The Broad View

Obama the Octopus? Superdelegates take note!

The "other shoe" keeps dropping.

Just how many legs and feet does Obama have, and thus how many more shoes are there to drop? As I wrote to a friend, an Obama supporter, "What's next? Asking Joe Lieberman to be his running mate?"

Put another way, a question I put forward in a much earlier post: Just how many progressive principles is Obama willing to sacrifice in order to achieve "post-partisanship"? We are beginning to get the answer.

Consider his recent stance on FISA; the pandering to the right with his proposed augmentation of Bush's "faith-based initiative;" the obfuscations of his position on ending the war in Iraq; and his, uh, restatement of just what it means for a woman to have a "right to choose."

To my fellow-progressives, my fellow-liberals, those of you who giddily parroted Obama's "change" mantra, projected your own "hope" onto a blank screen, confused style with substance -- how are you feeling today about your candidate?

I know that the FISA business has caused a great stir on the listserves and in the comment area of Obama's website. But that may not be enough.

It may be time for serious re-thinking. It's not too late for superdelegates to change their minds. All it would take is a caucus, and a vote for Hillary, and the nomination could be hers after all.

That's what superdelegates are all about...being the grown-ups who keep the Democratic Party from being hijacked. And make no mistake, it is being hijacked, by a charismatic orator whose only ambition is for himself and who has now proven that he will say anything and do anything, including sacrificing family, friends, surrogates, supporters -- and the bedrock principles of the Democratic Party -- if they get in his way.

Is it time for the revolution?

Here is Barack Obama's statement on the FISA abomination just passed by the House:

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

A nuanced statement, indeed. We have to squint to detect any meaning, but a close reading is rewarded with this: "I may have taught constitutional law, but now I'm running for president and I'm so afraid of the big, bad Republicans calling me a sissy that I'll toss over the Fourth Amendment and promise to do better 'going forward.' Please stop asking me to actually lead the party in opposition to this bill. It's a done deal. I'm trying to put enough lipstick on this pig in the hope that you'll believe me and not the ACLU or your own lying eyes. Harry Reid's a nice old man, and I really don't want to make trouble for him, so do try to see that this is the best of all bipartisan worlds and, while you're at it, go to barackobama.com to make your donations, little people."

Speaking of Harry Reid, a dKos diarist has this from an interview Reid gave Bloomberg Television (no link yet):

Reid said the Senate may try to remove a provision from the bill that shields telephone companies from privacy lawsuits. Holding a separate vote on that issue next week may provide political cover for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Even though the attempt may fail, Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to "express their views."

"I'm going to try real hard to have a separate vote on immunity," Reid said in an interview to be aired this weekend on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt."

"Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm going to try."

Translation: "I'm a Potemkin Senate Majority Leader. You can express your views as much as you like, but the sham will go on."

Greg Sargent over on TPM Election Central (a good place to hang these days) shares an email from Glenn Greenwald:

"I think we do a grave disservice if we try to convince people that Obama is really going to work to get amnesty out of the bill. Reid is already saying it's just theater -- they know it's going to fail -- it's just a way, Reid said, to let people "express themselves." It's all designed to let Obama say, once he votes for this bill: "Well, I tried to get amnesty out." He's going to vote for amnesty -- and his statement today seals the fate of this bill. Why sugar coat that?"

As an American, I am truly ashamed of my government. I fear the corruption and rot are so endemic that nothing and no one will be able to stop our slide from a great nation of laws into a backwater banana republic, stinking and flyblown.

The Democratic leadership treats us, their base, as cynically as the Republicans treat theirs. The underlying assumption is, "Who else ya gonna vote for? Nader? Just sit down and STFU. Oh yeah, send a donation." That last bit? The DCCC, over the signature of Madame "Off the Table" Pelosi, sent out a fundraiser email right after the Great FISA Cave-in. Ha!

The only campaign I'd be willing to donate money toward is the campaign to get rid of Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, and every other Dem who's been eager to bend over and take it for Bush.

Republicans = Brand X?

The pernicious infiltration of our language, politics and culture by the banalities of CorporateSpeak proceeds apace.

For some time, I've been aware that people and institutions no longer have reputations -- reputations to uphold or overcome. Now everybody and everything is known by its respective "brand".

As a former marketer, I'm used to "branding" and aware of how the concept has leached out into the larger corporate world from its beginnings as a proprietary name for Ivory Soap or Carter's Little Liver Pills.

Branding has grown into the construction of a living myth that will beguile your target customers and bless your venture with favor and profit. Every aspect of the brand, like every gesture in a holy ritual, is freighted with symbolic power.

It's all a lot of hooey, as far as I'm concerned. You can construct the cutting edge logo, website, advertising campaign and promotional rollout and it will probably succeed -- for a while. BUT... if your product doesn't back up the promises, the customer will find out sooner or later and all the branding in the world won't help. Corporate executives don't like to believe this simple idea, however, and prefer to hire third-rate MBA consultants to give the brand a face-lift. It's easier than coming up with a new and better product.

So it is right now with the Republican Party. We keep hearing that the "Republican brand" has been hurt. Implied by this is that a little jiggering of the ad campaigns, a little message massage and an updated look will fix things.

Of course, it won't fix anything. The problem isn't that the "Republican brand" is suffering. It's the reputation of the Republican Party and its leaders which has imploded.

Most Americans have had enough and they can no longer ignore the corruption, the hypocrisy, the lies, the rot and the downright incompetence at governing that Republicans have lavishly demonstrated for the last seven and a half years. They have a BAD REPUTATION, and as anyone who has lived in a small town will tell you, you have to go a long way to redeem yourself once you've lost the respect and good will of the people.

The only thing that can bring the Republicans back to favor is to follow a path of redemption that starts with some honest reassessment -- and hope that the Democrats will commit the same errors of hubris and overreach.

What will they talk about tomorrow?

Oh, the noise. Oh, the chatter, the bloviating, the smug self-satisfied game-calling. What fun the Village has had -- at the expense of whatever dignity remained to the profession of "journalism."

What will it do for an encore?

Keith's in the man-cave with Billo

Taylor Marsh at the Huffington Post nails it. The ranting, the pandering, the sexism -- yup, the sexism, the very signature of MSNBC. I'd thought, hoped, wanted to believe that Keith wasn't one of them. But it seems that, after all, he is.

Marsh observes that "He's become what he has railed against. Olbermann is now the Bill O'Reilly of MSNBC. A big giant head railing against the first viable female candidate in U.S. history. Sports fans, it's the latest craze. Get yer popcorn, before "Countdown" starts. Beer will be a buck."

The article is titled Keith Olbermann is No Edward R. Murrow. Please read it.

Opening the door to corruption

I realize I'm flogging this topic to death, but it doesn't do any good to dismiss the Spitzer scandal merely as an unwarranted and politically motivated fishing expedition by the Justice Department.

Glenn Greenwald, whose lawyerly credentials I respect, asks:

[H]ow can his alleged behavior -- paying another adult roughly $1,000 per hour to travel from New York to Washington to meet him for sex -- possibly justify resignation, let alone criminal prosecution, conviction and imprisonment? Independent of the issue of his hypocrisy -- which is an issue meriting attention and political criticism but not criminal prosecution -- what possible business is it of anyone's, let alone the state's, what he or anyone else does in their private lives with other consenting adults? [...]

[W]ould it be possible to pause for a moment for some critical thought about how odd this whole matter is? Prosecutions of individuals who hire prostitutes are extremely rare. It's even more rare when it's being done by federal prosecutors, rather than local or state prosecutors, who have to invoke an anachronistic 1910 federal morality statute, the Mann Act, to do so.

Yet here, this appears to be the result of a major sting operation -- complete with sophisticated wiretap schemes -- aimed at a rather insignificant "prostitution ring" (meaning: a small business that brokers meetings between prostitutes and clients, typically via Internet or phone). And in the midst of it all, Elliot Spitzer's name is leaked as nothing more than a single client.

Greenwald goes on to condemn the "bizarre, rather disturbing, and completely puritanical" moral condemnations coming from self-appointed guardians of the public moral fiber.

All true. And all irrelevant to the issue immediately before us. (The corruption of the Justice Dept. is another story altogether in which the Spitzer case is but one chapter.) Whether or not they are archaic and absurd, the laws are on the books. Spitzer flouted laws he had prosecuted vigorously while NY's attorney general. If he thought these statutes were unreasonable intrusions into private matters between consenting adults, he could have worked to change them. It was not his role as governor of New York to become a test case for their repeal.

Beyond that, Spitzer put the integrity of his administration at risk when he knowingly broke the law. As sophisticated adults, we may not care what an official does in his private life, but the official himself should care. When his private life contains dealings that must be kept secret for legal and public relations reasons, he is leaving himself open to blackmail, pure and simple. Those money transfers could have been construed as blackmail payments. To avoid exposure, Spitzer could have been pressured to use his influence in the award of contracts, or to grant clemency in a criminal case, or to hire a particular person for a lucrative or influential position in state government.

Spitzer's secret trysts with prostitutes were opening the door to corruption in government. For someone with Spitzer's career background, the blithe hypocrisy is breathtaking. In sum, that is what is so outrageous about this affair and why he deserves our condemnation.

Update: For more on the legal oddities of what looks increasingly like a political hit job by the Bush DOJ, read Scott Horton's take in Harper's (H/T Greenwald). Horton is an expert on the DOJ's targeting of Alabama's Democratic governor Don Siegelman. This DKos diary, by former DOJ lawyer "leevank", goes into more detail on the strange circumstances surrounding the investigation and complaint. Yes, it all stinks to high heaven. Unfortunately, Spitzer stinks too.

Above reproach

If Caesar's wife must be above reproach, how much more so must Caesar?

Some bloggers are focusing on the circumstances of the FBI's investigation into Gov. Eliot Spitzer's walks on the wild side.

Digby writes: "Far be it for me to mistrust the Bush Justice department or think they might have partisan motives, but it might be worth asking whether there might be a little partisan prosecutorial hanky panky involved. It certainly wouldn't be the first time." And this: "[T]he Mann Act is a musty relic of Jim Crow that should never be applied to consensual sex. It was bad enough back in 1910. That anyone would use it in 2008 is outrageous."

Jane Hamsher weighs in with a list of very valid questions whose answers suggest that the Spitzer case is a politically-motivated prosecution, the latest in a series of Justice Department hit jobs on Democrats.

All quite true. It was one of my first thoughts when I heard the news. I would put money on some of the evidence having been obtained using methods, such as National Security Letters, that were supposedly designed to catch terrorists, not Democratic governors. So far, we have only the FBI's word that the wiretapping of the Emperor's Club started as a money-laundering investigation.

Nevertheless... Had Spitzer not been an arrogant, intemperate idiot, there would be no case. It doesn't matter if the Mann Act is a relic or that the FBI should be spending its time catching evildoers instead of prostitutes and their johns. It's deplorable that the Justice Department is so thoroughly corrupted that Democrats are punished while Republicans walk for the same behavior -- but it matters not.

The bottom line is that the feds have Spitzer cold: They have wiretaps of him arranging meetings, discussing transportation to Washington, bank transfers, hotel bookings in his friend's name, wiretaps of the prostitute and her booker, and more.

Spitzer knew the law, knew the risks, knew his position and decided none of that mattered enough. He's not a babe in the woods. Every Democrat knows that the Republicans play a rough and dirty game. He could easily have anticipated being targeted by a politicized Justice Dept.

Would it have been so terrible to keep his pants zipped until he left Albany? Couldn't he just buy a magazine and say hello to his right hand? An old friend of mine once said, quite vulgarly and hilariously, "When the dick is hard, the mind is lard." He was a guy, so I guess he knew what he was talking about.

Client 9 from Outer Space

As more details emerge regarding the evidence and charges against Gov. Eliot Spitzer, aka Client 9, in the Emperor Club VIP prostitution ring and money laundering investigation, the more baffling Spitzer's behavior becomes. (Photo: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton.)

His attempts to keep his activities secret were laughable. Spitzer arranges to send the lucky gal down to Washington for a rendezvous at the Mayflower in a room rented under a donor's name. He uses telephones, text messages and email to communicate with the club, utterly oblivious to the possibility of wiretaps in the golden age of government domestic surveillance. Spitzer resembles the chiropractor who stood in for the dead Bela Lugosi in "Plan 9 from Outer Space" by swooping about with a cloak covering his face.

This was not merely a single, outlandish lapse in judgment or self-control. Spitzer was pre-paying in cash for future services. Spitzer was a lawyer and a prosecutor, for heaven's sake. He prosecuted prostitution rings as attorney general. He knows what the Mann Act says about transporting someone across state lines for purposes of sex. He knows that it's a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. He knew he was engaging in high-risk behavior.

High-risk behavior may have been the point. In a recorded conversation between Kristen, the prostitute, and her booker at the club, the booker confides that Client 9 sometimes asks women "to do things that, like, you might not think were safe." Urgh.

I am just so angry that this jerk has wasted our time and his opportunity to advance a progressive agenda in New York. As the Times notes in their editorial tomorrow:

A further tragedy here, beyond the personal one of the Spitzer family and the damage he has done to the reform cause, is that Mr. Spitzer’s targets are now relishing their tormentor’s torment. Those on Wall Street who fumed at having to make their world fairer for ordinary shareholders can now chortle with satisfaction in their private enclaves. For New York Republicans, who have blocked some of the most important reforms in Albany, it is hard to imagine the private glee — especially at a moment when they are fighting desperately to hold their majority in the State Senate.

Walter Shapiro provides a little background on the hopes which must now be dashed:

When Spitzer triumphed in 2006 with 70 percent of the vote (Hillary Clinton received 67 percent in her reelection that year), he became the first governor in modern memory (aside from maybe Cuomo) with the potential to change the corrupt political culture of Albany. In a way that would make Congress in the hey-day of Tom DeLay seem like the Athenian democracy, the New York state Legislature operates as a rubber-stamping body controlled by Bruno in the Senate and Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, in the Assembly. Spitzer had the dream and the reputation, and he was on the cusp of getting the votes to finally move New York state politics out of the Erie Canal era.

The thought of Bruno and Silver escaping because Eliot Spitzer needed to rendezvous with a prostitute on the eve of Valentine's Day is just galling.

Cable news commentators were in agreement tonight that the only reason Spitzer didn't resign this afternoon is that he must be in negotiations to avoid prosecution. Will his downfall and resignation be enough to satisfy a Justice Department in Republican hands?

If Spitzer resigns, Lt. Gov. David Paterson would succeed him and make history as the state's first African-American and first legally blind governor. Paterson will have many well-wishers in the job, but the vultures will be circling well before the next gubernatorial election in 2010. Andrew Cuomo is a likely contender, as is the uber-rich political dilettante, Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

I expect the repercussions of this to radiate outward. Spitzer was a Dem superdelegate supporting Hillary Clinton. She will not appreciate being linked with someone embroiled in a tawdry sex scandal. Beyond that, it will merely confirm some voters' cynicism regarding all crusading politicians. It will validate those who believe there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

I would be curious to know how people outside New York State view this sexcapade stink-bomb.

Spitzer and all the other crumb-bum husbands

As a Democrat and a New Yorker, I can only say that I'm mightily angered by the news today that Gov. Elliot Spitzer stands revealed as just another dumb pol who can't keep his pants zipped. Andrew Leonard says it all in Salon:

"If I needed yet another lesson in why hero worship is always, invariably, a bad and stupid idea, I could not ask for one delivered to me on a bigger silver platter. The stupidity and arrogance implicit in Spitzer's alleged involvement in a prostitution ring -- which he hasn't yet explicitly admitted to, but most certainly did not deny -- betrays not just the trust of his family, but also of those who supported him for fighting the good fight. He's not the man we thought he was -- and in a profoundly depressing way, it somehow makes us a little less than we thought we were, for having bought into his chivalry. It is a monumental fall from grace."

That stuff about betraying the trust of his family is a quote from Spitzer's lame-assed statement to the press: "I acted in a way that violated my obligation to my family."

I mean, what the hell does that mean anyway? It's always the same with these scumbags. They carry on secretly like horny little piggies and when they're caught they drag their hapless wives in front of the cameras for a mea-culpa-but-not-really. See? I can't be so bad because my wife is still here. They force us all to endure statements of such tortured syntax in order to avoid, at all costs, stating the plain truth: They are cheating, lying scum who've betrayed not just their "obligation" but their wives and children.

Whether they're booking female prostitutes like Spitzer and Vitter, or living a secret life of trolling for gay prostitutes like Craig and McGreevey, they all drag their wives in front of the cameras. What must it be like to be so publicly embarrassed and humiliated?

In this situation, I can only commend Hillary Clinton who was so infamously humiliated by the Cheater-in-Chief. I don't recall her hurrying to face the cameras hand-in-hand with Bill. She made no secret of her anger. The iconic image of that troubled time in their marriage was the walk across the White House lawn to a waiting helicopter. Bill was surely in the dog house with Buddy the Lab, and daughter Chelsea was literally the glue holding the couple together. Hillary is holding her head high.

Update: I stand corrected. The Washington Post has a similar piece, "Ritual of Repentance,"  accompanied by a slide show that includes Hill and Bill in the familiar scandal news statement lineup. I suspect that this was taken after the accusation and denial but before the blue dress and the shot above. I wonder if she actually believed him. (Photo: AP/Susan Walsh.)

The deadest of the Dead End Gang

Why do I go there, even out of curiosity? "There" is Tom Friedman's insipid digs on the Times' OpEd page. But I was interested in his column today, "Who Will Succeed Al Gore?." It's a fairly standard comparison of Gore's leadership vs. Bush's, followed by the usual, patented Friedman hand-wringing laments.

Fair enough. But then it came. I knew it would. Even now, at this late date, he can't help himself and he certainly can't admit error (emphasis added):

Never has so much national unity — which could have been used to develop a real energy policy, reverse our coming Social Security deficit, assemble a lasting coalition to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe even get a national health care program — been used to build so little. That is what historians will note most about Mr. Bush’s tenure — the sheer wasted opportunity of it all.

Yes, Iraq was always going to be hugely difficult, but the potential payoff of erecting a decent, democratizing government in the heart of the Arab world was also enormous. Yet Mr. Bush, in his signature issue, never mobilized the country, never punished incompetence, never made the bad guys “fight all of us,” as Bill Maher put it [...].

Note how Friedman casually conflates Afghanistan and Iraq. Excuse me, a competent president wouldn't have put us in Iraq in the first place. But Friedman can't let it go. He always finds excuses in others' performance for our failures in Iraq. He'll never admit that "hugely difficult" really meant "nigh on impossible" and that our chances of realizing his "potential payoff" were somewhat less than winning the Mega Millions lottery.

For all Friedman's blathering about the qualities of leadership, he can't admit that a superior leader would never undertake a war of choice, and especially one that had such a miniscule chance of success. Until people like this horse's ass understand their Arabian adventures were wishful thinking piled on top of fantasy, we'll be in danger of more crack-brained excursions in Empire.