" — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:21:04 EDT

Sen. Clinton has many positive attributes. One of them would probably be her tenacity. If she were to somehow secure the nomination, I would cast my vote for her in November.

Tenacity aside, however, at somewhere dogged determinedness reaches a point of diminishing returns where your greatest strength turns into your biggest weakness. In Sen. Clinton's case, it's driving tenaciously forward, in full blinders mode, so much that she has become totally divorced from the reality of her political situation.

She is the campaign equivalent of our policy in Iraq; a never-ending series of shifting rationales and goal post movements.

Yesterday's doozy was Sen. Clinton's complaint of a media 'double standard.' The problem is not that there is a double standard; there is. The problem is that Sen. Clinton benefits from the double standard far, far more than she is hindered by it.

Here's the ABC story, recreated in full, which prompted this post:

Asked about press accusations that the only way she can win is if she's "willing to win ugly," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., told NPR's "All Things Considered" on Tuesday that she has faced "something of a double standard" throughout her presidential bid.

"Senator, I want you to react to something that I keep hearing among voters, and increasingly among people who cover the campaign -- both those who are reporters and those who speak about the campaign on television, on radio -- the statement that the only way that Hillary Clinton can win is if she's willing to win ugly," NPR's Michele Norris told Clinton.

"When you hear that," Norris continued, "what does that mean to you? How do you react to that?"

"Well, I don't know what it means because there is no way for Senator Obama to win unless he also obtains a significant number of superdelegates," said Clinton. "I understand that there has been, throughout this campaign, something of a double standard. I accept it; I live with it."

Asked what the double standard is, Clinton at first demurred.

"Well, I think that it's pretty obvious to anybody who has followed it," said Clinton.

When Norris followed-up again, saying, "Just in case it's not clear to someone, I don't want to assume. I just want you to tell me what you think the double standard is because I don't want to assume," Clinton unloaded.

"No, but you know - for example, why is the question directed at me?" she said. "I mean, neither of us has the number of delegates to win. It is a problem for both of us. And Senator Obama's supporters refuse to support a revote in Michigan, which I thought was rather odd for the Democratic Party to be against another vote. Senator Obama's supporters wanted to end this contest and short circuit it so that the votes of the people in the next upcoming contest wouldn't count because he has a slight lead. And it's by no means definitive. It would have been like calling the championship game last night with two minutes left to go because somebody was ahead. And that's not how it turned out.

First, enough with the sports metaphors. I've heard enough of the 'calling the game before it's over' analogy. It's not applicable in any way, shape, or form. A more appropriate sports analogy would be to match play in golf where they stop the match once one individual becomes unable to win.

Second, one of the problems with your campaign, Sen. Clinton, is that a large percentage of the electorate doesn't trust you. The reason they don't trust you is because they don't believe what you're saying. The reason they don't believe what you're saying is that they believe you're willing to say anything to advance your political career. The reason they believe you're willing to say anything is because you try to take the benefits of every position without being responsible for the burdens.

So, here's the burden of being Sen. Hillary Clinton: you get increased scrutiny on the campaign trail. It's a hassle sometimes; suck it up and drive on.

And here are the benefits of being Hillary Clinton:

1. You get to run for senate in a state in which you've never lived despite having never held elected office [and push all other contenders to the side].

2. You get to tap into your husband's financial donor network [which automatically makes you the front-runner when you run for president].

3. You get to never have questions asked about a certain portion of your life [i.e., Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, Webster Hubbell, cattle futures] because your husband cheated on you.

4. You get to stay in the race and command attention from the press as you lose 11 consecutive contests through an entire month.

5. You get to claim that you were a tireless advocate for everything that was good about the 90's while denying any responsibility for anything bad [and saying that even the things that passed you were secretly against].

6. You get to not release your tax returns for an inexplicably long period of time despite having no excuse to do so.

Actually, I think I'll stop here. This could go on all day with this list. And by the way, "why is the question directed at me?" You mean, besides being behind by every conceivable metric?

Notwithstanding the obvious gender inequity of this statement . . . WAAAHH! I thought you were supposed to be tough. Show a little toughness then rather than whining about getting the question first.

NOTE: Yes, I fully understand that terms such as 'whining' have gender connotations, which made me consider another term. However, I'm sorry--it fits.

LIVEBLOGGING the Elton John Fundraiser for Hillary

""""Jeff C."""" — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:03:04 EDT

7:00 p.m.:
Seems as if the event is about to get started. Hillary just stepped up to her seat in the balcony overlooking the side of the stage. The crowd was delirious. She looks utterly resplendent in her canary yellow pantsuit.

Hillary acknowledges the crowd and sits down after an extended ovation. The house lights dim save for one spotlight aimed at the center of the stage. Elton seems to be rising from beneath the stage while seated at a grand piano, which probably would have made Liberace blush.

Hey . . . he's wearing a canary yellow suit as well with those over-sized glasses that he wears, which also seem to have canary yellow rims. The crowd is on its feet.

Elton seems to be starting the show with the song "I Guess That's Why They Call it the Blues," although it's hard to tell from the piano alone. Wait . . . yes--here are the opening lyrics: "Don't wish it away. Don't look at it like it's forever." The crowd is singing along in unison.

7:05 p.m.:

Elton thanks Hillary and offers a few supportive bromides. However, he seems intent to give everyone their money's worth and cranks up the next song. He launches in to "I'm Still Standing." The irony of the lyrics certainly doesn't seem lost on the spirited crowd. Elton seems emotional while singing: "And did you think this fool could never win
Well look at me, I'm coming back again . . . I'm still standing better than I ever did. Looking like a true survivor, feeling like a little kid . . . Once I never could hope to win. You starting down the road leaving me again."

The crowd really seems to be responding. I can't see Hillary up in the balcony.

7:10 p.m.:

Elton launches into a piano solo that becomes "Sad Songs." This doesn't seem to fit the night's narrative; especially these lyrics: "Turn them on, turn them on, Turn on those sad songs. When all hope is gone. Why don't you tune in and turn them on" This seems to have taken the wind out of the audience's sails a bit. Is Elton saying that all hope is gone and that they should all revel in their sadness? I just overheard an elderly woman in a floral hat say "I didn't pay $4600 to listen that there's no chance." There's a bit of a murmur from the crowd as the song finishes.

7:15 p.m.:

I think Elton needs a fast one here to pick the room up a notch. He seems to recognize this and is saying something about what a fighter Hillary is and how she will be the next president of the United States. The crowd is responding favorably.

Yes . . . Elton heads into the first piano chords of "Philadelphia Freedom." The place is rocking again. The crowd roars when they hear the following lyrics: "I used to be a rolling stone. You know if the cause was right
I'd leave to find the answer on the road. I used to be a heart beating for someone. But the times have changed; the less I say the more my work gets done."

I don't know. The lyrics seem vaguely insulting and conjure up images of the people that want the centrist poll-driven Hillary to give way to the Wellesley commencement speech Hillary. However, the audience doesn't seem to mind; although many in the audience seem to be wearing earplugs. Not sure what that is all about.

7:20 p.m.:

Elton seems to be sticking with a play-list of greatest hits. Just hitting the high points. The audience is again on their feet while he's playing "Rocket Man." Again, perhaps it's just me, but I find the lyrics to be oddly metaphorical, especially the way he faded out to the continued chorus of "And I think it's gonna be a long long time...And I think it's gonna be a long long time..."

7:25 p.m.:

Concert seems to be hitting a bit of a lull. Elton is currently playing another slow on and the audience is seated. It's "Someone Saved My Life Tonight." Again, I'm not sure what to make of the lyrics; especially these: "And someone saved my life tonight sugar bear. You almost had your hooks in me didn't you dear. You nearly had me roped and tied. Altar-bound, hypnotized; sweet freedom whispered in my ear. You're a butterfly. And butterflies are free to fly; fly away, high away, bye bye."

7:30 p.m.:

Seems as if some in the audience have fallen asleep. Elton is continuing with his easy listening greatest hits. Oh boy . . . now he's doing a song that seems entirely inappropriate for this event: "Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word." The people that are still awake seem mournful when they hear the opening line: "What have I got to do to make you love me? What have I got to do to make you care?" I see a few tears, although this seems like a 'you had me at hello' crowd. I could be wrong. This is depressing to listen to; especially "What do I do to make you want me? What have I got to do to be heard? What do I say when it's all over? And sorry seems to be the hardest word."

Not sure if this was a good choice on Sir Elton's part. The audience seems depressed now.

7:35 p.m.:

Woo . . . Elton is righting the ship with "Bennie & the Jets" and "Saturday's Alright for Fighting," neither of which seem to carry a depressing metaphorical Clinton campaign narrative. A few people have awakened, although the man next to me seems to think it's tomorrow morning. Not sure what that's about.

7:45 p.m.:

This is a good moment. Kiki Dee came out and joined Elton for a duet on "Don't Go Breaking My Heart." For my money, there simply isn't enough Kiki Dee on the radio these days. This is a good moment for Hillary. They put a house light on the balcony and Hillary and Bill are dancing. The crowd is responding.

Looks like that was the last song. The crowd is applauding and, with the median age of those involved in mind, Elton reappears almost immediately for an encore. Probably better to not keep these folks waiting too long.

7:55 p.m.:

Elton acknowledges Hillary again and implores the crowd to donate to her campaign. This is a bit strange, but the campaign has unfurled a banner above Elton with Hillary's website: 'hillaryclinton.com' plastered across it. Also, it seems as though the campaign has handed out literature to the audience titled 'Internet Donating for Dummies.' Not sure how helpful that will be.

Elton begins an extended, imploring version of "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me." The audience seems to connect to the song. Next up is "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road," to which the audience is singing along. strange to have 6000 people in unison singing: "So goodbye yellow brick road.
Where the dogs of society howl. You can't plant me in your penthouse; I'm going back to my plough."

Elton thanks Hillary one more time and says that he'd like to close the show with a special song that has particular meaning to the Clinton campaign. There's a house light on the balcony and Hillary is waving a hankie as the crowd roars its approval. Elton launches into a dramatic rendition of "Candle in the Wind." There is a full-throated audience sing-along.

"And it seems to me you lived your life
Like a candle in the wind
Never knowing who to cling to
When the rain set in
And I would have liked to have known you
But I was just a kid
Your candle burned out long before
Your legend ever did"

There's not a dry eye in the house.

The Wisdom of Barack Obama

""""Jeff C."""" — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:03:15 EDT

The state of being wise; possessing wisdom, is an incredibly abstract and elusive quality. It is also inordinately difficult to know whether or not someone has it. Even more difficult when you're looking for it in a political leader; someone that, in almost all cases, you don't know and have no shared personal experiences with which to make that judgment.

However, when I set out to find a candidate to support in the presidential primary, I placed wisdom, or at least making wise choices, at the top of my qualifications chart. After eight years of disasterous decisions, it seemed like a relative no-brainer that the ability to make wise choices would be at the top of the list.

The more important question, though, was how would I determine who had it? What would be the criteria with which I would judge the candidates?

All of this led to a relatively self-evident criteria; that is, I would look at what the candidates stated would happen concerning any given issue, look at what actually happened, and see who came the closest to getting it right.

Obviously, Sen. Obama was a strong contender on this front due to his stance against the Iraq War. His reservations and concerns, unfortunately, have been borne out in tragic consequences.

But maybe he was simply lucky on this issue? Perhaps it was a lucky guess?

But then I thought to myself: what about the letter that Sen. Obama sent in May 2007 to the chairman of the Fed warning of the impending housing crisis and the need to take immediate action before it exploded in all our faces?

Gee . . . seems as if he were right about that as well. Makes it a little bit harder to attribute to luck.

So, I went back and looked at a few of Sen. Obama's speeches. The speech he gave on January 26th on the night of the South Carolina primary again struck me for his ability to see exactly how difficult this process would be. That others would fight tooth and nail to ensure that the status quo remained intact. I've excerpted a relevant portion below. I hope you read it. Whatever it is that some people possess that gives them that certain something, Barack Obama has it in spades. Here's a protion of the speech:

"But if there's anything we've been reminded of since Iowa, it's that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field - fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.

But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We're looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington - a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can't afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against.

We are up against the belief that it's ok for lobbyists to dominate our government - that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose - a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea - even if it's one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it's bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what's wrong with our politics; this is why people don't believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again."

Sounds about right to me.

Hope everyone is having a wonderful day. Keep up the good work and, as always, take care.

Jeff Cronin

Time For A Graceful Exit Strategy

""""Jeff C."""" — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:46:58 EDT

The more I think about it, Hillary Clinton must be just about apoplectic right now. She's roughly raised the GDP of a small third world nation and yet she doesn't have an money. All this despite kicking in five large from the old "coffers," as W. cares to call it.

That, and she's been prepping for this assignment for twenty plus years. Keeping her nose to the grindstone; learning policy in ways that no human being should ever have a mastery of government programs.

Being a spectator to repeated public humiliations at the hands of her undisciplined, a few donuts too many of a husband. And frankly, waiting; biding her time so it would all be worthwhile. And then along comes this skinny guy with a funny foreign sounding name that hasn't been on the national scene for four years yet; but is still managing to somehow run laps around her.

I don't think of Sen. Clinton as old; not in any respects. However, I her campaign has been stuck in a 1992/1996 time warp; top heavy, and relying far too often on triangulation and co-opting Republican Party talking points.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the nomination--she's not going to get it. I'm not sure if this has quite sunk in yet for Sen. Clinton. Sure, it's easy for us, not being so invested; we just go to the Slate Delegate Counter and punch in the numbers. And no matte how much we jigger the numbers, one thing is abundantly clear; and that is that it is simply not happening for Sen. Clinton. Not this year.

However, Sen. Clinton is a proud, accomplished, and fiercely competitve woman. Tactics such as those of Sen. Dodd about needing to drop out only harden her position and stiffen her desire to drag this fight to Denver. That's why I propose somewhat of a non-idea idiea.

The decision to drop out needs to come from Sen. Clinton. And it needs to come in a way where she feels that the decision was organic, rather than her being leaned on by muckety mucks in the party. Sen. Clinton is the epitome of the person in the corner that needs to see that there is a way out other than mutually assured destruction. And, indeed, there is a way out.

Sen. Clinton has attempted to make political hay from the FL & MI situations. In my mind, crassly and disingenuously poisoning the well for Sen. Obama in those two states in the fall. Here's the deal: Sen. Clinton suspends her campaign in order to ensure that the FL & MI voters are not "disinfranchised." Then, Sen. Obama allows the situation to be resolved in a manner that ordinarily would be politically beneficial for her. She is allowed to broker the deal to seat the delagations and garners bona fides for "fighting" for the rights of voters without having a stake in the outcome. The delegations are seated and Sen. Clinton comes off as a magnanimous power-broker, putting aside her own interests to stick up for the voters.

Of course, there would be a silent understanding among all the Superdelegates that if Sen. Clinton attempted to use the newly seated delegation to her political benefit, that they would move en masse to Sen. Obama. And even if that were allowed to occur, Sen. Obama would still maintain the lead by any reasonable metric.

Everybody wins! It's just Like Lake Woebegon.

Whaddya' think?

Jeff Cronin

I Can't Believe I'm Saying This: Leave Hillary Alone

""""Jeff C."""" — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:50:32 EDT

Actually, a more precise version of this thought is "give her some space."

No gloating. No pouncing on her every perceived misstep or parsing every word in order to find the "true meaning" that she intends to destroy the Democratic Party, Barack Obama or, perhaps if you'd really like to take the exercise to the extreme--civilization itself.

Now, I am an avid Obama supporter that has often been out in front in dissecting Sen. Clinton's motives. Here are two examples:

Hillary: "I Took Her Stuff & Then I Left"
Is the Clinton Campaign Now Engaged in Intentional Race-Baiting?

The fact is, for the past few months I have been adamant in attempting to hold Sen. Clinton accountable for what, I perceived, as her hideously dirty campaign. However, despite what I believe to have been accurate criticisms of the Clinton Campaign, they have been extraordinarily heavy-handed and unnecessarily harsh. And considering the manner in which Sen. Obama has attempted to engage in a high-minded debate, as situations allowed, I think a mea culpa is in order on my end.

Sen. Clinton has been a formidable candidate, which, on some level explains the fervent nature of my reactions. Because she is someone to be reckoned with, my responses to her have been inversely proportional to my perception of both of the strength of her candidacy and the tactics in which she was engaged.

I admire her intelligence, detailed knowledge of the issues, passion for good government and personal tenacity. That said, I think the race is over. Although I strongly support Sen. Obama, in another place and time I could have supported Sen. Clinton for the nomination. I hope her actions in the upcoming months will leave the electorate focused on her good qualities and obvious strengths rather than the overwhelmingly negative traits that have been hammered home with such frequency lately.

In her heart of hearts, I believe she is a good person that cares deeply about all the problems that ail this country. I also believe that she strongly thinks that she is the best person to deliver much needed governmental reform. However, she has lost. It happens. And the 5-10% chance that experts have cited for her to secure the nomination would come with consequences. And those consequences would be a loss to John McCain in the fall and a deep and lasting scar on her legacy.

I know there are those that believe that she doesn't care about any of this. I simply don't believe that. She is an exceptionally bright woman and must know that continuing on her current path is a form of mutually assured destruction. I cannot believe that Sen. Clinton would wish to be remembered in such a fashion; to have the first paragraph of her obituary note that many people held her responsible for, basically, starting a political democratic civil war.

Perhaps I am naive. I don't think so. There are too many people that expect the worst of both Clintons'. Too many people that believe they are always up to something underhanded and devious. But those people need to understand that they end up complicit in the Clintons' subsequent actions. That by seeing and expecting the worst, they become overzealous in their pursuits, and often receive the very things which they feared.

Give Sen. Clinton some space. Allow here to think about what is the best course of action. In possibly the greatest leap of faith for people that ascribe the worst motives to everything the Clintons' do--I ask you to BELIEVE, that if given the opportunity, she will do the right thing. And by "the right thing" I do not simply mean that which would be most politically expedient for Sen Obama.

That's my two-cents. Let the bashing begin.

Lou Dobbs in the House [Legally, of Course]

""""Jeff C."""" — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:05:05 EDT

I was doing something that I normally never do tonight--watching the nightly news in Portland [something that should possibly always demand a preface], when I happened upon a humdinger of a story.

The story had to do with a local ordinance that was being proposed in Willamina, Oregon. Even had an accompanying poll--I'm talking hard-charging journalism here.

The proposed ordinance would establish an 'illegal alien-free zone' within the Willamina city limits [granted that might only encompass an area roughly the size of a large Buick].

Intro You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.

I was doing something that I normally never do tonight--watching the nightly news in Portland [something that should possibly always demand a preface], when I happened upon a humdinger of a story. The story had to do with a local ordinance that was being proposed in Willamina, Oregon. Even had an accompanying poll--I'm talking hard-charging journalism here. The proposed ordinance would establish an 'illegal alien-free zone' within the Willamina city limits [granted that might only encompass an area roughly the size of a large Buick].

The proponent of the measure, in his infinite wisdom, would enforce the ordinance by allowing "any law enforcement officials, within the town's city limits, to stop anyone and ask for proof of citizenship."

Digest that for a moment.

Show me your papers! Vee have vays auf making you talk.

OK--Granted, the measure is obviously unconstitutional on Fourth Amendment grounds. However, I'm a little more stunned every day when I see a story that seems to further highlight the unbelievably authoritarian turn we have sadly taken. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now, although I somehow always am.

Gee Manetti--book this guy on Lou Dobbs, quick!

Sadly, just when I thought my progressive heart was completely deflated, KATU News put up the following poll: "Do you support the idea of an 'illegal alien-free zone,' which would require people to show proof that they are legal citizens?"

Just when I was ready to see my fellow Portlanders--Portlandites?--Portlandians?--turn out in force to overwhelmingly vote "no," I saw the following results:

YES--74%
NO--26%

EGADS! I'm occasionally heartened by, what I view as, the progressive trajectory on which our politics is traveling. However, there are some issues on which we have a long, long way to go. Immigration reform is one of them.

This is another reason why it is critical to support Barack Obama. That is because this is a serious, emotionally charged issue with which playing politics would be the worst course of action. To that end, I would like to take the opportunity to commend Sen McCain for his courage on this issue in the face of vicious attacks from those within his own party. Hopefully, an honest debate between Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama in the fall will bring about much needed reform.

Keep up the good work folks; and, as always, take care.

Jeff Cronin

The Disingenuous 1992 Analogy

""""Jeff C."""" — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:56:38 EDT

This diary is somewhat Dickensian; the intro constitutes "the best of times" and the body denotes the "worst."

As always I begin with the preface that I am an Obama supporter. I strongly believe the longer Sen. Clinton stays in the race, the more she damages her standing within the party. She cannot win.

That said, Sen. Clinton has garnered roughly 13 million votes and raised more than a hundred million dollars. She has a legion of committed supporters that tirelessly work towards her election. I have been impressed by her tenacity and work ethic throughout her career. She has earned the right to continue her campaign. Calls for her to withdraw from the race are relatively foolish, and often, only serve to harden both the candidates’ and their supporters’ resolve to fight to the bitter end.

It was noted in an eloquent diary yesterday that, as Obama supporters, it is imperative to understand the disappointment and hard feelings of Sen. Clinton's supporters; address their concerns in a real way, and make an honest effort to win them over. I have disagreed with many of Sen. Clinton's tactics during this campaign. However, that does not extend to her supporters, who have legitimate reasons for holding her in high regard.

The intro was the happy part of the diary. The following is the unfortunate reality.

Although Sen. Clinton is the one that will decide when to pull the plug, her repeated arguments, along with Bill's, that staying in is somehow par for the course because Bill didn't wrap up the nomination until June, is disingenuous at best, and a crass attempt to deceive, at worst.

Both Clintons' have repeatedly pushed the meta-narrative of June resolution as justification for extending a race that, unfortunately for them, is over. Today, Bill Clinton "dismissed talk about whether the nomination battle between Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is dividing Democrats." 'That's a bunch of bull,' he said. 'I wasn't nominated until June 2nd, 1992,' he argued, then said maybe it was June 3rd."

Sen. Clinton advanced the same general argument on February 16, 2008: "I campaigned with my husband until he wrapped up the nomination in June," she said. "I thought it was fun we had a good time. I’m prepared to go the distance."

The story then stated that Clinton "dismissed suggestions that this might be harmful for the party. She added that she "feel(s) really good about the way this has shaped up, again. I have watched this for many more years than some of you have, and there is nothing out of the ordinary here."

Sen. Clinton stated on March 4th in Houston [at about the 2:00 mark of the video] that: "My husband didn't get the nomination wrapped up until June. That has been the tradition."

Of course, there's an obvious problem with this analogy--it's not true.

As two other cites have noted [HERE & HERE], the presidential primary calendar is much more front-loaded now than it was in 1992.

Here's a sample of the 1992 primary calendar and the results, courtesy of RealClearPolitics:

February 10, 1992: Iowa senator Tom Harkin wins his state's caucus. This is the 1st contest of the primary.

February 18, 1992: Former Massachusetts senator Paul Tsongas wins New Hampshire. Clinton finishes second and brands himself the "comeback kid." This is the 1st primary. Note that by this time in 2008, more than half of the states had voted.

February 25, 1992: Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey wins South Dakota.

March 3, 1992: Mini-Super Tuesday. Clinton wins Georgia. Former California governor Jerry Brown wins Colorado. Tsongas wins Maryland. Harkin wins the Minnesota and Idaho caucuses.

March 7, 1992: Clinton wins South Carolina.

March 10, 1992: Super Tuesday. Clinton wins six southern states: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas. Tsongas wins Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

Note again, that as of this date 5 candidates had won contests and no candidate had secured a victory outside of their regional geographic base.

States won as of March 16th, 1992:
Clinton--8
Tsongas--4
Harkin--3
Brown--1
Kerrey--1

March 17, 1992: Clinton wins Illinois, which essentially ends the contest. He becomes the first candidate to show strength outside of his geographic base. Jack Tapper argues that the nomination, while not technically secured, was over after Illinois. Also note that Harkin, Tsongas, and Kerrey had all dropped out by March 20th. Tapper notes that saying the nomination wasn't secured until June is technically true, which seems to me to be a way of saying that the Clintons' are explicitly attempting to mislead voters about the process by falling back on a hairsplitting, "depends on what the meaning of is is" technicality.

Jerry Brown continued and, indeed, did win two more states [while pumping that 800 number for all it was worth, which in some ways was the pre-cursor to the net-roots community, but I digress]. Bill Clinton won 31 of the remaining 33 contests.

Even a more charitable conclusion would be that the primary was over when Bill Clinton won the New York primary in early April. Did he have enough delegates? No, but the race was over.

So, just to satisfy my curiosity--I did a little analysis. Some of the numbers have been rounded, but I believe are pretty accurate. I used state population tables from the 1990 and July, 2007, census. Granted, the true numbers would be a bit different, although I believe the results would come out almost exactly the same.

Based on the 1992 primary calendar, as of today, 18 states had held contests. Those 18 states constituted approximately 34% of the total US population. Now, I understand that this doesn't separate party affiliation or voter turnout [and various other factors], but I believe it gives an idea of what percentage of the national population had had the opportunity to go to the polls as of this date in 1992.

Based on the 2008 primary calendar, the percentage of US population that has had an opportunity to cast their vote as of this date in 2008, is 85.23%.

This contest is over. The Clintons' know that the contest is over. By constantly repeating the 1992 lie, they only further heighten the negative stereotypes with which they have been burdened. They desperately need to get back to highlighting the positive attributes that drew many of us to them in the first place.

However, this isn't it.

Let the Good Times Roll

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:13:01 EDT

Hope everyone had a relatively good week. Definitely was a good week to be an Obama supporter.

I watched clips of John McCain's and Barack Obama's economic addresses on PBS the other night. It was a striking contrast. I only saw one person on stage that looked like a president and it wasn't John McCain.

Hope everyone keeps up the enthusiasm and good work. As the primary drags on, it's easy to lose sight of what originally drew all of us to Sen. Obama. For me, it was his ability to forge a progressive majority through a less divisive form of politics.

I haven't seen anything that has changed my opinion. In fact, I'm more encouraged now than ever. Hope you are as well.

Anyway, have a wonderful, relaxing weekend; keep up the good work and, as always, take care.

Jeff Cronin

Pin the Tail on the President

""""Jeff C."""" — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:32:20 EDT

Hello Fellow Obama Supporters:

I was having one of those occasional long campaign lulls while watching the Newshour when they played snippets of the candidates' speeches addressing economic issues.

The order in which they presented the candidates was: Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain, and then Sen. Obama. I was running around the house and missed all but the last few seconds of Sen. Clinton's clip. However, I did get to watch both the McCain address and then the Obama address. You can watch them at the following two links:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/blog/2008/03/mccain_takes_hard_line_against.html

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBNsq

If you happen to have a chance to watch both--or even snippets, it's astonishing how much more well versed and presidential Sen. Obama is.

James Carville famously stated in 1992: "there's only one president on stage up there, and we're it." That's how I felt after watching the speeches. We're it!

Yes We Can!

Jeff Cronin

Why Conservative is the New Liberal

""""Jeff C."""" — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:42:14 EDT

In a sprawling economic address today in New York City, Barack Obama broadly outlined his approach to to solving our current economic crisis. The speech was relatively nuanced and addressed the current housing debacle, a better economic regulatory approach, and providing an economic stimulus package to help jump-start the economy.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBNsq

You might think that, considering the very real economic peril with which the country is faced, that there might be a deliberative debate over what happened to place us in this barely tenable economic position; and, what needs to be done to pull ourselves out of it.

Of course--if you thought that, you would be wrong.

I grew up in the South, specifically Florida and Georgia in the 1980s. The cement shoes to fit on any political candidate at that time was the moniker "liberal." In the 1988 Florida Senate race between Republican Connie Mack and Democrat Buddy McKay. Fairly even throughout, Mack's campaign ran advertisements late in the race that ticked off McKay's positions on issues and ended with the tag-line, "Hey Buddy, you're a liberal." You could almost here the collective gasp of twelve million Floridians.

http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200406010943.asp

It was an epithet; a dark family secret best left unspoken, and the immediate end to any candidacy on which it could be hung. It was more than a word - it was all the baggage that came with the word, especially the notion of "tax and spend" and "big government." The term "liberal" denoted a dearth of ideas and imagination, relying instead on tired and worn liberal practices. The play-book was always the same: A liberal wanted to raise your taxes and spend your hard earned money. The liberal's political solution was always the same no matter what the problem entailed. Almost twenty years later, "conservative" is the new liberal.

I note this because we are living in an inverse 1988. No matter the country's problems or the evidence at hand the solution is always the same - more tax cuts. If the data shows that tax revenues have been lower every year than they were before the first round of tax cuts in 2001 - no worries, make `em permanent. "Tax cuts & free markets" are to conservatives today what "big government" was to liberals in 1988.

The RNC sent along this beaut today in response to recent economic addresses of both Sen. Obama & Sen. Clinton: “Obama and Clinton’s economic plans are what you expect from two senators who think that big government is the solution for just about every problem."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/828014.aspx

And Sen. McCain stated today that: "There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."

http://thepage.time.com/mccain-statement-on-housing-crisis/

I think we've been getting "socked" plenty good these past seven years, with all due respect to Mr. Make-the-Tax-Cuts-Permanent Express.

The fact is, the conservative play-book is old, tired, and worn. It's as if they have three or four talking points that are stuck in an endless mind-numbing loop: "big government," "liberal," "tax & spend," and "socialized medicine;" to name a few. It's the same response every single time. And no matter how often conservatives robotically recite their tired creed, Americans are ready to move on.

I, for one, am ready to discard the traditional labels and get behind someone that actually considers ideas--even if they aren't his own. Someone willing to have an honest discussion about what is needed to pull ourselves out of this economic and foreign policy hole.

Maybe that's just me, although I have a sneaky suspicion that there are many others.

Yes We Can!

Jeff Cronin

Under the Bus: The Increasingly Sad Clinton Legacy

""""Jeff C."""" — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:47:43 EDT

With each passing day it becomes more nauseatingly clear that the swath of destruction surrounding Hillary and Bill Clinton can only exponentially increase. They are both driving the bus and everyone around them is getting thrown under it.

Of course, this is nothing new. My first recollection of then-candidate Bill Clinton was the introduction of his letter to COL Eugene Holmes, written in 1992. It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, which was a run-of-the-mill sleazy tactic to attempt to tar Bill as a draft dodger. The one passage of the letter, which was quite thoughtful, most often cited was the following sentence: "I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

It would be an over-simplification to state that the previous sentence perfectly encapsulates how both Clintons' view their role within the system. However, I don't think that it would be too far off the mark.

I voted for Bill in 1992, despite the nagging questions that I had concerning his character. I interpreted his remarks to ostensibly mean that he would have gone and fought in a war in which he morally opposed and possibly killed other human beings, solely to maintain the prospect of elected office at an undetermined point in the future.

Granted, that's not a very charitable interpretation; maybe that makes me a "Clinton hater." However, I think it underscores the Clinton philosophy of what you should be willing to do to achieve your ends.

The political landscape is littered with people that the Clintons' discarded when it didn't suit their ambitions. No sense in going through a recitation of names; we all know there are many.

Now the person that they seem intent on destroying is Barack Obama. Not just Sen. Obama, but the entire Democratic Party. Of course, by now we all know that Sen. Clinton chose to reignite the controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright in a meeting with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_558930.html

She's been one-upped by a surrogate that dropped a David Duke comparison.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_finance_committee_memb.php

By now, I've accepted that Hillary, or Bill for that matter, will do anything or throw anyone or anything under the bus to achieve their political ambitions. However, the Democratic Party apparatus does not have to accept it. Matter of fact, at this point, if the Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's of the party are unwilling to step forward, they are complicit in the party's destruction.

If these are the tactics that Hillary Clinton will use to maintain her viability within the system, then the system needs to intervene and ensure that she is no longer viable.

Lets do what we can to bring an end to the 16 years of the politics of personal destruction. If we continually make our voices heard, and demand more from our leaders, then maybe they will have no choice but to intervene. If you can, even if it's only a few bucks, donate to the Obama campaign and demand a more transparent and honest politics.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Thanks for your time and, as always, take care.

Jeff Cronin

Hillary: "I Took Her Stuff & Then I Left"

""""Jeff C."""" — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:37:38 EDT

Cross-posted at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/24/212132/992/591/483519

As the election cycle joylessly grinds on, it's wonderful to have the occasional opportunity to enjoy a hearty laugh. Possibly even a chortle or two.

Luckily for me, I have a transcript of Hillary Clinton's stab at attaining the endorsement of the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board, which is linked here:

http://www.attytood.com/2008/03/exclusive_clinton_acknowledges.html

Actually, it's just the part where she's confronted with her categorical falsehood--excuse me, I mean when she "misspoke" about her trip to Bosnia. Since everyone knows this story every which way by now, I'll just write about her comments today.

The Inquirer stated that "Clinton acknowledged yesterday for the first time that it was a 'misstatement' when she said in a major prepared foreign policy speech last week that 'I remember landing under sniper fire.'

But wait--it gets much better.

The reporter proceeded to ask Clinton about the discrepancies in accounts of the trip. Note that by discrepancies, he means what she said happened and what actually happened.

Sen. Clinton was "quick to answer," stating: "Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK -- because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke -- I didn't say that in my book or other times but if I said something that made it seem as though there was actual fire -- that's not what I was told. I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can't, I can't rush by her, I've got to at least greet her -- so I made a -- I took her stuff and then I left, Now that's my memory of it."

That's rich, but it gets better.

The reporter followed-up with a question of whether having misspoke might damage her foreign policy credentials and overall credibility. Sen. Clinton answered: "No, I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. you know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a mistatement."

"I say a lot of things," but that doesn't mean that the voters should believe them. Or that they should reflect on my character if quite a few of them turn out to be bald-faced lies. Hey--I'm trying to get elected here.

Sen. Clinton, I do believe your pantsuit is on fire. Geez . . . you'd think that someone that was married to Bill for all these years would be a better liar. I don't think rapid fire, you know, stammering helps, you know, convince people that, you know, your telling the truth. Maybe that's just me.

Memories are strange things. Especially under the stress of, you know, sniper fire.

Folks, we have to band together to put an end to this type of say-anything to win politics. And the best place to start is to make a small donation towards taking back our government.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Keep up the good work and, as always, take care.

Jeff Cronin

How Hillary Clinton is "Complicit" in her "Condition"

""""Jeff C."""" — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:55:35 EDT

When I re-read Sen. Obama's speech the other day, I was struck by a particular passage that has generally escaped media attention. Referencing the anger that lingers in the African-American community, Barack Obama stated: "That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change."

I was particularly struck by the passage because, although I don't think it was meant to relate to the Clinton's either directly or indirectly, it seemed to so effortlessly describe one of the largest obstacles that I have always held regarding both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

That is, that they have both fallen prey to the legitimate anger that they harbor over the attacks they have consistently incurred throughout their political lives. The anger clouds their judgment, has them seeing "vast right wing conspiracies" behind every damaging revelation, and precludes both of them from examining their own complicity in the attacks against them. I think the lingering bitterness allows both Clinton's to all too readily adopt tactics with which they have been repeatedly bludgeoned.

This is an incredibly tricky road to navigate. Not just because any examination of the Clintons' complicity in the personal attacks they have endured might seem to alleviate the blame for the despicable tactics used against them; but also, because it has a 'blame the victim' mentality with which I am generally uncomfortable [and even using the term "victim" for that matter].

Oddly, I think that one of the things that the Republican Party has expertly exploited over the past thirty years is the vague sense of a lack of accountability in American society. The disconnect between actions and consequences. In fact, Barack Obama referenced just such a notion in his much parsed discussion of Reagan with the Reno Gazette. During this interview with the Gazette editorial board, Obama, channeling Reagan, stated: "I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling."

Accountability seems to be a re-occurring theme in Sen. Obama's campaign. And, frankly, it's a smart political maneuver. I think one manner in which the Democratic Party failed to tap into the anxiety's of many Americans was in the manner that they felt that their government was disconnected from their own lives. In their own lives, their actions had consequences for which they were held accountable. Their perception of government, was that there was a complete disconnect between individual actions and government assistance. Whether real or imagined, it was there. And the Republican Party filled the void by becoming the supposed accountability party; the party that would hold people's feet to the fire. To be "tough on crime" by ensuring that wrongdoers were punished. This list could probably be endless.

All of which leads back to the Clinton's. Why? Because I believe there has always been a vague sense that both Bill and Hillary Clinton operate outside the rules that apply to everyone else. That regardless of what actions they took during their eight years in the White House, that there was never any accountability for their actions. That there were never any consequences [of the course the opposite could be argued--impeachment, anyone?]. Regardless, I think the perception was there that the Clintons' were away to get away with murder [some wack-jobs believe that literally, of course].

I'm sure it's maddening to anyone following this campaign to hear Sen. Clinton state that the results in Michigan were fair and the delegates should be seated after telling NPR a few months prior that the results were "not going to count for anything."

Or to have Sen. Clinton not release her tax returns after badgering Rick Lazio in her 2000 senate campaign [and calling his refusal "frankly disturbing"] for doing the same thing.

Or claiming to have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire and stating that: "there was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." Yikes! A statement that is not only completely devoid of truth, but actually, easily refutable.

Or claiming that her vote in 2003 was a vote for diplomacy and not an authorization for war.

The fact is, both Clintons' have always seemed to be able to say things totally unconnected from reality. Not just that, but to do so with impunity. And every time someone has attempted to hold them accountable for their actions, they somehow manage to escape the consequences of their actions. And let's face it, this drives some people up a freakin' wall, which only frustrates their opponents, makes them overplay their hands and allows the Clintons' to cloth themselves as victims.

Both Hillary and Bill Clinton are complicit in their condition. And that condition is the endless object of Republican Party attacks. Everyone out there that is "against" them is not a "Clinton hater." It's just that many of us are hungry for something different.

Remember to keep registering people to vote folks. And donate if you can. Every little bit helps.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

As always, take care and keep up the good work.

Jeff Cronin

The Audacity of Barack Obama

""""Jeff C."""" — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:35:05 EDT

Barack Obama makes me think.

Not just in a passing, superficial manner, but rather in a more contemplative, searing fashion--which I've done quite a bit in the past two days; at least as as much as the old bean will allow. Every once in a while "words" can have that type of transcendent effect. And I've come to the conclusion that I have just been made a witness to something historical; something transformational.

I hesitate to write the previous few sentences due to their self-evident ridiculousness. In fact, I wanted to wait a while to digest things a bit. Generally, I tend to avoid hyperbole by throwing up my semi-detached retro-ironic shield. Usually, it's OK for me to like something; even to think that something portends greatness. It gets a bit trickier if I were, heaven forbid, actually moved by something. My snark radar begins flashing. But then add a dollop of widespread acclaim and I'm usually out in front leading the backlash.

Not this time. This time, Barack Obama has actually pulled off an achievement stunning both in scope and execution.

"A More Perfect Union" was billed as a speech about race. A speech that was supposed to be his version of Kennedy's "Catholic" speech. A speech to put the Jeremiah Wright controversy to rest. That's how it was billed.

I heard something different. Something that was shockingly unexpected. Something incredibly risky.

Sure, the speech did address the Wright controversy. Sen. Obama spoke eloquently about the need to find common ground and push the discussion forward. That part of the speech was moving and personal, but I've heard a variation of these themes previously from Sen. Obama.

However, the crux of the speech was squarely in the first few minutes. This is the audacious aspect of the speech. Audacious both for what it attempts to achieve, and, audacious in what it could actually deliver.

Although there are others, the four speeches or documents in American history that I am best able to call on when needed are: [1] The Declaration of Independence; [2] The U.S. Constitution; [3] The Gettysburg Address; and, [4] the "I Have A Dream" speech. All four work on a continuum that leads directly to Sen. Obama's address.

[1] The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration is merely that; a statement. It isn't law, but rather more of a permanent ideal--a Utopian target; particularly these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[2] The United States Constitution

If the Declaration was the fuzzy Utopian moving target, the Constitution was the bartered embodiment of the "all men are created equal" ideal. In fact the Preamble tells us precisely that: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution." The Preamble neither grants nor prohibits any particular government authority, other than what follows, along with the amendments. The Constitution thus sets forth a set of laws that, in theory, should help citizens in realizing the ideal--or not get in the way of realizing the ideal.

[3] The Gettysburg Address

Probably the most audacious political act in American history. First, Lincoln began by citing the Declaration: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Lincoln then immediately pivoted to the events at hand: "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated</strong></em>, can long endure."

In short time, Lincoln invoked the principles of equality proffered by the Declaration and redefined the Civil War as a struggle to both preserve the Union and bring equality to its citizens. Needless to say, this was a politically risky move. Willmoore Kendall, who participated in founding the National Review, once wrote: “Abraham Lincoln . . . attempted a new act of founding, involving concretely that startling new interpretation of that principle of the founders which declared that ‘all men are created equal’.”

The "new act of founding," according to Kendall, was contained in the passages that stated: "It is for us . . . to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced . . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

Lincoln’s notion was the continual approximation of the Declaration. Thus, a nation that is conceived in an idea, liberty; and dedicated to a particular notion--that "all men are created equal," enjoys a new birth of freedom in attempting to effectuate the founding ideal.

[4] MLK--I Have A Dream

This speech almost perfectly encapsulates what one hundred years of Jim Crow in the South had wrought. This speech was more of an admonishment; a demand for America to pony up on its promises. This particular passage does exactly that: "In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note . . . this note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note."

Thus, the "Dream" is merely to ensure that the reality of American life more closely approximated the ideal--"all men are created equal," on which the nation was founded.

[5] A More Perfect Union, by Barack Obama

Sen. Obama begins his address in the same manner as Lincoln and King, by citing those that came before him: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

"Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787."

But where Lincoln pivoted to the Declaration, Sen. Obama turns back to the Constitution.   He notes that the founders made real with the document the abstract ideals that all men are created equal. This is the common thread that runs throughout the speech. The equality gap that exists between the ideals on which the nation was founded and the reality that has existed under its laws.

Sen. Obama explicitly made this point when he stated that: "The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery." This mirrors Lincoln's statement that: "It is for us . . . to be dedicated here to the unfinished work . . . ."

Again, the unfinished work is to bring the reality of American life, represented by the Constitution, as close in line as possible with the founding ideal, represented by the Declaration--or, "a union that could be and should be perfected over time."

This idea of narrowing the equality gap in our institutions is expressly stated by Sen. Obama in the next few sentences: "Words on a parchment would not be enough . . . What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part . . . to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time. This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march."

Barack Obama's view of the Constitution is as a living, dynamic document that was written with enough flexibility to accommodate societal changes, when necessary. It is a direct counter to the notion of originalism, which focuses on what meaning the authors would have thought the passage had when it was ratified.

But, Sen. Obama seems to do something even a bit more risky than this. He seems to incorporate the abstract ideals into the literal text of the Preamble. Therefore, when we attempt to form a more perfect union, we do so by constantly attempting to close the gap between the abstract ideal and the actual document. And it is this attempt that provides us with a new birth of freedom.

We have an opportunity to transform this country. Notwithstanding the 18 gazillion Obama solicitations on this site, I hope you will donate to the campaign.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

As a final note, I know this was mentioned a few days ago but HE WROTE THE SPEECH HIMSELF.

Take care everyone and enjoy your day.

Jeff Cronin

War is Romantic?

""""Jeff C."""" — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:03:55 EDT

The blast was loud and seemed more distinctive than normal. Too loud, in fact; almost jarring, and it immediately snapped me out of my gauzy morning, pre-coffee haze. Although I don't remember exactly what time it occurred, it certainly wasn't after eight in the morning; probably closer to seven. I grabbed my interpreter, hopped in our team's Ford Ranger, and headed up to the front gate.

I was stationed at a Provisional Reconstruction Team facility in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, at the time. The facility/base was located off the main thoroughfare that connected Jalalabad, eastern Afghanistan's largest city, with Kabul, the capital. In what seemed to me to be a bit of a cruel irony, it was at one time referred to as the "Silk Road."

My interpreter and I arrived at the gate within a minute or two. There was already a large crowd gathered; probably close to a hundred. It never ceased to amaze me how many Afghans you would find out doing things, at what I thought were ungodly hours in the morning. The police haphazardly cordoned off the area.

It was immediately apparent that either a small bus or large passenger van had been detonated. Debris was strewn over a stretch of about a fifty yards.

It's funny the things that you remember in these situations: a part of someone's arm, a single child's shoe seemingly perfectly placed on the blacktop about fifty feet from the van, a charred body, a man swinging a stick at a child because, I guess, the kid was getting too close to the scene.

Somehow, that seemed the most incongruous of all.

The explosive device was placed under the back end of the van. It appeared to have been remote detonated. Evidently, based on what I was able to piece together from witnesses, the detonation triggered flames that swept through the van from the back to the front before the actual explosion occurred.

I soon learned that the van carried female election workers, which was probably the most dangerous job in Afghanistan. Two of the females had their small children with them in the van. The driver was able to get out just before the detonation, although he was sufficiently disoriented that he wasn't able to provide much information.

Ultimately, four people were killed and thirteen injured in the incident. I doubt it was even a blip on the news in the US. In fact, I had a difficult time finding it just to be able to provide a link [and you have to scroll down to the middle of the page at that].

http://www.command-post.org/gwot/2_archives/2004_06.html

I hadn't thought about this incident in a while. Hadn't thought of going down to the hospital to obtain information; how sickening it felt to attempt to piece the story together by talking to those that were nearby when the bomb detonated and were injured. The fact is, I hadn't thought about this because there are too many of these incidents. In essence, they all sort of bleed together in my mind; indistinguishable in most respects. Sadly, ordinary.

But I thought of this last week when I read about our intrepid president's remarks concerning serving in Afghanistan. I think everyone is probably familiar with these, but I give them to you here:

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

ROMANTIC!

Just stop and allow that one to sink in a bit. Stew in it.

On the fifth anniversary of our horribly misguided invasion of Iraq, this guy can still speak of war in these terms. The armchair quarterback that believes adolescent chest thumping trumps reasoned discourse.

There is nothing romantic about picking up pieces--literally, of another human being. It's not romantic to see grief stricken parents wailing over the loss of their daughter.

There's nothing romantic about coming under a hail of RPGs. Or having to take out an enemy position because it's on ground that's a bit higher than yours.

And, most of all, there is nothing romantic about death.

War is ugly; it's dirty; it's random; and it's cruel.

War has a cost that can never be measured by monetary estimations, such as $12 billion dollars per month. And it should never be waged, except as a last resort.

Although I hadn't planned on turning this diary into another Obama campaign solicitation, I've changed my mind.

I've supported Sen. Obama consistently because he has shown the type of reasoned judgment that I believe we so desperately need. When I listened to his speech yesterday--and subsequently read it as well, it seemed more than just a potential turning point for his campaign. It seemed weighty; historical even.

It's way past time we elevated the debate past hyper-macho posturing and triangulation. Join me in demanding leadership that doesn't haphazardly send our nation's sons and daughters into harm's way. That doesn't authorize a misguided war to appear hawkish on national defense issues.

Join me in transforming the discourse to which we have grown accustomed. I've given my full allotment, but I hope you will consider contributing to Barack's campaign. Here's my link if you'd care to contribute there:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Thanks. Peace.

Jeff Cronin

War is Romantic?

""""Jeff C."""" — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:01:54 EDT

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Thanks. Peace.

Jeff Cronin

War is Romantic?

""""Jeff C."""" — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:57:35 EDT

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Thanks. Peace.

Jeff Cronin

Hillary Clinton is a Comb-Over

""""Jeff C."""" — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:03:31 EDT

OK--first things first, given the amount of right wing venom I've witnessed in the past few days, I feel a bit bad about a snarky Clinton column. So, I thought I would start with a preface: if Sen. Clinton does manage to receive the nomination, I will support her in the fall. Now . . . lets commence to snarkin'.

I rented Cameron Crowe's movie "Singles" the other night, which ages much worse than I would have imagined.

In one scene a twenty-something male hesitantly approaches a twenty-something female in a club. He says hi and then launches into the following bit:

"My friend and I have this argument, and here it is. He says when you're at a place like this ... you can't just be yourself, you need an act."

"So anyway, I saw you standing there ... so I thought,
A: I could just leave you alone; B: I could come up with an act, or C: I could just be myself.

"I chose C. What do you think?"

She glances at him and responds: "I think that--A: You have an act ... and that--B: Not having an act is your act.

This is all a roundabout way of highlighting that Barack Obama's act is that he has no act. That this little snippet of dialogue made me think of Barack and Hillary is another, far more troubling story.

Barack has a calculated natural-ness. He has a different act than previous candidates. And it's one of the reason he will be the next president of the United States.

Hillary is a comb-over. She's a pick-up line; a used car salesman in a a plaid sports jacket [notwithstanding the lack of gender neutrality--but, sales person just seems a beat off]. She's your embarrassing single fifty-ish uncle that shows up to Thanksgiving with a convertible sports car and a too young girlfriend.

The fact is, Hillary Clinton is a cliche. We've seen her act. We're tired of it. We're ready to move on.

Whether or not Barack Obama is more genuine, that fact is he certainly seems more genuine.

Barack is the balding guy that just shaves his head instead of trying to hide his baldness with a comb-over. And the truth is, they are both affectations. It's certainly debatable whether one is more fundamentally honest than the other. And, on some level, I have a begrudging respect for someone that's willing to pull a'Benny Hinn' and just sweep it over from the top of their ear [Side Note: it's never good for your political viability when someone can drop a Benny Hinn reference on you].

Speaking as a charter member of the balding dudes with shaved heads' brigade, the point is to give off the appearance of being carefree; indifferent. To show everyone that we're comfortable enough with ourselves that we can own our hair loss on our terms. But, it's still an affectation. More importantly, it's still an attempt to alter how others' perceive us. But there's a difference between the shaved head and the comb-over: one attempts to make its point through deception and the other puts it out in the open for all to see. Barack is the balding man with the shaved head. Hillary is a comb-over.

Come on, if I had my druthers I would take a Mitt Romney head of hair any day of the week [as long as I don't also have to have a son named Tagg]. However, the 'play it off as if I don't really care about going bald', shaved head bit works because it's still new enough. It hasn't become a cliche. It's my version of "not having an act is your act." Yet, there is no doubt, it IS an act.

All of which leads me to wonder: there had to be a point in time when the comb-over was new; when somebody, somewhere thought it was a good idea and others followed. It wasn't ALWAYS a joke.

Barack Obama is new in that sense, also. He's a balding man's shaved head; he's a no-haggle car dealership; he's a Mac. Maybe there will come a point in time when those things will become cliches as well. But, that time is certainly not now; and, given the choice between two relatively similar political agendas, I'll take the relatively new and refreshing candidate over the tired, cliched candidate anytime.

Any thoughts?

Why Iraq Matters [One Reason Among Many]

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:26:29 EDT

A little about myself at the outset: obviously I am an unabashed supporter of Sen. Barack Obama. I am also a Counterintelligence Agent in the army guard, have been deployed, and was awarded two Bronze Star Medals for my service in Afghanistan. I hope that doesn't come off as a kind of chest thumping aggrandizement, but rather, merely some base-line credibility with which to address the following issues.

I joined the military in November, 2001. Like many others, my response to the September the 11th attacks was to look inward and find an avenue through which I could contribute to my country [sorry Karl Rove--it wasn't to seek therapy]; to play a small role in achieving the broad ideals on which the United States was founded, but has often fallen short.

Regardless of how one views my decision to enlist in the military; I did so because I felt mobilized to serve a cause greater than my own self interests. I did so because I ardently believed that I had not contributed enough to what I felt was one of the fundamental notions of American life: creating a better future for the next generation of Americans.

Maudlin--Perhaps. Naïve--Probably. Sucker--Maybe.

Now, it makes no sense to rehash everything that led up to the vote to authorize military force in Iraq and where we find ourselves today. Suffice to say that, regardless of your views on the issue, there are a few irrefutable truths:

Thousands of dead Americans.

Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

Over a trillion dollars spent.

A lessened moral standing in the world.

A dangerously overstretched military force.

An unfinished mission in Afghanistan.

t seems almost unconscionable to make an argument for why this matters. It should be self-evident. There are many reasons why we now find ourselves in this position, although my focus will be limited to one reason.

That is, the authorization of this misguided war by Democratic Party politicians such as Hillary Clinton. I probably would be less strident if I felt that Sen. Clinton's vote for war was anything less than triangulating disingenuineness.

However, Sen. Clinton cast a vote for war because she wanted to co-opt a national security issue that she felt was favorable for Republicans. She was also concerned, rightly so, that her gender would inhibit her ability to seem "strong." I won't even broach the wisdom of first ceding this turf to the Republican Party and then fighting it out on their turf. Although I sympathize with the delicate balence with which Sen. Clinton must address military issues, I cannot and will not abdicate my authority to hold her accountable for the result of her vote.

Sen. Clinton made a politically calculated decision to send soldiers into a quagmire because she felt that it was the most politically expedient decision available. Karl Rove and George W. Bush believed that democrats would fold in the face of patriotic pressure, and they did. The self-styled "fighter" folded in the most important fight of our generation. The result of this lack of backbone, amongst others, is an incredibly wide swath of death and destruction.

For this reason alone, Hillary Clinton would not receive my vote over Barack Obama. And the thing is, if I thought that this was just a matter of bad judgment then my position would not be so absolute. But I challenge the supporters of Sen. Clinton, do you really believe that she thought this was a wise course of action. And if you don't, how can you honestly give Sen. Clinton your support?

It seems to me that the notion of America has always existed somewhere in the disconnect between its ideals and its reality. And there are distinct times in our history in which it is paramount to push for the hope of America rather than settling for its sometimes stark reality.

I support Barack Obama because he offers a unique message of hope, reconciliation, and dynamism that transcends traditional party lines; I support Barack Obama because he extols the virtues of finding commonality, whenever possible, rather than reveling in tearing others down; and, I support Barack Obama because of his dynamic ability to push through a progressive political agenda.

Are these fuzzy, amorphous concepts? Sure they are. However, it doesn’t make them any less tangible than Sen. Clinton’s itemized recitations of the government programs she’ll deliver if elected president.

I feel the same way about the Obama campaign as I did when I joined the military. It’s a campaign that actually calls on me to question what my role is in the process, encourages me to participate, and energizes me to be involved. I feel galvanized to be a broad part of a larger, more important ideal. And, frankly, it makes me feel good about myself.

I would argue that the energy being created by the Obama campaign is infinitely more important than small policy differences between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama on health care. When citizens are motivated to participate, and feel good about their government, they end up with a more responsive, streamlined, and transparent government.

Join me in contributing to Sen. Obama's campaign and lets, together, make the kind of transformational change to our politics that is so desperately needed. I will match anyone that is generous enought to make a contribution, even if it's only a few dollars :

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Hope everyone is having a splendid weekend. As always, take care and keep up the good work.

Thank you,

Jeff Cronin

Burning Down the House

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:06:57 EDT

Although I don't believe that democrats are going to go over the cliff with Hillary Clinton, it will be white knuckle time for me in the next five weeks.

No sense in making the same arguments about why nominating Sen. Clinton is a colossally bad idea; suffice to say that if it happens, the Democratic Party's chances to win the presidency will look like the puff of smoke at the end of a Wile E. Coyote free-fall.

Obviously, it's not necessarily in the best interests of the long-term health of the Democratic Party to join Sen. Clinton in going over the side of the cliff. Let's just hope we all figure it out before we look down and and see that there's no ground beneath us.

That said, I will support Sen. Clinton if she receives the nomination of the party. However, I do believe, if that happens, the party will have missed a historic opportunity.

Democrats have a historic opportunity in this election. Not just in the race/gender context, but rather to build a thirty to forty year progressive coalition. Here's hoping we don't blow it. I know I'm preaching to the converted, but consider the following historical trends:

I've broken down U.S. presidential elections into three distinct periods within a 112 year time frame. The trend-lines from each of these three periods are dramatically similar. Ascendancy

The first period comprises the thirty-six years from 1896 - 1932.

The second spans thirty-six years as well; 1932 - 1968.

The third comprises a forty year period from 1968 - 2008.

1896 to 1932:

The Republican Party held the presidency for 28 of these 36 years. The only candidate from the Democratic Party that was able to garner election during this period was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was elected to two consecutive terms almost precisely in the middle of the 36 year republican run.

1932 to 1968:

Also a 36 year period except now the party holding the presidency flipped. During this period, the Democratic Party held the presidency for 28 of the 36 years. Much like the previous period, the party not in control of the presidency, the Republican Party, was only able to elect one individual during this period: Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Eisenhower, like Woodrow Wilson was a two-term president elected in the middle of the other party's run of presidential supremacy. Eisenhower's 8 years occurred in years 20 to 28 of the 36 Democratic Party run. This only slightly differs from Wilson, who held the presidency for 8 years during years 16 to 24 of the Republican Party run.

1968 - 2008:

Here, we have a 40 year run from the Republican Party. This 40 year period differs slightly from the previous periods. First, there was a single one term presidency from the non-dominant party during this 40 year period. Jimmmy Carter held the presidency for the Democratic Party from 1976 to 1980. Although this makes this period trend slightly different from the other two, I think Carter's election broke the regular cycle due to the historical anomaly of Watergate.

Again, notwithstanding Carter, the non-dominant party was able to control the presidency for 8 years. In this case Bill Clinton controlled the presidency for the non-dominant party between years 24 and 32 of the Republican Party run; a bit later than the previous two, which I think correlates to Carter's four years.

Now, I would argue that there are striking similarities between all three two-term presidencies of the non-dominant parties.

Wilson, Eisenhower, and Clinton all governed as centrists; sort of dominant party-lite. Each were constricted by a dominant party Congress that had powerful office holders. Wilson had Henry Cabot Lodge; Eisenhower had Lyndon Johnson; and Clinton had Newt Gingrich. Each were circumscribed in their ability to bring about sweeping change.

However, each dominant party had a two-term president that really shifted the political landscape for the others that followed. The first era had Teddy Roosevelt; the second had FDR; and the third had Reagan.

All of that is basically an incredibly long wind-up to make a very simple point: Barack Obama is the Democratic Party's opportunity to place its imprimatur on the presidency for a generation. Barack Obama is Teddy; he's FDR; he's Reagan, each of which were the right person in the right place at the right time.

We are in a period of Democratic Party presidential ascendancy. We have a historic opportunity to shape the landscape for a generation. This is not a moment in which democrats need to hold their nose and pick the best of bad options. This is a chance to be bold.

One of the biggest problems that I see with the Clinton campaign is that she's running for president as if it's 1992. She's stuck in a triangulating, republican co-opting time warp. However, that's not where the country is at. And generally, I'm not one of those people that despises Bill Clinton for the DLC form of calculated politics. I think he did about the best he could given the political landscape he was in.

But, it's not 1992. We have an opportunity to transform and we're only going to get it this one time.

Join me in contributing toward transformational change. I'm matching anyone that contributes with a contribution of my own. Since I am sans trust fund, my matching contribution might only be a dollar or two. However, every little bit helps as you all know.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

I hope that everyone is having a wonderful weekend. Keep up the good work and take care, as always.

Jeff Cronin

I'm Not A Big Fan Of The Kitchen Sink

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:54:49 EDT

Not that I'm easily shocked or taken aback, but I thought I would share a few comments that were posted from yesterday's "Jeremiah Wright is Stepping Down" story at Politico:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wright_leaves_Obama_campaign.html

Guess this is what has been referred to as "the kitchen sink." Let's start off with a few of the more obvious ones.

John opined: "NO ONE in their right mind should vote for obama (who is officially anti-american) he never puts his right hand over his heart, he never wears a flag pin, and now, he listens to hate filled messages against americans."

OK . . . there's the anti-American angle--CHECK!

Shani weighed in with this contribution: "Obama is a deceitful piece of trash."

So . . . just your garden-variety of venom here--CHECK!

Yuck, who I'm sure is aptly named, came up with this gem: "obama is a racist."

At least Yuck was succinct.

Michael weighed in with: "Now it is clear why Mrs. Obama has never been proud of her country...she hates it."

I was wondering when they were going to get Michelle involved--CHECK!

JMM unloaded this doozy: "Obams holds the wool and pulls it over the eyes of the young white americans."

Not even sure what that means, although, to be fair, JMM probably doesn't either.

DaveNP35 wrote: "Wright is clearly an anti-white, anti-American bigot and Obama clearly supports these views as evidenced by his long affiliation with this "church" and "minister"."

Clearly, it's a miracle that "DaveNP" made it to age 35.

John returned to the fray with the inevitable: "Next he'll need to explain the friendship with William Ayers and Tony Rezko."

Can't believe it took a few hundred comments before someone brought that up.

JTSpangler seemed to be mixing his metaphors when he comes up with this gem: "The dominant white Christian culture will not elect a guy who attended services for twenty years, contributed money and listened to this loud and angry racist tripe without a peep until it threatened his ambition to impose his "takes-a-village" agenda on America."

And, finally, Danny gets the granddaddy-of-them-all prize for this beaut: "Why doesnt obama pledge?? why doesnt he put his right hand over his heart?? obama is anti-american; the change of the anti-christ!"

Can't believe it took that long to invoke the "Obama is the anti-Christ" smear. These people are rookies.

Folks, I think today was the first chance I had to see everything that will be thrown at Barack in the fall. Pretty much your regular wing-nut, hate filled invective; what I expected. Might as well get used to it. Nonetheless . . . it's ugly.

For the next eight months, the end timer's will be crawling out of their bomb shelters, putting praying for Armageddon on hold, and throwing hate-filled venom at Sen. Obama.

Not sure what the answer is at the moment, other than to remain resolute in our beliefs that politics and public service can be more than an endless mud-slinging contest. Sen. Obama spoke on this matter today in Indianapolis, and his words are infinately more eloquent than mine. I urge you to click on the link below:

http://thepage.time.com/obamas-remarks-at-plainfield-indiana-town-hall/

Also, although I am relatively light in the pocketbook [unfortunately, no trust fund to tap into], I will match any contribution that anyone is able to make [Even if that means only a couple of dollars]. Hope you join me in supporting Sen. Obama by donating to a campaign that might help consign the worst of this mud-slinging to the ash-bin of campaign history.

Vote. Volunteer. Donate: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Hope everyone is having a wonderful weekend thus far. Take care.

Jeff Cronin

I'm Not A Big Fan Of The Kitchen Sink

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:52:03 EDT

Not that I'm easily shocked or taken aback, but I thought I would share a few comments that were posted from yesterday's "Jeremiah Wright is Stepping Down" story at Politico:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wright_leaves_Obama_campaign.html

Guess this is what has been referred to as "the kitchen sink." Let's start off with a few of the more obvious ones.

http://thepage.time.com/obamas-remarks-at-plainfield-indiana-town-hall/

Also, although I am relatively light in the pocketbook [unfortunately, no trust fund to tap into], I will match any contribution that anyone is able to make [Even if that means only a couple of dollars]. Hope you join me in supporting Sen. Obama by donating to a campaign that might help consign the worst of this mud-slinging to the ash-bin of campaign history.

Vote. Volunteer. Donate: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Hope everyone is having a wonderful weekend thus far. Take care.

Jeff Cronin

I'm Not A Big Fan Of The Kitchen Sink

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:45:33 EDT

Not that I'm easily shocked or taken aback, but I thought I would share a few comments that were posted from yesterday's "Jeremiah Wright is Stepping Down" story at Politico:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wright_leaves_Obama_campaign.html

Guess this is what has been referred to as "the kitchen sink." Let's start off with a few of the more obvious ones.

http://thepage.time.com/obamas-remarks-at-plainfield-indiana-town-hall/

Also, although I am relatively light in the pocketbook [unfortunately, no trust fund to tap into], I will match any contribution that anyone is able to make [Even if that means only a couple of dollars]. Hope you join me in supporting Sen. Obama by donating to a campaign that might help consign the worst of this mud-slinging to the ash-bin of campaign history.

Vote. Volunteer. Donate: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Hope everyone is having a wonderful weekend thus far. Take care.

Jeff Cronin

A Veteran for Obama

""""Jeff C."""" — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:56:52 EST

OK—so I have to preface this blog with two embarrassing tidbits of personal information: first, I used to be a registered republican; and second, I voted for Bob Dole in 1996.

The first one can generally be explained away as a youthful indiscretion. The second—that’s a bit more difficult; I’m not even sure that Bob Dole voted for Bob Dole [although the non-stop third person referencing was rather entertaining].

Over the past twelve years, however, I find myself doing a reverse Winston Churchill and becoming increasingly more left-leaning. Towards that end, I offer my unabashed support for Barack Obama, the first campaign to which I have ever contributed anything more than my vote.

I joined the military in the position of Counterintelligence Agent in November, 2001. Like many others, my response to the September the 11th attacks was to look inward and find an avenue through which I could contribute to my country; to play a small role in achieving the broad ideals on which the United States was founded, but has often fallen woefully short. Regardless of how one views my decision to enlist in the military; I did so because I felt mobilized to serve a cause greater than my own self interests. I did so because I ardently believed that I had not contributed enough to what I felt was one of the fundamental notions of American life: creating a better future for the next generation of Americans.

Maudlin? Perhaps. Naïve? Probably. Sucker? Maybe.

However, it seems to me that the notion of America has always existed somewhere in the disconnect between its ideals and its reality. And there are distinct times in our history in which it is paramount to push for the hope of America rather than settling for its sometimes stark reality.

I support Barack Obama because he offers a unique message of hope, reconciliation, and dynamism that transcends traditional party lines; I support Barack Obama because he extols the virtues of finding commonality, whenever possible, rather than reveling in tearing others down; and, I support Barack Obama because of his dynamic ability to push through a progressive political agenda.

Are these fuzzy, amorphous concepts? Sure they are. However, it doesn’t make them any less tangible than Sen. Clinton’s itemized recitations of the government programs she’ll deliver if elected president.

I feel the same way about the Obama campaign as I did when I joined the military. It’s a campaign that actually calls on me to question what my role is in the process, encourages me to participate, and energizes me to be involved. I feel galvanized to be a broad part of a larger, more important ideal. And, frankly, it makes me feel good about myself.

I would argue that the energy being created by the Obama campaign is infinitely more important than small policy differences between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama on health care. When citizens are motivated to participate, and feel good about their government, they end up with a more responsive, streamlined, and transparent government.

Vote. Participate. Donate

It Was A Close One

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:35:17 EST

OK--I'll be the first to admit; as an Obama supporter, I feel a little bit sheepish. Here I've been, meticulously researching the positions of the candidates, attempting to determine who had the best opportunity to push through a progressive political agenda, and seeing what I could glean from how the candidates run their campaigns; and evidently, I have completely missed the boat.

I have felt pretty comfortable with my support for Sen. Obama. Not nearly as unabashed as most, but solidly in his corner. However, it seems as though I have been entirely misguided. At least, according to Sen. Clinton.

During today's harangue, Sen. Clinton stated: "His entire campaign is based on one speech he gave at an anti-war rally in 2002," Clinton said. "I give him credit for making the speech, but his speech was not followed up with action, which is the pattern we have seen repeatedly -- a lot of talk no action. We have one speech in 2002 versus a record of accomplishment and a record of action."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

WHEW!!

I'm glad she stopped me before I made an embarrassing mistake. How could I have been so blind?

When Sen. Clinton first proffered the 'talker v. doer' line of attack I, initially, dismissed it. However, she felt so strongly that, despite increasing evidence that the 'change v. experience' angle was a loser, she kept repeating it in different forms.

First, there was 'talker v. doer,' which at some point morphed into 'speeches v. solutions,'and has now been fine-tuned into "his entire campaign is based on one speech."

I'm glad that I finally caught on. Perhaps her non-stop recitation of these points were a tad too subtle for me. Sure . . . you could argue that attempting to drive home the same point over and over again, despite all evidence that it's not working, is somewhat delusional.

I prefer to think of it as the same kind of glorious consistency that is a hallmark of the current White House occupant. Obviously, we have all seen that if you stick to the same story long enough, it will eventually break through and become reality.

Thank you Sen. Clinton for allowing me to see the errors of my independent thinking, background researching ways. That was a close one.

"Independent" Expenditures

""""Jeff C."""" — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:25:47 EST

Fellow Obama Supporters --

Yesterday we learned that a few well-connected supporters of Sen. Clinton are attempting to raise $10 million to spend in the upcoming March 4th primaries.

This so-called “independent” group will produce “issue” ads that mirror the Clinton speeches versus solutions talking points. The group, "American Leadership Project" is organized as a “527,” which enables a few wealthy individuals to pump money into political campaigns because they are not “openly advocating” for one candidate.

This “527” is, coincidentally, organized in the same manner as the despicable “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.” We all know how that one worked out.

However, Barack Obama has something that no few well-heeled supporters of Sen. Clinton can muster. That is, the support and enthusiasm of a movement that is roughly one million strong.

Let’s show the “American Leadership Project” and like-minded groups that their efforts to skirt the spirit of campaign finance laws will only be in vein. Please support Barack’s campaign by making a small contribution.

If you are like me, you are probably already about tapped out with regards to contributions. Therefore, I’m submitting $5.27 as a message that the power of the people trumps wealthy well-heeled insiders.

Please join me:

My Fundraising Page

Thank you,

Jeff Cronin