Voting for Obama
When I last held forth on my likely Maryland primary vote, I wrote that I'd be supporting John Edwards because both I had problems with both Clinton and Obama. But by the time I cast my vote -- and not much before than that -- I couldn't do that any longer.

As Atrios wrote the other day, these elections aren't about me, my endorsements, or my vote by a long shot. But I can speak to my own conclusions about how and why to vote more authoritatively than I can about other people's.

I tried to see both sides of the health care "mandates" controversy that is one of the principal domestic policy issues dividing Obama from Clinton (and also from Paul Krugman). I'll try to put together what I've read about this into another post. I wound up agreeing more with Krugman and Clinton... but also suspecting that given another week and a health care policy tutor, I might see things differently. When (or if) it proves necessary, Obama may just fix what Hillary proposes to avoid in the first place, at the cost of some "I told you so"s from his critics.

My main reason came down to Iraq, and Iran, and wars I can't foresee. What seemed like a tie between Clinton outscoring Obama on domestic issues and getting outscored on foreign policy wasn't one when I thought about it some more, and read comments like this one on a post comparing the two candidates:

It frankly amazes me how many Democrats who are so strongly anti-Iraq war are still on the fence between Hillary and Obama and refuse to hold Hillary accountable for her vote on the Iraq war AND her refusal to concede that her vote was a BIG mistake.

Yes it was. I spent a fair amount of time before Tuesday tracking down Hillary's own views at the time about why she voted to authorize Bush to do as he pleased regarding Iraq, rather than even forcing him to wait for a second congressional authorization, as the ill-fated Levin Amendment would have required. I may have more on that another time as well; suffice it to say I concluded that Hillary's experience and connections actually worked against her on that occasion. Given that she still defends the decision, and still has most of the same connections, getting bamboozled into approving a disastrous war seems like a mistake she could all too easily make again.

It's not out of bounds for Clinton supporters to point out that Obama's and Hillary's Iraq votes have been very similar since he joined the Senate. However, a similar Senate voting record doesn't support the inference that he would necessarily have voted similarly for the authorization to use military force -- only that his decisions were similar once he was facing a quagmire she had helped authorize and he had not.

I remain skeptical of Obama's rhetoric and approach. At a moment when a progressive/liberal consensus seems to be within reach, Obama can seem to dial down what might be accomplished and won with a campaign based more on his personality than on a platform (though his recent Wisconsin speech offered welcome specifics). I worry that he seems to sometimes accept conservatoids and their talking points on their own terms, rather than simply defeating them at the polls.

Both Obama and Clinton seem to promise a less authoritarian/dictatorial presidency; both answered questions on executive powers pretty well, though Charlie Savage didn't really ask how they might undo Bush's mistakes and crimes, rather than simply not repeat them. Obama's opposition to Bush's or Cheney's impeachment is disappointing, to be sure ("should be reserved for grave... intentional breaches of the president's authority"?!). But there's no firm ground to prefer Hillary on that score.

In "Neither of the Above," I wrote "It appears to me by now that I'm being presented with a choice almost designed to cost me the maximum amount possible for my support." But there's also my own past support for authorizing the Iraq war to consider, however regretful or grudging that support was. Maybe it ought to cost me something to prefer a war opponent over a war authorizer -- including battles refused or postponed, rather than fully joined, over universal health care that works, or over the toxic brew of regressive religion, bought-and-paid-for media, and me-first conservatism that also put that bulls-eye on Hillary's back.

Clinton and I both pushed a liberal agenda further into the future when we supported that war. She should pay a price for both her decision to authorize the Iraq war, and for all the consequences of that decision; on reflection, I felt honor-bound to agree with her paying that price. The presidency is less about developing specific policy proposals, leading culture or ideology wars, or even one's unfortunate pronouncements on impeachment, than it is about making the right decision when it counts. So while (or maybe, if) there's a price to be paid, I feel Obama is a better enough decisionmaker when it counts that I needed to pay that price.


=====
EDIT, 3/18: Wisconsin speech link added. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:30:00 PM -- |  

 
Happy Valentine's Day
Way back in the '90s -- before we knew we didn't live in red states or blue states but the United States -- Michael Moore's "TV Nation" was getting past all those divisive divisions dividing our country. Here the show brings the Gay Men's Chorus right to former Senator Jesse Helms's office building to tell the Senator what the world needs now, and then to his doorstep with a favorite from "My Fair Lady."

UPDATE, 2/14: the whole "Love Night" show was good, including serenading Klansmen with a mariachi band and a visit by the TV Nation Chorus Line ("Stop! In the Name of Love") and a clown to an Aryan World Congress enclave in Idaho. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |  

 
Good for a grin

OBAMA ALSO ENDORSED BY CORPSE OF FDR, A BEAR, AND A SMALL CHILD IN ITALY. (Sam Boyd, "TAPPED") --- It's like my brother (an Obama supporter, but not unaware of the hype) asked me when we were talking about it: "Well, here's what I ask people trying to decide: [...dramatic pause] are you for hope... or despair? ... Are you for change... or the same old same old? ... Are you for the future... or the past?"

Commenter "Kolohe" at Yglesias's web site, on John "Maverick" McCain missing the stimulus package bill vote late last week --- despite being in town: "McCain (56.7%) misses more votes than anyone who hasn't had a brain hemorrhage this session." Hmm... brain damage... maybe that's why these guys are like him so much.

Reader RL is on to something in his e-mail posted at "Talking Points Memo" ---

I actually like the idea of a unitary executive, because it implies that there could be a unitary citizen. I have begun to consider myself a unitary citizen. I am allowed (by virtue of the definition of a unitary executive) to pick and choose the laws I would like to follow, kind of Thoreau like.

I also like the idea of retroactive immunity paired with the unitary citizen. I could decide not to follow a stupid law and then forgive myself afterwards.

Brother, Can You Spare A Dime? (Josh Marshall, "Talking Points Memo") --- picks up a New York Times item on the state of Rudy Giuliani's campaign finances:

"We are deeper in the hole than I thought we would be," John Gross, the campaign’s treasurer, wrote in an e-mail message to several senior campaign aides that was obtained by The New York Times. ... "We cannot prefer any one creditor. We probably could make a 10% payment to all qualified creditors at this point, but probably not much more."

Call 9/11!

LOLCat* Bible Translation Project ---Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem. 2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz. 3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.

=====
* Explanation, to the extent that is possible, examples ad libitum. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:13:00 PM -- |  

 
Discovery is more than the name of their company...
...it may be the very opposite of what they're doing.

The Silver Spring, Maryland based Discovery Channel bought the rights to "Taxi to the Dark Side", a documentary by Alex Gibney investigating the 2002 torture killing of the Afghan taxi driver Dilawar at Bagram Air Base, and the policies that led to it. (Dilawar was chained to an overhead wire, and his legs were subjected to such repeated and heavy beatings and kneeings that the medical examiner described them as "pulpified.") A trailer for the movie can be seen here; it was shown during the AFI Silverdocs Festival in Silver Spring last year.

Now ThinkProgress reports that the documentary channel heavyweight is dropping plans to air it, apparently claiming the film is "too controversial," despite the high praise and accolades the film has received, including an Oscar nomination. In an interview with ThinkProgress, Gibney comments:

Torture, even though the Bush administration never uses that word, they say “We don’t do torture,” because they define it out of existence.

He didn't add that they don't need an (alleged) documentary television channel's help with that. The subject matter of this film could not have come as a surprise to the company. Under those circumstances, buying it, promising to air it, and then reneging on that promise would be an act of censorship that should rebrand the company. Dibney: "In refusing to air the film, Discovery is perpetuating what has become the policy of this government: It is OK to employ torture, just not to show it."

The Washington Times's Jennifer Harper quotes a "source close to the situation" as claiming "These statements are both premature and unfounded. A final decision on airing this film by Discovery Communications has not been reached yet."

I hope they'll make the right decision -- or undo a wrong one. The Discovery Channel and the local AFI Silverdocs festival will lose a lot of their luster if Discovery follows through with smothering a timely documentary -- and if activists mobilize to protest that.


====
NOTE: I've posted about Dilawar's case here and here ("Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny.") The leg-beatings were called "compliance blows" using "peroneal [muscles and tendons attaching to the knees] strikes." As I wrote at the time: ""Compliance blows" doesn't sound like bad-apple-talk, it sounds like Pentagonese, don't you think?" posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:16:00 AM -- |