Fwd: Off the chain

It's pretty astounding -- and a little frightening -- how much of our political discourse has been happening, unfettered and un-fact-checked through peer-to-peer channels like chain email over the last decade. You end up with whoppers like those questioning Obama's religious identity and "Americanism" that have seeped insidiously into public consciousness via deliberate plants by Republican operatives -- and have largely succeeded in otherizing an otherwise unstoppable candidate.

It's rare that I'm included in one of these forwards, but (shocking!) I find it hard to resist responding when I am, and I try to do so in a way that's inclusive and doesn't alienate the sender -- not always an easy task when you're faced with Islamophobic or anti-immigrant blather.

Last week, I had the pleasure of getting an entirely grassroots email forward generated by pro-choice progressives who were soliciting donations for Planned Parenthood "in honor of" Sarah Palin. It was a pretty welcome change from the standard stuff I usually get from the gun-toting conservative uncle/spooked former music teacher from Alabama conting. Then this morning I got this one:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? .....

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic,
different.'

Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.


If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first
black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration
drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a
Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator
representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the
state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spe nd 4 years in the
United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while
sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the
Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs
committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council
and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months
as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified
to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2
beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real
Christian.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.

If you teach responsible , age appropriate sex education, including the
proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other
option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen
daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a
prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city
community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values
don't represent America's.

If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI
conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age
25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska
from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

It was surprisingly well-informed (suprising not because of the sender, but because of the fact that typically these things lack any substance and are just vessels for fear-mongering), and it laid bare the hypocrisy of the Republican ticket's talking points.

I wouldn't gone on with my day at that point, but then I saw this response attached:

You already know how I feel about politics and therefore politicians. You know I don't consider myself Liberal or Conservative. I hate labels, so I define myself a Constitutional Protectionist. Neither side seems to concern themselves with that or what's really wrong with this country. They spend too much time worrying about the personal lives of the opposition. While some of the things that go on, or have gone on, in ones live may be considered a window into their lives, we've all seen that it does not necessarily effect one's ability to lead though it obviously affects our opinion of them as human beings. The problem is both sides lie long enough to get your vote, then do what they want anyway. So, folks please forgive me if I choose place my focus on other things regarding these people and their ability to lead us out of the mess all the previous "leaders" regardless of party, have gotten us into. But, having said all that, I do vote, always have and will, and have never advocated not voting despite seemingly always having to deal with the lesser of two evils. That responsibility as an American citizen is the only thing that gives any of us the right to complain. In all honesty I am not really enamored with any of these people, finding some good and some not so good in all of them. I'm not confused, just annoyed. I don't get caught up in what the media says because I have the same opinion of talking heads that I do of most all politicians. Thanks for the opportunity to read and respond to this but I won't be spending any more time reading or responding. I really do hate politics and the media.

...and I thought, alright, I'll bite, because if no one responds, the debate is DOA. And then why not use it as an excuse to post, since it's been a while since I've written something that was purely for the sake of politicking and intellectual masturbation:

The response to this forward was a bit disturbing to me...especially since I think many Americans share this disillusioned, disenfranchised attitude. Not that there isn't plenty to feel disillusioned about, but a less than surface examination of the candidates' policy positions would reveal that the decision isn't between two very similar candidates or the lesser of two evils. Neither are perfect in my book, but there are very clear cut differences here, ones that you'd discover upon circumventing mainstream network news media, instead of withdrawing from the dialogue.

Pat's forward is exposing the distortions we're getting from talking heads and from campaign spin -- it's essentially affirming those cynical frustrations that many express about opportunistic politicians and sensationalist talking heads. Only the response misses the key point that the distortions are originating from one side in particular.

Rather than just writing off "politics and the media" -- without which, we wouldn't have a democracy or a Constitution -- if you're a self-described Constitutional Protectionist, you'd want to be certain that the next adminstration we elect isn't of the same ilk as one that's shredded the Constitution as gleefully and with as much reckless abandon as the current one.

It's this kind of misplaced -- though understandable -- apathy and surrender to the worst elements in American politics that landed us with the last 8 years. The more that intelligent members of the reality-based community throw up their hands, the easier it will be for these forces of distortion to capture the minds of the more impressionable folks who are more susceptible to the kind of fringe viewpoints that seek to priviledge the very few at the expense of the rest of us. It's our civic duty to prevent that from happening again.

I really think it's important to engage these folks and meet them where they're at, so I 'spose if if this conversation happens to be via email forwards, then I'm game.

Progressive prognosis

The American Prospect had a debate on whether Hillary Clinton is an undercover progressive, or a centrist hamstrung by her liberal reputation. The argument in favor rests on her gender--Clinton is uniquely positioned as the lone woman on the ballot to take a leadership role in defending freedom of choice and in ending the war. This treats Clinton as a token--despite her record, an inherently liberal candidate because she is a woman. The argument against her electability is far more convincing:

Of course, a candidate who appeals to the Democratic base because of a long record of leadership on key progressive issues or unusually liberal policy positions is someone to be welcomed, even if her positions make centrist outreach that much more necessary. Clinton, however, doesn't fit the bill. Rather, she is, on the merits, the least progressive of the major Democratic candidates in the race, and also the one with the least appeal to moderate and independent voters -- the exact reverse, in short, of what liberals should be looking for in a nominee.

...

The psychodrama that is Clinton's long fight with the right -- and with deep-seated forces of sexism and ignorance in the country -- has tended to blind too many people to straightforward assessments of her actual views and political record. (A recent Mother Jones cover story spent 4,500 words ruminating on the various roles Clinton has come to play in the culture -- "the Eleanor Roosevelt Hillary," "the Lady Macbeth Hillary" -- without discussing her record or stated political views at all.) Now that primary season is upon us, and some choices have emerged in the Democratic field, such assessments are overdue. And they demonstrate that Clinton's record is, in fact, fairly unpalatable from a liberal's point of view.
...

She has not...stood out as a leader on any major progressive causes during her time in the Senate -- she was not a central player in congressional Democrats' make-or-break fight against Social Security privatization, for example, and has declined to use her name and platform to make any significant issue a signature. One area in which she has stood out from the Democratic pack is in adopting socially conservative rhetoric and positions, whether pushing a bill banning flag burning, attempting to "reframe" the abortion debate, or calling for an increased federal role in video-game censorship. She has also famously engaged in a series of high-profile team-ups on various issues with hard-right Republicans, including Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, and Newt Gingrich. The political benefit to Clinton in such gambits has been considerable. But liberals should presumably find nothing to applaud in any of this unless they expect something real -- and progressive -- in return.

And there's the rub. Clinton's national reputation as a liberal is pervasive, and it means that even beyond her apparently genuine centrism, she's uniquely hamstrung in staking out any boldly liberal stances on a major issue. At the same time, her national reputation as a liberal is so firmly entrenched that she will likely find it extremely difficult to broaden her appeal to the electorate.

Liberal Democrats should want a nominee who is, in fact, a liberal. And liberals and moderates alike have should want a nominee who's seen as a moderate by the median voter. Clinton, however, is a moderate who people think is a liberal. This is a terrible combination of qualities from almost every point of view -- except, perhaps, for the faction of her advisers whose views are probably too right-wing to be associated with the Democratic presidential nominee, unless they can latch onto the one candidate both blessed and cursed with an undeserved reputation for liberalism. Well, bully for them. But liberals should open their eyes.

John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton, is the true progressive candidate in this race. He was the undisputed victor at the CA Democratic Convention in San Diego last weekend. His speech changed minds, for sure--eloquent and full of passion and substance, offering up clear plans for providing universal healthcare, defending workers' rights to organizing and to a living wage, ending the occupation of Iraq, restoring America's reputation in the international community, and dealing honestly with structural racism. Listen to his address here.

MoJo Blog cites an interesting development from a new Rasmussen poll:

Obama and Clinton are the frontrunners, but Edwards does best in general election match-ups. He leads all GOP hopefuls and is the only Democrat to lead the Republican frontrunner, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Our "wasted treasure"

McCain "stumbles out of the gate," perhaps unintentionally delivering one of the most candid and meaningful comments to come out of the "Straight Talk Express."

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be," McCain said. "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

Obama, as a Democrat, was raked over the coals for a similar remark:

“[The Iraq war] should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.''

If McCain were a principled candidate (and he's not), and truly disapproved of Bush's handling of the war (he voted for it, before he...didn't show up to vote against it), he should have stuck by the remark. That goes for Obama, too--especially running on an ostensibly antiwar platform (minus his suggestion to increase defense spending post-withdrawal).

One simply cannot simultaneously advocate withdrawal on the grounds that the invasion was illegal, the "mission" ill-defined, and the occupation a bloody disaster and still defend the notion that such a debacle somehow warranted the loss of thousands of lives. If you believe the war is unjustified, a cause not worthy of death, then the sacrifices made in prolonging it are also tragically unjust.

Those demanding apologies from Obama and McCain lambast their remarks as callous and unsympathetic of the grieving families and friends of soldiers killed. But it's Gold Star family members, in the tradition of Cindy Sheehan, that make the most compelling arguments for calling it like it is--no matter how heart-renching that realization may be--if it will prevent the senseless loss of one more life :

Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?

I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.

Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.

But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.

And so do we. It ends once America owns up to it.

CA Prop Voting Recommendations

á la CAP.

Coffee, anyone?

By now, everyone's probably heard of the GTA San Andreas "hot coffee" downloadable mod, which integrates an interactive sex scene into regular gameplay. Senator Clinton has her panties in a twist over it, and is pressing for an investigation:

We should all be deeply disturbed that a game which now permits the simulation of lewd sexual acts in an interactive format with highly realistic graphics has fallen into the hands of young people across the country," Clinton wrote in a letter to the head of the Federal Trade Commission.

Honestly, Hillary--I realize you don't want the kiddies taking lessons from pixelated felons, but if you really want something to worry about, isn't the game's graphic violence potentially more harmful?

There's video of the mod on the GTA website...yes, I was curious to see what all the commotion was about, I'm a pervert. Figured it had to be pretty good to get Washington's dander up, and besides--The Sims 2 just doesn't cut it. "Woohoo"? I mean, c'mon! The mod is really pretty silly--the main character remains fully clothed in jeans and a wifebeater, and whispers sweet nothings like "you know I'm not insecure, but tell me I'm great." I'm not encouraging this stuff in video games, especially when it's in breach of some FCC agreement and comes off as denigrating to women (who are already subjugated in the video game world...but seriously let's focus on mending those things in our world first, eh?). Don't you think there are bigger things to be concerned about? Hillary, instead of wasting energy regulating how gamers' get their jollies, why not jump on the call for an investigation into whether Bush disregarded intelligence and misled Congress before invading Iraq? There are real felons to take care of, and real lives at stake. You can spend time cracking down on digital perps after you get to the bottom of true crime in Washington.

It's this kind of prudery and focus on what ultimately, in the grand scheme of things (uh, perpetual killing and occupation?), are trivial distractions. This is the type of stuff that conservatives used to detract from bigger questions and policies and undermine decent leadership when your husband was President. And now it's even more important to pick our battles and not divert attention from hammering the most unaccountable leaders we've seen.

I sincerely hope you're not doing this just to kowtow to conservatives, hoping to come off as the "moral" candidate for a 2008 race. There are far greater moral matters at stake.