If You're A Jane Hamsher Fan, I Apologize But...

This is some high quality snark from Matt Yglesias:

Yesterday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont struck a deal with Chris Dodd and the White House over his “audit the Fed” proposal that allowed the measure to be adopted by the Senate. I saw last night on Twitter that this led to Jane Hamsher denouncing Sanders as a sellout, which I noted led to a bit of a credibility mismatch between a veteran progressive legislator and a media entrepreneur whose specialty niche is never taking yes for an answer on anything.

For those who wonder at the point, Jane (at Firedoglake) led a kill the bill effort...with Grover Norquist(!)...against the final version of HCR, under the rubric that anything less than "Medicare For All" made you functionally identical to George Bush...so if you ARE a Hamsher fan, I have to ask: "Why?"

Can Democrats Govern?

So asks Ezra Klein. I happen to agree with every word written here so I'll leave it at this:

If Democrats abandon health-care reform in the aftermath of Brown's victory, the lesson will be that they can't govern. No majority within the realm of reason will give them the votes to move their agenda swiftly and confidently. Even the prospect of the most significant legislative achievement in 40 years, an achievement that will save hundreds of thousands of lives, will not keep them from collapsing into chaos when they face adversity.

At that point, what's the pitch for voting for Democrats? That they agree with you? A plumber and I both agree that my toilet should work. But if he can't make it work, I'm not going to pay him any money or invite him into my home. Governance isn't just about ideology. It's also about competence and will. That's where Democrats are flagging.

Who Needs Ralph Nader

So, Brown is in and Coakley out.

Running a campaign, in Boston, where you speak derisively of standing outside Fenway in January shaking hands? Stupid.

In my humble opinion, it is not the DSCC, President Obama, state Dems or anyone else that deserves the blame here. Coakley did NOTHING for 4 weeks while her numbers dropped faster than a mallet at a Gallagher concert. So much for that.

Now what? Health Care can still be done. There's one way only that it can happen. The House has to pass the Senate's bill, unmodified. And it looks like House Progressives are refusing.

Again, in my humble opinion, these idiots have doomed healthcare. These morons think that they can go back and pass pieces of the legislation one by one. My prediction? In 2010 the Senate will take exactly ZERO votes regarding health care. Nobody will so much as THINK about health care. They'll pass something, ANYTHING, that might get the unemployment rate down to maybe 9.5% by November. And people like this Rep. Grijalva, with bovine incomprehension, will blame Obama's lack of leadership for the problem. There are NO MORE bites at the apple. And closing their eyes and clapping their fucking hands is not going to make Tinkerbell any fucking realer.

In the end, if this hissy fit continues? It will be at least ten years, probably closer to twenty, before health care reform is taken up again. And by that time, if we continue to follow the curve of increasingly awfulness at every iteration? We'll be voting on how many times your health insurance company can punch you in the goddamn neck every time you file a claim, and limiting the number of inches they can cut off your dick if you have the temerity to reach your deductible limit and require them to start paying 50/50 on your covered bills (all two of them). And it WILL STILL FAIL.

Who the fuck needs Ralph Nader? I guess it's more fun to complain about the results of torture camps and endless war profiteering while credit card companies earn enough money to kidnap 13 year olds for snuff porn and still buy off the judges when they're caught than it is to compromise, yet again, to help ensure that we don't have another fucking eight years like the last eight we just lived through.

Fuck 'Em All.

Half A Loaf

With regard to the current health care bill, I am sympathetic to frustration with the current process. Although misattributed to Bismarck, the quote, "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made," remains accurate. Would I prefer something else, with a robust single payer option, or even better something that freezes out insurance companies entirely? Yes. It is morally vile to make money off of human suffering and that is exactly what a stockholder in a health insurance company does.

This is unhelpful however. Though I'd love single payer, Steve Benen and Ezra Klein are right: Failure of this bill now does NOT increase the likelihood of a better bill (from my perspective), unless I am willing to grit my teeth and let the situation become utterly intolerable (or as a Marxian would have it, "Until the dialectic becomes obvious to the proletariat,").

Since the dialectic ain't gonna be obvious until you have LOTS of bodies piling up in a way directly attributable to bad health insurance coverage, and since I think that pile will be like an iceberg, most of it out of view, I cannot muster the cold bloodedness necessary to let thousands or millions die simply in order to stick it to insurance companies.

The current bill is far from perfect. The current bill is far from adequate, in point of fact. But it is more adequate than the status quo, and furthermore, it inserts into the public discourse the concept that health care, however inadequate to the actual need, however constrained by people's misinterpretation about what their personal Magic Sky Fairy wants from us, that Health Care is a right and not a privilege to be given or withheld at the whim of an employer or our economic status. We can build from that. We can't, no matter how much we think we ought to be able to, build from the wreckage of the current bill. Our pursuit of purity is why we have the current inadequate bill. It will only get inadequater if we scrap this one.

Better half a loaf and the principle that bread is a human right to a false sense that we'll get better bread if we drop the current version in a ditch and simply push harder later for a nice crusty sourdough.

This Caught My Eye

Matt Ygelsias on the limits of the bully pulpit:

The arrow is "The Speech"...




Apparently, this is pretty much what happens everytime a President talks up an issue. Matt's claim is that it is pernicious to maintain the fiction that Presidential will alone determines this...the Green Lantern Theory.

Yglesias:

It’s not just that media commentary overemphasizing the president’s ability to shape opinion is inaccurate, it has a really detrimental impact on people’s ability to organize and effect political change. People are strongly encouraged to believe that the key to achieving policy change is to elect a president who’s friendly to their views. Then when that turns out to be insufficient they don’t move on and do additional organizing in House and Senate races. Instead, they tend to become frustrated with the president they worked to elect. But why blame the victim of congressional obstruction rather than the perpetrator? Well, people always seem to find a way to tell themselves, if only the president had fought harder he would have gotten it. He must have lost because he didn’t really care.

Stimulus Package Shenanigans (Adult Supervision Required)

This should be interesting. On the one hand you have a group of people, the House Republicans, who after 8 years of Bush think "bipartisan" means you do what they want and they smile instead of mooning you. On the other hand you have a group of people, liberals, mainly blogger type, but let's just admit, liberals; justifiably annoyed at our treatment by Republicans over the last eight years.

Now that the former have shown that in many ways they are deeply unserious, the latter have made calls for Obama to put everything and the kitchen sink back in the stimulus package now that the Repubs did what Repubs do. The Repubs haven't met us half way? Fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on for the next eight years. Let's see how the fat white fucks like bending over and taking it rather than dishing it out. And there's a HUGE part of me that wants to join in.

I even know EXACTLY what I'd put into the stimulus package. Worried about how we're going to pay for the spending? OK. Bend over cause I'm about to lay some pipe, you noobs. Let's take the top marginal tax rate back up to 39% right NOW rather than waiting until after next year when it happens automatically. Hell, bump it to 45%.

"Wrong time to raise taxes"? Well I'm not talking about everyone, just the 500K and up crowd. And they, my friends, aren't hurting. A few who did something monumentally stupid, like let one guy run all their investments, are but not most of 'em.

"You'll disincentivize them, they won't be as inventive as they would be otherwise"? Given what this crew invented over the last few years in the financial sector, I find that I can face the thought of a buncha Wall Street types getting in touch with their inner Goth, all emo and depressed, better than thinking about what else they'd do if they were all perky. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

But we shouldn't do it. Why? Well one, Obama really DOES want to govern pragmatically and get past the partisan tit for tat, which means someone, somewhere, has to be the adult here. Lord knows it won't be the Repubs. And like not torturing people, what's right should also turn out to be more effective. I harbor a sneaking suspicion that if the stimulus as currently packaged is as attractive to America as it seems to be, and the Repubs find themselves unable to do anything other than claim that their ideas (you know, the ones that got us INTO the mess...a neverending cycle of deregulation and tax cuts) are the only ones they can support, eventually it'll get noticed.

Then there will increasingly be three types of Repubs; dead enders, ones about to be voted out, and pragmatic moderates.

There's always going to be an Orange County, CA, so there will always be dead enders. Like herpes, they just never go away completely and the question is always, "Can you control it most of the time?" Increasingly though, either the Repubs will get it, or they'll go completely Palin and they'll be replaced with something that kind of looks like the kind of Republicans MomPedant remembers, whether they call themselves Tories or Whigs or Bull Moose.

People who are pissed about Obama being willing to genuinely compromise need to realize that there are two idiotic beliefs that people engage in every four years. Every four years we're told by Repubs that the Democratic candidate is the most liberal politician short of exhuming Che Guevara. The two idiot beliefs? One, Repubs believe it. Two, Democrats believe it too.

Barack Hussein Obama is not now, nor has he ever been, a doctrinaire liberal. He has shown every sign of preferring to go with what works. I find that comforting. I may (or may not) be more liberal than Obama, but I have a high degree of confidence that if my belief in one of my deeply held theories is right then he'd do what I want, and if I'm wrong, he won't. And where I'm wrong, he shouldn't, whether the idea is liberal or not.

Shall We Play A Game?

For those of you, like the Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pedant, who are too freaking young, that refers to this:



It's also a brief look back at those halcyon days of the early 80s, when we could count on our adversary acting in their own rational self-interest, for what it's worth. But rather than Global Thermonuclear War, I'd like to talk about avoiding Democratic Thermonuclear War.

Hillary's campaign has put out internal guidance to not plan any further appearances after Wednesday's speech in front of AIPAC. While the Clintonites were quick to say that this was by no means the end, I think we all know it's the end. As I've stated before, Hillary pushes this past tomorrow and she'll be luck to run unopposed in the NY Senatorial campaign. Hell, she pushes much past tomorrow and I'll give money to her opponent for Chappaqua DOGCATCHER if she decided to run for THAT.

So what the fuck (that's for you, Really Mad Professor) IS she up to?

Let's play a game. Let's call this game, "Hillary wants to be a Veep." God alone knows why, but let's suppose. She's misplayed her hand up to this point in my opinion, but lord knows Bill is undisciplined enough to be a one man gaffe factory if this is actually her goal. This by the way assumes, not without some degree of justification, that some of the Hillary staffers look more to Bill than her (by the way; NOT because of sexism...by all reports Bill has BY FAR the fouler temper).

So here we have a goal, "Become the Veep," not entirely supported by the tactics of the Clinton Campaign, but not conclusively obviated by it, and a means: "Come in a close second, with an option to drag everything down with her." Not historically unprecedented.

Now, it is possible that Hillary can deliver the cracker vote (aka, Voters So Far Back Up In The Hills They Have To Import Daylight) to Obama. And he needs it, at least the Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania versions thereof. Because while he can (and SHOULD) craft an Intermountain West Strategy (the Democrats version of a 40-Years-Later "Southern Strategy"...a way to pick off traditionally Republican votes cheesed off by the current incarnation of their party) and put states like Colorado in play (way to go EnviroMom...and yes, you have your own blog-du-plume now that I have decided to file all the serial numbers off all your IDs out there)...it's mathematically "fun" to work out how he wins the Electoral College. Best to avoid the whole exercise and BURY the Sons'a'Bitches in November. Hillary CAN help there, I believe.

Maybe that's her motive, but just in case, perhaps Obama should pull her aside. And now, let's pretend we can put words into his mouth:

"Hillary, I need you as VP. It heals a party divided, and moves quickly to uniting the country. But let me be perfectly clear. I will be the President. The first time we have a policy disagreement and I read about a leak that even THEORETICALLY can be linked to the Vice-President's office? You will spend the rest of your days in the Old Executive Office Building waiting for somebody semi-notable to die so you can do SOME kind of job. There will be NO reprieve from the Siberia I put you in. You will write The Gulag Archipelago Two before I let you so much as watch a Cabinet Meeting on CNN. Just so we're clear."

I don't think she wants the job. I think she wants to finish out the whole primary season so she can say, "A woman went the distance and damn near won." Hell, if that's what she says sometime this week or next, I take back every nasty thing I've said about her, because she'd be right. But as long as we're playing games...

How about a nice game of Chess?

Welcome To The Jungle

You might have heard. We're having a primary here next week. I know, big surprise, huh?

By all accounts it's Obama's to lose, at least here, and Hillary has "gone negative". I'm at work and our IT department has cut us off from YouTube (due to bandwidth considerations) so I can't link to the ad but go poke around TPM or Yglesia's site, in fact let me do it for you. Here or here.

If that's a negative ad, I'm a cossack. What THAT is, is an attempt by the Clinton campaign to get some free airtime here in beer, brat n' cheddar paradise. Clinton is shedding campaign staffers faster than a Las Vegas stripper. She's writing herself 5 million dollar loans. People. Candidates do these things when they're in trouble.

Her best bet is to win Texas and Ohio. But, particularly according to Obama's folks, she'd have to CRUSH him in those states, given the Dem proportional allocation plan. Like 60-40 splits. There's a candidate who's gotten those splits, but it wasn't her. Even in California the margin was more like 55-45 and that was her best showing to date.

So, now what? She's got one hope: keep it close enough in pledged delegates that she can pick enough superdelegates up to take the nomination. Ideally without having to start a floor fight about seating Michigan and Florida...though she might try that if she's close in the pledged delegates and thinks enough supers would back her. Ideally, she is losing badly enough after Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio that the "party elders" like Reid, Pelosi and Dean sit her down and explain that she needs to back down for the good of the party and not push for the supers to bail her out. Maybe a Senate Majority Leader nod from Reid when the time comes will put her over the edge into accepting defeat.

That doesn't look like it's going to happen, though these things have been known to change. Next best is for Obama to have enough of a lead that the supers would feel uncomfortable just ignoring it. I don't know what that number is. 100 or less is probably not enough. 300 or more would be more than enough. So I'll say 200.

Obama goes into Denver with a 200 pledged delegate lead, Hillary counts noses among the supers, comes up short and takes herself out, maybe with as little as a primetime speech but she might angle for the aforementioned Majority Leader position (and wouldn't THAT frost the Repubs ass...female Speaker, female Majority Leader, Black President and---let's assume he picks Richardson as a veep---a Hispanic Vice-President...eat THAT "Heritage Not Hate" Southern-cracker Repubs). That's second best.

Third best is Hillary goes into Denver with enough pledged delegates that the supers aren't obviously ignoring the electorate. Hillary gets the nod and heads into the general with maybe Obama as veep, or maybe not, maybe Obama turns on Illinois as a governor to position himself in 4 to 8 years.

Hillary as the nominee is third best because she energizes McCain's base and frees him to run to the middle, as opposed to catering to the flat-earth, all torture all the time-types on the lunatic fringe, which is what he'd have to do contra-Obama. Yes, I know Obama is ACTUALLY more reliably liberal than Hillary, except for Krugman's weird one-issue Universal Healthcare obsession. For the record, universal health care is important. Just not MORE IMPORTANT than our overseas image, our economic health and our environmental balance COMBINED. (Yes, Krugman's attacks are more widespread, but it started because Obama wasn't doing what Krugman wanted done on healthcare). But he isn't SEEN that way. In this, he IS Reaganesque. He can be on a wing and not SEEM to be on the wing.

Worst is if Hillary JUST ekes out enough delegates to seat Michigan and Florida through the argument that those two states are too important in the general election to dis at the convention. Which by the way, is utter bullshit. Michigan's econo-woes are too awful to go Repub and between the Crackers and Batistasitas...I mean Cuban-Americans...I think Florida goes R no matter what. So who gives a flying monkey whether they're seated...makes no difference in the end. Except. Except. *I* have given serious thought to sitting out the election if Hillary pulls that stunt. How many independants, blacks and young voters go to McCain or sit it out if Hillary pulls that stunt?

And that's always been the nasty smelly underside of Hillary's main strength. She'll do anything, and I mean ANYTHING to win the contest she's in AT THE MOMENT. Let the future take care of itself. If she does that, and then tanks in the general in a year when we should win in a walk, that's it. I'll vote in Republican primaries for the least bad option and sit out the generals. Because if we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this of all years, then the Democratic party needs to cease to exist, and be replaced with something worthwhile.

I don't think that happens though. I think option 2 is much more likely. I think Obama heads to Denver with enough of a lead that the Clinton's count noses and realize they've come up short. But there's always SOMEthing in the jungle waiting to chew your face off. So watch and wait.