Umesh Patil's Blog

Andrew Sullivan on McCain Integrity

Umesh Patil — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:12:23 EDT

Andrew has got some original post about McCain on his site. It is a must read for all of us:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html#more

As you read the post, you wonder is it not the usual ‘weak, crying, sissy’ attack and rant of a ‘lost’ liberal? Sure at first it seems so. But when one goes at the end of the article, we realize the brilliance of Andrew’s argument.

He is going plain and simple ‘swift boating’ McCain. Granted the term is getting over used and we Dems have become obsessed with it. But if see Andrew’s point, one realizes what a ‘top’ effort he is undertaking here: McCain’s campaign manager sometime back said this election is not about ‘issues’ but about ‘character’. We thought that as outrageous and it is. But hard knuckle response to that is to go after McCain’s character. And as Andrew has shown competently, there is enough string ground to make the case that McCain is ‘flunking’ that case big time. Hence it is ‘swift boating’ – going after opponent’s strength; in this case McCain’s character. McCain and GOP have asked for it. Even today, in never ending twisting of words, McCain campaign says that it welcomes Obama’s debate about ‘honor’ and ‘country first’ issues. Let us define ‘honor’ as not ‘lying on stump’ and ‘telling Americans what they need to listen’. Let us define ‘country first’ as the decision of VP who can come in within seconds in the role of Commander in Chief. Let us define ‘America always’ as our answer to energy solution. And then we will see whose ‘honor’ remains.

Andrew’s earlier column about Sarah was also great – trying to portray her as the ‘pro-choice’ pro-lifer. Again sheds of ‘swift boating’ are there.

What all this indicates for Dems is:

- our base is getting warmed to shenanigans of GOP

- we should let free Obama to continue focus on issues (Matthew Yglesias has goot column about how Obama is making a solid case for Education Reforms http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/obamas_education_speech.ph)

- all other supporters of Obama, like Andrew, continue to ‘swift boat’ McCain

- keep focus on McCain as like Huffington says, we do not fall to the ploy of ‘Sarah diversion’ from McCain the focus

- and leave the job of pointing all contradictions and unsuitability of Sarah to rest of Dems and Obama supporters.

Swift Boating of Obama

Umesh Patil — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:01:19 EDT

As people are slowly realizing that it is not just the conventional bounce in polls after RNC Nomination Convention, but the real possibility that McCain – Palin can win this election; it is clear that Obama and Democrats are in the middle of unfolding ‘swift boating’.

Tom Friedman wrote it excellently in NYT how Obama is swift boated: McCain – Palin are also for ‘change’ and then Obama’s ‘change’ strength gets maligned. That is classic swift boating. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/opinion/10friedman.html?hp)

What Friedman calls ‘politics of guts’; it means Obama essentially needs to ‘paint’ his vision of America without reference to McCain and Palin. People need to get the sense of what American Conversation Obama wants to have to lead forward. Typically, rendering of such a vision would take today’s problem and best of American Tradition to rouse voters. It is as if Al Gore is running on the platform of Global Warning and invoking JFK’s exhortation to go to moon in challenging Soviet Union – that zeal and energy is needed. As Richard Cohen, Tom Friedman and host of other commentators are pointing, it looks as if Obama has suddenly gone too cold.

Then the second part will be pointing fallacies with the opponent – reminding people how McCain – Palin will be same of Bush (examples?), how Palin is simply refusing her basic duty of facing people and not explaining policies, how she is using ‘Motherhood’ as politics, how McCain has been flip flopping all the time (similar to Hillary’s Bosnia video tape, can we have tapes about McCain or Palin?) and how that ticket is blatantly lying.

But the second part can not undercut the message of the first part – ‘Obama’s Vision for America’.

Third, Democrats need to understand that the situation is not ‘let Obama fight his wars’. They must come together and start blasting their guns in unison towards GOP. Ed Rendell, Pen. Governor, is doing his part when he pounded the GOP ticket today. We need Bill Clinton, Hillary, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, Pelosi; all these Dem Guns firing all over America.

Finally, what needs to be demonstrated that there are so many ‘liberal’ folks who live equally ‘moral’ life and who live far more prudent life when it comes ‘birth’. It is this image that liberals mean those who have undertaken ‘abortion’ all along. But that is not the case – there are large numbers of Democrats who are equally ‘pro-life’ but out of respect to others, honor the rights of ‘pro-choice’ folks. To demonstrate means to highlight, to bring on stage mothers who conduct own life ‘pro-lifer’ but are ‘pro-choice’. That is one way to ‘swift boat’ cultural wars of Republicans.

Unless this happens, Obama Campaign will be reduced to 2004 Dem race – squabbling for ‘blue state and red state’ and how to just reach 272.

Mona Charen at RCP – Sara’s Rattling

Umesh Patil — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:02:47 EDT

Moan argues at RCP that because Sara is showing the courage in carrying the responsibly of her ‘weak child’, liberals are rattled. Mona argues that Sara is ‘strong’ and hence the reaction.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/is_trig_at_the_heart_of_medias.html

That is the point - Sara may be super human; but why should American Government punish others who are not that strong? She is not for an office where 'morality' is to be imposed on others.

The game plan may be to induce 'guilt' among normal folks by this. But that should be rejected. Test of a true 'leader' is 'not to impose' constraints which are irrelevant to normal day to day living.

By the way, when I and my wife faced some such surprises in our lives; we did the same thing - no intrusive test of fetus and being ready to face whatever it comes. By grace, our son turned out to be fine. So don't preach me your 'f------' morality. I do not need to adhere to some extreme Church to understand basics here and live an upright, moral life. In our world in fact, Sara and her family have been far more reckless and irresponsible with 'life'. She and her family cannot control the 'lust'. Living with consequences is not 'redemption' here because in the process you have already screwed one life (and more on the way when that teenager gives birth too). I have done the same choices as like hers, I have seen far more superior folks than hers and still we all consider ourselves as normal; not trying to ride presidency on that. Moreover, we see that we keep the decency in not trying to impose, implicitly or explicitly, such 'judgments' on others. Sara and GOP are doing that. Shame on them.

Elephant in Sara’s Glass House

Umesh Patil — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:54:21 EDT

May be Americans need to visit India and understand opinions of reasonably literate voters when those voters come across a politician who is having his or her latest baby with the difference of few months from his or her newly born grandson or granddaughter. The difference between Palin’s youngest son and coming baby of her teenage daughter will be few months (8 months in case of Sara Palin).

Yes, Sara Palin is ‘great’ because despite testing his latest baby for ‘down syndrome’ she signed for the moral duty of tending her child. Yes, Sara Palin is ‘great’ because even when her teenage daughter is conceiving baby before marriage; Sara signs herself to the duty of taking care of her daughter and her coming baby. She is ‘carrying this cross’ all for principles and her sense of moral duty. Absolutely great, that is the true ‘light’ of morality and may be after Jesus it is Sara only.

The problem with this is that she is ‘not’ running for ‘papacy’ where ‘morality’ and ‘bonding with God’ are the exclusive criteria. Unfortunately she is running for American Presidency (VP position in specific). George Washington did not fight with the British Crown to found a theocratic state nor Jefferson took the troubles to establish a state where government ‘set ups’ her citizenry for high human price when we mortals fails. We are aware of Sara Palin’s inadequacy of Constitutional understanding (pledge of allegiance was created by Founding Fathers!); but it will be wise and quite useful for her to read American Constitution again. Reading Bible again and again can not be a substitute to read American Constitution.

Question is what do Americans want - the government headed by McCain – Palin would make their already tough life by demanding further moral purity or Americans want the government which does not unnecessarily complicate their life by intruding in how they should conduct their private lives? What is happening with GOP’s infatuation with Sara Palin is her policy of ‘strident anti-abortion and abstinence only’ is getting imposed on Americans regardless of consequences to their lives. What government do we want – the one which imposes ‘high moral bar’, failing of which results in dramatic human costs because that government refuses to adopt less intrusive policies or the government which refrains from meddling in people’s private life? As others have pointed, Sara Palin is all over Terri Schiavo again. Sara Palin’s family is the exhibit A of what happens to your family if insistence on moral high standards comes at total disregard to possible failings by ordinary folks. Sara may have the ‘moral fiber or strength’ to bare consequences of these private choices (as McCain loves to point); but what right American government has to increase such punishing price for others? Actually it is Sara Palin’s GOP which is Big Brother – they are forcing morality on people’s life and pursuing a policy which essentially makes people to pay high price for their failings. Again, American Constitution is not Bible. It is laughable that with such policies America wants to compete with China and India in coming century! What travesty!

So contrary to Obama – can we talk about Sara’s family and direction of her ‘family policy’? If it is going to make my daughter’s life miserable; then it is NOT off limits.

But alas, under the grab of political correctness, cowardliness and narcissism (media discussing whether media has been fair to Sara); we are unlikely to hear this elephant in Sara’s glass house. However, may be people’s ballot box would speak. Just a hope.

Ramesh Ponnuru – Ideologically Blind

Umesh Patil — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:41:37 EDT

Ramesh is one more ‘pain’ guy, I guess trying to climb the career paths blazed by Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh – always twist and manipulate what a non-Conservative person would say. Case in point is Obama’s response to a question about forcing English as the compulsory language. Ramesh is interpreting Obama’s response wrong and as the one who has not given sufficient thought to immigrant assimilation.

(Ramesh Ponnuru, Washington Post – ‘Put English First, Obama’; July 12, 2008)

Oh, give us a break as if McCain has been very eloquent and erudite on this topic.

Obama is right to high light importance of kid being bilingual. In Asia, and in specific in India, it is quite normal. Kids thrive there and no one has to make any laws for folks to learn English. In India ‘market forces’ (the one which should be sacred to Ramesh) make people to ensure that their kids learn English. Where is there a law in India that English is compulsory and kids can not be bilingual until they master English?

Ramesh misses the point completely. Or I guess the objective for people like Ramesh is to ‘miss the point’ on purpose, create a media controversy and to scrap live on that. He, Anna Coulter and Rush Limbaugh; it is a species in itself where making provocative statements and offending people on purpose is the way to make living. Shame on Ramesh because he could have learnt few things from India. As usual the best thing for Obama is to ignore such ‘media whores’.

Will Barack Respond?

Umesh Patil — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 07:21:40 EDT

While responding to FISA criticism, Barack Obama said that he will listen to criticism and respond to questions raised, if not he agrees with critics. So in that spirit, here are some questions and comments to Barack Obama and his campaign:

1. Has Barack Obama watched movie Wall-E? Has he read Frank Rich’s criticism based on this movie? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/opinion/06rich.html?hp ) The point is about the dangerous political tone of the campaign and what Rich says ‘…he is drifting away from the leadership he promised…’. Yes, Barack Obama campaign is indeed giving distinct stench of ‘run of the mill politician’ who is deliberately trying to be vague, changing his past policy statements with impunity and worst off all – showing extreme arrogance and cockiness. General sense is he and his campaign are also disregarding any sensible inputs from grass roots. So much for the promised ‘Change’. It is sad that Barack Obama has to chide his supporters by saying ‘what alternative do you have then?’ Remember, the single biggest reason why substantial traditional backers of Democratic Party and Establishment went away from Hillary – her imploring of supporters to ‘go to other candidates’ when she was asked to ‘account’ for Iraq war resolution support. It seems unfortunately we are on similar grounds with Barack Obama campaign too except that ‘liberal grass root supporters’ are at ransom here since we can not vote McCain in this case.

2. Of course, a common voter like me understands that one Frank Rich column or continued punditry by Karl Rove in ‘Wall Street Journal’ do not make for the serious business of campaigning with vast number of voters for presidential election. Neither common voters are interested in ‘subtle and calibrated’ adjustment of Obama Campaign to move to ‘Centrist’ position in ideological spectrum nor it is of much significance to us when New York Times finds New Barack Obama as he refuses some of these ‘litmus tests’. But what is off interest to common people is ‘gas price’. What has Barack Obama campaign done lately (or ever) to highlight the plight of Americans who are literally flogged at gas station? Why is not this campaign pounding on the table to ‘limit speculation’ in oil prices? Why is he not adopting sensible advice as advocated by Daniel Dicker? ( http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/oil/10423562.html ) It was right and has been always right that Barack refuse the gimmick of ‘gas tax holiday’. But he has the responsibility to prod Congress, now, and force politicians politically to adopt measures which will eliminate speculation in oil prices. What we want is Barack Obama who will withstand the cacophony of ‘no speculation’ as sprouted by Secretary Paulson, laud mouth JJ Crammer, Paul Krugman and magazine Economists.

3. We know that Barack Obama succumbed to Iowa partisan voters when backed corn based ethanol mandate. Where is Barack’s ‘courage’ in realizing the senselessness of ‘corn based ethanol mandate’ policy:

- effectively more energy consumption to produce paltry quantities of oil,

- diversion of corn from food chain, consequently dramatic increase in food prices and overall inflation,

- induced hunger in many parts of the world and

- no reduction in carbon footprint.

Where are the benefits apart from some few farmers in Iowa? If Barack Obama does not see the folly of this policy, he fails fundamentally to be a different leader and effectively he lies when he says he wants to change Washington. With this policy he is NOT changing Washington but joining that club with vengeance.

4. I am not dumb not to understand that removal of speculation in oil prices and stopping corn for ethanol production are not sufficient to address our energy crisis. So then why do we not hear a concrete framework and energy plan from Obama campaign at the stump? We are sick and tired of our politicians talking about ‘patriotism or someone’s military service’ and unfortunately Obama campaign and Barack Obama himself are not doing anything different. Energy Policy is not something like an Iraq war problem where unless Barack Obama is in Oval office he can not make tactical decisions. It is a domestic agenda where ‘the candidate of change’ can be very, very specific and concrete with total top to bottom framework with all dollars and cents. Sure, I find all these details of his energy plan on the campaign website. But it is a ‘catch all’ generic propaganda document. Politics is about making ‘choices’ and actually rejecting certain ‘alternatives’ or ‘current ways of doing’. We need explicit mention from Barack what he will stop and what he will do in earnest to start moving America away from oil.

Hope is Barack Obama will respond to these questions and comments.

HRC Desperation for VP Slot

Umesh Patil — Fri, 23 May 2008 20:21:25 EDT

In typical ‘low class / low level’ style; HRC revealed her desire, rather desperation, for the VP slot by insinuating RFK assassination. These are her ways, what can one say.

Obama campaign was right to say that his campaign does not have place for such statements and corollary is, does not have place for her as well.

May be Obama campaign at some point will have to be tough to shut close the door on HRC. This drama has been going on for too long and it hardly addresses problems of American people.

It needs to be pointed to HRC that her arguments about Florida and Michigan are not valid. Obama has rightly said that Florida primary was simply the test of ‘name recognition’. Election campaigns do move votes and do make difference. Otherwise both HRC and Obama would not have been able to recover from behind in so many contexts of this primary. Bill Clinton said that Hillary performed well when she narrowly won Indiana. What happened? Is the claim not that Hillary talked to people of Indiana and convinced them? When Obama came within the whisker of victory in Texas in popular votes which he had started way behind; didn’t his campaign make the difference?

So make these Clintons ‘shut up their’ mouths about Florida and Michigan. Tell her that ‘democracy’ can very well live without her and rest of American Politicians are not mere observers. She is a blatant liar – first she wanted no elections in Florida and Michigan as per DNC rules. She is on record saying so. Why not YouTube those speeches of hers? Sure it will sink her arguments about Florida and Michigan, the way her candidacy got fatally injured when her Balkan visit footage surfaced.

Praising her policies and politics is one thing and Obama needs to continue to do that. But her shenanigans about Florida and Michigan must be constantly flashed, so that in the end the revulsion sets in.

Obama campaign needs to do that. And oh, by the way – no debt relief to HRC from Obama campaign. How to fight primary election is her prerogative and she needs to take care of that.

Beggar Clintons

Umesh Patil — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:41:24 EDT

First time I read of Clinton expectations that her campaign debt of around $11 million be paid by Obama, I just dismissed it as a hyper reaction on Daily Kos. But today NYT blog lists 4 conditions of Clinton camp to fold their tent and the first one is paying off the debt. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/clintons-endgame-strategy/index.html?hp)

This means there seems to have some substance in such an expectation and it unbelievable.

This liar, pandering, racist fighter politician now has reduced to ask ‘ransom’ or say ‘bribe’ to quit a race in which she is defeated. How come Hillary says that she has been doing all this campaigning and use of her money for the ‘love of the country’ and now demand that money back from her political adversary who is succeeding where she failed? This is unbelievable. One feels like one is observing a third world country politician like Mugabe in these Clintons.

But I guess as many have pointed from time to time, there is no ‘bottom’ that Clintons would refuse to climb down. The same Slick Willy now says that North Carolina had early mail vote which gave advantage to Obama and hence he won while completely ignoring that exactly such a phenomenon helped Hillary to have 9+% point win in California. If there was no early vote in California, Obama would have reduced that margin lot too.

But disputing rules all the time when they are not suitable to Clintons so as to make other camp off balance is the famous Clinton strategy. Otherwise so shamelessly Clinton and their acolytes (Jerome Armstrong on www.mydd.com) would not have argued for Michigan and Florida delegates on their terms. Once it was clear that those two states could not pull a revote, delegate allocation has to be acceptable to all parties.

Knowing that Clintons always want to outrage and want you to get off-balance; Obama camp should not give in to Clinton demand of paying campaign debt. Obama neither asked her to continue the race nor is pressurizing her to quite the race. It is her call, her money; why would Obama (and millions of people who contributed to his campaign) pay that money?

If Clinton camp says anything explicitly like this, Obama should go public and refuse it publicly. Then we will know how Clintons are ‘$100 million worth beggars’ demanding repaying costs of their own follies. If Hillary intends to salvage her reputation, she should come out and say that she is perfectly capable of handing her own debt and she is not asking any money from anyone.

Questions for Obama Campaign

Umesh Patil — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 06:13:56 EDT

1. Obama Campaign has been always saying that if there is sufficient time to campaign, the campaign would vigorously compete in every state of the union to win the contest. Then why Obama Campaign is conceding Pennsylvania so early? How come the campaign is defining vote gap of less than 10% as the victory? Obama is on record to say that presenting his case aggressively so that folks vote is ‘his duty’ and ‘his job’. Then why is he under selling here? It is good that the campaign is trying to address the question of ‘expectation management’ when indeed Obama campaign has been ‘cocky’ in past. But can such ‘spin’ management come at the cost of ‘logical consistency’? Clearly Obama campaign is contradictory here and in a weaker spot which can be avoided.

2. Early on Tom Bevan on RealClearPolitics asked this question – if Obama campaign rightly questions Hillary for her judgment about Iraq war; how can his self admitted ‘repeated lapses of judgment’ in Rezko case are excusable? How do voters believe that he is no different than Hillary – same lapses of judgment? Valid explanation is possible that these two cases are different and it is far more important and consequential to get ‘war judgment’ right at the first time itself. But we need some such valid and coherent case from the campaign to address this issue.

The reason this Obama supporter dares to ask these questions is we are expecting Obama campaign more than a simple congregation of hagiographers.

Bill and Hillary’s VP Insinuations

Umesh Patil — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:08:24 EDT

Bill and Hillary Clinton are all over the town saying Obama should be their VP candidate. Sen. Daschle was polite to say that it is unusual for a number 2 to suggest that number 1 should serve as her deputy. Indeed that is way too understatement. Time has come for Obama campaign to call Bill’s and Hillary’s bluff here.

The same Hillary, who goes on record to suggest that Sen. Obama is not ready to be Commander in Chief, how can she suggest him to be her VP? Is it that her understanding of constitution is such that it is okay to have VP who may not be ready on Day One? Because that is the responsibility of VP and constitution wants VP to be fully capable on day one. This means Hillary and Bill are making ‘irresponsible’ statements and do not have basic reading of American constitution itself. Hey, you want to do the politics; do not assume Americans are some school children of 6 or 7 years old!

One such single irresponsibility itself should disqualify Hillary for the job of President. In which world Americans deserve such moronic political discussion at the cost of policy debate? And sure, Obama does not need apprenticeship under a person who is so irresponsible in the matters of Iraq war. He is the leader and perfectly capable of making sound decisions for America.

It is needed that Obama blunts Hillary on this account and call the bluff about this non-sense. Obama needs to tell Americans that while Dem nomination contest is still unresolved (where Hillary is in mathematically impossible position); it is height of irresponsibility to talk about VP candidates and it is betrayal of ‘policy issues’ about which this contest should be. Obama needs to assert that all said and done, he is the leading claimant for the Democratic nomination, he is of course confident that he will win that and in no world would he accept ‘incapable and deceiving’ leader like Hillary as his deputy. It is absolutely necessary for Obama to set the record straight here and get this crap out of the way.

What we need from Obama

Umesh Patil — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:14:16 EDT

We have David Brooks and Bob Herbert in New York Times making the case for Obama to explain how his ‘new politics’ will solve the day to day problems of Americans; or else Obama his bid to Hillary. It should be quite clear to Obama campaign and all of his supporters that ‘delegate math’ argument can only go so far.

It is quite likely even after loosing all coming states to Hillary, Obama could be little bit higher in delegate counts than Hillary going into the convention. But at that point, will that narrow lead (say of 20 or 50 delegates with no resounding victory under the belt in last few months) save Obama campaign? No. Worse any attempt at that point to haggle on the basis of mere delegate counts will reflect very poorly on Obama. Knife points on petty issues like narrow delegate lead is expected from Hillary and not from Obama.

The reason is clear since it is Obama who has been promising the New Politics. Game for Hillary is ‘status quo Dems’, a risk free non-sexy alternative to Bush GOP and that should be sufficient for the average Joe. So what then that she will not deliver anything more than continuous brawl, arrogant presidency and elitist politics? At least she will ‘feed’ you and there will not be jingoistic wars. That is all, that is what you will get with Hillary Presidency.

People are badgered by Bush Presidency over the last 8 years. The median income of $49K in 1999 is now $48K and if you add depreciating dollar to that, it is really a devastating blow economically. People are frightened for tomorrow. Economy is grounding most of Americans and caskets draped in American flag from Iraq still have not stopped along with trillions dollars going into pits outside American shores. In this gloomy period, what is wrong if people opt for non-flashy, nothing great mundane presidency but the one who does not seem to bring lot of risk? It is not that people do not understand meanness of Hillary or machinations of Clinton political machine. But they are ready to pay that price for the ‘so called steady returns’ she is promising to people.

Given this and the blunt assessment from David Brooks that all that Obama has is the New Politics, it is imperative that Obama explains how his New Politics translates into safety of average Joe, bread for an average family and better well being of America. This explanation needs to happen at two levels: 1) as an intellectual argument in the form of White Papers or big policy statements; 2) and town hall meetings on campaign trail with smaller groups where Obama answers people’s questions.

There are several specific aspects where this vision of New Politics needs to be explained: culture of politics, health care policy, national security, foreign policy, economic policy, global warming & energy policy and Social security. Other aspects like standard wage issues, education and law and order issues are important but can be taken up over a period. So far only the first two topics (culture of politics and health care policy) have been beaten to the death and folks all over America have reasonable idea about where these two campaigns stand. It may very well be the case, Hillary’s Health Care Plan may have any edge in terms of popularity, but Obama’s plan is well known and people are receptive there too.

Do we hear consistently that with Hillary’s health care plan Fed could deduct contributions forcefully from people’s wages? There are no option apart from such draconian measures to ‘mandate universal’ plan. And that is the thing Obama plan avoids. So do we see sufficient marketing by Obama campaign that it is an example where Obama does not want to prescribe to the Orthodoxy of Blue State Politics, but rather go beyond partisan measures to solve problems realistically? Who is more realistic here? Obama or Hillary, especially with her known history of failed ‘health care reforms’ for the simply reasons of extreme partisanship in early 90s?

What we want Obama to explain is how when ‘political aisles’ are crossed, laws like No Child Left Behind get addressed. It is his surrogate Ted Kennedy who made it possible when he worked with Bush. These bipartisan measures do not have to be perfect, but those at least do not deprive Americans of some benefits for the ‘purity in policy’.

So we need to hear how mixture of Left and Right wing policies would address America’s economic problems and energy independence. We want Obama to explain in concrete terms how the ‘new approach’ to foreign policy will elevate America from the international quagmire we have landed into.

While this is explained, Obama needs to tell us how Hillary style opportunistic bipartisanship in authorizing Iraq war will be avoided. It is a classic example to vividly indicate New Politics does not mean agreeing always with your opponents. New Politics also means taking uncompromising stance in some core areas and compromising in many other areas.

With Hillary, Americans get exactly opposite – she compromised with Bush where she should not have (authorizing Iraq war) and she is unbending when she needs to be accommodative (her failed health care plan in 90s).

What we need from Obama is not a negative campaign, but explanation about how his New Politics will solve our day to day problems while Hillary is hardly any realistic or ‘guaranteed returns type’.

NAFTA – Deception by Obama and Hillary

Umesh Patil — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:03:20 EST

Washington Post writes an excellent editorial criticizing Obama and Hillary the way both of them are wanting to re-negotiate a settled treaty.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903091.html )

Let us keep aside Hillary, her campaign was never about talking ‘truthfully’. She will drown anyways with the weight of all her contradictions and deceiving of her voters. But what is with Obama? Where is his talk of ‘his campaign is not about telling people what is nice to hear but about telling unpleasant things at times too’? Why is he not walking his talk? Just for votes from Ohio?

This is because, reality is America can not reopen NAFTA. That will be disaster. Afterwards no country in the world would like to come ahead for any kind of trade treaty with America. Trying to enforce unfulfilled conditions of the NAFTA agreement is one thing and putting the entire treaty back on the table for renegotiation is another.

What any new President needs to do is to indicate that:

- He (or she) can not falsely promise people to reopen NAFTA and dangerously raise wrong hopes for people.

- What he would do when he president is to enforce all conditions of the original treaty. To that extent it may bring some benefits to America, though that is doubtful because both Mexico and Canada also will find promises unfulfilled by America.

- Rather he should declare a new business investment program so that jobs come back to states like Ohio.

- He should help develop legal and business environment so that whatever jobs are left or will be created in future are not hostage to ‘militant’ labor unions. Of course, the flip side of that is to create legal business environment where we do not get ‘Benedict Arnold’ CEOs.

- One way is for the government to offer / strengthen health benefits for unemployed person and her family for one year. Lack of health insurance is the single most devastating impact of unemployment. When will our politicians understand that? As long as there is Capitalism, job losses and unemployment is part and parcel of the system. It is acceptable because the same Capitalism creates new jobs too. It is the transition from one job to another, where we need help from the state; especially for health insurance since it is tightly related to employment.

- Also, the new president needs to ensure that his policies help increase longer unemployment benefits as well as genuine retraining avenues / options.

In absence of such concrete proposals, pounding on NAFTA is like deceiving voters.

http://21stcenturypolitics.blogspot.com/2008/03/nafta-deceiving-by-obama-and-hillary.html

Impatient McCain and Clinton campaigns

Umesh Patil — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:09:09 EST

What is wrong in Sen. Obama saying that he will not comment about public financing until he knows for sure that he is the nominee and the other party is ready to accept the limit too? When he made the commitment originally, it was contingent on other party to accept as well.

Then why Sen. McCain’s campaign is going berserk and saying that Obama campaign is reneging their commitment? Is it not fair to wait until we cross that bridge and then decide about that? Or is the expectation from these competing candidates is that Obama should simply implode his roaring campaign by accepting financial limits while others rake in the money?

The height of shamelessness is by the Clinton campaign. All along they played the politics of ‘fund raiser’; raised millions via special interests; never committed for public financing; even now they will not talk about that – but want to criticize Obama campaign because it is not accepting public financing now. It seems Clinton campaign does even know how to be truthful at minimum degree. We all know that Clinton is under pressure to win elections. But that does not mean she could throw any ‘mud’ on competitor with the hope that something will stick? Here we have Bill Clinton visiting Silicon Valley shamelessly wandering California with a begging bowl, but they want Obama campaign to criticize for not accepting public finance while Clinton campaign itself shouting that Dem nomination process is not done? Should we say that ‘sure Obama campaign will commit for public financing provided McCain does’ if Clinton quits the nomination race? It seems Clintons have totally given up ‘logic’ to wind and want to wage totally gutter and shrill election campaign. Shame on Clintons.

It was also presumptuous of Washington Post to write editorial about this when the issue is still in future and the basic nomination fight is not done. No wonder public thinks these newspapers are irresponsible – writing editorials about the issue which is not relevant while ignoring many other important issues.

No Dynasties

Umesh Patil — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:11:05 EST

Neither in Football nor Politics, we like dynasties. New England Patriot dream of the prefect season crashed. Now let Hillary’s dream of Clinton Dynasty crash. Fantastic win by New York Giants.

Games Hillary Continues to Play

Umesh Patil — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:10:37 EST

I guess Hillary thinks that every now and then she needs to either ‘shade tears’ or ‘do equivalent of that’ to defeat Obama. Now she singing hoarse about how Floridians ‘voice’ needs to be heard by DNC and of course allow her to have delegates. We know that with Clintons there is no cause if it does not benefit them.

Hillary is shameless to attempt to manipulate Florida DNC ruling now. She got the prime media coverage while crowing about her victory in Florida where no other Democrat contested, is enough.

New Hampshire Union Leader news paper and Ezra Klein rightly rip Hillary about these shenanigans. Ezra blog is especially right on the spot.

(http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=the_florida_vote#104113 )

Will New York Times dare to come out and say something about this in it’s editorial?

Opportunity to Lead on Economic Policy

Umesh Patil — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:05:38 EST

It is clear that USA and World Market do not have any faith in Bush Administration and Fed to avoid the impeding recession and crumbling of global economic stability. Fed interest cut rate is a good start, but as number of commentators have pointed out; Fed is behind the curve and it will be so until rates match 2 year treasure bond i.e. until those are reduced to 1.5% to 2.0%.

It is also fairly clear that whatever economic stimuli talked about (tax rebates to middle & upper class folks) is hardly going to move the economy. Stanford study of last one such rebate of total $38 Billion in 2002/2003 showed that only one third of that portion was actually spent. So for all intent and purpose, this stimulus is quite likely to be a waste and will simply increase the deficit for USA.

As long as the stimulus talks about expanding unemployment benefits and ‘help for medical insurance’ for some reasonable duration in case of unemployment; the stimulus will help. Needless to say Obama and any leader who intends good for American need to insist on this part.

The other delicate part of politics of this stimulus is that Harry Reid is on record to say that ‘there are too many cooks’ in the kitchen. Public can clearly see that passage of stimulus can be made tough by these Presidential candidates in Senate – Hillary, Obama and McCain. So the challenge for Obama is how to insist on ‘sound / imaginative’ stimulus package while not being obstructive to what Congress wants to do. As has been amply reported, incentives for Nancy Pelosi – Harry Reid brigade are different than Presidential hopefuls and hence that brigade will not hesitate to heckle any proposal which differs from theirs. The incentive for Pelosi and Reid is to get ‘things passed in Congress’ in short time to demonstrate that they can work with Republicans to solve the problem. In the process they would not mind settling for a sub-optimal policy than being perfect here.

And that could be the point Obama want to harness – bipartisan approach achieves much more than being insistent on a perfect solution. Paul Krugman’s of this world will come back swinging against such an approach and against Obama, but Obama should live with that. Otherwise, now that Obama has rightly picked fight with both Clintons rather than one Hillary only; budgetary success of Bill Clinton and his management of Asian & Mexican Financial Crisis in 90s is bound make people gravitate towards Hillary.

As it has shown in last couple of days, when global financial system is in turmoil; all the good talk on the campaign talk goes to wind. News is about Fed and financial markets; not about candidates and their brick bats. It is sad to say but the phenomenal speech which Obama gave from the ‘mountain top’ is of less impact compared to incisive understanding of what is happening in global economy and it’s impact on people’s life.

In other words, this is the defining moment for presidential candidates. The one who shows clear leadership here will emerge victorious. One cannot underestimate potential on Hillary’s side to rise to this occasion.

If Obama campaign is serious, it will be right now talking with three people in this universe to grasp the turmoil in financial market to come up with right solutions for the same:

- Nouriel Roubini, Prof. New York University

- Doug Kass of Seabreez Partners and

- JJ Cramer of The Street Dot Com

The ones this campaign needs to avoid are ‘greatest story never told fame / Goldilocks Economy’ type folks – Larry Kudlow and Ben Stein.

Hillary Looses Her Grip

Umesh Patil — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:17:45 EST

First, it is about ‘finding her voice’. As others have noted, just only after 35 years in public service she finds her voice after NH victory; was she silent all those years or what? She is simply gross and ‘finger in air’ type politician.

And now she contends that Dr. King not only gave speeches but he organized, he marched, he protested. Then what ‘Obama For President Organization’ is doing all about? Are we just coming together to have a party or what when Obama is doing exactly what a movement leader is expected to do – inspire and mobilize folks? She further adds that Dr. King was beaten, gassed and jailed. What does she imply then? Should all those things be done to Obama or what? And then what’s up with all other Senators having comfortable life and shedding tears on TV? Man, she is losing her mind.

May be the best strategy for Obama campaign is keep on doing what it does best – focus on issues, policies and reply all her criticism in solid policy terms (e.g. excellent rebuttal and explanation about Obama’s Iraq war policy). The whole idea of Obama campaign is to go away from ‘Hillary style’ smear campaign.

What does Bill Clinton think when he describes Obama campaign as the biggest ‘fairy tale’ he ever heard? As a former president first of all it is wrong for him to get involved so deeply and in so partisan manner in this election. If he wants then he forfeits all of his ‘above the fray’ judgment delivery ability. American people can not regard all of his so blatantly partisan opinions as any good for America. They are no good for America.

For too long, Clintons and Bushes of this world have captured American political debate by their ‘smear campaign’ and ‘divisive politics’. Obama is the way to get out of this morass.

Matt Bai in New York Times

Umesh Patil — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:36:09 EST

Matt Bai is one smart journalist. He has an insightful article in New York Times. I am sure campaign staffers and Barack Obama would have noticed it. But just in case, here is the link:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/a-candidate-not-a-cause/

I wish Obama campaign is able to undertake some of the things Matt Bai talks about. SC is tough and Hillary is still catching up. Florida does not seem friendly and that makes it things dicey. If Matt is on some point, addressing concerns he mentioned may help this campaign.

Of course, because this is the campaign which needs to succeed for the sake of America. Best wishes.

After New Hampshire

Umesh Patil — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:44:29 EST

One wonders whether all these 'tears' and 'only so much you can do against the tidal wave' (Bill); all were kind of setup. Hilliary's campaign may have given in NH or it may have been a ploy; but Hillary and Bill played the game of 'lowering expectations' quite well.

Going forward they will continue to do that.

But it was only few days back that NH was considered a safe bet for Hillary. Considering that Obama campaign has indeed covered lot of ground and it is a step in the right direction.

Looking ahead, clearly Hillary's charge of 'her experience' will be the dominent theme. Some time back Obama said between Rumsfeld and Cheney; there was life time of experience and still Bush Administration made blunders. No matter how much Bill Clinton 'spin' Obama's statements about Iraq war or funding of the same; it is Hillary who is on the record in committing the original mistake - backing Bush for Iraq war. So let us raise again and again the question of 'what kind of experience?' Do Americans want the commander in chief which got Iraq call wrong?

Obama campaign is 'not a fairy tale'. It is a genuine attempt by Americans to take 'initiative' back with themselves.