Official Pronouncements: Recession and Secretary of State

I’m back after some time away from blogging.  Lots of things were made official today.  We’re in a recession.  Sen. Hillary Clinton is President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of State.  There are others, but those two stand out in the news to me today.

It’s interesting to me that the National Bureau of Economic Research, the group charged with assigning official starts and ends to U.S. recessions, waited until Dec 1, 2008 to announce the beginning of this recession.  When did it begin?  December of 2007: one year ago.  What numbers did they look at in the past three months that didn’t exist in the previous nine that pushed them over the threshold?  I’m sure the 2008 election had nothing to do with the timing.  So George W. Bush presided over the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.  Bush’s recession has been apparent to most Americans for most of this year.  Which is the biggest reason why John McCain didn’t win last month.

CNN’s recession article upset me with this:

Many people erroneously believe that a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of economic activity declining.

I read article after article in the past six months on CNN’s website how it was unlikely a recession had started because economic activity hadn’t been negative for two consecutive quarters.  And CNN wasn’t the only corporate “news” source that dispensed that talking point.  The fact that they ignored their own reporting is very disappointing.  I also remember articles treating most Americans as idiots when American’s confidence fell through the floor.  Citing the misleading “two consecutive quarter” talking point, economists and reporters attempted to portray Americans as out of touch with America.  We just didn’t understand what was going on with the economy.  Our economic oppressors were wrong for months and the rest of us have suffered more because of it.

Onto Sen. Clinton’s nomination to be Obama’s Secretary of State.  I don’t think it’s a good idea.  I think Hillary and Bill Clinton are in politics for themselves first and for Americans second.  I didn’t trust Hillary to be President.  I don’t trust her to be Secretary of State.  I have no specific example of what I think she’ll do to subvert Obama’s agenda at this time, something a lot of liberals online and on the radio are asking for in response to people who don’t think this was the Greatest. Idea. Ever.  I’m not sure how this really qualifies as “change”, the amorphous feel-good motto of Obama’s campaign.  Do most Presidents nominate people that didn’t run against them for office?  I think so and I think that’s happened with good reason.  I can think of a number of candidates that I would have felt more comfortable with for Secretary of State.  Those candidates could have been characterized as change agents, whereas Hillary cannot.

Actually, while I’m on the subject, what about Secretary of War Robert Gates?  Who nominated him?  George Bush!  Obama is going to keep him in place.  The main reasoning I’ve heard behind this makes even less sense than the Clinton nomination.  It seems the War Secretary needs to stay on to provide an effective transition between Bush’s policies and Obama’s policies.  Say what?  In nearly every arena, Obama’s policies will be a U-turn from Bush’s policies.  What is so challenging about the War Department that requires a continuation of failed policy enactment?  No, the truth is likely to be that Obama came under tremendous pressure to stay the course with respect to the Iraq occupation.  I expect Obama to continue to call for a reasonable cessation of the occupation of Iraq.  I would not be surprised however to hear about a change in his plans.  I hope that Iraq’s recent call for occupation forces to leave by Jan. 1, 2011 will provide strong pressure to maintain his campaign’s occupation cessation talk.  The American people voted to move in a different direction than the one we’ve been on under Bush.  Gates was a part of Bush’s direction.  There is no reason to keep him as War Secretary under an Obama administration.

Hillary Clinton Brings Up Assassination?!

Nothing excuses this. Hillary Clinton brought up the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy as some kind of sick excuse to stay in the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination race.

There is no reason any person anywhere in this country should be thinking about killing Barack Obama. Especially his opponent in the Democratic nomination race. Hillary Clinton is absolutely out of her freaking mind.

I don’t care how many people have voted for her so far this year. She just proved to everybody she is unfit to be President of the United States.

Obama & Clinton

A widespread discussion ensued last week after the Democratic debate in Pennsylvania. Locally, Mario Solich has a radio program and joined in the discussion. Last Thursday, he said a couple of things that frustrated me. To begin with, I’ve supported Obama since John Edwards dropped out of the race. Hillary Clinton has always been my last choice because I don’t get the sense she has any interest in following what the American people want. (1st tangent: Which brings up a point: the president is not the leader of this country. They are the executive of one branch of our government. They are supposed to be elected and they are the citizens’ employee, just like Congress members. We the people are the leaders.)

Back to Mario: one thing he said really stood out to me. He was comparing Obama’s and Clinton’s claims to war opposition. (2nd tangent: stop calling it a war, Mario. It’s an occupation and our engagement will end the sooner we all adopt this frame.) His comment went like this: “Hillary Clinton has taken a true stand against the war, while Obama hasn’t”. It was based on Clinton’s votes in the U.S. Congress while Barack Obama was a state Senator in Illinois. A true stand against the war, Mario? That comment projects so much snobbery, it’s disturbing to me. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, hardly a “true stand against the war”. She has since failed to acknowledge the lack of judgment of that vote, going so far as to say if she had to vote again, she would probably vote the same way. That is hardly a “true stand against the war”.

ScienceDebate 2008 Update: 4/9/08

Well, quick on the heels of my announcement yesterday that ScienceDebate 2008 ran into a couple of snags, I got word that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are going to do a different debate. A debate on “faith, values and other current issues” at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa. on the 13th of April.

My disappointment from yesterday has turned into frustration. At both candidates. They refused to debate science policy but agreed to debate faith and values?! This exemplifies one of the reasons I want a science debate to occur: science policy is not taken seriously by politicians in this country. Obviously, faith is taken seriously. I have nothing against a discussion about faith, as long as it doesn’t bump other important issues out of the way, as it appears has happened. Couldn’t they have done both? I can imagine the outcry that would happen if Obama and Clinton refused to discuss faith but discussed science. And that seems ridiculous to me.

To put it mildly, emphasizing faith while deemphasizing science is a bad situation. I get it that people of faith have interjected their issues into the realm of politics. It’s obvious that people of science haven’t done as good a job at this. It’s obviously time to do something about this. I’ll start by expressing my frustration with both Democratic campaigns.

I hope to see Democratic candidates at all levels ready and willing to enter into science policy discussions this election cycle.

ScienceDebate 2008 Update: 4/8/08

It’s coincidence that this update about the 2008 Science Debate is one month since my last one. In any event, I received word that the proposed April 18th Science Debate probably won’t happen. A little information: Barack Obama has declined, Hillary Clinton has been non-committal and John McCain has been non-responsive (big surprise: he’s busy showing everybody how little he knows about Iraq and our economy). I’m disappointed that Barack has declined, though I think I understand, for now, why. It sounds like Hillary is waiting for her committee to tell her whether to do it or not. The 18th might pass before they make that decision.

Here is the latest announcement from the Science Debate 2008 folks.  A snippet from their email:

To that end, we have formed a working relationship with the venerable PBS television programs NOVA, their science series, and NOW on PBS, their weekly news program, to cosponsor a national debate broadcast.  NOW host David Brancaccio will moderate, supported by a panel of internationally recognized scientists agreed upon by our cosponsors.  We’ve proposed not one but three possible dates.

The importance of this debate cannot be overstated.  Science policy will likely dominate the next president’s term: climate change, stem cell research, bio- and nano-technologies, cancer, AIDS and pandemic flu only scratch the surface of topics that will be important.  I want to know who recognizes the importance of science policy and I want to know some policy details before the next president is elected.

I would like to see the Democratic nomination process get wrapped up sooner rather than later so that items like this debate, which have been push aside for pointless discussions on image, can be moved to the forefront of a national discussion.  As a bonus, the group pushing for this debate is also considering having similar debates for Senatorial candidates across the country.  I for one would love to see Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer debate science!

ScienceDebate 2008 Update: 3/8/08

From an email sent by the ScienceDebate 2008 folks:

All three remaining campaigns have now contacted us and are considering our invitation.  They’re starting to consider what you knew all along:

Any credible vision for a sustainable and prosperous, secure national future depends on a President’s ability to capture the public’s imagination on the major policy questions, questions like climate change and economic competitiveness in a global low-cost science and technology economy, like clean energy and education and healthcare and biodiversity and scientific integrity and the recently released Grand Challenges from our friends at the NAE.  These questions are of great concern to the American public, and debating them will be an important way to win the moderate swing voters that will determine the outcome of this election.

Please take a moment and do everything you can to encourage the candidates to attend Science Debate 2008, and to tell others about our initiative.

• Email, call the Obama campaign at (866) 675-2008, and write to Obama for America P.O. Box 8102 Chicago, IL 60680
• Email, call the Clinton campaign at (703) 469-2008 and write to Hillary Clinton for President 4420 North Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203
• Email, call the McCain campaign at (703) 418-2008 and write to John McCain 2008 P.O. Box 16118 Arlington, VA 22215

Hillary Clinton & NAFTA

A great deal was made about Barack Obama supposedly contacting the Canadian government and assuring them their anti-NAFTA rhetoric was meant only to generate votes and would not constitute official policy of their administration if elected.  So much was made in response to this allegation that the voting trend in the last 72 hours in OH went 63-35 in Clinton’s favor.

I wrote yesterday about Hillary Clinton’s lies regarding her previous support of NAFTA.   If a story that came out yesterday is true, that record would be extended.  The Canadian Press is reporting that the contact to the Canadian government might have come from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, not Barack Obama’s.

Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s most senior political staffer, was reportedly speaking to Finance Department officials and chatted amiably with journalists.  From the article:

“At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio’s anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada. [...]

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

“Quite a few people heard it,” said one source in the room.

“He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton’s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry.”"

Wait one second.  Hillary Clinton was telling the Canadian government not to worry about her promises to Ohio and American voters regarding NAFTA reform and then attacked Barack Obama’s campaign for committing her actions?!  If true, this is deeply disturbing.  Hillary Clinton’s campaign has a number of questions to answer here.

TX, OH, RI, VT Results

So Hillary eeked out a narrow TX primary victory, a solid Ohio and RI victory and lost in Vermont (not RI, as I said earlier).

Not only will this contest now continue with both Democratic candidates, but these results validate things that worry me.

First, they validate that running on fear, lies and innuendo generates wins. The 3 a.m. phone call commercial and the lies about Clinton’s NAFTA support are disgusting examples of running a negative campaign. The lack of refusing the premise about the Obama picture and his religious beliefs was simply wrong. Imagine if the tables were turned and Obama didn’t actively deny that Hillary wasn’t a Muslim plant.

Which leads to an underlying problem that I see: Democrats can be darned hypocritical. Democrats have complained for years now about how Bush and Rove used the exact same tactics to smear their opponents and transfer the media coverage from issues to imagery. Democrats weren’t okay with it then, but they’re okay with it once Hillary runs? That’s not cool.

Hillary Clinton is not running her campaign from a (d)emocratic standpoint. Certain states and rules don’t matter to her as long as she gets elected. How is that standing up for the least among us? I think it’s highly likely Obama will eventually be the nominee. What will happen then? There is no credible way that Hillary could help him campaign, at least in my mind. Forget healing rifts and coming together: she’s already advocated to throw that out the window. How can she support his candidacy after she’s told America for months that he doesn’t have the qualifications to be President?

And mark my words: if by some ridiculous set of circumstances she gets the nomination, she’ll continue to campaign like this and run her administration like this. No quarter, no diplomacy. Just more of ‘my way or the highway’ type politics. I thought Democrats didn’t want that in a president. At least, that’s what they’ve been whining about for seven years now.

*****

Here’s one big difference between the candidates and their campaigns: during Clinton’s speech, her supporters started chanting “Yes, She Will,” clearly challenging Obama’s campaign slogan of “Yes, We Can”. Notice the important difference between these two: “She” vs “We”. That’s the way they’ll govern: Hillary wants the presidency for herself and no one else and Obama wants the presidency to be an extension of the people. We already have a president who governs for only himself. Some people apparently think the same mentality is alright as long as a Democrat has it.

*****

Update:

Chris Bowers has a different but important take on something I said above: “This is a bit of a mess. One thing I will say is if Clinton wants to imply that she will pick Obama to be Vice-President, she should stop implying that Obama couldn’t handle a national emergency. That is just disingenuous, since usually vice-Presidents become presidents in the case of a national emergency. If Clinton really wants Obama to be her VP, then she stop offering reasons why he would not be a good VP.”

Hillary likes having things both ways, but in this case is greatly hurting her own efforts to reach out to Obama supporters.  If he’s not ready to be President, he’s not ready to be Vice President either.  She needs to stop insulting him one minute and sucking up to him the next minute.

In The News 2/29/08

Hillary Clinton’s campaign suddenly doesn’t like how the Texas Democratic Party conducts their caucus-primary. Funny that they had no arguments when polls showed them likely to win. I’ll say again she’s doing nothing to endear herself to me. With regard to November: if she continues on this path of scorched-earth policy, I will not vote for her. I levied complaints against how Bush got into office. It would be disingenuous of me to forgive Hillary for doing similar things.

Turkey continues military operations in northern Iraq, with the U.S. providing intelligence and tactical support. This is a clear indication of destabilization of the region. Some irony: “U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who arrived in Ankara, the Turkish capital, Wednesday night, told reporters he intended to advise Turkish leaders that their incursion into northern Iraq must last no more than a few weeks. He also planned to tell them that the military operation should be complemented by political efforts to resolve the grievances of the Kurdish minority in eastern Turkey. But Turkey ruled out specifying a timetable for an end to the offensive.”

It’s interesting that the U.S. is demanding an arbitrary timetable for Turkish operations, something they refuse to consider for their own. “Do as I say, not as I do” is typical from a strict-father world-view.

*****

Update

I totally forgot to include this juicy piece: $4 gasoline is news to Bush.  Color me surprised that Mr. 29% has no idea what most Americans are facing.  His solution?  Make his tax cuts permanent.  It’s got to be hard to ignore reality to this degree.

Random Stories 2/24/08

First of all, I went to a friends’ wedding last night. It was a nice, classy affair. A good idea that needs a little improvement: guests walked by a small appetizer bar on the way to the reception area. It had crackers and cheese and fruits. The only thing it lacked? Two lines. One could either wait in line for a half-an-hour or walk back from the reception room and find things already well picked over. The dinner (roast beef & salmon) was extremely well done, however!

*****

Clinton is mad that Obama is using her NAFTA stances in his mailings. After telling the nation how proud she was running against him, she brought out an interesting charge: “enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove‘s playbook.”

Obama’s response: “You can’t be for something and take credit for an administration … and then when you run for president say that you didn’t really mean what you said way back then. It doesn’t work like that,” he said to cheers at a rally in Akron.”

I think the record speaks for itself here: Hillary was a big supporter of NAFTA in public while her husband was President. The result of this lopsided trade agreement has helped greed-driven corporations to close factories and depress state economies here in the U.S. Now, Hillary wants a time-out with some trade agreements. Riiight. Up until she’s the President and initiates more of them. This is a clear area where we need better Democrats in addition to more Democrats. Elect fair-trade Democrats to Congress and things like NAFTA and CAFTA could be amended to push for labor and environmental concerns.

Oh, Clinton said something else interesting: She said by his actions, Obama was giving “aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we want to do for America.” Wow. Good thing she accused Obama of being Rovian, or else one might think this attack accomplished the very same thing. Which of course is Rovian: hit your opponent where they’re strongest and you’re weakest. Jesse asked the other day what kind of change Obama represents. This is another area, or perhaps an offshoot of the example I gave: less corporate lobbyist influence on policy, including trade agreements.

More stories below.