Exactly

Gary Younge, of The Nation:

While the Democratic Party's interests may at times coincide with that of the American people, they are clearly not synonymous. The party's raison d'être is to win elections, not to change America. Depending on the time, place and candidate, it may well stand for office but little else. The right understands these limits of electoral politics only too well. Its victories have ended in Washington, but they didn't start there and were not sustained there. The terrible truth about the past seven years is not that the country has been divided but that the wrong side has been winning. The right has fought for its agenda and has never been in doubt about who its enemy is.

It's high time the left did the same. Arguing for policies that eradicate poverty, confront racism and homophobia, tackle economic and gender inequality and corporate excess, normalize the status of millions of undocumented immigrants and address the ballooning prison-industrial complex is about being progressive, not divisive. It does, however, mean recognizing that divisions exist and that to resolve them we have to take sides and fight for our beliefs. Unity is not forged by fiat but by struggle. Candidates can talk about "transcending" race, gender, region and party all they like. But before we can talk sensibly about transcending difference, we must first transform the conditions that give these differences meaning. To get beyond race, for example, we must first get rid of racism. Then every day can be like Martin Luther King Day, and black people won't have to watch from the sidelines.

Barney Frank is not happy

Huffington Post:

By historical standards -- or any other -- the Democrats have an excellent set of presidential candidates from which to choose this season, and I look forward to campaigning enthusiastically and without reservation for our nominee. But this does not mean that we should be suppressing the discussion of differences, and it is in this framework that I think it is important to express my discomfort with a major theme of Senator Obama's campaign.

I am referring to his denigration of "the Washington battles of the 1990's" and, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly, of those who fought them. My unease is compounded by the very explicit note of generational politics in his approach. I should note that I cannot be accused of self interest in taking exception to those who lament the baneful influence of baby boomers on our current politics, having myself been born well before the boom. Indeed, being much too young to claim membership in the greatest generation and even being a couple of years short of being a depression baby, I am reconciled to being part of a fairly large birth cohort that goes undesignated in our pop sociology. But since I do not have much intellectual respect for generational politics, I can live with this chronological anomie. I say that because generational politics presumes that I should have a different set of political values today than I had in the sixties when I began my political activity. But I cannot think of a cause that I cared deeply about then that I felt it appropriate to abandon as I aged, nor an important issue in which I had no interest then, but which now gets my attention.

This brings me to my particular concern with Senator Obama's vehement disassociation of himself and those he seeks to represent from "the fights of the nineties." I am very proud of many of the fights I engaged in in the nineties, as well as the eighties and before. Senator Obama also bemoans the "same bitter partisanship" of that period and appears to me to be again somewhat critical of those of us who he believes to have been engaged in it.

I agree that it would have been better not to have had to fight over some of the issues that occupied us in the nineties. But there would have been only one way to avoid them -- and that would have been to give up. More importantly, the only way I can think of to avoid "refighting the same fights we had in the 1990's", to quote Senator Obama, is to let our opponents win these fights without a struggle.

The Theory Behind Obama

American Prospect:

The "Theory of Change" Primary

Hope and bipartisanship are not things that Obama naively believes are present and possible -- they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure.

Obama's not ready

That's why.

Republic of T.:

How schizophrenic does a Democratic candidate have to be, or think he has to be, in order to win? How schizophrenic does a Democratic candidate have to be, or thinks he has to be, on gay issues if he wants to win? I don’t know but I’d have to ask Barrack Obama. He’d have to know. Why else is Obama touring with anti-gay “ex-gay” Donnie McClurkin?

The Problem

New York Times:

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”

The article points out that Joe Biden wants to temporarily split Iraq in three. That might not be a bad idea. Long term. It's certainly better than the idea of staying there, long term.

To Our Democratic Leaders: Say The Fucking Word!

The Libby commutation was the modern day equivalent of the Saturday Night Massacre. Even though that, too, was technically legal, it was the final outrage epitomizing an entire climate of criminality. The Democrats, then, knew how to respond. The Democrats, now, need to. I've read their statements. They're all pissed and outraged and blah blah blah. I have one answer:

Say the fucking word!

You really think your expressions of outrage matter? You think Bush cares? You think the Republicans care? You think we care?

Speaker Pelosi said this:

The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.

The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.

Wow. Sounds bad. Anything you want to do about it?

Say the fucking word!

Majority Leader Reid said this:

The President's decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence is disgraceful. Libby’s conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone. Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter of national security. The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President’s Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.”

History? Ouch. I'm sure that will hurt. I'm sure that will restore our Constitution. How do you think history will judge this Democratic Congress?

Say the fucking word!

Chairman Conyers said:

Until now, it appeared that the President merely turned a blind eye to a high ranking Administration official leaking classified information. The President’s action today makes it clear that he condones such activity. This decision is inconsistent with the rule of law and sends a horrible signal to the American people and our intelligence operatives who place their lives at risk everyday. Now that the White House can no longer argue that there is a pending criminal investigation, I expect them to be fully forthcoming with the American people about the circumstances that led to this leak and the President’s decision today.

Really? You expect that? Seriously? What in Bush's entire record of behavior would lead you to believe he will be forthcoming about anything?

Say the fucking word!

And how about our plausible presidential candidates?

Senator Biden said:

It is time for the American people to be heard.

I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Oh, gosh. That'll teach them! You know what? We send people to Congress to ensure the rule of law. To express our outrage with actual actions. Actions that have consequences. People like you, Senator. You want my vote?

Say the fucking word!

Senator Clinton said:

Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.

A clear signal? Glad you figured that out. As if they haven't been sending that clear signal since day one. Since before day one. Yes, we're still living with the consequences. Any consequences you'd like them to have to live with? You want my vote?

Say the fucking word!

Senator Edwards said:

Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world. In George Bush's America, it is apparently okay to misuse intelligence for political gain, mislead prosecutors and lie to the FBI. George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.

A serious blow? You think? Anything you think your former Congressional colleagues ought to do about it? And you want my vote?

Say the fucking word!

Senator Obama said:

This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years.

Yes. Let's change the kind of politics. By letting it stand, by moving on, and by waiting for grave breaches. And you want my vote?

Say the fucking word!

Governor Richardson said:

This administration clearly believes its officials are above the law, from ignoring FISA laws when eavesdropping on US citizens, to the abuse of classified material, to ignoring the Geneva Conventions and international law with secret prisons and torturing prisoners.

There is a reason we have laws and why we expect our Presidents to obey them. Institutions have a collective wisdom greater than that of any one individual. The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking.

My breath is taken. Anything you care to suggest actually doing when officials behave as if they are above the law? Or are they above the law? Certainly, if they are allowed to get away with this kind of criminal activity, their belief is actually justified. Is it? Do you want my vote?

Say the fucking word!

I respect every one of our Democratic leaders. I don't respect everything they do. I don't respect what they're not doing. I don't respect what they're not even saying! It's time. It's long past being time! Senator Sam Ervin, Congressman Peter Rodino, and the Democrats of the 93rd Congress knew what they had to do to save our nation from Constitutional collapse. They dared public opinion and the judgment of history. They did what had to be done. They were heroes. I respect the Democrats of the 110th Congress. We need a Congress that is more than respectable. We need heroes.

Say the fucking word!

And then do something!

Leaders Lead, Senator

AP:

US Senator Barack Obama (ber-AHK' oh-BAH'-muh) says he doesn't favor impeachment proceedings for President Bush and Vice President Cheney....

The Illinois Democrat says he's distressed by the Bush administration's ethical standards and secrecy. But the presidential hopeful says impeachment should be reserved for "grave" breaches of the president's authority.

Both Obama and US Senator Dick Durbin say having to deal with month after month of impeachment hearings wouldn't be in the best interest of America.

"Grave breaches"? Like what- domestic spying, authorizing torture, lying the nation into a war, refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents, using signing statement to undermine Congress's Constitutional lawmaking authority?

"(B)est interest of America"? Like what- holding criminals accountable, demonstrating that even the President and Vice President aren't above the law, or defending the Constitution? Good thing Senator Sam Ervin and Congressman Peter Rodino weren't worried about having to put the country through the horrible ordeal of restoring law and order.