Edwards Fans: Time to Get Serious about Obama

The party's over, Edwards supporters. It's time to switch your allegiance to Obama, fast and furious.

I know Edwards says he's still in it, but it's clear that at this point he's not in it to win. He's in it to "make a difference" and to have delegates to broker at a convention. That's nice for Edwards, but it's a 1960 strategy in a 2008 election.

Listen, the 2 and a half people who read this blog know that I've been all out for Edwards. Heck, I even seriously considered driving to Reno to canvass for him in the Nevada caucuses. If that ain't commitment, I don't know what is.

John Edwards has already made a big difference in this election. If it weren't for Edwards' candidacy, there's no question that neither Obama nor Clinton would be talking as much as about poverty, the need for health care reform, or many meat and potato issues of concern to working class Americans. In particular, Obama seems to have adopted a muted version of Edwards' critique of money in politics. Granted, Obama focuses on lobbyists rather than corporations, but it's the same meme.

I supported Edwards because I thought he was the Democratic candidate for president who was the most progressive person with the best chance of winning in the general election. Now that it's clear that Edwards won't win the primary, his "electability" in the general is a moot point.

The race has narrowed to two people: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Of the two, the one who can and should win is Obama. Obama's voting record in Congress (and the Illinois state legislature) is pretty consistently progressive and effective. While not in Congress at the beginning, he was against the war from the start. More and more I hear Republicans and other swing voters who wouldn't be caught dead voting for Hillary being inspired by Obama.

Obama is inspiring. He's his own man. Inspite of and because of his unique background, he has the ability to appeal to broad cross sections of the American public. He is the best man for the job and the only Democrat poised to win in November.

Bill Magavern's 2008 California Ballot Rx

Well, they're here! The long-awaited Bill Magavern ballot recommendations. With so many people absentee voting, we get requests for these LONG before the election. Hold your horses, people!!! Unless you are leaving for Europe or a tour of duty, what is the friggin' hurry on voting? I still walk to the neighborhood precinct on voting day, but if I voted two or three or four weeks out I would often regret it. New info really crystalizes in the final weeks of a campaign.

So without further ado:


THE BILL MAGAVERN BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS, FEBRUARY 2008

PROPOSITIONS

91 – NO
Even its authors have disowned this one. Its effect would be to expand the
circumstances under which all of the sales tax on gasoline – not the gas tax,
but the sales tax – could be spent only on transportation, which would bind the
hands of the governor and legislature during times of fiscal crisis.

92 – NO
91 and 92 share one of the worst features of ballot-box budgeting, because they
both would carve out slices of the budget pie without doing anything to enlarge
the pie. In this case, the cause is a worthy one – community colleges. But 92
wouldn’t raise any revenue, it would just direct existing revenues toward
community colleges, meaning other programs, like health, K-12 education, parks,
etc – would be cut. And capping community college fees is not as progressive as
it may sound. A much more equitable policy would be to raise fees on those who
can afford to pay and use the money to provide more financial aid for low-income
students.

93 – YES
CA’s legislative term limits are just about the tightest in the country, and
still would be even if 93 passes. The difference would be that a legislator
could serve up to 12 years in one house, which would greatly increase the
continuity and institutional memory in the Assembly. Currently, the lower house
looks like a revolving door, as freshmen arrive in Sacramento already eyeing
their next move, usually to the Senate. The situation means that fundraising –
almost all of it from special interests – never stops.

To me, this measure is not about who happens to be in office now, but about what
is the best policy for the long run. Allowing a legislator to make a 12-year
career in one house would definitely improve the quality of deliberation in the
Capitol – and I say that as someone who spends many of my working hours in that
particular sausage factory.

94-97 – NO

I’m certainly not thrilled that so much of California’s ballot space and
political advertising goes into gambling issues, when so many more important matters go neglected. In this expensive battle I side
with the labor and tribal interests who are trying to overturn 4 casinos’
agreements with the state. These agreements do not protect the rights of casino
employees.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – OBAMA

He opposed the Iraq war from the start, unlike his opponents. As a legislator,
he’s managed to pass tough bills by working with unlikely allies. My informed
source in Illinois politics has spoken highly of him for years. Obama’s theme of
participatory democracy – government by and for the people, not the corporate
lobbyists – could actually have a transformative effect. With Kucinich out of
the race, and Edwards’ campaign faltering, Obama is the progressive choice – and
also the one with the best chance of winning the White House.

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – PAUL

His domestic platform is straight out of the 19th century, but he’s the only
Reep candidate opposed to the war, so if you’re in the GOP this is your chance to send a message.


I’m Bill Magavern, and I approve of this message.

Watch Obama's New Hampshire Primary Speech

Listen, I haven't weighed in lately on the Presidential campaign, or anything. Frankly, I've been preoccupied by a health crisis in our son. When he's really sick, I have trouble doing anything extra. So I've kept, up, but not in my thoughts to you.

It's okay that I'm behind because I'd rather not tell you, in the few days before the South Carolina primary, how I'm feeling about my man John Edwards' chances. I'd rather not tell you that on Sunday my son, now well, used some of his newfound energy to paste an Obama bumpersticker over the Edwards one on our family car and I let him do it.

Instead, I'll ask you to watch Obama's speech after the New Hampshire primary, if you haven't already and tell me what you think/thought.

Sara

What My Family is Doing to Eliminate Fascism

While I was emailing a friend threatening to risk a Giuliani presidency rather than vote for Hillary Clinton, my husband was working a little harder to identify and contain fascism. Here's his excellent letter published in today's Sacramento Bee.

Top cop's unshining moment

Re "Departure bittersweet for top cop," Jan. 2: What columnist Marcos Bretón describes as Police Chief Al Nájera's "shining moment" – the militaristic crackdown on peaceful protesters during the June 2003 Bush administration agricultural summit – actually amounted to an outrageous assault on the constitutional rights of free speech and assembly; the worst that I have seen during my decade in Sacramento.

What I saw when I emerged from the Capitol on that day shocked me. Hundreds of police officers in full Robocop gear had corralled a diverse group of Americans, including moms pushing babies in strollers, and refused to let them move freely in Capitol Park, despite the fact that they were doing nothing more threatening than chanting slogans about fair trade.

Why is Bretón, who makes his living from the constitutionally protected printed word, so thrilled that Nájera raised a red banner belonging to protesters and boomed, "We got their flag!"? Would the columnist be as exultant if the police had confiscated The Bee off of local newsstands because Nájera had decided one of the day's columns was politically incorrect? And is our police department so afraid of free speech that its biggest victory comes from confiscating a banner, instead of removing violent criminals from our streets?

- Bill Magavern, Sacramento

California Dreaming in the New Hampshire Primary

Not knowing (but suspecting) what may happen in the New Hampshire primary today, here are my musings on the way things are shaping up:

Despite my support for Edwards, it is hard not to get swept up in Obama fever. I suspect that if this is true for someone like me who has followed the elections closely, and educates herself about the candidates, it is doubly true of the average voter.

Watching Obama's victory speech last Thursday in Iowa (Obama, not I, was in Iowa--I try to keep as far away from Dubuque, Des Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, Keokuk, Ames, and Clearlake as possible), I had this strange feeling: pride and a lump in my throat. If I had ever known, I had forgotten what it was like to be truly inspired by a presidential candidate (I was born while JFK was in office and was 7 when Bobby was shot).

That feeling of remembering a forgotten dream is very powerful. I want to be part of history. I want to stand on my feet and vote for change. I want to forget that Obama's sweeping rhetoric seems to mask a haziness about policy details. I want to forget that he has repeatedly voted to fund a war he says he doesn't support. I want to forget that I really know almost nothing about him. That part of his growing appeal is that corporate America is comfortable with him. That he wants the health insurance industry to play a role in ending the health care crisis....whaaaaa?

So I suspect that the people of New Hampshire will do the same. I suspect that Obama fever will/has spread to California. And I wonder what the dream of a new America will bring?

Juno is Mandatory Viewing

(:)(:)(:)(:) for Juno the sleeper comedy in movie theaters now. I'm a sucker for sweet little films. This movie proves that there are plenty of stories yet to be told and that they are worth telling. It's fresh, it's unpredictable, it's witty and fast-paced. It's funny, it's even sort of romantic without being anything you traditionally associate with a romantic comedy.

Actress Ellen Page is a screen gem: cute, ironic and watchable--impossible, however, for me to separate her from the character she played Juno MacGuff. Note: if you're an over-aged adolescent male like the character played so ably in this film by Jason Bateman, be aware that there are no Juno MacGuff's out there.

Juno is like Rory Gilmore on crack. In the real world of 2008, there are no 16 year old girls that are drop dead gorgeous, brilliant, wise-cracking with cultural references exclusively from the late 70's (15 years before they were born). This does not exist, we only wish it would.

We also wish director Jason Reitman (Thank you for Smoking) and his ilk would get more sweet smart little films like this made.

"Sitting this one out" by Adolph Reed

Reprinted without permission--I like this piece. I basically agree with everything he says. It is the best cogent articulation I've seen of the dilemma we're in. Why it's simultaneously true that the "serious" candidates of the Democratic party aren't what we want or need them to be, and why we have to vote for them anyway, and what it's going to take to change that.

The part of the piece that I most concur with is this "This bleak reality reflects the left’s failure to build any durable extra-electoral force between elections that can bring pressure to bear on the Democratic contenders and debate."

Let me know what you think of it.

By Adolph L. Reed Jr.
November 2007 Issue THE PROGRESSIVE

OK, HERE WE ARE AGAIN, a year out from a Presidential election, and we’re all supposed to be figuring out which of the Democrats has the best chance to win—determined mainly by the standard of raising the most money—and subordinating all our substantive political concerns to the objective of getting him or her elected. This time, I’m not going to acquiesce in the fiction that the Presidential charade has any credibility whatsoever. I’m not paying any attention to the horse race coverage—that mass-mediated positioning in the battle for superficial product differentiation.

The Democratic candidates who are anointed “serious” are like a car with a faulty front-end alignment: Their default setting pulls to the right. They are unshakably locked into a strategy that impels them to give priority to placating those who aren’t inclined to vote for them and then palliate those who are with bromides and doublespeak. When we complain, they smugly say, “Well, you have no choice but to vote for me because the other guy’s worse.” The party has essentially been nominating the same ticket with the same approach since Dukakis.

The last straw for me was the spectacle of all the “serious candidates” falling over one another to link Castro and Chávez with Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, and Kim, thus endorsing the Bush Administration’s view that any government that does anything that ours doesn’t like—including giving its own people’s needs higher priority than those of our corporations—qualifies it as a supporter of terrorism, a rogue state, part of the Axis of Evil, or whatever comic book slogan is operative this week. Then came the supposedly anti-war Obama buttressing his commitment to increase overall American troop strength with a pledge to invade Pakistan. Then came his and HRC’s tiff over the etiquette of publicly declaring a willingness to use nuclear weapons on a case-by-case basis, with both parties treating the issue as purely a matter of foreign policy gamesmanship. And this was during Hiroshima and Nagasaki week, no less!
Each serious candidate has boosters who will tell us that we should be more sophisticated than to take what their candidates say at face value, that their empty, inadequate, or objectionable proposals are the best, most realistic versions of whatever we think we want—from ending the war, to universal national health care and access to quality education, to public investment in rebuilding the Gulf Coast and the rest of the country’s physical and social infrastructure, to worker protection and fighting environmental degradation.

A friend of mine characterizes this as the “we’ll come back for you” politics, the claim that they can’t champion anything you want because they have to conciliate your enemies right now to get elected, but that, once they win, they’ll be able to attend to the progressive agenda they have to reject now in order to win. This worked out so well with the Clinton Presidency, didn’t it? Remember his argument that he had to sign the hideous 1996 welfare reform bill to be able to come back and “fix” it later? Or NAFTA? Or two repressive and racist crime bills that flooded the prisons? Or the privatizing of Sallie Mae, which set the stage for the student debt crisis? Or ending the federal government’s commitment to direct provision of housing for the poor?

This time, the nominal frontrunners have Rube Goldberg health care proposals that protect the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, the chief sources of the health care crisis. They discuss the murderous adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan mainly in bloodless, managerial terms—as a “broken policy” or some other such technician’s euphemism. Not only do their references to the tragic loss of American lives seem pro forma and constructed by focus-group engineers; they also reinscribe the presumption that only American lives count. This is part of what undergirds the broader framework of a foreign policy hinged on cavalier use of military assault and invasion in the first place—what used to be clearly recognized as imperialism. Edwards, who seems somewhat better than the others on Iraq, apparently needs to make up for it—lest what seem like expressions of decency be grounds for accusations of weakness—by being even more bellicose than they regarding Iran. However, all of them have indicated a lusty willingness to attack Iran, Syria, or any other country that can be demonized either for not dancing to our government’s tune or even just because it’s convenient to do so as a prop for some other purpose.

At the end of the primary campaign, one of the “serious candidates” is going to get the nomination and form a ticket with another version of his or her triangulating self. (I still wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to be Clinton-Obama, in an all-Oprah ticket, an exercise in massive short-term self-delusion and empty identity politics that will guarantee the White House to whichever combo the GOP puts up.) Maybe by Election Day I’ll be moved or guilted or frightened into voting for that ticket, whatever it is. But I’m just as likely to sit this one out.

And I’m prepared to blow off every liberal who starts whining and hectoring, in that self-important and breathless way they do, about our obligation to protect “choice” or to make sure we can get another Stephen Breyer or Sandra Day O’Connor onto the Supreme Court.

I know that some outraged readers are going to write in, fulminating about how nihilistically ultraleftist I am to criticize the Democrats in this way and how irresponsible The Progressive is to publish the criticism—especially now, when the stakes are so great and it’s so crucially important for the future of the country, the world, the galaxy, the cosmos, that some Democrat—anyone, no matter how worthless—wins the Presidency. (That they make the same cataclysmic claim about every election never seems to dull their self-righteous fervor.) They’ll explain that we have to understand that we can’t get everything we want all at once, that the Democrats can’t go any further than they go, and that a half-hearted promise of part of a stale loaf of bread in some unspecified future is better than no bread at all—especially for those who don’t really need the bread at the moment.

Well, in part, they’re right. The Democrats are what they are. We should all know that by now, after two decades of their failing to stand up to the rightwing juggernaut, of presenting themselves as more responsible and steady managers of the country’s slide to the right. By the time the national elections come around, there really are no options other than to vote for their predictably worthless nominee, make an existential statement (or engage in wish-fulfillment, if you think it’s more than that) by voting for a third party candidate, or just not bother. This bleak reality reflects the left’s failure to build any durable extra-electoral force between elections that can bring pressure to bear on the Democratic contenders and debate.

Elected officials are only as good or as bad as the forces they feel they must respond to. It’s a mistake to expect any more of them than to be vectors of the political pressures they feel working on them. This is a lesson that progressives have forgotten or failed to learn.

As an illustration, consider the recent contretemps between John Conyers and the pro-impeachment, anti-war activists who attacked him as a sellout for failing to push impeachment over Nancy Pelosi’s and the House Democratic leadership’s opposition. His critics accused him of betraying the spirit of Martin Luther King. But that charge only exposes their unrealistic expectations. Conyers isn’t a movement leader. He’s a Democratic official who wants to get reelected. He’s enmeshed in the same web of personal ties, partisan loyalties and obligations, and diverse interest-group commitments as other pols. It was the impeachment activists’ naive error, and I suspect one resting on a partly racial, wrongheaded shorthand, to have expected him to lead an insurgency. If the pro-impeachment forces had been able to organize a popular movement with militant local to national expressions on a wide scale, Conyers would have had the leverage necessary to press the movement’s case to Pelosi and Democratic leadership, or at least he and the others would have felt real pressure to act more boldly on this issue. Instead, an understandable sense of urgency led them to take a politically self-indulgent, doomed shortcut. The result is much wasted effort, unnecessary enmity, and another demoralizing defeat.

Unfortunately, like the Democrats, our side fails to learn from experience. Despite a mountain range of evidence to the contrary, we—the labor, anti-war, women’s, environmental, and racial justice movements—all continue to craft political strategy based on the assumption that the problem is that the Democrats simply don’t understand what we want and how important those things are to us. They know; they just have different priorities.

That’s why the endless cycle of unofficial hearings and tribunals and rallies and demonstrations and Internet petitions never has any effect on anything. They’re all directed to bearing witness before an officialdom that doesn’t care and feels no compulsion to take our demands into account. To that extent, this form of activism has become little more than a combination of theater—a pageantry of protest—and therapy for the activists.

Then at the apex of every election cycle, after having marched around in the same pointless circle, chanting the same slogans in the interim, we look feverishly to one of the Democrats or some Quixote to do our organizing work for us, magically, all at once.

We need to think about politics in a different way, one that doesn’t assume that the task is to lobby the Democrats or give them good ideas, and correct their misconceptions.

It’s a mistake to focus so much on the election cycle; we didn’t vote ourselves into this mess, and we’re not going to vote ourselves out of it. Electoral politics is an arena for consolidating majorities that have been created on the plane of social movement organizing. It’s not an alternative or a shortcut to building those movements, and building them takes time and concerted effort. Not only can that process not be compressed to fit the election cycle; it also doesn’t happen through mass actions. It happens through cultivating one-on-one relationships with people who have standing and influence in their neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, families, and organizations. It happens through struggling with people over time for things they’re concerned about and linking those concerns to a broader political vision and program. This is how the populist movement grew in the late nineteenth century, the CIO in the 1930s and 1940s, and the civil rights movement after World War II. It is how we’ve won all our victories. And it is also how the right came to power.

The anti-war movement isn’t coherent or popularly grounded enough to exert the pressure necessary to improve the electoral options; only the labor movement has the capacity to do so, but it doesn’t have the will. None of the other progressive tendencies has the capacity to do anything more than lobby or exhort. Effective lobbying requires being able to deliver or withhold crucial resources, and none but labor has that capacity. Exhortation works only with people who share your larger goals and objectives; other than that it’s useless except as catharsis.

We also need to think more carefully about what our demonstrations and protest marches can and can’t do. Here we could take a lesson from Martin Luther King. His 1962 Albany, Georgia, campaign failed because the local authorities figured out that the success of King’s mass marches depended on meeting brutal resistance from local officials. When they didn’t forcibly stop the marches, the movement fizzled.

Our approach to mass mobilization is like the Albany campaign. Our actions don’t raise public consciousness because they’re treated dismissively, if at all, in the mainstream media. They don’t even connect with the residents of the cities where we hold them because we agree to strict march routes and rally sites that make certain we don’t engage with anyone other than ourselves. And we agree not to disrupt routine daily life more than a homecoming parade would in exchange for having a designated place to gather and talk to ourselves. Even the civil disobedience is carefully choreographed and designed to be minimally disruptive.

Whether or not we admit it, these are features of a politics that is focused mainly inward, on shoring up the spirits of the participants in the actions themselves. They don’t send a message that those in power can’t simply ignore, and they don’t inform, excite, or win over anyone who’s not already on board with the movement’s agenda. It’s telling in this sense that our movement culture has evolved elaborately clever techniques for keeping participants entertained through the stale, all-too-predictable cavalcade of speeches and chants and puppets on stilts.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that people don’t need to engage in rallies and protests. It is self-defeating, however, to collapse the difference between the activities that make us feel good and the work that is necessary to build the movement. There are no shortcuts or magic bullets. And, if we don’t confront that fact and act accordingly, we’ll be back in this same position, but most likely with options a little worse than these, in 2012, and again and again.

Adolph L. Reed Jr. is professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania.

(:)(:)(:) for Escape to Witch Mountain

Three enthusiastic snouts up for Escape to Witch Mountain the 1975 Disney classic. What is happening to me? I'm in this movie period where I have to recover from the violence and gore of today's hollywood with Disney drivel. Yet, there it is, the night after I subjected myself to No Country for Old Men, I watched Escape to Witch Mountain with my 12 year old.

We both liked it a lot. I, however, was distracted by the residual effect of the carnage from the night before. Essentially I saw two movies: one, the Disney classic, and two, the movie as the Coen brothers might have made it.

My son giggled as I worried that the two super-powered orphans would be brutally torn apart by the hounds that pursued them. I was sure that grouchy man with a heart of gold Eddie Alpert would be shot in his skivvies at point blank range by the millionaire who desperately wanted the children (whom Eddie was saving) back.

I knew that the helicopter and car filled with angry vigilantes who hated the children would crash, burn, explode on the kids, fire machine guns, etc. None of this happened.

When a car crashes into a tree, the guys laugh and get out of car. When the children hold the millionaire's minions at gunpoint with a pistol that floats in the air, the pistol drops to the ground after detaining them in their pursuit. It does not blow their brains out.

The 1975-level special effects of this film do not hold up over time--they seem comical by 2007 standards. And the acting and writing are a bit wooden and contrived (especially the kids). But the story is sweet, suspenseful and hopeful. A nice change from the Coen brothers.

My son informs me that the sequel, "Return to Witch Mountain" is much bloodier. Apparently the kindly high-powered uncle who whisks the kids away at the end of the first film becomes a hired killer out for revenge.

(:)(:) for No Country for Old Men

Two snouts up for No Country for Old Men the pointless "thriller" by the Coen brothers (known in Hollywood as "the two-headed director") now playing in movie theaters. I have loved many Coen brothers films despite the violence, Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou? Raising Arizona, and Barton Fink, to name a few.

But this may have been my first foray into the really relentless Coen brothers films. I had previously spared myself Miller's Crossing and Blood Simple which I believe were much more bloody. So if it had just been me, I might have discounted my experience of this film. I don't tend to like overly violent pictures, and might have overlooked the brilliance of the Coen brothers as I sat bathed in the blood of the movie.

My husband, who has a high tolerance for violent films and also loves the Coen brothers , seemed to largely share my experience of this one. Our reaction could largely be summed up as "Whaaa?"

Despite compelling performances by Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin and, the stand-out, Tommy Lee Jones, arresting cinematography and lots of thrilling near death experience for our "hero" Josh Brolin (a vietnam vet turned n'er-do-well welder who stumbles upon $2 million in cash in a drug deal gone bad and goes on the lam with it), the movie is ultimately completely pointless.

Tommy Lee Jones character says things that sound like they are supposed to be profound or would give us some insight into why we've been subjected to what essentially is a horror show of the character played by Javier Bardem stalking his prey, Llewelyn (played by Brolin).

The Coen brothers make a number of completely inexplicable choices in the movie, providing us with a massively anticlimatic series of "endings," and no sense of why on earth we would ever want to have endured this movie. We get to watch Bardem kill person after person and sometimes compellingly not kill some people. And we watch Tommy Lee Jones, the near-retirement sweetheart Texas cop, not do a blessed thing about it despite his concern.

Do yourself a favor and skip the carnage. Read a good book instead.

(:)(:)(:)(:) for The Golden Compass

Four snouts up for The Golden Compass opening today in Sacramento, California.

I struggled with the number of snouts for this one. It is a beautiful film, with a compelling plot, well-conceived, well-acted, well-written.

It held my attention throughout. I truly cared about the main character Lyra (an 11 year old girl played convincingly by 10 year old Dakota Blue Richards) and I was even interested in the dubious character of Mrs. Coulter played by Nicole Kidman (whom lately I have hated). (Coulter shown here attempting to intimidate her charge Lyra)

It doesn't help me sort this out that my kids are obsessed by the "His Dark Materials" series, of which The Golden Compass is book one. Their high expectations for the film were not dampened in the sneak preview we got Monday.

No. What makes me struggle here at all is the violence. The film ends with a massive battle scene on the frozen tundra between the forces of the all-controlling Magisterium and witches, ice bears and "gyptians" who stand for freedom. Even my children tell me the scene was gratuitous, not in the book on that scale.

Why, in an era where we so desperately need peace, must we send the message to children that the only way to freedom is through violent combat? As much as I liked this movie, I am close to banning them from watching the sequel 'til they're 18.

Meet Top Thought Policewoman Jane Harman

You wouldn't think the Congresswoman who represents drug and street-people laden Venice, California would be the leading Democrat for the thought police, but she is. This past week, Harman, former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, steered the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" through the House of Representatives with an overwhelming bipartisan mandate of 400-6. The bill, dubbed "Patriot Act Lite" by some civil libertarians is now headed to the Senate.

The ACLU says this bill could herald in a new government crackdown on such dissident activities as talking, writing and walking. The bill would create what Randi Rhodes has called a "roving commission" to examine dissident activity in the country and potentially criminalize hundreds of legal gatherings, writings or speeches. Rhodes compared the commission to McCarthy's notorious House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

While Rhodes, being the left's answer to Rush Limbaugh, is somewhat prone to exaggeration for effect, the notion is frightening to me, one more sign that fear of terrorism is leading the country further into the throes of fascism.

Even more disturbing is the way the newly elected House Democrats have nothing to say about it--they simply roll over in droves, voting for what seems like a blatantly unconstitutional measure out of fear of being called soft on terrorism.

I don't know about you, but I'm about this close to going completely third party nutball on the Democratic party and Pelosi. I have this problem, it hurts me a lot worse to be screwed by my supposed friends than by the Republicans whom I wrote off years ago.

How long are we supposed to endure this date rape? At a minimum, House members like Harman (who has long identified as a "Blue Dog" or more conservative Democrat) need to be primaried by Democrats who are serious about standing up for the Constitution, making this country a safer place by spreading peace and love, not fear and hate.

Harman fought off a primary challenge by Democratic activist Marcy Winograd in 2006--someone who can win needs to run against Harman again this year. And we need similar challenges all over the country to send a message that this isn't what the Democratic party should stand for.

Consider: your Congressmember almost certainly voted for this bill too (only 6 did not). And your senators (mine are Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein) will likely have an opportunity to vote on the bill's counterpart, S. 1959. Call them all at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you oppose this bill.

Could Hillary's Attacks on Obama Help Edwards?

In what is seriously a 3-way dead heat in Iowa, Edwards may be the beneficiary of the animosity between the two presumed front-runner camps.

Thanks to Vince Marchand of Sacramento (I say that like I have readers all over the country and as if Vince isn't one of my best friends) for sending me this Dave Corn column on Hillary's attack on Obama dubbed "Kindergate." Apparently Hillary's camp viscerally hates Obama and has released devastating evidence that proves conclusively that Obama has been planning to be President since he was in Kindergarten--gasp!

The most damning thing the Clinton camp has to say about Obama according to Corn? "It's his presumptuousness," according to one Clinton operative Corn talked to. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?"

I doubt whether Kindergate will hurt Obama, but repeated negative attacks might eat into his support. The attacks may also backfire on Clinton. Who stands to gain? John Edwards, that's who.

(:)(:)(:) for The Shaggy Dog (1959)

Three snouts up for The Shaggy Dog (colorized version) made in 1959. I watched this movie the other day with my kids and I was surprised how well it held up. I kind of expected that it would be so silly and predictable that I would have to answer my email through the whole thing. Not that I was riveted, but it held my attention throughout.

Actually it made me realize (for the umpteenth time) how much worse most kid movies are today. Most of them rely on action, gadgets, visual tricks, and constantly changing images to hold a kid's attention. This relies on the old-fashioned idea of character development and story to hook you.

Fred MacMurray is at his finest as the grouchy (mailman Wilson Daniels) dad who hates dogs with such a passion that he reaches for his shotgun when one is nearby. The whole rest of the cast is wonderful. His sons are cast beautifully, especially Tommy Kirk as Wilby Daniels, the son who accidentally turns into a dog.

The movie takes pains to create a credible thread for its ridiculous premise. It's a joy to watch these kids in their 1950s vehicles and tuxedos driving around town (with Annette Funicello no less)--so cute!

This movie is well made, well-acted and directed. It's a predictable plot, but with some fun twists and a lot of genuinely funny physical comedy. I like that there's a cold war twist and cop and robber action but the only gun that ever comes out is Fred MacMurray's shotgun. There are no gadgets. There is no loud music. This is sweet fare for the whole family.

Dead Heat in Iowa?

I don't know how much I have to add to the media buzz on polling out of Iowa this week, but I am interested in this. It seems that there is no front-runner in either party 6 weeks out in the Iowa caucuses, with Obama holding a (probably statistically insignificant) lead over Clinton followed closely by Edwards.

In the Republican caucus race, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has pulled into a statistical dead heat with Mitt Romney (read New York Times blog on that for more).

The main thing I wish to point out is something I try never to say (but other columnists revel in): I told you so. I predicted that things were going to tighten in both races considerably, and they have. I'm also not surprised to see Huckabee moving up. For a long time it has seemed likely that a former Arkansas governor with strong conservative credentials would have massive appeal with Republican voters.

However it's certainly too early to make any predictions about outcome. John Kerry was polling at 4% this far out in the last Iowa caucus with Howard Dean in a massive lead. This ABC News clip (click on the headline) indicates that most Iowans (probably in an ABC News poll) find Hillary Clinton the "most electable" which mystifies and terrifies me in turn. They also point out that Edwards is still very much in it.

I Heart Hillary

I feel defensive after receiving comments on yesterday's blog Prediction: Hillary Clinton will not Win the California Presidential Primary. I wish to clarify: I love Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a smart, successful, funny woman. She is a good mother and a steadfast wife (to say the least!). She is powerful and interesting. As compelling as these reasons are, they do not explain my love for Hillary Clinton.

I love Hillary because she is a fellow human being. She lives and breathes and walks this planet with me. She and I are separated only by illusion. I pray for her highest good daily, especially because she has such a strong effect on the world.

I love Hillary the same way I love George Bush.

Prediction: Hillary Clinton will not Win the California Presidential Primary

I'll let you in on an important political secret: my mother is the unit California Democrat. As she votes, so vote the Democrats of California. As long as I have been tracking it, this has been proven to be true.* And my mother doesn't like (putting it mildly) Hillary Clinton.

Here are the facts: she is a retired schoolteacher, born and raised in the deep south east, she has lived in California 55 years (40 of them in San Diego). Although widowed by a radical leftist (yes, my father) who registered Peace and Freedom Party and often voted for losing third party candidates against mainstream Democrats, my mother is a yellow dog Democrat. There isn't an ounce of swing voter in her. She is relatively socially liberal, tends to be comfortable with and support the mainstream Democratic choices.

She supported Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis (she loves Greeks), Walter Mondale, Al Gore and John Kerry in their respective primaries (and she supported them long before the historically late California primaries rolled around). She still holds bitterness and resentment against some of her children for "throwing the election to that man (W)" by supporting Ralph Nader in 2000. "That man" was also what she called Ronald Reagan.

Closer to home, she supported Gray Davis until the San Diegans started to experience blackouts and electricity rate hikes. Then she started to hate him and voted for Cruz Bustamante in the recall--I think she voted against the recall because she was worried about Schwarzenegger winning, but I'm not sure, I should check.

She always votes in every single election. She calls my husband and goes over any questions she has on her ballot with him, taking his advice if she doesn't know more about it herself from locals. She is also very interested in how the local teachers' union tells her to vote. If the teachers' union's opinion differs from ours, she'll usually go with the union.

So last night, I gingerly broached the subject of who she was favoring in the California Presidential primary. I had been avoiding the subject for months afraid that it would be Hillary, given her affection for her husband.

Her response? "I'll tell you who I don't favor, Hillary Clinton. How anybody could vote for that woman is beyond me. I don't think she can win. The Republicans are all united against her. And I don't want her to be President. I don't trust her. I'm afraid I'm going to have to support that Obama, Barat (sic) whatever is name is, whom I've never even heard speak."

Music to my ears. A white woman brought up in the cradle of the confederacy, with all that that implies, would rather support a black man whose name she doesn't even remember over Hillary Clinton.

There's hope!


*Exception, my mother did not vote for stunning upset Assembly primary winner, Lori Saldana in 2004. Perhaps she is only the prognosticator of statewide outcomes, not local races.

Revising the Snout-based rating system

It has come to my attention that my snout-based rating system, as wonderful as it is, needs revision. Many people have emailed and commented about this (btw, have you seen that I have now made it easy to comment? You don't have to register or anything, you can do it anonymously, so please do comment--many of you email me wonderful comments but only I read them).

The problem with the current system is that it jumps from 3 snouts being "flawed but worth seeing" to two snouts "just atrocious" and then there's nowhere to go but down. The reason there are 5 snouts instead of 4 is simply to differentiate between good movies and best movies of all time.

So here is the revised system:

(:)(:)(:)(:)(:) One of the best movies ever made (American Beauty)
(:)(:)(:)(:) Wonderful (The Big Easy)
(:)(:)(:) Worth seeing (Hair)
(:)(:) Flawed (Syriana
(:) Irredeemably bad (Terror of Tiny Town--all midget western)

I don't have time to revise my page template to reflect it right now, but that's coming. Thanks for your interest.

(;)(:)(:)(:)(:) for Deepak Chopra, M.D.

Five snouts up for Deepak Chopra. This is the first time I've ever used my snout-based rating system to rate a person, rather than one of their books, movies or plays. But I make an exception for Chopra. I love Chopra. I devour Chopra books and speeches (although I've never seen him in person). If I had TiVo I would TiVo him. If they made Chopra t-shirts and bracelets, I would buy them and wear them.

And I'm not the least physically attracted to him! This may be my first all out obsession with a public figure that wasn't based at least in part on physical attraction. If I had been using my snout-based rating system as a teenager, I'm ashamed to say that I would have issued 5 snouts to such luminaries as Bobby Sherman, John Travolta, and (shudder) Sly Stallone (I haven't given up the habit of celebrity crushes, but I no longer have posters of them in my room--now they would be of George Clooney and, well, Bill Clinton, but not Hillary).

No, I love Chopra because he is able to explain in scientific terms such concepts as thoughts, dreams, intentions, coincidences, past, present and future, and, ultimately, God.

In a speech the kids and I listen to called "The Cosmic Mind and the Submanifest Order of Being" he really walks us through the quantum physics of consciousness. It's all very well and good for people to stand up in church and say we are all one. To me, it's another thing entirely to be shown that at the subatomic (quantum) level, the boundaries between our bodies absolutely do not exist.

We are light and energy and intention. We are not even specific masses of light, energy and intention. There is nothing to indicate where one person (or for that matter, one chair, table, mountain or river) starts or ends--we are all literally one.

By the way, my kids have trouble interpreting his South Asian accent. They insist that he is northern European, rather than Indian. They call him "that Swedish guy."

PELOSI CALLS FOR HANDWRITTEN IMPEACHMENT LETTERS?

This may be an internet hoax, but what do we have to lose--this was forwarded to me from Cindy Asner, Ed Asner's wife, a Hollywood activist:

Pelosi purportedly asks for 10,000 handwritten impeachment letters. Will you send one before Friday?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

IT'S WORTH A SHOT!

House Resolution 333 for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney
is off the House floor, and has instead been sent to the Judiciary
Committee for "further study." This maneuver, organized by Pelosi and
the Democratic leadership, is consistent with their mantra that
impeachment is "off the table." But, we are told Nancy Pelosi is
reported to have replied to the question of impeachment that if she
received 10,000 hand written letters she would proceed with it. What
are we waiting for?

Bay Spill, Crises and Public Policy

Listening to an extensive series of interviews yesterday on the Forum show on KQED (Northern California public radio) about the big oil spill in San Francisco bay, I was struck by how strongly crises affect public policy in California, and elsewhere. Crises seem to have become a necessary ingredient for social change to occur.

From this vantage point, using only anecdote and my limited memory, it seems that clear, obvious, well-documented systemic problems are not sufficient to capture the attention of the public or their legislators. Well, I overstate the case. Problems such as millions of uninsured people, indisputable global warming, and widely weakened bridges do reach the attention of the public and their legislators, but for the most part, those systemic problems are not sufficient to result in policy changes.

Instead, we need Hurricane Katrina, dramatic bridge collapses, and killing sprees in highschools to force legislators to pass legislation and appropriate money to address such matters.

The container ship spilling oil into the bay recalls the dramatic massive oil spill of the Exxon Valdez many years back--that crisis resulted in legislation, which according to experts on the Forum show, produced a 90% decrease in the number of oil spills since then.

Crises are clearly the only way we get ethics or campaign finance reform too.

Perhaps this is the problem with health care reform--despite the many horror stories suffered by people without insurance or with inadequate health care access, it is all still at the level of individuals, documented systemically.

Maybe what we need is for a container ship to crash into the bay bridge and spill into the bay hundreds of uninsured middle class Americans on their way to Europe for medical procedures, then we could leverage the passage of universal health care.