The Alligator

Are the Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) deluded or on drugs? I don’t quite understand how it could be possible for 4 sentient beings to stand on a dais behind lecterns and seriously say that the war in Iraq was not a mistake and is worth the blood and treasure spent on it by an American people. I do have a caveat here about Ron Paul- his zealot libertarian stance scares the begeezes out of me- he seems to advocate for a form of economic anarchy, but I digress from my original point- the War in Iraq.

When pressed by Tim Russert, Mayor Giuliani, Senator McCain, Governor Romney and Governor Huckabee all were comfortable that the war was not a mistake and was worth the loss of blood and treasure.

At least Governor Huckabee had the “gumption” to hearken back to the initial argument the Bush administration gave to go to war- WMDs. Of course his analogy to WMDs being hidden around the country like little benign Easter Eggs was one of the more humorous moments of the debate- although the idea that a Presidential candidate would even make such an idiotic analogy is very disturbing.

Mr. Huckabee was even more disturbing when in a post-debate interview he suggested that maybe these WMDs had been secretly moved to Jordan. JORDAN? Jordan is probably the very best friend we have in the Arab world. The former King of Jordan – Hussein married an American woman, Queen Noor- the former Lisa Halaby, and enjoyed close relationships with American Presidents. His son King Abdullah II also is a good friend to our country- although the Bush administration has strained that relationship as much as it could with our conduct of the Iraq War. Is it possible that good ‘ol boy Mike meant to say Syria? I guess it don’t matter much- all them A-rabs – don’t they all wear towels on their head and look alike anyway? It’s time to wave your hand bye-bye Mike. You have no place on the world stage.

The only thing that might have been remotely interesting about the thought of a Huckabee presidency is the thought of the Huckabees deciding to renovate the White House and move into a mobile home on the White House grounds like they did when the Governor’s Mansion in Arkansas was being renovated.

Mr. Huckabee’s buffoonery aside let’s go back to the war not being a mistake and worth the blood and treasure. Let’s dissect these three issues separately.

Was the war a mistake? 

First let’s look at the issue of the war being a mistake. Maybe mistake is too benign – outright lie might be more accurate.  I think it is safe to say it is a mistake to go to war on the premise of lies told to Congress and the public. The Center for Public Integrity- a non-partisan and non-advocacy group that is committed to transparent and comprehensive reporting both in the United States and around the world, released a study that concludes that following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

According to the study President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

Going to war based on lies is always a mistake. The Center for Public Integrity’s report states:

“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose “Duelfer Report” established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.”

Add to these lies leading us to war a few other facts- 1) This war shifted a policy that this country had had since its founding- not conducting a preëmptive war 2) This war has tarnished our reputation throughout the world and most significantly in the Arab world stretching many of our hard fought alliances in the region to their breaking point, and 3)This war was waged while we left the war in Afghanistan to hang in the wind so Al Qaeda and its ally the Taliban could freely reconstitute in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan and you have a definitive and indisputable answer: The war was definitely a mistake.

Given that the war can definitely be categorized as a mistake- it seems moot to even explore the cost in blood and treasure since nothing that is a mistake is worth any blood or treasure. But looking at the expense of this folly in terms of blood and treasure is important

Was the war worth the cost in blood?

The estimates for the dead in Iraq estimate from a low of 150,000 reported in a “New England Journal of Medicine” study to a high of 650,000 reported in the respected medical journal “The Lancet”. In order to be “fair”, let’s assume an average of the two extremes- 400,000.

Add to that the nearly 4,000 American troops dead and nearly 29,000 troops wounded. An estimated number of around 2,000 troops come home with brain injuries. In 2006- two years ago (the most up to date numbers I can find specific to this particular injury)- the official number of brain- injured Iraq veterans was more than 1,700, but Harriet Zeiner, Palo Alto’s leading neuropsychologist, believes that well over 6,000 such injuries is a far more realistic estimate. We can only assume that these numbers are higher two years later.

One year ago in January 2007, Time published an article “A Grim Milestone”. The 500th major amputee as of that date had occurred. According to the article limb-loss has occurred twice as often in Iraq as in any conflict of the past century, except for Vietnam, for which there are no good statistics. The 500 major amputations — toes and fingers aren’t counted — represent 2.2% of the 22,700 U.S. troops wounded in action reported at that time. Extrapolating that percentage to the current 29,000 troops wounded- and it adds another 138 for a total of 638 major amputees.

In an article from Medscape Medical Journal from November 6, 2007 the estimates of the rate of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among veterans returning from Iraq range from 12% to 20%. With deployment topping 1.5 million by the summer 2007, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) having treated more than 52,000 persons, the greatest effect of those mental health issues has yet to be experienced. These problems and interventions were presented at the American Public Health Association 135th Annual Meeting in Washington DC in November 2007. Evan Kanter, MD, PhD, staff psychiatrist in the PTSD Outpatient Clinic of the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, said that estimates are for a minimum of 300,000 psychiatric casualties from service in Iraq

So let us tally up the numbers. An average estimate of 400,000 Iraqi deaths -not to mention the toll of Iraqi wounded (a number for which I cannot even find an estimate) and the millions of Iraqis who have been displaced, nearly 4,000 American troops dead, nearly 29,000 wounded with estimates of over 6,000 returning with brain injuries, over 600 with major amputations and more than 300,000 Americans returning from Iraq with psychiatric disorders. It’s a staggering and obscene amount of death and loss that never should have occurred. For the Republican candidates to say that this neo-conservative folly sold to the people with a lie is worth this sort of human tragedy is simply immoral.

Was the war worth the cost in treasure?

According to the National Priorities Project, a 501(c)(3) research organization that analyzes and clarifies federal data so that people can understand and influence how their tax dollars are spent and focuses on the impact of federal spending and other policies at the national, state, congressional district and local levels, the taxpayer cost of the Iraq War by the end of FY 2007 has been a total of $456 billion. The administration has requested nearly $200 billion in war-related spending for fiscal year 2008. Congress has not yet passed this request and will only be considering it in 2009. Based of the FY 2007 costs this breaks down to:

$4,100 for every American household
$1,500 for every American
$3,400 for every taxpayer
$11 million per hour and
$275 million per day

It is important to remember that the President has always requested war funding as “Supplemental Spending” which means that it doesn’t show up in the annual federal budget but it does affect the national debt- an amount that is somewhere around $9 trillion.

This doesn’t begin to address future costs including what public health officials estimate to be lifetime costs of mental healthcare for veterans returning from Iraq which Evan Kanter, MD, PhD, staff psychiatrist in the PTSD Outpatient Clinic of the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, estimates at $660 billion.

So the cost in treasure has been and will continue to be staggering in direct and indirect costs for many years to come.

Conclusion- Immorality

For any person who wishes to lead this country for the next 4 years to suggest that this immoral war is worth any toll let alone the staggering cost in lives lost and money spent is simply unfathomable to me. It is absurd to think that this war has been worth the cost of one life or one dollar; it is repulsive, un-American, and grotesque to suggest that this war has been worth the true cost in blood and treasure in simply immoral.

Let’s face it – the Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach SC had all the hallmarks of a school yard fight. No matter you spin it- Mr. Obama is up against one slick machine and is boxed into a difficult situation.

During the campaign, Senator Obama attempted to rise above the political shenanigans that have been part and parcel of politics since the early 1990’s and in which both the Democratic and Republican parties have engaged. But President and Mrs. Clinton are determined to bring him into politics as usual. It is imperative for Mr. Obama to set the record straight and to call attention to the inaccuracies in statements about him by the President and Mrs. Clinton but in doing so he ends up looking like “just another politician”; an absolutely brilliant political strategy- pure Clinton.

President Clinton is brilliant about using words that give one impression while not technically “saying” it. Remember the famous “It depends on what your definition of is, is”? He admitted as much today when he boasted that he knows how to parse his words and that he has said nothing that is technically inaccurate. That’s true, but everyone with half a brain knows that perception is everything and truth tends to often be an afterthought in politics.

I voted for President Clinton twice and campaigned vigorously for him in the 1992 campaign and overall I was happy with his presidency. He seems to have amnesia about his role in welfare reform and the fact that he was dismally unsuccessful in his attempt at healthcare reform and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, but he did preside over a good economy and brought down the deficit. I guess folks might say that he was the very model of a model major “Reaganite”- dismantling welfare and focusing on the economy.   But that’s a subject for another time.

One can politically dissect everything said and make a case on either Mr. Obama’s or Mrs. Clinton’s side. But Mr. Obama made a big mistake when he attacked Mrs. Clinton about her membership on the Wal-Mart board. He played right into the Clintons hands and opened himself up for a one two punch. He should not have gone there. Remember the Clintons are rather adept politicians and he gave Mrs. Clinton the perfect opening to drudge up Mr. Obama’s relationship with Resco which he had addressed years ago and admitted regret. Mr. Obama’s record working on behalf of inner city poor as a community organizer in Chicago is indisputable and although Mr. Obama gave Mrs. Clinton an opening that would make any astute politician salivate, it was patently unfair to portray Mr. Obama as more attuned to a Chicago “slum” lord than to the inner city poor he worked with every day as a community organizer even if her statement was technically not untrue.

Mr. Obama did make a point that sometimes he doesn’t know if he is running against Bill or Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton responded that both of them have spouses who are zealous advocates for their respective campaigns. Technically again- Mrs. Clinton is correct. However, Michelle Obama has not engaged in the sort of politics in which President Clinton has engaged and even if she had, there is a huge difference; she is not a former President. President Clinton has uses his bully pulpit as a former President to be Senator Clinton’s pit bull. His status as a former President gives him a unique platform. A number of Democratic bigwigs have asked the former President to dial it down, but it doesn’t look like he has any plans on doing so anytime soon.

I hate to say something favorable about the Bushes, but former President George H.W. Bush stayed out of the attacks during his son’s presidential campaign against Senator John McCain in 2000. It is rather frustrating when the media give President Clinton a free ride about his role in his wife’s campaign when they say it is a unique campaign because we are charting new territory when a former President is the spouse of a presidential candidate. Well maybe technically, but wouldn’t the relationship between a former President who is the father of a presidential candidate be pretty similar and therefore not completely uncharted territory.

Mr. Clinton is not acting like a senior statesman and as someone who has defended Clinton zealously to anti-Clinton friends and relatives I am embarrassed by his actions. Not only is this not an appropriate role for a former president and senior statesman but it might make some – especially in the “I hate the Clinton” crowd make a fair case that Hillary’s candidacy is actually a 3rd term for Bill. His actions have made him look like he wants to get back to the White House too much and it gives easy fodder for the Republicans in the general election should Mrs. Clinton be the Democratic nominee.

In it’s endorsement of Senator Obama, Columbia South Carolina’s prestigious newspaper “The State” said:

“The one most significant difference between them can be found in how they would approach the presidency - and how the nation might respond.

Hillary Clinton has been a policy wonk most of her life, a trait she has carried into the U.S. Senate. As her debate performances have shown, she has intelligence and a deep understanding of many issues. Her efforts in New York focused first on learning her adopted state’s issues in detail, and pursuing legislation that would not necessarily grab headlines.

But we also have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.

Senator Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.”

The only person who came out of the Democratic debate in South Carolina unsullied was Senator Edwards- the candidate I originally supported. I changed my support from Senator Edwards to Senator Obama precisely because I felt Senator Obama could move us out of politics as usual- the same reason he won the endorsement of “The State”.  I still believe that he can take us there and that he can be the transformational leader that the nation needs. I believe that Mr. Obama can create a coalition of Democrats, Independents and “Obama” Republicans the way President Reagan did for the Republicans with his “Reagan Democrats” and appeal to Independents.

Mr. Obama has been pulled into a school yard spat by the Clintons but he must return to his message of hope, unity and transformation and stop being pulled into politics as usual no matter how adept his opponent and her former-President husband are at enticing him into it. Mr. Obama must find a way to return to the audacity of hope and not engage the mendacity of politics that have been too much the norm over the past decades.

One year from today at Noon Eastern Standard Time the 44th President of the United States will be sworn in. Is the nation hungering for more than just “easy change” but for transformation?

Senator Barack Obama got himself into a heap of problems with the Democratic Party machine when he talked about Ronald Reagan being one of the transformational presidents in our history.

His exact words were, “I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times…I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

There is no doubt that I loathe Ronald Reagan. But I have to agree that his Presidency has had a profound effect on this country since 1980.

You can see articles on my blog- Who ended the Cold War? The Clash of Myth and Reality   about how I find the credit given to him for ending the Cold War absolutely ridiculous. The stage had been being set by US Presidents for a long time- just look at some of the comments made by President Gerald R. Ford about this issue that were released after President Ford’s death when he contended that his negotiations of the Helsinki Accords on Human Rights had much to do with the movement towards the demise of the Soviet Union. Of course- there is also the fact that without President Gorbachev, Lech Walesa, and Pope John Paul II had a hand in “tearing down that wall”.

You can also read how much I feel that his inattention to the AIDS epidemic in the United States was beyond reprehensible and that he has the blood of thousands of people on his hands by not addressing the issue for years which led to not funding prevention, care and research appropriately in my piece A Half Century on the Planet: A Reflection on my 50th birthday

So I am no fan of Ronald Reagan but there is no doubt that he was a transformational figure in our political landscape. He is still affecting our nation today nearly 20 years after he first left office. His legacy is one that while I believe was ultimately not for the better but for the worse- and led us towards a nation willing to elect George W. Bush not once but twice- he had a profound effect on the nation. To ignore that is simply putting one’s fingers in one’s ears and going “LA LA LA LA LA”.

Face it, President Clinton never would have dismantled Welfare if it had not been for his desire to pander to the politics of Reagan. President Clinton was not forced into Welfare Reform, he promoted it. Have the Clintons forgotten that little piece of information when warmly remembering the wonderful days of the 1990’s. I liked President Clinton as a President, but he did not change the direction of this nation. He was not a transformational leader like Presidents Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt or President Lincoln. One does not have to agree with the transformation that the transformational leader inspired to acknowledge that that leader did in fact created change.

Walter Dean Burnham had a theory of transformational presidents and non-transformational president. Franklin Roosevelt was a transformational president, somebody who didn’t just occupy the office but fundamentally changed the country according to Burnham. In my opinion he created transformation that I applaud as opposed to the transformation that Reagan created which I deplore.

Senator Obama was correct though. Through the 1970’s we liberals did not tend to the New Deal and Great Society programs that were brilliantly developed to lift up our poor and our lower classes. We were smug and lazy and these programs became bloated bureaucracies that did not move smartly in order to be as effective as possible. They became ripe for discontent for many of the “Reagan Democrats”. Add to that the jingoist American arrogance that came from our declaration that we ended the cold war that allowed us to develop more arrogant foreign policies and swagger in our step on the world stage and you can see the writing on the wall towards our march to the first prëmptive war in our nation’s history- the war where we are currently mired in Iraq.

There is nothing wrong with saying that we need another transformational leader to move us in a new direction. If neither Senators Clinton nor Edwards are willing to acknowledge the realities of our history that is somewhat troubling to me. My sense is that they do indeed understand history but knowing how much many of us liberals loathe Reagan and his legacy it was awfully good political fodder.

“If I understand what he was saying I can’t entirely disagree with it. They both came along at times when society was on the cusp of change and they are both agents of change,” President Reagan’s youngest son Ron Reagan Jr, told the Huffington Post. “As far as Barack Obama being a similar agent of change, that remains to be seen. But what I do see him saying is that we are in a historical moment right now like the 60s and 80s. And I think he’s right. We are overdue for a cultural shift right now.”

I have often thought that Ron Reagan Jr., was not a fan of his father’s politics but a zealous protector of his father’s legacy. I think his comment that we are overdue for a cultural shift is dead on.

In an interview with “American Prospect” magazine, Pulitzer Prize winning Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said:

“History suggests that unless a progressive president is able to mobilize widespread support for significant change in the country at large, it’s not enough to have a congressional majority. For example, Bill Clinton had a Democratic majority when he failed to get health reform.

When you look at the periods of social change, in each instance the president used leadership not only to get the public involved in understanding what the problems were but to create a fervent desire to address those problems in a meaningful way.”

Mr. Clinton is a political animal and politics trumped everything. He could have chosen to battle for letting gays and lesbians serve openly in the military as he promised during his campaign – he could have made good on that promise- but political expedience won out.

It is eerie that Doris Kearns Godwin’s analysis of President Clinton is not unlike that of Mr. Obama’s.

In discussing Teddy Roosevelt, Goodwin said “Roosevelt faced a conservative Congress. But the muckrakers created, in the middle class especially, an understanding of what had to be done in conservation, in food and drug legislation, in the regulation of the railroads. They revealed in long, factual, investigative pieces the way in which Standard Oil and the trusts were constricting opportunity for smaller, independent businesses. Then, with an aroused public, TR was able to pressure the Congress to do something. Similarly, in the early days of the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt used the power of the bully pulpit in his famous fireside chats to drive home to the country at large the need for significant federal legislation in a wide range of areas to ease the problems of the Great Depression.”

And when  Robert Kuttner in this December 2007 interview with Goodwin for “American Prospect”, “The public has been trained for 30 years to think that there’s really nothing great the government can do, except perhaps to prevent attacks. Where do you start? How do you change public opinion so that you can then change legislative direction? Goodwin answered.

“The next president has to be able to express a sense of what America can be, what America has been in the past, and what it is not now. It has to be overarching; it cannot be just “we need this program and this program and this program.” He or she has to remind us what made people come to this country in the first place — the belief that here, as Lincoln famously said, we had formed a government “whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men — to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.” The first and the most difficult task for the new president will be to remind people what made America so special in the first place, to create an emotional desire on their part to bring our performance closer to that ideal, to make clear the wide array of artificial weights that still prevent far too many people from having a fair chance in the race of life, and then and only then to propose the legislative programs or executive actions that will address these shortcomings.”

Presidential historian Michael Beschloss when asked in an interview with Bill Steigerwald of “The Pittsburgh Tribune Review” what makes a great president he answered, “A number of things, but I think the most important ones are the vision to understand where to take the country and the skills to move the American people to that vision. All of this as blessed by historians and the American people of a later generation.”

So transformational presidencies are fundamentally the most important and have been milestones in our nation’s history. Senator Obama seems to understand this truth at a gut level.

In my essay about why I voted for Barack Obama I pointed to an article written by Michael Kinsley in the New York Times where he said “We as a society have shown no tolerance for unpleasant changes, and politicians have shown no enthusiasm for trying to persuade us that they might be necessary. If all you want is happy changes, you really don’t want change at all.”

It is clear that Senator Obama understands more clearly than most that we are at one of those junctures in our history where our nation is craving a transformational president. Every presidential historian point to the fact that a leader cannot create sea change without being able to move the American people. Mr. Kinsley astutely acknowledges that people don’t want unpleasant change and most change that is needed is indeed somewhat unpleasant. It is imperative that someone who sees beyond tinkering with one government program or another and actually inspirses the American people to move and create that change at a societal level. Society isn’t informed by policy as much as policy is informed by society. Finding how to move society forward to a vision that is positive makes creating the necessaary policy for the framework of that vision an easier task. Leadership and policy wonkiness while not necessarily mutually exclusive, are different skills.

There are none among the Republican presidential hopefuls that have a hope of developing a transformational presidency. There is nothing inspiring about this group of men. There is nothing in their words that makes one ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. These men are really not interested in change at all. They hearken back to Reagan’s revolution but have no idea how to create their own and it seems unlikely that they would even want a revolution.

Senators Clinton and Edwards are not as aware of the importance of the transformational leader as is Mr. Obama. They may indeed be able to transform things, but will they inspire? Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton might be able to create some change especially if they were elected in with a Democratic sweep of Congress. But they are focusing on programs to fix things not on inspiring the people to change and have government build programs based on the framework of that societal shift.

I go back to Ron Reagan Jr.’s comment “We are overdue for a cultural shift right now.” I couldn’t agree more. I ardently hope that the American people are honest in their desire to do the hard work for change- but that will require a leader who can lead us in that transformation.

One year from now, I do hope we are swearing in a transformational leader. Our nation needs it, we hunger for it and we are like a nomadic tribe in the desert searching for that oasis- the leader who can move us to change.

I believe that Barak Obama essentially understands this role and is ready to take it. But we’ll see how serious the people are about wanting that real change. I want to challenge us to be better than what Mr. Kinsley thinks about us- that we really only want easy change- because we will not have any change unless the people can be inspired to create change.

We are at a time that demands more than competent bureaucratic leadership and politics as usual it requires inspiration and transformational leadership. The Republicans have no policies of change nor do any of them have the qualities to inspire us- they actually have no interest in any change- it is not to their benefit. Transformational leadership? No I don’t think so- not among this crew.

Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton might create change if given a friendly Congress but will this be enough will it indeed provide that transformational leadership we need and that we crave at this time? Maybe, but I am not willing to that risk to paraphrase former President Clinton. That’s why I have put my hopes into Senator Obama. Simply transformational leadership will transform us, not just our government.

When those 21 guns salute and “Hail to the Chief” is played after the 44th President takes the oath of office one year from today I hope and pray that it will be a moment of transformation for the nation with a leader who is able to lead and inspire that transformation.

On the day before he was assassinated, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said eloquently in his “I’ve been to the Mountaintop” speech words that ring so true today.

“Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.”

Over the past few months I have made reference to Mr. Huckabee as being a man with whom I have fundamental differences, but whom I respect for a sense of integrity and his fair spirit when it comes to issues on immigration and poverty. I never ever would vote for the man or even give it a passing fancy- but I can admire people with whom I fundamentally differ as long as we can respectfully agree to disagree and if there is a mutual respect for the rule of law.

All those nice things that I said about Mike Huckabee- I take it all back.

This man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is a dangerous man. Sure I knew that he was anti-choice and was against gay marriage- but he isn’t the only one and it seemed to me that he had the sort of spirit that although he fundamentally disagreed with these issues, he understood the distinction between religion and civil law. He seemed to say some of the right things to make me feel less concerned about his religious zealotry.

I thought that he said just the right thing in response to the Baptist canon that “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband,” and “serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.” Many Southern Baptists understand that to mean that just men are meant to occupy certain leadership roles like church pastor. But in a debate last week in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Mr. Huckabee said the position required no subordination at all. It meant, he said, both husbands and wives “mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.” “Biblically,” he added, “marriage is a 100-100 deal. Each partner gives 100 percent of their devotion to the other.” Maybe he wasn’t a literalist when it came to the interpretation of the Bible like so many others of the Christian radical right. I guess I forgot that he raised his hand when Wolf Blitzer asked the Republican candidates in one of those CNN sham debates about Evolution and divulged he is one of those Creationists.

Of course what made me see Mr. Huckabee’s true colors was his comments about the Constitution. Speaking to a not-particularly religious crowd near Detroit on Monday, before the Michigan primary, he slipped into an argument to amend the Constitution to ban abortion and same-sex marriage, “so it’s in God’s standards, rather than try to change God’s standards.” SAY WHAT?

Does the smiling guy with the dimples who charms the pants off of people with his folksy charm and who has said all the right things to assuage the concerns that a Baptist preacher would be in the position to affect secular policy really have an nefarious Christian agenda? I guess so. It sounds to me eerily like Mr. Huckabee is interested in seeing the United States as a theocracy.

Sure these statements are Republican red meat and were about abortion rights and gay marriage. But his remarks are troubling on so many levels.

First- I don’t understand how any fair-minded “Christian” person, even if they fundamentally disagree with choice and gay marriage, could consider writing limitations to rights and liberties into our constitution. Amending our constitution to limit rights and liberties is antithetical to what we believe that document inherently protects.

Second is just the idea that secular law has to line up with someone’s definition of God’s law. Who is the arbiter of what Biblical laws should be the model for our Constitution.

Are we talking about the fundamental laws of the Bible- the Ten Commandments? If so, neither abortion nor gay marriage is relevant.

Remember those Commandments?
1: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.
2: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
3: ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5: ‘Honor your father and your mother.
6: ‘You shall not murder.
7: ‘You shall not commit adultery.
8: ‘You shall not steal.
9: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’
10: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.

Well I guess we should take the rights away of our citizens who commit adultery? Well I guess that would take out most of the Christian right. They seem famous for their sleazy sex scandal. I guess we should take away the rights of children who do not honor their parents who beat and abuse them. I guess any Buddhist or Hindu or any person not from the Islamic-Judaic-Christian tradition (Never forget that these three religions are tied to one another and all can trace their beginnings to Abraham) would lose their rights. I also think that this country seems to conveniently forget the relationship between Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

Slavery is just fine in the Bible. A father has the right to sell his daughter into slavery. Exodus 21:7 states, “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. Even Jefferson Davis hid behind the Bible when defending slavery for the Confederacy. “Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts,” said Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. Leviticus 25:44-46 states that “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

Here’s a little gem from Deuteronomy 21-24: Then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house , and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house ; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. If a man is found lying with a married woman , then both of them shall die , the man who lay with the woman , and the woman ; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel . If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man , and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death ; the girl , because she did not cry out in the city , and the man , because he has violated his neighbor’s wife . Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

So in fact what Biblical laws are the ones that our Constitution need to reflect? As a gay man I have always found the Biblical arguments against homosexuality rather specious and very selective. If you truly believe that the Bible is God’s law and everything in it should be taken literally. Why are these other issues that are considered heinous- slavery and killing young girls who are not virgins- in contemporary society conveniently forgotten but the two or three references to homosexuality are hauled out of the morality chest when discussing gay issues?

Biblical interpretation- even among the most ardent literalist- is always conveniently weighted to their own specific prejudices and agendas. The Old Testament – the testament that defined most Biblical laws was written thousands of years ago for nomadic tribes living in the desert- not for the contemporary world.

So Mr. Huckabee’s desire to see the Constitution line up with God’s law is again one of those great hypocrisies that feed into hate and prejudice that conveniently extracts portions of the Bible as the final word on an issue. I had thought that Mr. Huckabee’s views were more those of Jesus- love, tolerance and charity and less about the draconian and millennially outdated laws of a nomadic people wandering through the desert.

Sadly I was wrong- Mr. Huckabee is just another one of those wolves in sheep’s clothing. More dangerous than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell because he is so folksy and “appealing” in his “shucks I’m just a guy” sort of way that hides that evil prejudice and he can make many people, including myself, think that he was a Christian in the model of Jesus, not in the model of Falwell and Robertson. That is scary!

Two months ago today- I wrote a piece endorsing John Edwards for President. On Friday, I cast my ballot, by mail, in California’s Democratic Primary which is part of the February 5th “Tsunami” Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama.

My views about Mr. Edwards have not changed- his policies and his positions are nearly exactly the same as mine. His anger about corporate greed and the problems of the new Gilded Age resonate for me. The influence of corporate lobbyists, the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the banks and the health care industry has indeed put a strangle hold on this country.

His views on health care are in synch with mine. All the Democratic candidates hold similar positions to mine on most issues that are important to me including L/G/B/T issues, HIV/AIDS issues, health care, the enviornment, and influence peddling in government.  Mr. Edwards embodies much of what I would want to see in a President. So why did I change my mind? The reasons are complicated and more esoteric than most political decisions I would make- but I’ll try to explain.

As I wrote in my November 12th endorsement of Mr. Edwards, “I think any one of the three leading Democrats- Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards- would be acceptable. There are things to like about all of them and things that are somewhat problematic but they are all smart, committed public servants.”

Senators Obama and Edwards probably hold views closer to mine than does Mrs. Clinton. I admire her intelligence and her tenacity- but although she said she found her voice in New Hampshire during the recent primary, I would disagree. I honestly think that Mrs. Clinton found her voice when she became a member of the United States Senate. She is a good legislator and has developed respect from colleagues on both sides of the aisle- inclduing many who publicly loathed her as First Lady.  Mrs. Clinton would be an awesome Senate Majority Leader.  Her skills are at their best in the legislative branch.  

Mrs. Clinton talks a great deal about her 35 years of experienece. To her credit she has worked as a staffer in Congress, as First Lady of Arkansas, as First Lady of the United States and as a United States Senator on progressive issues that have helped improve the lives of women, children and people of color. Mr . Edwards has decades expereience fighting the good fight for the little guy against big corporate interests as an attorney. He is a “trial lawyer” which the radical right like to equate to being a member of a Satanic cult, but trial lawyers often fight on behalf of people who have been kicked around by the system and by big corporations; they are not all ambulance chasers. Clearly Mr. Edwards was one of those zealous advocates for the little guy- not an ambulance chasing sleaze bag.

Mr. Obama is the youngest of the front running Democrats and has a little different of a background- it is one of community organizing and teaching law as well as time spent in the Illinois State Legislature and a short time in the United States Senate. As I mentioned in my piece on December 17th, Mr. Obama’s political resume eerily mirrors the political resume of another Senator from Illinois who became president- Abraham Lincoln. Both have just about the same amount of experience at both the federal and state level of government.

In my original endorsement for Mr. Edwards I stated “Mr. Obama shows a lack of experience and reticence that makes me a little nervous. I don’t know if he has the gravitas to be President right now. He brings a fresh face to politics, but I haven’t really seen a lot of substance behind the rhetoric. I think that 8 years from now he would be an awesome candidate. I just don’t think he is quite ready yet.” Over the past few months I have looked at the “experience” factor more closely.

It wasn’t until the “experience” issue was raised ad infinitum by Senator Clinton’s campaign that I truly looked at the issue of experience as it relates to our nation’s best and worst presidents. James Buchanan who came to the presidency with 29 years of experience as a representative, senator, ambassador and Secretary of State was arguably one of our worst. Abraham Lincoln with experience nearly identical to Mr. Obama’s was inarguably one of our best.  My piece Presidential Candidates: Is “experience” a real issue? Just look at Abraham Lincoln addresses this issue in more depth.

So while experience is a factor it doesn’t seem to be a proven factor of presidential achievement so should it be the final arbitor in my decision making? I decided that while expereince is important – expereience varies and many other factors should be considered. 

 Mr. Obama’s experience community organizing in inner city Chicago is something that should not be ignored and give him a unique perspective.  His experience in federal government seems to bode well when looking at former Presidents

In my original endorsement of Mr. Edwards I cited concerns about Mr. Obama’s reticence and I wasn’t sure if he had that fire in his belly that is necessary for a presidential candidate and gives that person the gravitas that is so often talked about as essential for a president.

Somewhere in the last months Mr. Obama has turned my concerns about his reticence on its head.  He is hardly reticent and he shows that “fire in the belly” that is essential for any serious presidential candidate. To borrow language from Mrs. Clinton- he truly has found his voice.

I have also poured over his positions on issues and there is indeed a great deal of substance to his views. Again- those views may vary slightly from Mr. Edwards’ and Mrs. Clinton’s but they are substantially similar with the most striking similalrities being between Senators Obama and Edwards.

So with the original concerns I had about Mr. Obama off the table and my clear admiration for Mr. Edwards, what factors were at play as I cast my vote for Mr. Obama after endorsing Mr. Edwards?

Is it the change factor? Maybe a little- but the term “change” has been so over used in this campaign that I could vomit. If you want a real candidate of change vote for the former Governor of Massachusetts Willard “Mitt” Romney. He has changed his position at least once if not twice on every issue. Now that’s change!

What sort of change might Mr. Obama bring that might allude the efforts of Mr. Edwards or Mrs. Clinton?

First is generational. I am at the tail end of the baby boom generation and it seems that my generation has mired itself in a partisan red state / blue state debate that will take someone with a fresh approach in order to extricate the nation from this partisan inertia.

Second is racial. I would not vote for Mr. Obama just to see the first African American president nor would I vote for Mrs. Clinton because she would be the first woman president although either would be historic.  However Mr. Obama has approached race in a completely different way than it has been dealt with in our nation since the Civil Rights movement. It is more of a uniting theme and less a divisive one. During the Civil Rights era that divisive fight was necessary to create change. Now- forty years later- racism still haunts us and manifests itself in different ways than it did before the landmark victories of the Civil Rights moement and it will take a new approach to move forward. Mr. Obama’s role as a uniter is exactly what this nation needs at exactly the right time as we continue to wrestle with racial tensions and inequities. 

Race has haunted this country since its founding. Racism was enshrined into the original words of our Constitution, the document that we hold as the paragon as liberty and equality, in Article 1, Section 2 – the enumeration clause where the Constitution outlines how members of the House of Representatives will be apportioned to the states. Slaves were counted as three/fifths of a human being.  No matter how you try and spin it- racism has been part of our nation since before its founding. Slavery is a legacy that our nation has never truly dealt with openly, appropriately and rationally.

Mr. Obama seems to offer a new direction for racial relations in the United States- not only because he would be the first African American president but because he approaches the issues surrounding race in a new and fresh way; an approach that seems, at least to me, to be the natural next step in the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Obama’s mixed racial background and his personal story may resonate world wide as well in a way that could have much of the world rëvaluate the tradional view of United States’ arrogance and imperialism. The rest of the world might wonder if the American people have finally emerged from our cocoon.

Third is inspiration. There is no doubt in any one’s mind, from the most conservative to the most liberal, that Mr. Obama is an orator unlike any we have seen in more than a generation. I have often thought of former Governor of New York Mario Cuomo and President Bill Clinton as gifted orators and they are; but they are no match for Mr. Obama. Watching both Mr. Obama’s victory speech in Iowa and his concession speech in New Hampshire brought tears to my eyes. How many times can a cynical old liberal admit to crying at a political speeech? Not since Robert Kennedy has there been someone on the public stage that seems to move and inspire people like Mr. Obama.

More than any time in recent memory, this nation needs a leader that inspires us. For too long we have been electing men for their competence. Competence is important but we are not electing a CEO of a corporation we are electing a leader for the nation as well as the free world. That role requires someone who can inspire us and move us.  It is clear to me that Mr. Obama is certainly bright, visionary, savvy and able to lead. 

Inspiration alone is not a good enough reason to vote for someone.   Eloquent oratory is laudable but it must be combined with vision and the inspiratrion to engage us- the citizens of the United States- to join in a movement to reinvigorate the greatness of its people.

Mr. Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and the webs of influence. These sorts of links are invisible to some of his rivals, but Obama is a communitarian. He believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you’ll get a nation standing up.

The key word in any Obama speech is “you.” Other politicians talk about what they will do if elected. Obama talks about what you can do if you join together. Like a community organizer on a national scale, he is trying to move people beyond their cynicism, make them believe in themselves, mobilize their common energies. It is clear that we need a leader that will stir the American people to change- not just “offer” change in Washington DC.

It was reading a piece by Michael Kinsley in the New York Times (“Stirred, Not Shaken”, January 6, 200 that ultimately swayed me towards Mr. Obama.

“Americans say they want change, and think they want it, but there is room for doubt. Change is scary. What are the candidates actually promising? As often as not, it is protection from change. They will not muck around with your Social Security. They will make sure that you don’t lose your health insurance — and that you will always be able to keep your own doctor. The world is changing fast, but they will protect you from any dire effects. They won’t let the country get flooded with poisonous toys from China or workers from Mexico or (a Mike Huckabee offering) terrorists from Pakistan. A fence, that’s what we need. A fence to cower behind, to keep out change, or at least to slow it down.

There is nothing contemptible about a reluctance to change. Most of us have it pretty good in this country, and can’t be blamed for wanting things to stay that way. For that to happen, though, will require some wrenching changes. The list isn’t surprising, or really very long, compared with the list of our blessings. We need to use less energy and borrow less money. We need to fix our schools and reform our health care system. We need to end a stupid war.

Is this what people mean when they demand “change”? Are these things what the candidates have in mind when they promise to deliver it? If so, great. But all of these (except, maybe, ending the war) will require some changes that are unpleasant. We as a society have shown no tolerance for unpleasant changes, and politicians have shown no enthusiasm for trying to persuade us that they might be necessary. If all you want is happy changes, you really don’t want change at all.”

Thinking about all of the candidates and thinking about which ones might be visionary and able to lead the nation into change by demanding our sacrifice and challenge us to unite to make a better world- it seems to me that Mr. Obama is the best choice.

A leader who can inspire us with the sort of words that haven’t been heard with such clarity since President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address on January 20, 1961- nearly a half a century ago.

“And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

A few leaders have inspired the American people to do difficult things at difficult times, to make difficult choices and make some sacrifices and to dream beyond our imagination- all the way to the moon. Mr. Obama has convinced me that he is that leader at our particular time.

Watching the frenzy of activity among pundits, network news anchors, reporters and all other commentators in all media- print, video and internet - they need to mix a martini and/or pop a valium (in Chris Matthews’ case I propose definitely a double martini and 20 mg of valium).

This is the problem with 24 hour news and the need to fill up airspace with bloviating talking heads. Everything from Hillary’s tears to Barak’s smile are endless sources of stories, conversations and polling data. Can we take a reality check please?

The conservatives have often referred to a group they dislike as the “chattering class”. The term “chattering class” is a term often used in the media and by conservative political commentators to refer to a politically active, socially concerned and highly educated elite section of the middle class, especially those with political, media, and academic connections. It is typically applied to persons with (actual or assumed) liberal or leftist leanings.

The term is often used in a derogatory sense, to suggest that those concerned have a soft-left agenda which is unrealistic (”chattering” suggesting both a preoccupation with theory rather than practicality, and a lack of real experience of the problems under discussion), unserious (”He wears his faith but as the fashion of his hat.”) and elitist (unconcerned with the beliefs of ordinary people).

I would posit that the left and the right are guilty of being part of this chattering class. They dissect every breathe, grimace, smile, tear, intonation, and body language to take the pulse of the candidate, their candidacy and then have the temerity to translate that into assuming how that will affect the vote of the electorate.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a political junkie with a worse addiction than I. But watching the news over the course of the period of a week pre- Iowa caucus to the days after the New Hampshire primary had me reeling.

Quite frankly, I don’t care if Hillary cried and it doesn’t much matter if the tears were real or manufactured. As Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania said on “Bill Moyers Journal”- she doubts that unless someone is a trained actor that they would be able to manufacture that emotion. I agree. I guess the one we really need to worry about with tears and emotions is Fred Dalton Thompson- oh excuse me that’s his acting name- I mean, Senator Fred Thompson.

Romney has cried, Reagan cried (but don’t foget he was an actor- albeit not a very good one), Bush I cried, even Bush II has teared up, Bill Clinton bit his lip. Although I chuckled at a part of Maureen Dowd’s column (Dowd and Frank Ricah are my favorite reads of the week) where she reported a comment from one of her colleagues: “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand.” Would we be having this conversation if Hillary was a man?

Shouldn’t the punditry be more focused on the issues rather than the emotions? I have seen that clip of Hillary crying so many times I could probably recite it myself. Shouldn’t they be reporting on the substance of the debates rather than the style?

On Moyers’ show Jamieson mentioned that the media have gone from looking at politics as pugilistic sport in the boxing ring to a death match in the Coliseum. The analogies are no longer- “he scored a knockout” or “wow that was a one two punch”. But rather the current analogies are “she tore his head off”, “the epitaph is written” and “it’s a death match”. Politics has been a blood sport since ancient Greece- but I didn’t think it was an organized execution.

The media have become obsessed with predicting the elections that when those predictions are wrong- they wring their hands and the story becomes the polls rather than the election.

In fairness when talking about Iowa, it was barely mentioned that former Senator John Edwards also “beat” Hillary unless the issue was pressed by either Senator Edwards or his wife Elizabeth. The story was about Senators Obama and Clinton only. It was clear in an interview with Chris Matthews that Elizabeth Edwards was more than miffed about all the attention on the third place caucus candidate and not the second place; rightfully so.

Polling is important. I get annoyed at politicians that say that they don’t pay any attention to the polls whatsoever. Excuse me? Shouldn’t you be somewhat concerned about the feelings, thoughts and concerns of the American people? Nonpartisan polling is the only way to gauge those things in a country of 300 million people. Polling has its place. It is one item of data that should be analyzed when crafting public policy, but it is only one item of data not all of the data that should be examined for thoughtful policy development.

Using polling data for political pandering is reprehensible. Vetting every word of a political speech in front of a focus group has taken the grand tradition of oratory out of our public debate. Policy should not be formed on polling data alone. We are after all a Republic and our elected officials are duty bound to listen to our views and to balance that with other issues and their own expertise and experience.

Using polling to “call an election” after less than 10% of precincts report in is heinous. Hand wringing when that polling is wrong- is absurd. The American people have an uncanny way- on occasion- especially in places notoriously cranky and stubborn as New Hampshire (I love that Yankee spirit) of telling the media that we, the people, will be deciding this election, not them.

Now mind you – I love watching Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann but on the eve of the New Hampshire primary you would have thought that Matthews was going to have a coronary because of the polling being so off. Olbermann in his usual dry witted way just enjoyed Matthews’ histrionics. But it was the “elder statesman” of NBC journalism, Tom Brokaw, that had to remind everyone to take a deep breath and to remember that this is an election that the American people decide.

Analyzing the mistakes in the polling is going to be important but it shouldn’t be the story. If there is a “so-called” Bradley effect, where people told pollsters they voted for the African American former LA Mayor Tom Bradley in the California gubernatorial race where George Deukmejian won because they didn’t want to admit that they wouldn’t vote for an African American candidate, we need to know that. It will tell us where we are as a nation in our honesty about racial issues.

I am a fan of the processes in Iowa and New Hampshire because with maybe the exception of South Carolina they are the only opportunities that voters have the chance to be up close and personal with the candidates- it is true retail politics. This is vital in an age where media sound bites control most of the political debate. Seeing an Iowa caucus in action is like looking at democracy as envisioned by our founders. Sure the demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire are skewed. As P.J. O’Rourke said last night on “Real Time with Bill Maher”, there is no prejudice in New Hampshire because we have never had much experience with people who don’t look like us- i.e., WASP. While that line is funny it isn’t 100% true, although Iowa and New Hampshire are each incredibly white states. After these states of retail politics the campaigns become so national in scope that they only become media campaigns. That retail politics is vital to our process.

But we must remember to that the primary process isn’t over until someone has enough delegate votes to win their party’s nomination is 2,025 in the Democratic Party and in the Republican Party it is 1,191. So far on the Democratic side Senator Clinton has garnered 24 delegates, Senator Obama has 25, and former Senator Edwards has 18. All are a long way from the needed 2,025. The same is true on the Republican side.

Before any coronations of Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Governor Romney or Senator McCain- it might be nice to see more than a miniscule number of delegates counted.

Hear ye, hear ye- A message to the punditry. The story isn’t about your polling and predictions being wrong- although we know that your egos are unable to acknowledge this- the real story is more earth shattering. An African American man and a woman are front running Presidential candidates. WOW! Neither are events I would have expected in my lifetime, let alone in the same year.  Let’s see your report on that for a news cycle- Okay?