Where do fines levied on the big banks go?

In honor of the bank-bashing Dem debate (I didn't watch it but I can imagine the content). And why is O'Malley still in the race (even though he doesn't seem to be a half-bad politician)?

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/15/headlines/goldman_sachs_reaches_5_billion_settlement_over_financial_crisis

http://www.alternet.org/economy/bank-fines-and-crime

• To be clear, these penalties are barely felt by the banks, but it's better than nothing
• Goldman settled for $5B recently (on top of the $550MM they previous paid for related financial crisis fraud)
• Their Q3 2015 sales were $6.9B and net income $1.4B (quite the profit margin!)
• And banks are often able to pass along the penalties to their customers, which seems messed up to me (the laws should require that the $ comes out of dividends and/or exec/board comp - to incentivize better corp. governance)
• But unlike the S&L scandal of the '80s (1K convictions) and how some European nations handled the 2008 financial crisis, no one from the major US banks will go to jail
• So the deterrence effect is minor, as limitations in the evidence/laws make it hard to build a case for individual willful conspiracy to defraud
• Some of the money goes to victims/customers/investors depending on the nature of the charges, but it's rare
• And the rest goes to various gov't agencies: SEC, CFPB, Fed, etc., and they generally route the proceeds to their general funds or the Treasury
• The intention is to use that money to fund future investigations
• But if that is true, shouldn't the # of investigations and settlements go up over time?
• I'm not sure if that has been the case since 2008
• To me, it seems like a waste for the $ to go to Treasury, since it's a drop in the bucket vs. our debt/deficit
• And as agencies are under more funding pressure (and at the mercy of a GOP Congress), at least the $ could help them continue to execute their missions

KQED stories about political switchers

http://blogs.kqed.org/election2012/2012/10/31/political-switchers-raised-a-democrat/
http://blogs.kqed.org/election2012/2012/10/31/political-switchers-republican-since-childhood/

Dear KQED,

I was disappointed by your November 1 story about the Marin County lady who switched to the GOP after 9/11. I know that she is entitled to portray her personal political evolution as she wants, but I think your coverage was softball and misleading. The take-home message seemed to be, "Don't just blindly follow the political views of your family or community; form your own opinions." That is fine, but she seemed to imply that Marin County people need to "wake up", think for themselves, and then of course they would choose to be conservative. I don't think that is an accurate characterization, especially because many Marin County liberals are much better informed (and get their info from much less biased sources) than Mrs. Wolters.

Like many Americans, 9/11 changed Wolters' worldview. But a decade later we know that many Americans (and our government) felt so fearful and vulnerable after 9/11 that they over-reacted and embraced controversial policies that weakened America, made the world more hostile, and could actually compromise our future safety. She recounted extreme cases of ostensibly liberal Bay Areans making insensitive comments after 9/11, and that somehow validated the GOP claim that the left despises America? Wolters admitted that she was politically uninformed prior to 9/11, so maybe if she researched US foreign policy history in the Middle East, she would realize that the US is not the only victim of foreign terrorism.

She then started to listen to "talk radio" (I assume she is referring to right-wing radio?) and Bill O'Reilly. So it's no surprise that she turned conservative if those were her only sources of info, without exposure to counter-arguments. Was she truly persuaded by superior conservative views, or was than the inevitable outcome of her exposure to those media?  

I am sorry that she felt alienated by her political beliefs, and I commend her for becoming politically active, but I disagree with her implicit dismissal of those who see things differently. I don't think that she should complain about political intolerance against her when she is not really empathizing and extending the olive branch either. Contrast her to the other political switcher, Mr. Patrosso. Biased media didn't persuade him to "wake up" and realize his "true beliefs". He was a die-hard Republican for most of his life, but his party left him - straying from its fiscal conservative traditions and embracing religion-fueled intolerance. Unlike Wolters, Patrosso wasn't speaking ill of conservatives as people, and made his decision to switch based on facts and the conduct of GOP leaders.

Why do people want to vote for Romney?

All this being said I've been curious.  What are the legitimate reasons for voting for these guys?  Clearly we are a liberal bunch, some of us more so than others.  And whenever I watch daily show I see some pretty ridiculous out takes of the GOP placing feet directly into their mouths.  Am I in so deep I can't see it?  Did I literally drink all the kool-ade?

I mean, the BEST i can offer to Mitt is that I can find a reasonable seed for his statement but that the statement itself is undeniably wrong, offensive, and stupid.  Who is voting for these guys?

 

---------

Let's exclude the super rich and libertarian extremists for a moment, because they constitute so few votes. Who are the Republican base? White, Christian, suburban & rural people in the Midwest and South (more men than women). Why do they not vote Democrat? Forgive my Romney-esque generalizations, but many are following the narrative carefully crafted by GOP strategists, right wing media, and others. Liberals are not real Americans. They want to take away our god, our guns, our success, and our freedoms - and let the "un-Americans" take over - illegals, gays, lazy welfare people, other minorities, etc. Before, the story was the liberals wanted to give the country to the commies, but since then we've beaten the commies, so just hate the liberals directly instead. Liberals want America to be weak and let our enemies win. They want to reverse all the things that they believe made America great. So when that's your opponent, even a douche like Romney looks like your savior. The facts don't even matter at this point.

Romney keeps asking, "Are you better off now than in 2008?" The answer should be a resounding HELL YES! We actually have an economy today. Obama doesn't deserve all the credit for averting depression (and we can blame him for many unmet expectations), but I'm just saying that question is ridiculously rhetorical. Unfortunately for many in the GOP base, they can't directly feel or perceive how good they have it now vs. how bad it could have been with a different leader (can you imagine what would have happened if Romney-Ryan were elected in 2008?). How can having it good hurt this bad? Well compare it to the 1930s. However, the GOP base can perceive that this recovery has been terribly disappointing. I don't even want to call it a recovery because only Wall St. has recovered - it's more like disaster averted, and we're in limbo on where to go next - up or down? The GOP base (and most Americans) saw their savings and home values shrivel, their employment situations become more precarious, the futures of their kids looking more dim, and the country and culture they love ostensibly deteriorating.

And all the while, this popular, cool half-black dude is running the country (into the ground apparently). Some people seem to be winning during the last 4 years, or so Fox says: corrupt Democrat politicians, gays (repeal of DADT), illegals (Dream Act), China (their GDP growth is shrinking severely BTW, but most voters can't define GDP), the Muslims (despite Al Qaeda nearly wiped out and Iranian nukes set back for years), and lazy deadbeats (Obamacare, loosening of welfare eligibility that in fact never happened). So not only is the GOP base hurting, they think the un-Americans are winning. And they can't stand that - some of that backlash, intolerance, and xenophobia fueled the Tea Party.

As we commented in a previous thread, the GOP base feel like the real Americans aren't getting what they are entitled to. They are good, Christian, patriotic, and hard-working - but why is their life so hard and their country so unimpressive? They're doing everything right, but not getting ahead and actually losing ground. Ironically, Obama has said the same thing about the plight of the US middle class and the American Dream. So both must be onto something. Many metrics show how the middle-class has really taken a beating since the 1990's. But what are the root causes of that? We've already discussed the liberal side of that question (what I would like to think of as the "likely explanation"), and I guess the conservative side is: blame Obama and his supporters.

So when someone like Romney comes along with a seemingly polished business background, conservative Christian values (apart from his time in Mass.), and talking about restoring America to greatness, American exceptionalism, never apologizing for America, cutting regulations, creating jobs, lowering taxes, kicking our enemies' asses, strengthening the military, cutting off the deadbeats and tax-and-spend liberals, protecting our freedoms, putting god everywhere, yadda yadda (totally devoid of facts and reality), well that is fairly appealing to the GOP base and some frustrated, desperate voters. Romney wasn't their first choice obviously (the long, ugly GOP nomination process is evidence), but "any Republican" is better than Obama at this point (just as any Dem was better for many fed-up voters in 2008).

Obama's acceptance speech

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obama_text_1

Congrats to Obama and his campaign for making history. In general, I thought the speech was too long and repeated near-verbatim a lot of the insipid material that previous speakers have said. But I really liked these parts:

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility — that's the essence of America's promise.
...

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.


Finally a political speech (or a small part of one) that isn't overpowered by partisan ideology. The national discussion could really use this type of acknowledgment of the duality of political issues and need for compromise. Big government or small government can't take the place of good government. A good leader knows when to be conservative, moderate, or progressive, and often we'll need ideas from all 3 to address major problems. Even when one party dominates each of the 3 branches of government, they're not going to get everything they want. Each "good idea" from government will probably cause harm to some subset of us. The job of the POTUS is like the Dutch Boy plugging holes in the levee. It's really challenging to try to understand, satisfy, and lead 300M people like us who have so many needs, opinions, and expectations, not to mention all the foreign leaders out their with different cultures and priorities. Sometimes we need to simplify and see the big picture, that we're all patriotic Americans who want the best for our families. But when politicians inspire us to take action and make our country better, we shouldn't forget how nuanced and delicate some of these challenges are. Well-marketed, knee-jerk quick fixes are tempting, but they may end up causing more harm than good. The Iraq War and rush to adopt grain-based ethanol are obvious examples.

Obama will have his hands full with his ambitious economic revitalization, energy, and foreign policy/security agendas. He's charmed and convinced a good deal of America, and soon he'll have to deliver. Iran's nuclear ambitions and the Georgia war demonstrated the limits of American influence, even when we have allies on board, and are willing to talk and be flexible. It's very hard to shore up social services and implement new domestic programs while cutting taxes for millions of American families. Reforming the health system and supporting the Baby Boom retirement may require divine intervention. Iraq and Afghanistan will be major concerns for us long after 16 months, and some problems over there cannot be solved militarily. Even if America miraculously reduces its consumption by 10% and boosts production by 5%, global energy and food costs may not decrease much. The overall economy and housing market are too large and intertwined to simply be rescued abracadabra, even for a president. And we walk quite a tightrope when we try to harness the positive aspects of globalization, while trying and promising to protect expensive workers and inefficient industries at home. It will be difficult for us to significantly curb our greenhouse emissions, and even harder to convince poorer developing nations to do the same, at the expense of stanching their growth. How can the most prolific fund-raiser in US history be taken seriously when trying to reform the Washington money game? The list goes on and on.

These are some of the differences between ideas for change, and actually accomplishing change. "Change we can believe in" is not as good as change we can enact and change we can see. Only the greatest leaders are able to recognize problems before it's too late, select the most beneficial solutions, persuade enough people to support them, and then actually see them through during their administrations. Smart advisers and experts can help Obama with the first two, and it's up to him to do the rest. Possibly the best that President 44 can hope for is to lay the groundwork for change, and maybe humanity will reap the rewards 10-20 years from now. The problems we face today are so huge and daunting that we can't afford to let euphoria and urgency cloud our rational judgment and inflate our expectations. Optimism alone never saved anyone, and America can no longer afford to be so short on effort/sacrifice. Great leaders may have to suffer terribly and ask their people to do the same, but the alternative of inaction is much costlier. Only time will tell if Obama's supporters are able to keep the dream alive after the festivities are over and the real hard work must begin. We're already so many years overdue.

More on the convention

Perhaps looking to politics to solve all of our country's most urgent and difficult problems is not an exclusive path to a solution... I'm not sure if you've ever heard the (Eastern, specifically Taoist) expression "I only know go" but it's a way of saying you don't have to know everything about every subject to know what is going on; if you work in a specific problem domain then you can usually understand what you need to know by focusing on that problem domain. I don't disagree with your comments about politics and how it tends to work but I do think the best way to affect politics (if that's what you really want to do or what really needs to be done) is to become a politician. As a software engineer I only know software - and I know both parties have all the wrong ideas when it comes to information, expression, and efficiency (i.e. business), which are the things that software deals with - meaning they'll either do gross harm or will never catch up to what really matters. Expecting people (or a given individual) to transcend that which makes them fallible (i.e. human) is expecting a lot, or, in other words, setting yourself up for disappointment.


I guess what I ultimately mean to say is that I'm not getting a lot out of this discussion since a subject like "Conventions are stupid" doesn't create a context in which a meaningful exchange of ideas can occur. Political conventions are history in the making irrespective of any given individual's ideology & persuasions; perhaps concluding that they're stupid only means you're not involved enough in the process?

-------

Sorry R, it was just a silly email title that was not intended to be the basis of discussion. If you're not getting a lot out of this discussion, that's unfortunate but not my responsibility. You have the ability to move the conversation in a better direction if you choose, or even start your own. I hope you recognize that half of this thread is just joking around and blowing off steam (Nike endorses Obama, Biden hoping for an assassination, remaking the government, etc.). If the Dems get to vent and bitch about Bush, McCain, and America's problems for 4 days at their convention, then we should be able to do it in cyberspace now and then. As you know, I write my emails to entertain, provoke, complain, or offer alternative viewpoints than the mainstream. Plus it's the only way I have left to interact with some of my friends who have moved away.

If I feel that conventions are "stupid", I don't think you can simply attribute that to my ignorance or detachment. We're more politically aware than 95% of Americans (that is not to our credit, but a criticism of the nation as whole). From what I know, I think that much of the conventions lack substance, spread misinformation or biased half-truths, and involve a lot of waste, hype, and busyness for little tangible gain for the Americans who are desperately seeking sound leadership and help from their elected government. So yes, that qualifies as "stupid" for me. We need more action, not lavish parties and cliched speeches. In NPR's words, conventions are "infomercials" (yet they still send many of their people to cover it). If you watch much off-hours TV, you know that most infomercials are stupid, long-winded, and unpersuasive.

Of course complaining about a situation from the outside does little good, especially from nobodies like us who don't lead think tanks or host TV shows. If we want to change politics, the most expedient way may be to participate in the process as you said. But most of us don't have the resources, credentials, and opportunity to do so. When you get accepted to medical school, there's a very good chance you'll become a doctor. When you want to enter politics, there's no guarantee you'll even get a foot in the door, much less achieve enough success to feed your loved ones and "make a difference". And participating usually means playing by their rules, so one risks becoming part of the problem. Many good people have entered politics to clean it up, and failed. I know I'm just listing a bunch of possible reasons why it won't work, and yes if we really wanted to, many of us could drop everything tomorrow and enter politics to try to help people. "Yes we can". A society's failings are ultimately the fault of the people not their government, though bad leaders (Nero, Hitler) can do much more damage than 1,000 apathetic citizens. But we have limits on us that politicians don't. And not everyone can work in politics. Even if we could, it would be chaos. America has about one doctor for every 50 people, but maybe we have one politician for every 1,000? Especially at the higher levels, politics are not intender for or open to everyone, hence all the buzz for the first woman and black to have a real shot at the presidency. Actually the bigger buzz should be for the first non-rich person or "everyday Joe" who has a chance of becoming president. So just because you or I are not involved in politics doesn't mean we've somehow shirked our responsibilities to try to solve the problems we complain about. If anything, it's very patriotic and American to talk about problems, rather than making excuses for them or pretending they don't exist. Sure action is better than talking (especially when we talk so much that we delay action, like Sacramento), but we have a limited ability to influence others.

But why would I want to get involved in a convention process whose purpose I don't agree with? In my limited view, political conventions don't seem to be worth the effort, and don't really serve to address the goals set forth by the speakers. Does the Oscars ceremony help make Hollywood films better? And not many voters even watch or care about the Conventions. The major networks barely cover them on prime time because "Heroes" makes them more money (but cable news picks up the slack). Simplistic and/or inaccurate propaganda like "flip-flopper" 4 years ago and "Bush-McCain administration" today do a disservice to the political process and insult voter intelligence (though sadly it is effective on some people). Maybe conventions are more of an occasion for party big shots and VIPs to network, cut deals, and discuss strategy behind the scenes, while the masses chant and cheer to nonsense, as L's article suggested.

--------

There are some qualities of Obama and the Dems that I still like, and maybe they will be able to "renew the promise of America". Though the Dem's track record in Congress has been abysmal since they won control in 2006, especially since they promised us the moon. I really don't expect politicians to "transcend their human failings", but sometimes their language suggests that they intend to, which is insincere because we all know they can't. I guess you can't inspire people with, "I'm going to let you down sometimes and maybe we won't be able to deliver on some of these proposals". It's like they don't trust the voters with the truth, unless it can be condensed into a bumper sticker. I just expect them to level with us, work hard, and make decisions thoughtfully and justly, with our collective best interests in mind. Isn't that what our bosses expect from lowly workers like us? I hope I'm not asking for too much.

But conventions are so uber-partisan that it makes me gag (Zell Miller at the RNC in 2004 was the low point). No one party or leader is right all the time. Dems have failed where the GOP has succeeded, and vice versa. Obama and McCain are great men and leaders in some ways, and bozos in other ways. Republicans love this country too (though they sometimes express it in bizarre ways), and they endorse some sound ideas/policies. If the Dems were so right and GOP so wrong, how could millions of intelligent, patriotic Republicans be so stupid to not see the light? Of course this applies doubly for the ultra-right, since they equate liberals with Al Qaeda. We have to be able to give credit, tolerance, and respect to our opponents, especially when they're our fellow citizens. It is good and right for us to criticize each other and our leaders, but also to acknowledge when the other side has a point. I try to do that in all my contentious emails ("try" means I fail sometimes). Isn't that the first step to compromise and cooperation? Obama's camp claims that he can bring people together like no other leader today. But his rhetoric has been quite pejorative and divisive at times, no different than his competitors.

In fact it's hard to even speak of political parties in generalities. America is complex, large, and diverse, and our politics are even more so. It's unnatural to try to enforce unity and homogeneity. Obama's people are so paranoid of him appearing inept to "control" his own party and get the Hillary supporters in line. They don't want their house to look disorderly on prime time. So what? Politics are disorderly. Have you ever seen footage of the British Parliament (and they are supposed to be all genteel and polished)? Previous US conventions had fights and riots, and took a long time to decide on a nominee. I hope there is no way that the better candidate can lose an election just because his or her convention didn't go smoothly. Not all Dems think the same. And if we do, it's time to get our heads examined. There's no harm in some delegates expressing their preference for Clinton, Kucinich, or whomever as the best candidate. They will be overruled, but they shouldn't be censored or forced to change their minds. Even Clinton's aides say she still privately fumes and mourns her defeat. Maybe they haven't "healed" 100%, but the party is still moving forward in a positive manner towards November. The handlers don't have to micromanage everyone so that the party appears flawless and harmonious. That's not real, and in fact it arouses suspicion when they have made so much effort to choreograph everything (like China and the Olympics). What are they hiding from America?

Conventions themselves are not a bad thing, and can serve a good purpose. But they way they are conducted now is stupid.

DNC Thoughts

I want to know who paid Obama to flop on the election. Biden?! This guy who ~6 months ago said to Obama’s face that he was not ready for the presidency and states he would be honored to run for or against McCain? Wtf? Either he will say what needs to be said to win elections (thinks obama is ready for presidency) or he is banking on an early assassination (not entirely unlikely). And the guy has foot in mouth disease, a political time bomb at this stage in the election. I just can’t wait for some 1 on 1 debates between McCain and Bama. If the polling spread does shoot through the roof then I know racism is calling this election.

---------

Who else pays black men these days, NIKE of course! I think it's pretty clear that Biden was chosen as an attack dog type guy. Obama is seen as a nice guy, in fact I haven't seen a single attack ad against McCain yet but I've seen plenty against Obama. Biden will probably change that. It's a weird comparison to make, but it's kinda like when Cheney was chosen to be Bush's vp. He is picked specifically to be a jackass and take on the negative aspects of a campaign.

Also, I'm a little surprised that Obama has done so well as it is. I always kind of assumed there was a lot of racism in this country but apparently democrat followers are more loyal than I would have thought. Although, no one likes Hilary except for middle aged women so that helped him a little bit.

As for t's email, my bitter and cynical nature about politics prevents my surprise or outrage but the whole convention thing is one big circle jerk for the parties. Basically it's a "look how awesome we are" event that is as you pointed out, a waste of time and money. It's simply the American way to throw money at whatever worthless shit suits our fancy. Especially in politics and government.

-------

Well, I think T is talking about an ideal case for the convention; the fact is that (in 1968) the DNC's convention was a "media spectacle" of the highest order as well, although for different reasons... having Abby Hoffman-inspired protesters getting stomped by cops in riot gear makes headlines too, albeit to the benefit of a guy like Richard Nixon.

-------

I knew that Obama’s jumper looked too good to be luck. Dude went to the nike training facilities.



“In my run to the white house, I need to be competitive and I need to move fast. That’s why I need Obama brand shoes. Buy your Obamers today!”



I saw a digg article recently, maybe it is still front page if you check fast, about a supposed attempt on Obama’s life at the convention. I’m telling you Biden wants the oval!

--------

Haha yeah, and I almost forgot about this:

In the article published Wednesday, Biden is quoted evaluating presidential rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. His remarks about Obama, the only African-American serving in the Senate, drew the most scrutiny.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." (Watch Biden's comments and Obama's reaction )

Biden issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Sen. Obama."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

I guess he let bygones be bygones, but really it wasn't such a big deal - just funny and indicative of Biden's ability to put his foot in his mouth. Not sure why he picked Biden; two northerners on the same ticket? Delaware isn't a swing state. I guess Hilly was out (bad blood, and no one wants to risk the veep outshining the top dog), and Edwards is an adulterer. Webb is a Senate noob like Obama, so that ticket would get punched. But I tend to agree with some of Biden's foreign policy stances, and I respect him for being outspoken to the point where it gets him in trouble (remind you of anyone?).

Well let's be honest - Obama isn't ready for the presidency, maybe McCain too. Very few candidates are I think. He's never held a prominent executive role (not even head of a Senate Cmte). He got people together and got them to vote in Chicago. "There's no school for presidents", said JFK. But it's ok; you learn "on the job" and do your best I guess. I know that crock hate book about Obama that was recently published was a load of crap, but one part of the title, "The Cult of Celebrity", is relevant. Some of his hard core fans and adorers really scare me, especially coming from an "educated Western democracy". This is like the stuff where ignorant poor masses worship leaders like Bhutto and Mao, even though such people might screw them behind their backs (not saying Obama is like that). They don't even know why they love them, they just do, and can't even articulate what that leader has really done for them (if anything), apart from the obvious propaganda disseminated by the PR machine. It just makes them feel good, so they do it. How can you love someone so much who you don't really know and hasn't really had much of a public career? He "inspires" people with speeches. I guess after years of bad news and currently a bad economy looming over their heads, folks really want to believe in "the promise of America" and hope for change for the better, so they may embrace Obama as a potential manifestation of those feelings. It's a hope, like buying a lottery ticket. Heck I might even vote for him as part of that hope. But it may not be a rational choice. I'm not saying that any other available candidate is better, but it's sad when the most powerful and privileged voting public on Earth may resort to that thinking, and it sets a scary precedent.

I think some speakers at the DNC today said that America "needs" Obama. Really? He's the only one who can save us huh? I'm fairly sure that there are at least 100 Americans out there who could be better presidents that him, and most of them aren't even politicians. You just have to care about doing right, sacrifice for the good of others, and have some common sense (at least enough to hire the right help, unlike how W did). I think it's really that simple, but of course not everyone can put themselves in the position to have a shot for the Oval Office. All his ideas about energy policy, climate change, health care reform, Middle East, job creation, etc. have been around for years. Obama didn't invent any of it. A president is not an idea man; he has no time for that. He instead acts as a conduit for other people's ideas to flow through and get to the right parties, so stuff can actually get done in government. But some people are acting like Obama will somehow succeed where others have failed. I hope they're right. He's got skills, but I don't know if he'll be able to deliver us from the housing bust, the wars in the Middle East, the middle class squeeze, and racial-social injustice, to name a few of the problems that he and his supporters have professed to be able to solve.

Instead of solving problems, it seems that the office of the president has become more of a money and power making vehicle for the president's buddies. I am sure it will be the same with Obama or McCain, though of course toned down from the ludicrous Bush years. The VIPs that helped them get elected aren't just doing it because they love America. Maybe some are, but others will want kickbacks, and President 44 will try to find ways to satisfy them without making a stink. Though the tough part is when they have to decide between special interests and national interests. But it's still quid pro quo, especially when re-election time comes. If a president can totally divorce him or herself from those conflicts of interest, then I think they have a chance to be an excellent leader. I just can't see that happening in these days of modern campaigning, where candidates are raising and spending $30M+ a month.

Addressing G's comments about negative campaigning - yes I think for the most part Obama's camp has been classier and more positive than the GOP. But he did of course make a big deal about McCain casually forgetting how many houses he owns in one TV ad, and struck back at the "Barack is the biggest celebrity in the world" McCain ad in another piece. But as the Wiggys said, Biden and others will try to do Obama's dirty work, to keep him smelling like roses to the voters, as Reagan and Bush were able to do. Obama has also tried to rehash the same tired line on the campaign trail: a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of failed Bush policies. One may argue that case, but the fact is that McCain's platform is much different than Bush's. But that is Obama's main (and maybe only) attack on McCain policy so far - he's out of touch with the economy (as if Barack isn't), and he's a carbon copy of Bush. But that's not true; McCain acknowledges climate change and has ideas to combat it (not sure if they're workable ideas). He wants to reform the health insurance system, similar to the ideas of market-driven conservatives from 1990. He believes in energy conservation, which the Bushies dismissed. He also is not a pawn of the Religious Right, though he is definitely courting them. He does take a hard line on Russia and Iran which is quite problematic and unwise. But Obama and McCain actually have quite similar views on several issues, including stem cells, immigration, and government reform. Heck they've worked together in the Senate, and they're even not so different about taxes and the Iraq War, though maybe that issue works in McCain's favor as long as stability is increasing. I guess this may be a symptom of candidates moving towards the center after primary season, but it also shows that McCain, while not a pure Maverick, is not a total party line extremist either. Nor is Obama of course. So Obama really needs to retire or modify this tired attack, unless of course it seems to be working with the voters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,7130991.story

An interesting history of some famous campaign ads:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93694355

Yeah glad C brought up the DNC in 1968. It was a real defining American moment, with '60s protest culture, much anger over the war, and typical Democrat ineptitude merging with TV's growing prominence in politics to create a perfect storm. 1968 is a big reason why the conventions are the heavily controlled, artificial entities that they are today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93937947

--------

the people who bought obama also bought this show. see if they show any of the convention bags. it's got a big AT&T logo on the bag. on sunday night, AT&T threw a private party for lobbyists and delegates and the press was not allowed. what was going on in there? was this a big thank you for giving them immunity only weeks ago? and, why didn't the press cover it? two people showed up to cover the party-amy goodman of democracy now and glenn greenwald of salon. and, where's coverage of the police state outside? if obama gets shot, it won't be because they spent too little on security. a 'fusion' center of all law enforcement(FBI, CIA, local and state police) has been set up a some ridiculous expense. free speech cages have been established once again.

Glenn Greenwald
Monday Aug. 25, 2008 11:15 EDT
AT&T thanks the Blue Dog Democrats with a lavish party
(updated below (with video added) - Update II)
Last night in Denver, at the Mile High Station -- next to Invesco Stadium, where Barack Obama will address a crowd of 30,000 people on Thursday night -- AT&T threw a lavish, private party for Blue Dog House Democrats, virtually all of whom blindly support whatever legislation the telecom industry demands and who also, specifically, led the way this July in immunizing AT&T and other telecoms from the consequences for their illegal participation in the Bush administration's warrantless spying program. Matt Stoller has one of the listings for the party here.
Armed with full-scale Convention press credentials issued by the DNC, I went -- along with Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, John Amato, Stoller and others -- in order to cover the event, interview the attendees, and videotape the festivities. There was a wall of private security deployed around the building, and after asking where the press entrance was, we were told by the security officials, after they consulted with event organizers, that the press was barred from the event, and that only those with invitations could enter -- notwithstanding the fact that what was taking place in side was a meeting between one of the nation's largest corporations and the numerous members of the most influential elected faction in Congress. As a result, we stood in front of the entrance and began videotaping and trying to interview the parade of Blue Dog Representatives, AT&T executives, assorted lobbyists and delegates who pulled up in rented limousines, chauffeured cars, and SUVs in order to find out who was attending and why AT&T would be throwing such a lavish party for the Blue Dog members of Congress.
Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc. One attendee said he was with an "energy company," and the other confessed she was affiliated with a "trade association," but that was the full extent of their willingness to describe themselves or this event. It was as though they knew they're part of a filthy and deeply corrupt process and were ashamed of -- or at least eager to conceal -- their involvement in it. After just a few minutes, the private security teams demanded that we leave, and when we refused and continued to stand in front trying to interview the reticent attendees, the Denver Police forced us to move further and further away until finally we were unable to approach any more of the arriving guests.
It was really the perfect symbol for how the Beltway political system functions -- those who dictate the nation's laws (the largest corporations and their lobbyists) cavorting in total secrecy with those who are elected to write those laws (members of Congress), while completely prohibiting the public from having any access to and knowledge of -- let alone involvement in -- what they are doing. And all of this was arranged by the corporation -- AT&T -- that is paying for a substantial part of the Democratic National Convention with millions upon millions of dollars, which just received an extraordinary gift of retroactive amnesty from the Congress controlled by that party, whose logo is splattered throughout the city wherever the DNC logo appears -- virtually attached to it -- all taking place next to the stadium where the Democratic presidential nominee, claiming he will cleanse the Beltway of corporate and lobbying influences, will accept the nomination on Thursday night.
The only other media which even attempted to cover the AT&T/Blue Dog event was Democracy Now -- they were also barred from entering. I was on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman this morning to discuss what happened. They put together a 5-minute video montage, including our efforts to enter the event and interview the guests, which they broadcast before my segment. The video and my segment can be seen and/or heard here -- it begins at the 1:00 mark. A transcript will be posted shortly.
Jane Hamsher also filmed some of what transpired, and Salon has created our own video of last night, including the efforts by the private security teams and Denver Police to prevent us from standing on public property to interview the arriving members of Congress and AT&T executives and lobbyists. That will be posted shortly. There's nothing unusual about this event -- other than that it was more forcibly private than most and just a tad more brazenly sleazy. The democracy-themed stagecraft inside the Convention is for public television consumption, but secret little events of this sort are why people are really here. Just as is true in Washington, this is where -- and how and by whom -- the business of our Government is conducted.

UPDATE: Here is the video from last night's festivities, with our attempt to interview various attendees and interactions with the private security forces and Police -- filmed by Jane Hamsher and edited by Salon's Caitlin Shamberg:

--------

Wow thank you for that link; didn't know about that and it's disappointing. Yes I guess it would be very bad for business if a popular politician like Obama kept the heat on telecoms for their role in Bush's illegal wiretapping. So if they could convince him to "let it go" with various compensations, everyone wins right? If he was only a few months away from the White House, why the urgency to get the bill passed this summer? It's not like Osama will go free because the bill didn't pass (heck we're not even looking for him, because everyone is preoccupied with the Olympics and election). Assuming the Dems retain control of Congress, his people could work with Pelosi/Reid to craft a better version of the legislation, right? Fishy.

Yeah about that security, so much for the Dem Party being the "party of the people", but we knew that long ago. It's an exclusive country club like the other party. The GOP may have the industrialists, bankers, and preachers, but the Dems have the Hollywood elites, academic snobs, and lawyers. Neither represent the lower and middle classes, even though they pander to those groups every 4 years with wonderful speeches and promises. Obama is no different, or hopefully he can prove me wrong. What irks me about Obama and some of his supporters is that they really act like he's cut from a different cloth, like his poop doesn't stink. He's so cool with his fist-bump and "dusting off the shoulder" after Hillary's attacks. He speaks so well! With his limited public service record, he hasn't earned this much love. He worked hard for his own career and family, but he hasn't bled and toiled for his fellow Americans like Abe Lincoln or MLK.

Unlike those stupid emails and books from the Right, these critiques are not slander. We peel back the layers, and we find out stuff we don't like, like the immunity for telecoms, his abrasive history in Illinois, and reneging on public funding. But some people choose to ignore it, because they want to believe in him as a savior, and saviors never have flaws. I don't expect candidates to fix everything, be good 100% of the time, and have all the answers, but at least don't BS us about it. Of course that goes for McCain or anyone else too. The guy is old (senile?) and filthy rich; he was being honest and didn't make excuses - he doesn't know how many properties he owns because it's not on his mind a lot, unlike people in Fresno about to be foreclosed. Maybe he doesn't know how much milk costs, like Bush during the 1991 recession. They're all just products of a flawed system. I saw a bumper sticker online that said, "Someone better for president 2008". Maybe that someone does or doesn't exist, or could never survive in Washington anyway.

Anyone think we could use a few more mainstream political parties to have some REAL choice at the polls? Maybe coalition governments like Europe won't be such a bad idea, because it forces politicians with disparate views to work together and compromise. Of course then you might get the tyranny of the minority, like in Israel, but our nation is 200+ years old and maybe it's time to try something different. The status quo is stagnating, festering, and getting more and more expensive to maintain. So what if it's harder to get things done with a coalition? It's not like DC has a wonderful track record of productivity, or even worse, look at Sacramento! Get a prime minister, an independent judiciary, and have some real separation of powers. If it's not working out, dismantle the government and call snap elections (with only a 3 month campaign window, instead of the "endless American campaign").

Conventions are stupid

Now that delegates (representing voters) nominate candidates and not party insiders, political conventions serve no political purpose. They have degenerated into hollow, simplistic carefully-choreographed media spectacles like the Oscars. Half of the convention airtime is just music, applause, and cheering anyway. At best, they're just an occasion for party self-medication, self-adoration, and rehashing what we already know. Does anyone think that a "great convention", 3 months before the actual election, will actually help their candidate win? If undecideds base their votes on what is said at the conventions, then our political process really needs rescue.

I know the delegates, staffers, and volunteers deserve a big party to feel good after all the hard work they invested into getting their candidate this far, but come on. Politics seems more about pomp and festival these days rather than the actually hard, boring, complex, frustrating work that it must be.

I can summarize 3 days of the DNC into half a page:

- Love and happiness
- Clintons, Kennedys, Obamas
- Starry-eyed media speaking in superlatives
- How awesome Denver and Colorado are
- How awesome and cool Barack Obama is, and there may be a fist-bump sighting
- Obama is a regular guy just like us and worships the Christian god
- Obama's father was from Kenya and was raised by a single mom
- Obama is a "transcendent" politician because he's black AND white, and will let you have abortions AND guns
- Obama, despite reporting $4M income on his last tax return, understands the struggles of ordinary working people and will help us achieve the American Dream
- Upstart politicians using the convention podium as a career springboard, as Obama did in 2004
- Maybe Iraq will be discussed, but in a 2005 mindset (when the war was a more useful talking point for them)
- Unity
- Hope
- Change
- Other abstract one-word cliches, without concrete plans (or honest desire) to actually realize them in a measurable way
- John McCain = George Bush
- John McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns
- Maybe a Hillary coup d'etat to become the nominee

And the RNC will be much worse.

Now they could have just mailed that statement out, and saved millions of dollars and labor hours. Maybe they could have invested those resources to tackle all the critical problems that McCain, Obama et al. promise to fix.

Obama and Iraq

But Obama took the turkey that night with a barely-noticed side comment that gave me pause. The Dems were asked to explain their lack of support for Bush's surge proposal earlier in the year, when the effort appears to be producing results now. All 3 rehashed the same talking point that the surge was intended to give Iraqi politicians some calm in the streets, as breathing room to push through overdue legislation and reconciliation. But of course the latter has not really happened, so the Dems declared the surge a failure as a result. They admitted that there was a significant reduction in violence, but what is the point if the leaders are still stalling? Spoken like true politicians – they downplay the positive news that fewer Iraqis are suffering each day, but the fact that the Iraqi government is still dysfunctional partially validates their opposition to the surge. Let's be honest, America can't make the Iraqi government any better. Most poor nations have terrible, corrupt governments, especially ones emerging from war and dictatorship. We even deposed the previous ineffective PM Al-Jafari to get Maliki in power, and now we're stuck with him and the political disaster we've moderated since 2003.

Obama: Although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province -- Sunni tribes -- who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.

Obama went a step further than his rivals, and then fell off the cliff. He claimed (with no evidence of course) that the Anbar Sunnis took notice that the Dems regained Congress in 2006, and felt that change was in the air. Maybe the Americans would be leaving soon, so to avoid total Shia domination in the wake of the US withdrawal, they better shun Al Qaeda and play ball now. This was his explanation for the reduction of violence! One or two stupid comments may be forgiven as slips of the tongue (boycotting all Chinese-manufactured toys, attacking targets in Pakistan unilaterally – he has since rescinded this proposal), but any more and it becomes a pattern of poor judgment/self-control.

Maybe he really is that naïve about foreign affairs. Most world polls showed that no one really cared about the midterm election, and Congress has very little non-fiscal war authority. Maybe foreigners already know that the Iraq War is very unpopular and declared a lost cause among Americans, but it matters not if the president wants to continue the fight. What troubles me even more is the fact that none of the Dems could effectively answer the surge question, yet it seems rather obvious to me. It's not a short answer, but nothing in the Middle East ever is. Of course more US troops on the ground engaged in more offensive operations should improve security. Our military should have shown more interest in taking to the streets and vigorously protecting the Iraqi population years ago, instead of just hunkering down in fortified rear bases and only protecting "economic targets". Morally it's the right thing to do and politically it builds trust. Because an insurgent war boils down to which side wins the support of the people, and our side is handicapped because of our nationality and our past performance. The surge had an effect, but 2007 was the deadliest year for US troops post-invasion, and cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. Was the sacrifice worth it, when violence was probably going to somewhat decline on its own? It's not like Iraq is a peaceful paradise after the surge. Since our invasion, Iraqi sects have engaged in ethnic cleansing (not necessarily genocide, but definitely population transfer). Neighborhoods have become much more homogenized, and over 2M Iraqis have become internal or foreign refugees. Separated, impoverished peoples are less likely to engage in organized murder. Yes it may be helpful that US forces erected barricades, checkpoints, or other dividers to separate the hostile parties, but the Iraqis were doing it to themselves anyway.

Bush often cites his "doomsday scenario" for why we have to remain in Iraq: if we leave the violence will spill out of control, extremists will take power, and terrorism will spread elsewhere or follow us home. But this is uncertain, and experts contest it. Maybe the bloodletting of 2006 hit its peak, and now the nation is settling towards equilibrium as analysts predict. In any power vacuum, there will be struggle for dominance, and it may get ugly. But eventually a new order will take root and hopefully all parties will see that they have a better chance to achieve their goals via political channels than in battle, where they could lose everything. Instead of patrolling the streets and bombing suspected militant hideouts, America should be encouraging rival groups to the bargaining table. I know a "wait and see" attitude is risky, but 800 US soldiers might still be alive if we acted differently ( http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=4145).

I know it's hard to deliver a compelling point during a thirty-second debate window, but real issues often can't be nicely packaged for mass consumption. At least say something meaningful and accurate. You can claim that improvements in Iraq were actually independent of the Bush surge, and that military escalation will never be able to fix the greater problems in the Maliki government, as the Dems already noted. As I said, popular support is the true decider of an insurgency/civil war. If the choice is between extremist militias/Al Qaeda and America, then we should be ashamed if we are losing ground. But the militants and Al Qaeda have behaved so terribly in Iraq (especially in the last two years) that the public has turned against them, and they didn't need us to convince them. The militants' strength is their ability to infiltrate, strike fast, and disappear into the populace before we can respond. Yes it is helpful if our forces "clear, retain, and hold" contested neighborhoods, but it's pointless if the fighters just relocate and make trouble elsewhere.

Sunnis used to harbor and rely on insurgents/Al Qaeda for protection against the Americans and Shia who were marginalizing (or in some cases butchering) them. But Qaeda's brutal tactics and twisted form of Islam eventually turned them off. They saw through Osama's BS that the terrorists were not fighting for the liberation of Iraqis, but actually coldly sacrificing them in a Sunni-Shia civil war (sparked by their alleged bombing of the Golden Mosque) and their battle against America. Iraqis don't want to be Qaeda's pawn any more than they want to be ours, and they are tired of the sectarian bloodshed and cruel targeting of innocents in public places. Some Sunni leaders, mostly in Anbar Province, sided with US forces to drive them out (often after accepting large bribes from us, and we even armed their militias for better or worse). Of course there is the danger that they will switch allegiances again, but their change of heart was not due to the surge – it was due to Qaeda's cruelty and our opportune (albeit risky) carrot diplomacy. There is nothing wrong with bribery if it accomplishes what fighting can't!

That is what we need more of in Iraq, shrewd diplomacy instead of more fighting. Let's be honest; we can't force the Maliki government to do anything, and they can stall forever because they know America needs Iraq as a strategic base and oil supplier. Contrary to Obama's assertion, I think the Iraqis in power realize that we're not leaving anytime soon, not after making such a massive investment there. The Shia and Kurds know that it's mostly their country now (Iraq is only the second Shia-led nation in history, and the other is a major enemy of the US), and considering their ugly history of oppression by Sunnis, Turks, and others, why should they make any concessions to their rivals? The last two times Congress has changed hands, did the dominant side make an effort to include and placate the minority side? In fact, their first order of business was consolidating power and pushing through their narrow agendas. So we shouldn't expect any better of the Iraqis, not without motivation at least.

If we want to "win" in Iraq, we may have to incentivize the Shia to play ball. Yes they do enjoy the privileged position now, but it may not last without US backing. If we really mean to threaten them into action, then cut the double-talk and toothless reprimands. Blindly loyal Bush is a lost cause, and the Dems have started down this path but they have to clarify how far they are willing to go. Because as sad as it sounds, the Maliki government is now a larger problem in Iraq than Al Qaeda (according to current and former generals like Colin Powell). There were pseudo-legit elections and a multi-ethnic representative government was formed, but as we've recently seen in Kenya, the availability of democratic mechanisms/elections doesn't ensure justice, cooperation, and the rule of law. Iraq resembles the "Five Families of New York" more than a Western democracy. We could tell Maliki that if he fails to cooperate and we leave (no more money, no more US air strikes and offensives whenever they ring us), the well-armed Saudis have already proposed to support Sunni groups in our wake. His country might become a Saudi-Iran battleground with a new sectarian war even bloodier than 2006, and there's no glory in presiding over a pile of rubble. How would they like that? On the positive side, if we give them guarantees then maybe we can convince them that reconciling with the Sunnis and militants will give them even more goodies down the road. And it's not like Iraq doesn't need help (terrible inflation and unemployment, social services mostly absent, shoddy infrastructure, meddling neighboring nations). The Iraqis have to see us as a long-term strategic and business partner, not just a policeman or a crutch. I don't think it's such a stretch for our next president to realize and advocate this.

Kenya:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17774507&ft=1&f=1001

Iraq surge:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082407C.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/08/07/surge/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId =17857251

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/176

----------

As to the gaffe, I don't know - a lot of Republicans have been calling
it that, but I don't really see a serious problem with what Obama is
saying (and I know I'm kind of an Obama fanboi, but I'd believe this
no matter who was saying it).

From what I remember, the justification for the surge is that a burst
of troops will fix things well enough that when we inevitably have to
withdraw down to pre-surge levels, the surge will have made things
better than they were before. This is basically what Bush and Petraeus
said when the proposal was presented last year. Otherwise, all the
surge will have accomplished is a temporary lull in the fighting while
people wait for us to be over-extended again. So I don't think calling
Gibson out when he said the surge was working was a bad idea by the
dems. Don't get me wrong - improving the lives of Iraqis is a good in
itself, but if all we are doing is delaying things for 9-15 months
when we have to start withdrawing troops again, can we really say the
surge "worked"?

And the reason the violence has receded during the surge is partly
because we've pacified Baghdad, but also partly because of the "Anbar
Awakening", as you noted. And the Anbar Awakening was partly a result
of local tribes tiring of Al-Qaeda, but much more so because the
Sunnis realized that a united Shi'a government and militia forces are
a much bigger threat to them than the Americans were. They're
basically scared shitless that if we withdraw, they're toast, so
they're getting all the guns/training they can in the meantime. Would
they feel this pressure to make nice if they felt we were never going
to leave? I'm pretty sure not, and there have been a lot of Sunnis who
have said that basically fear of America leaving was a motivation. How
much this is influenced by domestic politics is hard to say, but given
how much the rest of the world pays attention to what goes on in the
US, I doubt it would fail to escape their attention that a potential
major policy shift might be underway in the US.

As (yet another) a side note, it's interesting being the UK how much
the rest of the world pays attention to what's going on here. I've had
people asking me detailed questions about the procedures of the Iowa
caucus that I'm sure most Americans wouldn't even know how to ask - I
guess because we figure most people in the US don't give a shit about
the rest of the world (or even our own country for that matter), the
rest of the world doesn't give a shit about what's going on in our
country, but that's really not true - the foreign press in the UK
probably covers US domestic politics better than most US sources; even
Al-Jazeera has pretty decent coverage of US politics.

So I agree that it's probably an overly-boastful statement and the
answer is a lot more complicated, so minus points for him on that
answer. However, I don't think that you can deny that insurgents in
Sunni areas changed their behavior in part because they sensed a
possible shift in US policy, which came about in part because the
American public is obviously tiring with the war, which was clearly
expressed in the 2006 elections. I also agree with you in that I don't
think there are any easy solutions to Iraq, but if you look what
happened when the Brits withdrew from Basra, I think that's pretty
suggestive of the dynamics going on right now in Iraq - there is no
pressure to solve any problems now because they know the Americans
will always be around to provide security. Once they sense that we're
on our way out, then you might start to see them making real progress,
because then they have to.

If you're interested, I think his plan shows that he's not that naieve
about Iraq: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf -
I'm not sure his plan is better than any other candidate, because Iraq
is such a clusterfuck, but on the stump and in his issue papers he
shows he's aware of the complexities at least.

----------

If people really want to support a candidate, they shouldn't just sing his or her praises all day and excuse their mistakes. The world has enough cheerleaders and salesmen out there; feedback and oversight are critical duties of the citizenry and free press. We are here to keep them honest, double-check their work, and suggest improvements. We shouldn't just leave it in the hands of paid campaign strategists or media blowhards with their own agendas. We are the Donald! Why were our parents harder on us than all the other kids? Because they love us the most and they want (and expect) us to do our best. They refuse to accept "good enough" and push us to do better. Bad parents are apathetic and just spoil their kids with undeserving affection/compliments. I think it's more helpful to support a candidate by criticizing them every step of the way and demanding better. Maybe then our leaders wouldn't take us for granted after Election Day passes.

Remember that Bush plunged the US, Afghanistan, and Iraq into a lot of problems partly because he surrounded himself with apologists and yes-men who didn't challenge his assumptions/opinions. I think true patriots and supporters would hold candidates (especially favored/popular candidates) accountable for what they said and did. We still want to vote for them and persuade others to do the same, but we have to acknowledge faults and call a spade a spade. Otherwise there is no incentive to improve if our leaders dismiss the sheepish masses as infatuated and blindly loyal. Preoccupied with idol worship, we might forget to keep the best interests of the country in mind. They are not infallible deities, and should have their feet over the coals at all times. When appropriate we have the right to criticize them (after all, they are working for us), not just accept everything they have to offer as the best of all worlds. Obama might well become one of our greatest presidents, but a lot of his support comes from his rock star celebrity, not necessarily his merits as a prospective leader. Let's be honest; many voters (and candidates!) have no idea what it takes to be a president, myself included. I am just trying to barely educate myself on some issues and make the best guess I can. But ultimately as JFK said, one ignorant voter can compromise democracy for all of us (no accusations intended, and I'll be the first to admit my ignorant voter status). Americans have the right and duty to scrutinize the hell out of our future leaders. Better do it now before it's too late, or we'll have to clean up another Katrina/Iraq.

----------

I'll stick to the Iraq issue for the rest of this email (because it interests me more) and touch on campaigning later if I have time. I know you and several others on this email list are strong Obama supporters, and in the end I might vote for him too. Especially if the choice is him against Romney (I have come to hate him for all reasons except his Mormon faith!). But stupid is still stupid. You know I like to diss the pack leader and root for the underdog, so take it with a grain of salt. Though I think you will be hard pressed to defend his argument that Iraqis even paid attention to the midterm election, and it had something to do with the positive changes of 2007. Actually many in the Middle East media hailed Rumsfeld's departure as the real turning point for US involvement in Iraq, not the midterm election. Not sure if everyday Iraqis paid attention though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6138966.stm

I couldn't find the link, but I remember in the wake of the Dems regaining Congress last winter, NPR interviewed Iraqis on the streets and they basically didn't care or think it would change anything for their country. Of course the world cares about who will become the next president (especially the UK as our closest ally), but a few shifting chairs in Congress is not big news. Americans barely care about Pakistani parliamentary elections in February, and that result might actually affect us! Do you think Iraqis, who have their own convoluted domestic politics, and face the daily challenges of finding work/acquiring scarce goods/avoiding death, care that Jim Webb won Virginia and now the Dems have a narrow majority in the Senate? There was no "major policy shift" underway just because Reid and Pelosi said so. They might have duped gullible and exasperated American voters, but skeptical Iraqis know better than to trust more blowhard American politicians (who never saw a minute of war, and might not know the difference between Sunni and Shia) with big promises of changing things.

Good timing for this Obama/surge discussion though, since Morning Edition is running a series on the effects of the surge this week: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17899543

If you don't believe me, listen to them. Their main factors that contributed to the reduction in violence:

(1) The Mahdi Army (largest Shia militia) was given a ceasefire order by its leader al-Sadr to stop targeting Americans and Sunnis (not sure what led to this decision), and now he is busy studying to become an Ayatollah.

(2) The factions were weary of civil war and supporting Al Qaeda, plus they are more segregated now so it's harder for them to murder each other daily.

(3) General Petraeus was under strong pressure to reduce US casualties, so he and others embraced a plan to cut deals with the Sunni insurgents. Instead of fighting with them daily, we would bribe them to work for us.

The strongest reason they cite is number 3. Nowhere in their article did they mention Sunnis reacting to the Congressional election (sorry Obama). And surging 30,000 troops into greater Baghdad and the Sunni triangle (a region of over 10 million Iraqis) probably couldn't account for the widespread, night-and-day reduction of violence (sorry Bush). So from the evidence at hand, it appears that the Bush surge and 2006 elections are not the chief causes. Violence was inevitably on the decline due to demographic factors in Iraq (as L and I said, the nation is a lot more segregated/displaced/ethnically cleansed now) and Petraeus' clever but risky strategy of bribing Sunni militants into cooperation. Since the majority of anti-American insurgents are Sunni, this seems to make sense. And with the Mahdi Army on vacation, the few Sunnis still living in mixed neighborhoods might feel less threatened, less dependent on insurgents, and more willing to work with Americans. Actually it's the Shia Maliki government that has been vehemently protesting this initiative. Of course they don't want Americans cutting deals and arming their rivals.

I guess that is how you change behaviors during a traumatic war in the Middle East. Paying Sunni militants $10/day in the CLC program ("Concerned Local Citizens") to patrol their own neighborhoods seems affordable and practical. It takes the crosshairs and pressure off exhausted US forces, and gives Iraqis a sense of solidarity, purpose, and gainful employment (so the desperate ones aren't lured and bribed by Al Qaeda instead). If Sunnis feel that the National Police are just a corrupt Shia militia in uniform (they would be correct), then this is a better way for them to fight for their people, stand up to rivals, and try to make their homeland better. Stepping up reconstruction efforts doesn't hurt either (schools, utilities, jobs). The people need immediate, tangible compensation, which is something that the Dems in Congress didn't and can't provide. This strategy is not without concern or criticism though. In some cases, we are creating mercenaries out of fighters who were shooting at Americans a month ago. We are trusting them to do the job of US soldiers. And history tells us that empires in trouble, like Rome, are the only ones desperate enough to rely on mercenaries. Also what's stopping these Sunni CLCs from using their new found cash and arms to take revenge on Shias (as Maliki fears) or even their American employers? Analysts are worried that Petraeus' move might buy us some temporary calm in Iraq, but long-term it's a recipe for an even bloodier future civil war. Time will tell.

Ignorance also produces false assumptions and fears. Your assertion that an American withdrawal is undesirable among Sunnis is also dubious. It was their country before we deposed Saddam, and the anti-American insurgency is mostly Sunni. Contrary to some allegations, most attacks on American soldiers came from Sunni Iraqis, not foreigners or Iranian-backed Shias. The Al Qaeda sympathizers who remain are also Sunni (though Qaeda has tried to kill Sunni leaders that cooperate with the US). They are also probably quite upset at us for losing power through de-Ba'athification, as well as the corrupt political processes that brought unfit leaders like Chalibi and Maliki into positions of influence. This 2006 poll suggests that Sunnis are the most eager ethnic group to see the Yanks gone ASAP, while the semi-autonomous Kurds are the least, especially now with the Turkey-PKK problem ( http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/ ).

Yes I think some Sunnis are concerned with Shia domination without the US to keep a lid on things, but it's almost moot since the country is already Shia-dominated. Don't forget that Shia Muslims are a tiny minority in worldwide Islam, so there are plenty of sources of support for Iraq's Sunnis if we vacate (especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt). Sunni nations are scared shitless of a "Shia Revival" in Mesopotamia, and will strongly oppose any Iran-Iraq-Hizbullah axis from developing. As bizarre as it seems, Sunnis are more hostile to Iran than we are, so they'll be damned to let Iran enjoy the spoils if America leaves. Let us also not forget that some Sunnis (including former Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi) really view Shias as vile heretics, and may want to kill them more than Americans or Jews. No matter what, president 44 has to do a better job reading up on Islam and Middle East history (or at least appoint the right advisors).

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11179/shia_revival.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7309835 (I already blogged about this piece)

Obama's pdf that you forwarded doesn't say anything new or insightful on Iraq (though his humanitarian agenda is very commendable), and a total withdrawal by 2009 is not as easy as some Dems make it sound. How much would we leave behind? The training and equipping of Iraqi security forces is incomplete. Just the process of cleaning (desert dust is murder on machinery) and packing up all our stuff would take over a year. It would also be very expensive (not as expensive as continuing the war for years, of course), and we are just talking about withdrawing to neighboring Kuwait, not Camp Pendleton. And our forces en route to Kuwait probably won't be able to stop along the way on their 350 mile journey through scorching desert, due to security concerns (unless we erect a series of huge fortified "rest stops" for them). Have Obama or others given this much thought? I am tired of incomplete planning and empty promises, but I better get used to it since this is campaign season after all.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12360390 (Iraq withdrawal logistics)

------

From NPR on the surge and causes of reduced violence:

"The real debate, in my mind ... (is) not whether things are better in Iraq — they are unquestionably like night and day, (the) change in the level of violence. The real question is what caused it," McCaffrey said.

What caused it is open to debate. "Improvements in security are a result of the greater number of coalition and Iraqi security forces and the strategy that guides the operations we conduct," Petraeus says.

But some current and former military officers with whom NPR spoke disagree. McCaffrey and other former officers say that a surge of 30,000 additional troops into a country of 30 million could never have enough of an impact alone to turn things around. "The least important aspect of the so-called change in strategy was the surge," McCaffrey says.

Once Insurgents, Now Allies

If it wasn't just the surge, how did it happen? It could be, in part, exhaustion among Sunnis, tired of fighting and dying. Or also, in part, a cease-fire declared by the largest Shiite militia, others say. But another part, and possibly the most significant, can be traced to the end of last May. That month, 126 U.S. troops died; it was the second deadliest month for U.S. forces during the war. Petraeus was under pressure to reduce those casualties.

"Petraeus seems to have concluded that it was essential to cut deals with the Sunni insurgents if he was going to succeed in reducing U.S. casualties," Macgregor says.

The military now calls those "deals" the Concerned Local Citizens program or simply, CLCs. It's a somewhat abstract euphemism. The CLC program turns groups of former insurgents, including fighters for al-Qaida in Iraq, into paid, temporary allies of the U.S. military.

Creating a New Force

Some 70,000 former insurgents are now being paid $10 a day by the U.S. military. It costs about a quarter billion dollars a year. It's a controversial strategy, and Macgregor warns that it's creating a parallel military force in Iraq that is made up almost entirely of Sunni Muslims. "We need to understand that buying off your enemy is a good short-term solution to gain a respite from violence," he says, "but it's not a long-term solution to creating a legitimate political order inside a country that, quite frankly, is recovering from the worst sort of civil war."

That civil war has subsided, for now. It's diminished because of massive, internal migration, a movement of populations that has created de-facto ethnic cantons. "Segregation works is effectively what the U.S. military is telling you," Macgregor says. "We have facilitated, whether on purpose or inadvertently, the division of the country. We are capitalizing on that now, and we are creating new militias out of Sunni insurgents. We're calling them concerned citizens and guardians. These people are not our friends, they do not like us, they do not want us in the country. Their goal is unchanged."

Macgregor, a decorated combat veteran and a former administration adviser, articulates a view that is privately shared by several former and current officers. It's not that they believe the plan isn't working. It's that they see it as a dangerous one with potentially destructive consequences. But McCaffrey argues that at $10 a day, the gamble is worth taking. "We can pay them that for 10 years if we had to," he says. "Better we provide an infusion of cash where we're keeping a local night watchman for us on duty than we conduct combat operation. Money isn't even a factor we ought to take into account."

A Temporary Freeze

Macgregor says that people are desperate for success. "They want to believe that we have done something positive for the population of Iraq. That we are helping them to become something positive," he says. "The thing that worries me most of all is what happens over the next 12 to 24 months in Iraq. Could we not have made matters worse in the long term? Are we not actually setting Iraq up for a worse civil war than the one we have already seen?"

Iraq can be seen as a conflict temporarily frozen. The largest Shiite militia group has temporarily sworn-off attacking both the U.S. military and Sunni Muslims. Sunni groups are, for the time being, allying themselves with the United States for a fee. And in the north, Kurdish militants are focused on Turkey rather than Iraq. It is a waiting game. And still, quietly, each group builds its own armory, preparing for the inevitability of fighting another day.

To stay or not to stay in Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080225/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqmilitary_080225213220

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/we-need-to-stay-in-iraq-_b_88134.html

As shameful as it is, I'm actually beginning to be against a quick withdrawal from Iraq. We know that no display of military strength can force those morons in Baghdad to actually govern, but for now our military is providing some peace on the streets. More kids are going to school and more commerce can take place, at least better than 2006. They are fatally dependent on us, which is bad but at least there is a semblance of security. If they depend on us and we can't even deliver (as it seemed like before), then we might as well leave and save everyone the trouble. But for now at least it looks like we're "effective", so we might as well continue. Because lord knows the UN, NATO, Turkey, Iran, or other Muslim states won't be of much help (and even if they did participate, they would suck worse than us).

We're just lucky that Al Qaeda turned off much of the population so badly that the Iraqis gave us yet another chance. They may not love us there, but at least many seem to tolerate the status quo in hopes of more improvements, just wanting to get on with their daily lives. "Radical anti-American cleric" Muqtada Al-Sadr recently decided to extend the ceasefire of his Mahdi Army, though of course some members aren't heeding it. Al Qaeda intimidates and deliberately targets Iraqi civilians; we're no saints but at least we're paying and feeding them instead. When the US military mistakenly kills civilians, at least we try to financially compensate the next of kin, though I know it is little consolation. The social services are still deplorable, and we need to do a WAY better job speeding up reconstruction. Though nothing will get done if we leave. I know we can't really influence reconciliation, but hopefully we can keep a lid on things like Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia.

I know we created most of the mess, but if we leave soon, a lot of the "progress" in 2007 will be for naught. In Parliament there is some progress on reversing de-Ba'athification and oil profits sharing, plus over 30% of the 2007 Bush benchmarks were met. It's not a great record, but not disastrous either to warrant an immediate and chaotic withdrawal. I don't think we should/can stay in Iraq for decades as McCain might want (except for a small Korea-like force of 10k troops, maybe). But finally our armed forces seem to be learning stuff from their time in the Middle East, and they are getting better at working with Iraqis and treading lightly. Fortunately much of AQ in Iraq is decimated (or so they say), and they seem to prefer to target "collaborator" Sunni leaders more than better-protected American targets. There are fewer large bombings, and probably less weapons smuggling across the border (Iran's been quieter, and Bush has toned down his aggressive rhetoric as of late). Sure there will always be some attacks and killings, but if we're keeping order in the streets at least as well as maybe Haiti or Colombia (I know, the bar is THAT low), I'd say that is better than our total absence from the country. If a new wave of violence begins, then we might need to re-evaluate our role there, as the Powell Doctrine suggests. But while relative calm persists, hopefully we can draw down our forces to 50k or so, and just focus on the hot spots like Baghdad and Mosul (but the Pentagon plans to maintain 140k troops through 2008 unfortunately).

We keep hearing that the Iraqi security forces will be trained and ready in 18 months (they said that 36 months ago, sheesh). But maybe they might actually meet some minimum criteria. After the British left (and the Poles, Danes, Auzzies, Koreans, and others might follow suit soon), Iraqis took more control of Southern Iraq security. But the most populous provinces still depend on a robust US presence, and there are still neighborhoods that even our most hardened troops won't venture into. What I know for sure is if we leave in 2009 as the leading Dems propose (though I doubt they will or can follow through on), we will definitely be saving blood and treasure, but at the expense of Iraq's future. Though I am definitely not endorsing the GOP's "winning at all costs" mentality, if they even have a reasonable concept of victory anymore.