A tale of two Monicas

"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?"

This is one of the offensive and illegal questions that former Justice Department employee Monica Goodling asked job applicants before she made the decision to hire or not hire them.

There are others, according to the just released investigation by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility titled "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General."

In addition to discussing the applicants' views of gay marriage and abortion, Goodling asked:

"Why are you a Republican?"

"Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican."

"Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire."

It is, of course illegal to politicize the Justice Department and to hire employees based on political philosophy, but the first question of Monica Goodling not only show that she violated the law, it shows she is a moronic sycophant, a Republican Monica Lewinsky (how interesting that they share the same name), ready to serve the president and demanding that anyone she hires serve him as well.

The first part of the question: "What is it about George W. Bush" implies that the job applicant is only there to be a toady of the president, that he or she only applied for the job because he or she is as enthralled, enchanted, and infatuated by the president as she is. Isn't it possible that someone wants the job because they want the experience, they believe in justice and the Constitutution, or that it is a step to something grander? Why must it be something about George W. Bush that has brought them to apply for a job? Because Monica Goodling has stars in her eyes, hero worships this inadequate man and thinks that must be what everyone else thinks?

The second part of the question "that makes you want to serve him" also smacks of hero worship. People don't work at the Justice Department to "serve the president." These were not, I believe, presidential appointments where one "seves at the pleasure of the president." They were career department positions, which should have nothing to do with one's political affiliation or even loyalty to any single president. As career appointees they would serve under many presidents, of both parties, which is why politics should never enter into their hiring.

Career employees serve at the Justice Department in order to preserve the Constitution and carry out its laws to the best of their ability. This nation, as is often said, is a nation of laws, not of men, and nowhere is this a more important principle than in the Justice Department, where those laws are enforced.

The fact that someone who worked for George W. Bush could be as sycophantic, as empty-headed and ignorant, as this woman is simply another reflection of the man she "serves." The fact that she would "serve him" by breaking the law so casually, so willingly, only shows us one more example of how much damage to the Constitution and to the rule of law this administration has done.

Monica Goodling is worse than another young woman, with the same first name, who used to fawn over a president. Monica Goodling is even more contemptible than Monica Lewinsky. At least Bill Clinton was smart enough not to give her the task of hiring anyone. And at least she didn't subvert the Constitution.

John McCain sells his soul - to big oil

So first John McCain thinks giving a "gas tax holiday" to Americans will be a winner in the presidential campaign. Apparently, he thinks the American people are so stupid that they believe his inauguration will be on July 1st, in time to get a gas tax holiday bill passed so they can drive to the beach, or the Cape, or the Grand Canyon, this summer. He also thinks they don't understand that a gas tax holiday would: a) rob the government of funds needed to repair roads and bridges and thus b) cause hundreds of Americans who work on the nation's highways to lose their jobs and c) probably not save them any money as the oil companies would keep the price high so they can get a bigger profit.

When he realized this idea didn't help Clinton beat Obama, he came up with another brilliant idea, one his buddy Bush also suggested: opening up the coasts of American to even more drilling. (Currently there is a moratorium on new drilling.) Apparently, his estimation of the intelligence of the American people has not changed. He still thinks they will fall for this even though a) the oil companies are not extracting oil in places where they are already allowed to drill; b) it will take ten years or more to extract oil from new locations; and c) the price of a gallon of gas is controlled by far more complicated things than how many oil platforms we can erect in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Gulf. (Among other things, the oil companies and the oil cartels are gaming the system - anybody remember Enron? - to keep the price of gasoline high.)

McCain is supposed to be the Maverick, the one who bucks the big lobbyists (even though lobbyists are running his campaign), the one who once (but no longer) favored progressive taxation, the one who opposed coastal drilling but has now changed his mind, the one who isn't like Bush, except he is.

McCain is also supposed to be the one Republican who cares about the environment, but this ridiculous proposal, which oilmen Bush and Cheney love, would hurt the environment and the economy in many ways.

It will put America's coasts at risk of oil spills and hazardous waste destroying pristine beaches. This in turn will kill wildlife and destroy tourism, the basis of many coastal economies. And for what? For something that will do nothing to lower the cost of gasoline this year, or next year, or ten years from now?

Even more importantly, though, it will do nothing to get us away from our dependence on oil, and very little to end our dependence on "foreign" oil, which apparently is now all McCain and Bush care about. As long as what McCain is proposing is something that won't have any effect in the short term, as long as it will take a decade or more to get to any of that oil, why doesn't he propose a long term solution that will not only end our dependence on foreign oil, but end our dependence on oil, period? Answer – it would piss off big oil.

Right now, all of our investment should be in renewable and environmentally safe energy, but neither McCain nor Bush are going there with any vigor. Why? Because Bush is an oil man, and McCain is dependent on oil money for his campaign. Once again, all Republicans care about is the giant corporation, because that's the source of the money that gets them into office. They can't depend on millions of people making small donations to their campaign, the way Barack Obama can, because the people will not benefit from a McCain presidency. The giant corporations, especially the big energy companies, will.

McCain is willing to make this pitch to the people because he thinks the people are stupid enough to fall for it. He knows we won't actually do more drilling along the coasts, because his proposal allows the states to make the final decision, and coastal states will not go for it. But by making the proposal, he panders to the oil companies, who will give him more campaign funds, and he thinks he is fooling the people into believing come November, gasoline prices will go down.

I really don't think the people will fall for it this time.

Thoughts on the past week

I took the week off last week - mostly because it was my birthday and I felt like paying attention to other things - but a lot happened while I was contemplating my advancing age.

Barack Obama chose not to opt into the public financing system for his campaign and to continue to rely on individual donors to help him win the election. McCain is screaming that this means Obama is untrustworthy and a flip-flopper and therefore shouldn't be allowed to become president. Considering that no one has fip-flopped more than McCain - on the Bush tax cuts, on statements about Iraq, on illegal immigration, etc. - the flip-flopping charge is silly. As for the meaning of Obama's decision - it means one thing: he wants to win, and the more money he has the better his chances. If McCain had the donors Obama does, he would do the same thing. And considering how the Republicans are so fond of smear campaigns, and are threatening an "October surprise," Obama will need all the cash he can get to counter their atacks. He's doing the only thing a responsible Democrat can do - be prepared for the lies, distortions, and smears by having the kind of war chest that will go to battle in every media outlet to defeat these tactics.

Newsweek has Obama up by fifteen points over John McCain. No other poll has him up by this much and as everyone says, it's still a long time until November. But this is a good indication of the mood of the country, and barring another terrorist attack, an effective swiftboating of Obama, or some other unforeseen event that changes the public's mind, it looks like the country wants the change candidate, the younger candidate, the candidate who knows how to use a computer. Of course, the press still isn't focusing a great deal on McCain's mistakes and gaffes, but as the campaign goes on and the stress builds, we are likely to see more of them. The election could be a Democratic blow out.

Large sections of the Midwest are under water and I wonder if scientists believe global warming has something to do with it, as they determined with Katrina and the disaster in New Orleans. Some of the areas that flooded are considered to be prone to flooding every 100 years, but the last time there was severe flooding along the Mississippi was in 1993, just 15 years ago. I heard that new levees are being built each year along the Mississippi, and considering how frequently the river rises in this era of climate change, and how often these levees fail, this seems absurd. When will we humans stop living in areas that are prone to flooding, and stop thinking levees - or God - will protect us?

The House of Representatives passed the "FISA Compromise," Barack Obama released a statement saying he would support it, and the progressive community is pissed. I haven't read the bill and wonder how many in Congress have. I do know that it gives immunity to telecom companies for their cooperation with the Bush administration in its illegal wiretapping program, portions of which the Congress has now agreed to make legal. It does, apparently, give Bush most of what he wants, which to progressives is always a bad thing, as progressives do not think this president does anything unless it helps his buddies or himself, and believe most of what he does violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. I agree, and I wish Obama would have stood up to the president. More than that, I wish the Congress would stand up to the president. Maybe someday we will know the real reason why they didn't. But progressives shouldn't condemn Obama for this decision. As a legislator, he sees the writing on the wall, and knows the bill will most likely pass. As a presidential candidate, he doesn't want to give the Republicans ammunition to call him "soft on terrorism," and as a future president, he wants to have sufficient powers to fight terrorism. We can hope, however, that as a president he won't abuse those powers. The way I see it, the passage of this bill is even more reason to support Obama. Can you imagine a President McCain with these powers?

Tim Russert was buried. I had mixed feelings about Tim Russert as moderator of Meet the Press. Sometimes (mostly when he was grilling someone I didn't respect) I liked him. Other times (when he grilled one of my guys) I didn't. I stopped watching him for a while, especially when he spent a full hour with each of the primary candidates, as I just couldn't listen to an entire hour of spin and deception. When he died a week ago, unexpectedly at the age of 58, while working at the NBC studios, I felt sadness for his family, and after days of tribute, for his colleagues as well. But what struck me most about the tributes I heard is that they painted a picture of a really good man, a man who was always available for his friends, always there to lend a hand, always ready to offer encouragement. More than a great bureau chief, or host of a popular television program, Tim Russert was an example of a really good and decent person, a devout Irish Catholic with a great sense of humor, who loved sports as much as he loved work, but who mostly just loved the people around him, all of whom he considered family. MSNBC was criticized for its non-stop coverage of his death and funeral - which lasted from Friday afternoon until the funeral on Wednesday - but after hearing the stories about how he was always the first to help a friend in need, I can understand why they couldn't stop talking about him. NBC will find a new Washington bureau chief, and a new moderator of Meet the Press - no one is indispensable in that respect - but those close to him will not find a replacement for the great role model and friend they lost.

The case against Hillary (a final argument)

In addition to seeing Barack Obama as a magnificent candidate, promising to turn the page away from the hysteria of the sixties, and bringing an entirely new approach to politics and governing, I voted for him because I just didn't want the Clintons back in the White House.

I watched Hillary's speech yesterday and it was an admirable one, a gracious one, a historical one. It took grit, courage, dignity and great loyalty to her Party to be able to deliver it. I applaud her for it. If that was all I had ever seen of Hillary, and if she was the only candidate presenting a progressive platform, I would have been as enthusiastic about voting for her as many of her supporters.

But that is not all I know of Hillary, and so I could not support her.

It boiled down to this, really: I did not want the Clintons to return to the White House. I've written about this a lot, and most recently in great detail, but the bottom line is that the damage Bill Clinton did as president, in the long view of history, will be seen as far greater than the good he did.

Yes, he presided over a good economy. Yes, he kept us out of major wars. Yes, the nineties were, on the surface at least, good years. The Clinton administration, however, was supposed to move us away from the conservative hold on government during the previous 12 years, and it did not. Health care reform failed, largely because of Hillary Clinton's poor management of it, and Bill Clinton botched his promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military. As a result of the Clinton arrogance which resulted in this mismangagement, the Republicans took over Congress two years after Bill Clinton was inaugurated and held onto it for 12 years. Then we saw a sharp right turn, with welfare reform and NAFTA two of the highlights.

Bill Clinton's term was full of drama, intrigue, and conspiracy theories by both parties. The Republican noise machine tried desperately to find a scandal with which to tarnish Clinton and they finally did. And even as they discovered Monica's blue dress, Hillary was on television talking about the vast right wing conspiracy. The impeachment, fully the fault of Bill Clinton's libido, though at the time we blamed only the Republicans, cost the country the attention of the president and his party and ended the possibilility of any more help for the people. The Clinton drama also, in great measure, cost Al Gore the presidency as people turned to another Bush to "return dignity to the White House."

The great hope we liberals felt in 1992, with the election of Bill Clinton, turned out to be false hope. After the destructive policies of Reagan-Bush, Bill Clinton should have been able to begin a twenty year liberal dominance of government. But his personal character flaws, starting with his narcissism and recklessness, were at least partly responsible for the presidency of George W. Bush and all the horrors it has inflicted on this country.

Perhaps it is fitting that one of the three men most responsible for Hillary's loss is Bill Clinton himself (the other two are Mark Penn, failed strategist, and Barack Obama, who out campaigned her). With Bill's remarks after South Carolina, his angry outbursts and his attacks on the media, Bill did his wife no favors. He has not changed. He still causes trouble.

Hillary Clinton is a talented politician, a gifted and brilliant woman. But she is still married to the man who is responsible for allowing George W. Bush to inhabit the White House, end what should have been twenty or more years of a progressive hold on the White House, and destroy so much of our democracy, our reputation in the world, and our planet. And if elected president, she would bring that man back to the White House with all the risks that would present.

That was a risk I was unwilling to take.

Twelve reasons Obama will win in November

I may be premature in this, but I believe Barack Obama will not only win the Democratic nomination, but will become the 44th President of the United States and the first person of color ever to hold that office.

Here's why:

1. McCain is too old. He is already making mistakes on the campaign trail that signal memory problems. On the debate stage, next to John McCain, Barack will look more youthful and sound more wise. The difference will be obvious and will not help McCain.

2. People are tired of the War in Iraq. In a year in which the American people are weary of war, being a war hero is simply not enough to get one elected. It doesn't help that McCain says the American poeople won't mind being in Iraq for 100 years.

3. The Republican brand is on life support. Congressional special elections in Republican districts are all going Democratic, even when the Republicans try to link the Democratic candidates with Obama and Jeremiah Wright.

4. The Baby Boomers' time is over. Young Americans are supporting Obama in large numbers and are convincing their parents and grandparents that they know what they are doing in supporting Obama. Obama offers a refreshing vision of an America no longer looking to the conflicts of the sixties to define itself.

5. McCain offers nothing to soothe the ills of the nation. The economy, gas prices, and health care are three of the biggest concerns of the American people and these are three areas where McCain has no solutions. Obama has or will present comprehensive plans for relief in all three areas, and will make McCain – who must please the conservative base that wants limited federal programs - look out of touch.

6. The smear machine and dog whistle have lost their power. The typical Republican tactic of painting the Democrats as weak on defense, as "defeatocrats" or as appeasers will backfire on them. The American people will remember that they fell for that in 2004 and they will not do it again. And while racist dog whistle code words may be used against him, Obama has the temperament and the strategy to overcome this.

7. "Liberal" is no longer a dirty word. The American people are actually much more liberal than the Republicans think they are, and conservative ideology is both out of fashion and exposed as a fraud. The people want answers and solutions, and they want them from government, not from the unregulated private sector, which has proven to be so corrupt and brought them so much misery.

8. Evangelicals are divided. John McCain will not have enthusiastic support from the evangelical community, both because he is not seen as one of them and because the community is not as united as it once was. Young evangelicals are more open-minded than their parents and grandparents, and some Democratic issues, like the importance of protecting the environment, are very important to them. Wedge issues like abortion and homosexuality will simply not have the power in a year when Bush's war and the Republican economy are weakening our country and hurting the average family.

9. John McCain will be seen as running for Bush's third term. There are too many sound bites and photos of McCain supporting Bush, and too many votes for Bush's policies, to enable him to adequately distance himself from the nation's most unpopular president ever. McCain's reputation as a "maverick" will not hold up. More likely he will be seen as a one time maverick who is now a political opportunist, what the Republicans like to call a "flip-flopper."

10. Barack Obama is more charismatic than John McCain. Not only does he represent a new kind of politics, one that moves beyond the conflicts of the sixties, but he is generating tremendous enthusiasm among his supporters, based partly on his persona. Obama has charisma and is able to win people over once they get to know him. The candidate with the most charisma (eg. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton) always has an advantage over his opponent.

11. The American people want a leader, not a follower. Obama has set the themes of this campaign, and McCain is now trying to imitate him, just as Hillary tried to do. Obama's early recognition that this is a year in which the American people want change, and his early success in communicating that message, has put McCain in the position of also calling for change, and thus being a follower rather than a leader.

12. Obama has the right temperament. Presidents are expected to be measured in their emotional responses. Hillary Clinton and the Republicans have and will throw just about anything at Obama in order to defeat him. In every instance so far, Barack has remained calm. He shows the right amount of humor in response to some tactics, and indignation in response to others. There are no sound bites, no videotape, and no anecdotes of Obama losing his temper. This is not true of McCain, who is known to lose his temper quite often.

Muting Hillary

Early on in the Bush administration I would turn off the sound every time I saw the president's lips moving on the television. It's not that I didn't know what he was saying. I could read his words in the newspaper and online if I wanted to, but I just couldn't bear listening to his silly laugh, his dishonesty, his mangling of the English language. Nothing he ever said was reliable and I started to get sick to my stomach every time I heard his voice. As president of the United States, and the man who represented the American people to the world, he was an embarrassment.

I now feel the same way about Hillary Clinton. When the ridiculously manufactured Clinton-McCain outrage hit the news, over Obama's comments that people who have been abandoned by Washington are bitter, she gave a speech in which she adopted that voice – you know the one – the voice she used in New Hampshire after Obama cleaned her clock in Iowa – the one where she gets all soft and syrupy with that fake compassion, that fake sweetness. She said that "my opponent" thinks people are bitter. "That's not my experience," she went on, saying the people of Pennsylvania are optimistic and hard working and resilient.

What a disingenuous political hack (translate: lying opportunist) she is.

First of all, you can be bitter and still be resilient. One is a feeling, the other is a personality characteristic. You can be both bitter and hard working. Again, one is a feeling, the other is a behavior. There have been many times in my life that I felt bitter but remained hard working and resilient.

However, what happens when you are a hard working American but there is no job for you to do because Hillary Clinton's husband signed a trade deal that sent your job overseas? Might you not get a little bitter? And what happens when you are a resilient person, and you try mightily to get a new job, but there are none to be had, or you have to get three low paying jobs just to make the same income you did when you had the one job that got shipped to China or Mexico or India?

She deliberately missed the whole point of Obama's words. Of course she did. She has been trying desperately to find something she could pin on him and this was as close as she could get. And it took her a week to get her hands on the poor quality audiotape of his words at a private fundraiser. And like all true narcissists, Hillary Clinton was outraged when Obama criticized her husband's administration, and included it in his litany of administrations that left the people behind. (Narcissists react with blind rage when they are criticized.)

Didn't Hillary read the New York Times' poll reporting that 81% of Americans think America is on the wrong track? That doesn't make them optimistic. It makes them pessimistic, and angry, and yes, even bitter. Doesn't she recognize that NAFTA, a program that she supported, sent the jobs of many of these Pennsylvanians overseas? And isn't it rich that this woman who is worth many millions of dollars is calling Obama an elitist?

Obama said nothing any different than what Thomas Frank said several years ago in his book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" In it he showed how the Republican Party takes the very obvious anger and bitterness of the poor and the lower middle class voters and gets them to vote against their own economic interests by appealing to their religious beliefs (anti abortion, anti gay) and their fear that the government wants to take away their guns.

Obama may not have phrased it very well, and the comments are taken completely out of context, as they always are by the sound bite media and manipulative candidates, but what Obama said was no less true.

Republicans win elections by convincing the same voters they have economically screwed, that their real enemies are the democrats who want to take away their guns, criminals (read blacks) who deal drugs and commit crimes, illegal immigrants who steal their jobs, gays who want to convert their kids to homosexuality, and liberal feminists who want to kill their unborn babies.

This is the truth, and Obama, in answering a question about whether he believed many whites would not vote for him, talked about how and why economically depressed people turn to other issues and why they do not always vote in their best interests.

And now Hillary Clinton is joining with the Republicans in trying to convince the people screwed by NAFTA that they are resilient and optimistic and hard working and not angry or bitter. She is trying to get them once again to turn against a candidate that the Republicans are portraying as "elitist" just as they painted John Kerry as "elitist" and as they would call her "elitist" should she win the nomination.

This is part of their plan. The Republicans depress the wages of the poor and middle class, give tax breaks to the wealthiest, wage wars that enrich their buddies, send jobs overseas, and when a Democrat points out that the people might be bitter about this, and cling to their religion and guns because that is what the Republicans pretend the Democrats want to take away, Republicans say he is "elitist."

I never thought I would live long enough to see an African American be a powerful candidate for the presidency, but I was wrong. The American people may not be where they ought to be in terms of racial attitudes, but they have come a long way. However, with that welcome development, I never imagined that such a candidate might be called "elitist" by a member of his own party, a fabulously wealthy former first lady. I expect the Republicans to call Obama an elitist. After all, it's their code word for uppity black. But I did not expect it from a fellow Democrat.

If Hillary Clinton becomes the president, she will be another embarrassment. She will lie and distort and manipulate as much as George W. Bush, and she will be just as vicious as Nixon. And while she will not mangle the language like Bush does, nor do that shoulder shrugging giggle, she will use that fake smarmy, syrupy voice and talk down to the people. That is why, when I see her lips moving on television, I hit the mute button.

Bush in the Middle East

George W. Bush is in the Middle East, predicting that Israel and the Palestinians will sign a peace treaty before the end of his term, even though he has done very little until now to help them do that.

It's so typical of Bush to pay absolutely no attention to something crucial (warnings of terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, warnings prior to Katrina, destruction of New Orleans after Katrina, global warming, and civil war in Iraq are a few things that come to mind) and then at the 11th hour to play the superhero and come along to rescue everything with a new policy or a new pronouncement. He lets things get as bad as they can and then he puts on his cape and swoops in, complete with Klieg lights and pretty words.

The words have always been good (even if the pronunciation isn't). It's the actions that are lacking. This episode is no different. Bush's speeches in the Holy Land are right on. He tells the Palestinians they must stop supporting terrorists, and advises the Israelis to dismantle the settlements and give the Palestinians undivided land of their own. But this prescription is nothing new.

It is the prediction, though, that tells us much about Bush. While Bush's actions will not actually accomplish anything of diplomatic value, it is the prediction that is important. It will do what he and his advisors want – rescue his legacy by making him look like a serious negotiator who couldn't quite get the job done because the players wouldn't cooperate before his time ran out. What it will not do is achieve peace in the Middle East. Wishing does not make things so, as most children eventually learn.

And herein lies the problem. Psychologically, Bush is still a child, still deluded by childish ideas: 1) if he thinks he is doing the right thing (if his father in heaven guides him, for example) then things will turn out all right; 2) wishing can make it so; 3) he will succeed because he has magical powers that his predecessors didn't have.

This Middle East charade is just one more example of why in this election we need to choose a grown-up, someone who has all the things Bush lacks: intelligence, wisdom, good judgment, and psychological maturity.