It was that latter feeling that I rightfully received yesterday when I found myself reading an article by Geoff Garin decrying the Obama campaign’s “direct, personal character attacks” against a certain female Presidential hopeful. It is the Obama campaign, Garin believes, that has turned the Democratic Party into a circular firing squad. As the bottom of the article states in italics, Garin is a strategist for the Clinton campaign (more specifically, Mark Penn’s replacement), so it seems perfectly natural for him to be crying “foul!” even as the group he represents is busy devising how they can sneak a pea-shooter into a knife fight. But that’s politics, right?

Just so we’re all clear on this situation, I am in no way intending to insinuate that the Obama campaign has not, at times, sunk to the level we are so used to seeing in Presidential elections. They have, of course, tossed their share of negativity into the forum. For better or worse, I consider myself enough of a cynic to realize that regardless of the name checked on my ballot in November, I will most likely be disappointed by our future Presidential adminstration repeatedly in the coming years. Regardless, it would be nice to see the Clinton campaign move away from their attempts at playing the victim, when it could be argued that her campaign has long been more on the offense against Barack Obama than his campaign has been against her.

In the second paragraph of “Fair Is Fair”, Mr. Garin accuses Obama’s head strategist David Axelrod of “keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race…” after quoting Axelrod as saying that he did not believe Senator Clinton “would bring ‘the changes necessary’ to Washington”. To state that this is a character attack is misleading. Axelrod seems, rather, to be making an inference from a combination of facts in Hillary’s past. A look at the contributions to Clinton’s campaign shows that she has received over three times the amount of high-level ($4,600+) donations than has Barack Obama, who is the leader in smaller ($200+) donations. It is practically common sense to infer from this that a relatively large portion of Hillary’s financial base consists of those who, while quite possibly interested in having a Democrat in the White House, might not be looking to see any major shake-ups in the system that has provided so much for them. Mr. Axelrod might also be thinking of the years that Hillary spent serving Wal-Mart, which certainly does not do much to boost her claim of being a friend to those who may be interested in bargaining with their employers in some sort of collective manner. Finally, Senator Clinton has received several hundred thousand dollars more from lobbyists and political action committees than has Senator Obama. Going from these few examples, it doesn’t appear that David Axelrod was out of line in suggesting that his candidate might better represent the voice of change inside the Beltway. Of course, it seems almost absurd that an argument has even arisen over the vague idea of who is more capable of change, but Garin is incorrect in labeling David Axelrod’s opinion as an attack on Clinton’s character.

Later in the article, Garin takes offense to more remarks from the Obama camp, saying that “Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, held a conference call with reporters and called Hillary ‘one of the most secretive politicians in America today’”, which Garin acknowledges as “a striking personal charge in the era of Dick Cheney”. Shortly thereafter, Garin makes note of David Axelrod’s accusation of Hillary “having a special interest obsession”. These are strong statements from high-level people within the Obama campaign, to be sure, but Garin would find it quite difficult to counter them with numbers. According to a Los Angeles Times article about a watchdog group’s book on wasteful government spending, Senator Clinton tops the rest of Congress with “281 individual spending projects” for a cost of over $296 million. Senator Obama took second place on that list with “53 special earmarks, totaling almost $97.4 million”, but Garin’s candidate is by far the big winner. Bloomberg.com went even further, stating that “only Barack Obama has voluntarily made his earmark information publicly available”, and that “the Clinton campaign refused to respond at all to requests that she identify her earmarks”. Garin should consider that refusal at least slightly questionable, considering the amount of taxpayer money involved.

Have these accusations from the Obama campaign honestly been unwarranted? Have they been “mean-spirited” and “unfair” as Garin suggested? While there may be a bit of hyperbole involved, a quick look at Clinton’s past can only leave one answer. Sorry, Geoff, but fair is fair.

This particular “analysis” is spectacular in its failure: its attempt to avoid betraying the naivete of its writer is simply breathtaking in its catastrophic wrong-headedness and oversimplification (”Will Medevedev take the reins and leave Putin out in the cold?!” “Will Putin:Medvedev::Cheney:Bush?!?”), and then, in a way similar to that in which drunks often trip over the very thing they’ve been searching for with bleary, sodden eyes, the article ends with a tiny bit of insight (”Wait. Might Medvedev only be a placeholder until Putin is constitutionally allowed to regain power? Let’s save the only prescient quote from a participant in the political process until the last paragraph”).

 It’s transparent to even the most casual observer that Medvedev is barely even qualified to be called a pawn: he is nothing at all more than a different and slightly more youthful face on Putin. Any attempts to even define him apart from Putin fail, and he owes every shred of his success to Vladimir Vladimirovich.

Even if you do attempt to give him his own identity, you end with a younger, softer Putin:  they both hail from Leningrad,  although Medvedev is twelve years younger; they both spend a great deal of time on staying physically fit, but while Putin pursues Judo as one of his favorite physical activities and has achived a sixth-degree black belt in the martial art, Medvedev is an avid practitioner of yoga; the experience of both prior to Presidency was primarily in appointed positions rather than electoral, although Putin was chair of the FSB (one of the KGB’s successor agencies) and Medvedev proceeded almost immediately to Presidential Head of Staff.

Perhaps the most striking thing about Putin and his mouthpiece is this: even a doughy, pretty-boy version of Putin still works out for two hours a day and has a Master’s. Medvedev may be a shadow, but he is very substantial in spite of it.

Just don’t expect to see a streak of independence any time soon. 

I would go so far as to call that an unwise choice on the part of those Serbs. According to the AP, right now the folks in the White House are bristling and expressing no small amount of their own displeasure with Serbia for its inadequate security.

In addition to the “now it’s personal” attitude our current administration is bound to take against Serbia (and not wrongly, either–the one person who died wasn’t a U.S. citizen, but very well could have been), we’ve got to tangle with the fact that Russia and Spain directly oppose Kosovan independence, siding with Serbia on the issue, and keep in mind that while China is not taking a hard stance against us, they are rightly pointing out that “The unilateral move taken by Kosovo will lead to a series of consequences.”

Oh, and to strain our ties with the Russians yet further, their sometimes-pal Turkey is throwing down in Iraq with 10,000 soldiers. That’s a land operation, as opposed to what we’ve been allowing (pinpointed air attacks against the Kurdistan Worker’s Party), so that’s “not the greatest news,” but hey, whatever. At least Turkish citizens aren’t actually directly fire-bombing U.S. embassies.

C’est la vie. It’s true that our military is unbelievably vulnerable thanks to getting bogged down in Iraq, but it’s not like a World War has ever broken out over the events in some retarded Balkan country or anything.

Fidel’s given up the poorly-upkept facade of being Cuba’s leader, and he’s handed the reigns of power to his brother Raul (for realsies, this time).

Despite constant reassurances from his various lackeys that Fidel would soon to be able to leap tall buildings again, he’s finally acquiesced to the fact that his health problems will keep him from being an effective leader (and who knows where he got such a notion? Perhaps the fact that it’s kept him from being effective for nearly two years).

President Bush reacted extremely quickly to the news and threw together a press conference in Rwanda this morning. He called for a transition into a democratic government: “Eventually this transition ought to lead to free and fair elections, and I mean free and I mean fair, not these kind of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off as being true democracy.”

Delightful words to hear, to be sure, but even though Raul is the fuzzy, warm-hearted little brother, I doubt he’ll be quickly ready to play ball. Sure, he’s raised a lot of hopes in Cuba after hinting that the economy could do with some help and suggesting that the government wages aren’t high enough at $19 a day, but our President is still asking for absolute power to avoid corrupting absolutely. Bush may as well ask the sun to stay up for an extra few hours today so he can finish his coloring book before bedtime.

What’s the Russian take on the subject? They’re a bit busy with the Kosovo/Serbia situation, but the Putin USA 2008 campaign had a few things to say: in case Bush’s dreams come true and there is a democratic election, “Cuban people may find it wise to write me in as candidate. I will solve Cuban problems too.”

Thanks, Vlad.

I watched Obama’s victory speech tonight in Madison where he thanked their current funny fucking governor, Jim Doyle. I think that Barack might have accidentally called him “Tim” perhaps thinking of another swing state Democratic governor and potential running mate, Tim Kaine (who is also a great friend of mine), but it was hard to tell since the names are similar.

As he was leaving the stadium to the sounds of that Signed, Sealed, Delivered song (the victory speech ending song never changes for Barack, but that’s ok with me) I reclined back with drowsy satisfaction and watched him work the rope line. But then I noticed how closely the secret service guards were pressed up around him obviously agitated at his lingering to shake hands. Fear overtook me as I became more and more convinced that soon I would see someone lunge out of the crowd and shoot him and everything on the screen would become a chaotic mess of screams and people falling. I don’t know why I got so worked up about it, but I eventually just had to turn it off. It was like playing that scary maze game if you already know what’s going to happen - just too tense (if you haven’t played the scary maze game and don’t know what happens, then please go play it! Nothing shocking or scary will happen, I promise. Then watch this video because nothing is funnier than a shocked and scared child).

Thankfully, given a lack of headlines on the subject on the news websites, it appears that he was not assassinated tonight.

At the other end, Clinton failed to congratulate Obama on his victories during her election night speech for the second time in a row. I guess she’s taking a page from Giuliani by sitting out and downplaying every contest until the next big state where she has a chance votes - Texas and Ohio are to Clinton as Florida was to Giuliani. It might work out better for her than it did for him, but it’s still risky. I’m not really sure why she’s pursuing this strategy, but a tight budget is probably the main reason. After all, she did put in a fair amount of time campaigning in Washington, Maine, and Virginia this last week, but concentrating most of her resources in the March 4th elections.

Another possibility is that she’s applying the same calculating bullshit that always hands defeat to the Democrats in the general to the primaries, if this is any indication:

“It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska,” she said, naming several of Obama’s red state wins. “But we have to win Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Michigan … And we’ve got to be competitive in places like Texas, Missouri and Oklahoma.”

Now, I know that the 50-state strategy isn’t the smartest and greatest electoral strategy ever. Certainly, if it’s clear you aren’t going to win a state there’s little point in draining your resources in it. But there’s something to be said for at least attempting to make every state a competition rather than focusing on Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio while the other side starts fucking with your margins in Minnesota of all liberal holy places. And while the states Obama won that Clinton cites as being unplayable are indeed very red, her inclusion of Texas into the list of states that we need to be competitive in really diminishes her point.

If we should try to make Texas and Oklahoma real contests, then why not Alaska or North Dakota? They may not be as rich in electoral votes, but they’d be worlds cheaper to play in and no more Republican than Texas. Obviously, Clinton’s choice of mentioned states is calculated for the specific primary battles at hand, but it’s still stuck in the old fearful thinking of Democrats since the 80s. The same thinking that leads robocandidates like Kerry or Gore circa ‘00 to take conservative positions that don’t suit them in a cynical attempt to appeal to independents.

On the other side McCain had a good night. I think Huckabee really needed to pull of a surprise victory in Virginia to keep himself in it, and while he did reasonably well, he was way short. Maybe he would have done better tonight if the Washington state Republican Party hadn’t called the election prematurely for McCain on Saturday. I couldn’t agree with Huckabee more on that point - he was fucking robbed.

Our favorite huckaback claimed tonight that he was going to stay in and keep at it, but at this point he’s probably just trying to beat Mitt Romney at the delegate count just in case old man McCain kicks the bucket between now and the convention - not to appear overly fixated on the hypothetical deaths of major presidential candidates. Good luck, Mike! Someday in heaven, we will all take turns at kicking Mitt Romney’s ass at various games, sports, and competitions. It’ll be fun.

Well, your worries are over. You can stop the campaigning right now, because I, Benji Hardy, have at last stood up, gazed stoically across the political landscape, and cast my decisive hand upon the election. I have voted. And moreover, I spent not one, not two, but THREE, or around 2.75 at least, hours laconically dialing sheets of Pine Bluff phone numbers from the Obama headquarters in Little Rock, a full five or six of which actually answered their phones. I felt that it was time to make a stand; I felt that it was time for action. Action has been taken. I also grabbed an Obama bumper sticker, which is sitting on my dashboard right now because I’m still not sure if I want to put it on my car (I don’t like bumper stickers very much). But there it is, ON THE DASH, for all the world to see, provided my car is stationary and they’re looking very closely. Sorry, other candidates. The election is over. Go home to your spouses and children

It’s good to be a citizen.

Anyway, tonight was a great slaughter! Way to go, Barack! You’ll close that gap even when you do count Super Delegates. Obama picked up Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington, but clearly the only reason was the overwhelming black populations in these states and some serious repression of the female vote. Whatev - the Barack Rock is gonna rock it all the way to Maine tomorrow. Get out of the way!

Check out my democratic primary map below because I totally updated it. Notice that New Mexico is still not filled in. While in retrospect all of the states that crowded the February 5th primary date look kind of silly now because they achieved the exact opposite of what they were attempting, I would say that New Mexico looks the most foolish. Unless in a cunning move they are purposely delaying the counting of their last votes in order to make a big splash later on. Good on them!

On the Republican side the Huckaback took Kansas by storm earlier today, and as I’m writing this it looks like he’ll barely pick up Louisiana too. He’s also doing very well in Washington, but McCain is slightly ahead at this moment. Still, I didn’t expect him to do so well in the northwest. Pretty neat!

It’s the election cycle that never dies.

The Problem

The crisis of the 40 million uninsured in America is not one of altruistic charity but of urgent national utility.

We as a nation cannot afford, financially and morally, to continue to leave such a broad swath of the nation unprotected, and the task clearly lies to the public sphere in the face of the private ‘solutions’ illustrated failure to provide feasible coverage for Americans. The lack of coverage for the uninsured puts a drain on our healthcare system, both in terms of cost and resources, through the gross inefficiency with which the uninsured are given real world care. Unable to afford routine checkups and basic preventive medicine, the uninsured typically are admitted to hospitals with more costly and resource draining needs than the insured.

This inefficient use of our health care system drives up costs for all Americans, and drains our hospitals of the ability to distribute care and resources at maximum productivity.
The uninsured are also less productive in the larger US economy than their insured counterparts.

Bluntly, to leave these 40 million Americans uninsured is to statistically insure an earlier departure from the workforce. Lack of insurance is correlated with earlier deaths in the uninsured than the insured, which cuts of years of productivity in the workplace that otherwise would have contributed to the American economy. And when the uninsured are alive and working, they are frequently suffering from chronic illness or injury that they cannot afford to bring to medical attention. These ill and/or injured workers are incapable of operating at the same levels as healthier insured workers. Again their lack of insurance manifests itself as a drain on the economy.
To have a basically healthy population is in the interest of the public good, just as it is to have a basically educated population. It is not a question of handouts, but of strengthening the security, stability and productivity of society as a whole. It is the public interests, and is thus a public concern meriting a social and accountable solution.

For years the problem of the uninsured has been left to the private sphere to solve, largely in the form of employer provided insurance.. Underlying this negligence has been the myth that the uninsured lack insurance because they do not work. Our nation is seeped in a get-a-job-get-health understanding of the problem.

The reality, however, is that the majority of the uninsured are the working poor. These Americans are not insured because their private employers have chosen not to provide insurance or they simply are not paid enough to be able to feasibly enroll it what programs their employers offer. Medicaid covers the very poor, but these working Americans, the majority of the uninsured, have been left up to dry by private ‘solutions’.As of mid 2001, 36 % of low-income workers were uninsured, and another 7% worked for small employers not covered by COBRA.

The private ‘solution’ of employer provided or individually purchase insurance has failed this large portion of the uninsured population, necessitating a public solution. ‘Wal-Mart law’ type solutions can twist the arms of private providers, but they still dodge the reality that the private sector has proven inadequate in providing healthcare for America.

The Solutions

Having arrived at the need for public coverage of the uninsured, we are faced with the immediate question of how to go about providing that coverage. The two strongest options are the extension of Medicaid to cover the uninsured nearly-poor or the replacement of our convoluted current system with a single-payer systems that would cover all Americans.
The least revolutionary option, the expansion of Medicaid has relative ease of implementation and a track record of success behind it. This solution would incorporate the uninsured into existing programs, and thus would not require dramatic systemic overhauls in the financing or delivery of care. It is also probably the more politically viable option. It’s attractiveness is in part because of the high satisfaction rates associated with Medicaid. In a 2003 survey Medicaid had a satisfaction rating of 87 percent, better than that of employer or individual insurance plans. The happiness of thus covered by Medicaid indicates the plans high merit, perhaps enough so to address the problem of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid’s proven and institutionally established coverage.
We must consider, however, that the systemic problems associated with the high levels of uninsured may be two great to be addressed with out larger change than the simple extension of an existing program. Those feeling this to be the case advocate the consolidation of the multi-webbed and convoluted system we current have into a single-payer system that would cover all Americans. Our current system carries with it much bureaucratic waste and inefficiency that would be largely eliminated with a shift to a more streamlined approach.

Additionaly, the fragmentation of the existing system makes accountability a very difficult thing, and the establishment of a single-payer systems would democratize decision making , thus bolstering accountability in addition to giving the public a larger role in influencing policy. Much of Western Europe functions under a model similar to this, as does Canado. Our northern neighbor in particular would be wise to look to as a model, as their system is more cost-efficient and transparent, and less restrictive than many of those over the Atlantic.
Determining the particular public solution to take merits much research and deliberation on the part of policy makers, but that something must be done is clear. We do not leave the education of our nation’s children to the whim of private interests, and idt is time we likewise assert the value of a healthy population by assuming public responsibility for providing insurance, just as we do for providing basic education

* When I wrote the following I was pretty darn frustrated at all the circumstances surrounding Obama’s close second in NH. I’m still uncertain about some of the assumptions embedded below, but It felt good to get it out. So here it is …

A lady ‘found her voice’ and got emotional.

But she wasn’t just any lady, she was a political candidate lady. The common - and arguably masculinist - punditry of the moment cast the event as the closing breakdown of a candidacy that had fallen from forgone to forlorn. The spectre of Iowa, tongue of Obama, and vapor of NH indie voters whirled in the centrifuge of the national press. We all felt pretty certain it would create a cocktail too toxic for Clinton.

Her tears were…I’m sorry…. Her welling-up was at the time simply Hillary reacting sincerely to her campaigns encroaching silence. Or, alternately was a desperate manipulation of the press and public in her final hour.

A week later, Hillary’s found her voice and that teary moment is now an instance of game-changing Hillary-humanity, or, alternately again, a inspired tactical play for the female vote. Discussion of her response to that question is ubiquitous still, and will live on in political science courses for decades.

Regardless of that particular episode of interest, Clinton’s win clearly had more to do with the strength of organization and argument she had marshaled over the past year in New Hampshire. The folks that act like her’s was this crazy out-of-left-field win need to take a deep breath and remember that a.) she was 15-points up two months ago, b) New Hampshire voters tend to decide late and, to do so contrarily. There is a lot neglected in focusing so on her answer to ‘how do you do it?’

What’s also neglected, however, is inquiry into the question itself. I speak not to whether it was planted, but to whether it’s a legitimate enough question to take at all seriously as more than idle chatter. To publicly ask Curt Shilling at the tail end of a playoff run ‘how he does it’ in such a way would be ridiculous. It is what he does as an ace pitcher. We, and he, expects nothing less.

To ask Janet Robinson, CEO of the New York Times, or Indra K. Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo, ‘how they do it’ is at least just as absurd. Imagine either of them being asked such a question at earnings conference call, or even at a less formal Harvard Business School speaking gig. How about Ginsberg? I find it impossible to mistake the gendered subtext in a female presidential candidate being asked just that.

In order to take the question seriously, we have to be a little bit surprised that Hillary can ‘do it’ in the first place.