Hillary forgot America isn't San Marino

The Hillary Clinton campaign for 2008 really began back in 1993, when one of the US network anchors -- I believe it was the late Peter Jennings -- asked Bill, shortly after the Clintons moved into the White House -- if he thought the day would come when there would be a First Gentleman. Slick Willy said that he hoped so; in a tone that said he hoped it was him.

Today, Mrs. Clinton formally "suspends" her campaign and will officially endorse Barack Obama. The way things have gone for her family this year, one would think she'd be leaving the Democratic Party and running a third party candidacy. It's hard to believe that this day has come, that the front-runner for the last three and a half years would throw in the towel to an insurgent from the Land of Lincoln; from the kind of people she allegedly represents.

There are all sorts of reasons to explain her loss -- her husband wittingly playing the race card, her relying on a donor list of rich people, not understanding that 2008 is not 1992. Personally, I thought something was afoot when John Kerry decided to give Obama and not Mrs. Clinton access to Kerry's e-mail address book of 3 million. Then other people of Clinton's own generation including Caroline Kennedy and Julie Eisenhower -- Tricky Dick's daughter! -- announced they were behind Obama. They understood what Clinton could or would not, the desire not just for change in policy but in generational change.

As for Obama's "pastor problem," let's not forget that McCain has had his own issues with some preachers and even Mrs. Clinton has rubbed noses with the First Estate on a whole bunch of issues.

I think this really is tied in with the culture wars; that after forty years people are sick and tired of the Puritans telling Americans what they can read, see on TV, surf for on the Internet. Mrs. Clinton of course is on the left of these wars but much of her money does come from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, those who support attitudes towards culture like "Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman who without surprise is supporting John McCain this year.

Money from certain kinds of people can prove to be corrupting. And in her desire for absolute power, she was corrupted absolutely by that money given $2300 at a time, the maximum allowed under law. Obama avoided that, instead taking donations from a much larger pool and in much smaller amounts. Mrs. Clinton could not have seen that strength in numbers and it ultimately demonstrated itself in the delegate count. For every attempt she made to create New Math she made herself even more desperate looking.

Today should have been Clinton's day to have stood on top of a pedestal. Instead, she made herself one -- not just for the above reasons but also because of her husband who couldn't just keep his mouth shut. Who knows what will happen on November 4th, but I for one thank God that we no longer have to deal with "Two for the Price of One." This isn't San Marino which actually has a co-presidency under its 400+ year old constitution (there are two captains regent, not one, and from opposing parties to keep an eye on each other -- and they only serve for six months before giving two other people their chance). Napoleon admired this system so much he refused to invade the tiny country while he took over most of the rest of Europe; and even Abraham Lincoln, Obama's and Clinton's fellow Illinoisan, admired the Sanmarinese for creating a model he thought America should emulate.

But the country at stake is America. There is only one boss, only one President in America. And beyond generational issues, there were serious concerns that Hillary would not be running the show but that Bill would. She's proven she can run the country on her own, but the perception would always be there. Besides, the two term limit was put into place for a reason.

Hillary should be welcome in any administration (I've already said I think she'd make a great Attorney General), but Obama has to make his first act banning Bill from the White House precinct. The presence of his official portrait is enough of a distraction.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Magnificent, desolate isolation -- Juneau style

Many Canadians may remember the intense debate about the "fixed link" project for a road crossing between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Proponents tried to point out how it would reduce costs for the island, in particular the agriculture industry which would no longer be tied to the ferry schedule. Opponents were just as assertive that it would destroy the way of life on the island, laid back and introspective. In the end, a referendum approved the concept and the bridge was built.

A decade on, the Confederation Bridge certainly has been a success, but it's also had its price. The tourist board in PEI still promotes the "gentle island" but the frame of mind one got oneself into to merely visit the place is lost forever.

I was thinking about that when I read this article in today's NYT about a proposed road link from the presently isolated capital of Alaska, Juneau. While the road about 80 km long from Juneau to Skagway and Haines would link the city to the rest of the North American road network, many in the city are actually against the idea -- citing the environmental toll and pointing out that the city is readily accessible by ferry already. Others, of course, favour the project because of among other things the current dearth of employment opportunities in the panhandle -- which has a familiar ring to those who remember the bridge debate here in Canada.

For a state that has gotten a bad rap for paying its people royalty cheques from the Alaska Pipeline to shut up about the toll the oil industry takes, and its often enthusiastic support for the ANWR project, it's interesting to see there are some people who actually favour their isolation. No one knows where this is going to wind up, but for some the Last Frontier should be just that and that alone is a progressive concept.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Hockey Theme bye-bye?

Can it be that we are living in a country without "The Hockey Theme," a tune by Dolores Claman that is so embedded in our psyche that it's been called this country's second national anthem? Looks as if the CBC's long time licensing agreement to use the tune is about to expire.

Heck, even Norm Macdonald used it a few times when he was host of "Weekend Report" on SNL. Come on, $500 per use isn't a lot of money for an agency that gets about a billion from the feds every year.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Obama and McCain's petroeuro problem

As the US Presidential campaign begins in earnest today (finally!), Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama will have to address a whole series of issues. One of them is the effect the devaluation of the US currency against other benchmarks -- the pound, the euro and the Canadian dollar among others -- have had on the economy. One reason for America's sag is the fact some OPEC members are insisting on payment in euros and not dollars for the oil they export; and since the last recession the common currency of 15 EU and 3 non-EU states has been on a tear. Russia for its part is demanding payment in rubles which is actually becoming a viable currency -- which they then turn into hard currencies such as the pound and the euro; dollars much less so.

In fact, many Americans aware too much that their currency is now on par with the loonie (which may not be too much of a problem for the US since the oil they import from us Canadians is more reliable) may be far less aware that since 9/11 -- when the euro was still just a virtual currency and three months before it became "real" money -- the greenback has lost fully roughly half its value. It's gone from 87 cents to $1.60 against the euro, and euro parity with the pound sterling may just be around the corner which would devalue the US currency even more.

The overall decline was happening before the subprime crisis really hit. But having a barrel to the head of Americans with the double whammy of currency and oil must really be hurting. Traders talk about the "war premium" on oil, about $25 per barrel, but are less open about the fact that throwing in currency wars may be adding another equal amount. Put it another way, 75 cents per gallon of gas can be explained by the fact of demand for payment in euros.

The issue of petroeuros over petrodollars isn't going away any time soon. I'd like to know what both candidates think about this.

The current situation is probably a bubble right now and even Alberta has suggested (in their budget) the price is bound to drop to $78 per barrel by March of next year. But the speculation over money will not end anytime soon. The next president will have to come up with a bold strategy to put some rationality back into the system (not the least of which will mean energy independence) and make the greenback a trusted currency again. Otherwise, any good that could be done will be squandered by ever increasing demands by rogue dictators.

As a side note, the euro becoming a reserve currency may be a boost to the pride of Europeans but they're being slammed unfairly by the substitution of petrodollars for petroeuros as well. Iran is an even greater threat to European security than American, and the next US President will have to take a stand on this as well if he is to be a trusted leader.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Revolution 2008, Day One

Losing Presidential nominees sure know how to pick them. In 1988, Mike Dukakis' keynote address was given by an Ozark boy named Bill Clinton who just went on and on and on (over an hour) but made a name for himself and four years later won the Presidency. In 2004, John Kerry hand-picked an almost total unknown from the south side of Chicago named Barack Obama who wowed the world in roughly 20 minutes with his vision about the "audacity of hope." While Kerry narrowly lost the election against Dubya, Obama won his Senate seat by a 4-1 margin and immediately thought of things even bigger.

Last night's win by Barack Obama officially winding up the Democratic nomination to be US President is more than just historic. To be fair, a steady stream of the PLEOs all day and going well into prime time put him close enough to make Montana (which he won) and South Dakota (which he lost) mathematical exercises. Still, what's happened can be called no less than a revolution. So much so that the Founding Fathers who defined a black or mixed race person as being 60% of a human being are probably spinning in their crypts so fast they're trying to sink the country they founded.

Tough luck, dead dudes. For 141 years after blacks were given full citizenship and 43 years after they won full voting rights, a US party has pulled off what even a decade ago would have been seen as totally unthinkable. In his speech last night, given in the same room where the GOP will have their convention in three month's time, Obama sounded perhaps the most presidential of any candidate America has seen in forty years.

It's hard to believe that 40 years ago today the last truly inspirational leader, Robert Kennedy, was ... um, we all know what happened so let's not go there.

By comparison, John McCain (the Republican nominee) spoke in New Orleans for obviously symbolic reasons but to a very small crowd of only about 200 and he was absolutely boring in launching his campaign; while in New York City Hillary Clinton was intransigent rather than offering to start the healing process now as it so desperately needs to be. I'm not really surprised she acted the way she did, but being a sore loser while pretending to be a "winner" is not most people's idea of being bigger than one is. If she was hoping for the veep slot, she lost it and while I think she has a role to play in an Obama administration -- presuming that's how it will be in January -- it won't be in the number two office.

The convention isn't till the end of August, so Obama needs to do somthing to stay in the news every single day so McCain can't possibly control the agenda. We all remember the Swift Boat campaign four years ago and the time between conventions for Dubya to more than get over the bump. But at long last, it's over. Let the Games begin. There are millions of Canadians, more than Sen. Obama knows, who are hoping and praying for him and dreaming the world's long nightmare may finally come to an end on November 4. But five months is an eon in politics.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

It's finally over -- maybe

The AP is reporting that Clinton will acknowledge that Obama will have the most delegates tonight; but in the last few minutes Clinton's manager McAuliffe said Clinton has no plans of conceding at all later. Actually, that's not what the wire story said. It said Clinton will say Obama has met the magic number of 2118 -- which will almost certainly happen when undecided Representatives and Senators rush Obama's way after South Dakota and Montana close tonight.

The fact she's not conceding indicates means she somehow still thinks she can arm-twist the PLEOs to change their minds and go her way in Denver. Sorry, ma'am, not gonna happen. No Obama superdelegate has switched her way; in fact a handful of party officials and even some of her elected pledged delegates have switched from Clinton to Obama.

Still, it looks like tonight or tomorrow, the real race will finally be on. Obama will need to find some way to placate Clinton. I'd suggest Attorney General -- so as to restore the indepedence of the Justice Department from White House control.

Just as an afterthought: That 50% penalty that Florida and Michigan got last weekend? It's interesting the GOP imposed the exact same penalty on those two states up front. The fact that it took over six months for the Dems to get their act together was a disgrace.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Reverse logic, part whatever

Hard to believe, isn't it, that the Cons here in Canada would try to block attempts by Ontario and Québec to implement a carbon cap and trade system to address pollution issues. This almost sounds like -- no, it exactly sounds like -- the Bushie run EPA in the States, which is trying to block California and fourteen other states from getting a waiver from federal rules so they can impose even tougher vehicle emission regulations than exist already.

It's reverse logic. The jurisdictions that have the worst pollution problems, or at least have administrations that recognize they do, want to do their part to offset and then some the increasing pollution from parts of the continent with governments that still have head in their sands.

The fact is, if leadership won't come from the top, then decisions will have to come from the bottom. In the case of cars and trucks, for example, auto manufacturers decided long ago to go to a "fifty-state emission" system of manufacturing rather than have two separate systems -- one for California and the Northeast, and one for everywhere else. It was simply a matter of cost efficiencies. They adopted the California standard as the "50 state" one; and by default Canadians got the benefit of that as well for vehicles sold here. Until Bushie and Harper, the EPA and Environment Canada never had a problem with this since CARB standards far exceed national ones.

Alberta's government, and by extension Ottawa, shows no real interest in real reductions in pollution. So what does Stephen Harper expect McGuinty and Charest to do? The PM is so high and mighty on provincial rights yet he draws the line when it comes to his own anemic "green" plan.

Kang and Kodos, if you're reading this ...

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Some ideas on Canada's foreign and trade policy

As Canada continues to deal with the aftermath of the Bernier resignation and his ex-girlfriend's possible ties to organized crime, we need to have a serious debate about our foreign and trade policy -- one which has until recently had a great deal of respect around the world. Set aside the short term embarrassment. We need to look ahead to what kind of picture we want to project to the world.

We are strong allies of our NATO partners as well as Japan, Australia and New Zealand and will continue to be so. We also recognize the need to build bridges with countries we consider to be our enemies, including Russia and Mainland China. In that sense, being the "honest broker" kind of country. Yet all too often and especially in recent years, we've put trade ahead of human rights. We used to tie lowering of trade barriers and the debt of poorer countries to improvements in individuals rights and the insistence upon an independent judiciary and clear rules for corporate operations. What happened to that?

We support the state of Israel. This should continue as long as there is an Israel which God willing will be for all time. The issue of the Palestinians must be dealt with, however. Enforcing security against would be terrorists is one thing. Treating the entire population in the Occupied Territories with collective guilt and forcing them onto a separate road network (among other things) doesn't help those who want to live and let live. We must take a hard line with Fatah and Hamas, but to equate support for peaceful Palestinians with anti-Semitism as Stephen Harper has is just plain wrong. We need to reclaim our reputation as an "honest broker" before we're seen as nothing more than a satellite of the United States who supports only so-called "Zionism" and nothing else.

In terms of Africa and Latin America and to some extent Asia, we have dropped the ball when it comes to development goals. It's just wrong as Harper has suggested to give up on some countries as lost causes -- those lost cause states breed the next generation of terrorists. (This attitude is just as narcissist as his infamous "culture of defeatism" remark when he dismissed Atlantic Canadians some years back and it showed itself in his recalculating the equalization formula.) In this department, we as a nation now that we are in the trillion dollar GDP club are more than capable of hitting a 0.7% GDP target. $7 billion for foreign aid may sound like a lot, but aimed at viable projects designed to build self-sufficiency, it could go a long way to meeting the 2015 development goals set by the United Nations.

Finally, we need to have a bigger picture when it comes to trade and to really think big. Beyond NAFTA, Israel, Chile, Peru and Central America, we need to recognize that we can't put most of our eggs in with the United States. Given our historical ties, agreements with Australia and New Zealand could be considered.

We should also consider going beyond our agreement with EFTA (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) and try for some kind of agreement with the 27 members of the EU. I have suggested this before but as America continues to sink into economic morass it looks like Europe may increasingly be our future when it comes to exports. By no means does this mean at some point we would join the Schengen Area (which would mean even tighter border controls with the US, and crossing the border right now is getting to be a hassle), nor does it mean we'd drop the loonie for the Euro (it's kind of nice to have our own currency as a hedge in addition to the greenback) . What it would mean is that we would present ourselves as a country with an open door policy unlike the US which is rapidly becoming a dictatorship under the influence of the close-minded like Lou Dobbs who dismiss any reasonable trade agreement as a "sellout" or honest attempts at immigration reform as "amnesty." Common labour and environmental standards would also mean efficiencies in production meaning more employment opportunities.

Basic bottom line, we need to think big again. We're not getting that right now.

Vote this post at Progressive Bloggers.

FL and MI: ½ off

Can we now say it's over? As most expected, Florida and Michigan got a 50% penalty. Those were the rules everyone agreed to in the first place. The tricky part of course was Michigan, where it was hard to gauge how many Clinton voters would have voted for someone else if there had been no other choice than "uncommitted." In the end, the DNC voted 19-8 to accept the state party's recommendation and peeled off four of her delegates resulting in a 59-49 split.

Although Harold Ickes has threatened to take the issue of awarding of the "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan, it may very well be for naught. A battle over four delegates is going to be pointless if they only count for two votes unless there's a dead tie on the first ballot in Denver. The fact remains that even with the magic number now set at 2118, Barack Obama is 66 delegates away from going over the top. Hillary Clinton is 240 away. But by conceding Florida (the committee's vote was 27-0 to split the state 105-69 with a handful going to John Edwards), Clinton effectively admitted the race really is over, even if she didn't say so directly.

With the final primaries in Puerto Rico tomorrow and in Montana and South Dakota Tuesday, the time has come to bring the two sides together. Whether Mrs. Clinton is on the ballot line this fall or not, she and Obama need to at least sit down and come up with a platform that will present the Dems as the party with the new ideas and a bold strategy to turn the world around. We progressives of course know they are already, but they need to appeal to the moderate vote who could still be persuaded to vote for John McCain in the fall.

However, the idea of having such a prolonged struggle as this year's should scare the wits out of those who are thinking about next time. There is a very strong argument for having four regional primaries for each of the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest and West rotating every election season -- which each primary about four weeks apart, going from February to May. This would give candidates plenty of time to cover the ground and address issues specific to each region. It would also end the pointless "who's on first" game because everyone would know who's turn it was first.

It would also give late comer candidates time to declare. The idea one has to announce nearly a year or more before Iowa is just stupid -- especially if you have ideas that need to be shaped over a longer period of time.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

The flag, according to Penn and Teller

It's been nearly nineteen years since the US Supreme Court made its historic ruling that flag desecration -- where no intent to cause a breach of the peace entails -- is protected by the First Amendment. In casting his deciding vote in the 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in concurrence: "It is fundamental but poignant that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt."

As the Dems' Rules and By-Laws Committee meets today to figure out what to do with Florida and Michigan's delegates, it's worth thinking about what freedom means. It's hard for a lot of people to imagine that in many other countries, there would even be a debate over such a delicate issue -- because of course there wouldn't be any. The protesters, or even suggesting there should be a protest, would be punished by imprisonment or worse.

Or the meeting would be held behind closed doors; unlike today's gathering which will be televised.

Penn and Teller have a great explanation of the concept of what free thought means to them:



Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers .

Wonder about those "clean coal" ads?

Don't you love TV ads that lobby for a cause without saying so or the reasons why? Archer Daniels Midland ™ has been masterful at doing this for decades -- claiming to be all things to all people while hiding behind the scenes very serious issues. Consider it soft-sell lobbying. The same with Cargill ™ and Monsanto ™.

It's not just agri-food. Several years back, rival accounting bodies bombarded the airwaves in Ontario with advertisements without ever explaining what the real issue was: The Chartered Accountants wanted to keep their near monopoly in certifying annual reports, while the General Accountants and Management Accountants wanted to break open the market to competition as it has been in most of the rest of the country (the latter group eventually won; but the CAs have fought back with a new series of ads suggesting they're the only ones with the credentials to do real business plans, for example).

So it is with the current energy crisis.

We see the ads non stop on US network and cable television: Clean coal, the "balanced" energy choice, the new saviour of the masses. Take the dirty stuff that normally comes out and trap it in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for eons, safely. Save for the facts that they haven't told us. You can count the number of demonstration projects around the world -- the world -- on one hand. Only one shows plausibility if not promise, and it only deals with extracting gas from coal and not turning coal to power. (A solution South Africa had to rely on to get gasoline for cars to get around the trade embargo during the apartheid era, and CCS was the last thing on their minds.)

Plus the costs for demonstration projects have spiralled out of control. The NYT reports today that back in January, the US federal government pulled out of a project when the costs hit $1.8 billion, more than double what was expected. It's now focusing, belatedly, on offering subsidies to existing companies who are willing to dedicate portions of a new plant to CCS provided the company and not the taxpayer take over the cost overruns.

So that's what the ads are all about, after all. The taxpayer should bear the brunt, and should continue to fund the pilot projects no matter what the cost. Current demonstration projects should be taken to their logical conclusion even if it means cancelling school lunch programs.

If CCS can be made to work -- really made to work -- then hey, even I would give them back their full investment in tax credits. Even resell those credits on the open market so the company gets double or more back. But throwing good money after bad isn't the way to solve the challenge of reducing emissions of pollutants.

Until then, we need to be relying more on the resources provided by nature and harnessing its potential. Wind, solar, geothermal. In addition to being more energy efficient. As for clean coal ... prove that it works. But don't bully us with ads that don't tell the whole story or disguise your real motives.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Let's play hardball!

With apologies to Chris Matthews ...

The Democratic Party's Rules and By-Laws committee meets two days hence to figure out what to do with Florida and Michigan. We all know what the deal is: Hillary who was against the delegates being seated is now for them being seated; while Barack wants the states seated at a 50% penalty de minimus.

If this posting from CNN is any indication, Obama's people will play hardball this weekend -- just as he himself did in 1996 when he got three fellow community activists disqualified from running for the Illinois state Senate over very minor violations with their nominating papers. It doesn't look like he was happy doing so but he needed an edge and used it. Holding primaries a full week before Super Tuesday, the first legal day to do so, is hardly a minor violation.

Rules are open to interpretation, but in the end they are rules ... and even with a 50% break which is the rule, that would only get Clinton to a point where she needs 87% of the remaining superdelegates to win. Not going to happen unless something really weird happens, and we don't want it to happen.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Like so much human garbage

Consider the following cases. If you were the judge, how would you handle sentencing? Bear in mind, in each case the defendant has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and the prosecution has accepted that plea.

A corporate scion, who stole millions from his or her company's pension plan deliberately impoverishing the employees who in good faith paid into the plan, gets whacked by one of those disgruntled employees in an altercation in the staff parking lot. How much time would you give that employee?

A devoted family person who handles an average job, has several kids and does nothing but live and let live, is killed in a home invasion after getting into a struggle with the burglar. How much time would you give the burglar?

A sex trade worker who is also addicted to drugs is kidnapped by a drifter, strangled to death, and dumped on the side of a rural road like so much human garbage. Knowing the kind of life the woman led, what would be a fair sentence for the pimp?

Well, a judge in St. Catherines has given a defendant in something akin to the last case time served plus one day -- meaning he only has to serve one more day in prison.

One day.

One can be a complete misogynist and still feel revolted by this, because someone who killed the titan or the average parent would get a dozen or more years in jail; but because the woman, Stephine Beck was a hooker, the numnuts judge thinks that she deserves to be treated in death worse than she was in life. This makes a mockery of equal justice for all.

The sentence must be appealed by Pointy Head ... no questions. It's also way past time to reform the prostitution laws so that street walkers have the same rights as those who take advantage of them and crimes of violence committed against them are treated as hate crimes -- which is what they are.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

"Puzzled"?

The White House says it is "puzzled" by Scott McClellan's new tell-all book which he, a Bush loyalist if ever there was one, rips the administration apart.

Most of America, and the vast majority of the world, figured out Dubya and Rove for who they really are years ago. We sure aren't "puzzled."

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Bernier sacked; who else has breached national security?

One cannot take comfort in last night's dismissal of Maxime Bernier as Foreign Minister. However, the progressive movement in Canada has warned Prime Minister Harper on several occasions of Bernier's lack of judgment on a number of issues -- including on Afghanistan (when he suggested a provincial governor be fired) and Burma (when he promised C-17 planes to deliver relief supplies -- turns out they weren't ready and he had to beg Russia to let a cargo jet). However, it was his leaving a top secret briefing docket for an upcoming NATO summit at the residence of his ex-girlfriend that proved to be the final straw.

Julie Couillard, Bernier's ex and a security consultant herself, apparently understood the gravity of this breach of national security as she says she herself has a security clearance (or so she says). She also knows her reputation has been tarnished due to her past association with biker gang members and continues to fear for her safety -- as well as she should. One should give her some credit for returning the dossier to Foreign Affairs.

In my opinion, however, the real issue is Harper himself. If he shows bad judgment in his choice closest circle of advisors, the advisors that have say on both our public safety and our foreign policy, then it shows his judgment as a leader. A policy wonk whose greatest contribution to our national discussion was a plausible and rational argument for a flat income tax would not have been most people's first choice to be head of foreign affairs. It also raises questions as to what other ministers have breached national security.

One can certainly fault Harper for being a control freak, but there are some things -- including sensitive diplomatic communications -- that the public just doesn't need to know about. On top of another security breach, the disposal of draft blueprints for our new counterterrorism headquarters in the regular trash, one wonders who is truly making us safe.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.