Just recently an internal memo at Clinton HQ was released that advocated skipping the Iowa caucus, in favor of a stronger showing in NH and on Super Tuesday in Febuary. As that WaPo article notes, the campaign is not following this strategy, they called it just one persons opinion and unsolicited at that.
Regardless, this is not really what concerns me about this memo. The notion that a front runner stacked to the ceiling with DLC dough has staffers that think this way is a little off-putting. Moreover, the article said that this was conceived as a possible solution to Sen. Clinton's lame poll showing in Iowa.
I won't be supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary. Unlike many Americans, I don't hate her for being a weird, strong first lady, or for standing by her husband whose office shenanigans coupled with a ridiculous response from Congress cost this country a lot of clout, in the eyes of the American people. I think that her war on video games is an asanine waste of public time and money.
But this news really troubles me for two reasons: First, America is at a juncture right now, a low point, and what we really need is someone who will actually start to mend the fissures between us. This is particularly true of the Democratic party, thanks largely to Hillary, Bill, and their DLC cronies. That aside, Hillary does not strike me as the kind of leader who will unite us or who can bring us back from the brink where George W. Bush will surely leave us. This memo means that some of the people who surround the Clinton campaign think that poor performance in the polls is a good time for triage. It isn't. Now, I know that it is not fair to hold Clinton ultimately accountable for every little stupid thing that her staff does or thinks, but the folks you surround yourself with give a good indication of what kind of leader you will be.
This leads to the second troubling point: Hillary is a poll watcher and listener. I am not a huge fan of George W. Bush's personal link to God method of directing this country, but I do appreciate that he does not handcuff himself to whatever some moron with a phone tells him a majority believes. We already have a branch of government that is designed to reflect the people in a better way than the President possibly can. Surprise, surprise that branch is a check on the President's power. A truly great American President will set a course for the future and take the American people farther than they thought it was possible to go. That is good leadership. That Ari Berman piece I linked above is long but it is worth your time to check it out, specifically if you are having trouble deciding in this primary, like many of us.
I will probably write more on the Democratic primary in the coming weeks, hopefully with a more positive bent than these few thoughts. I wish that I didn't have to write about this so early, but what are you going to do?
(V's diary somehow wasn't front-paged. But it's a good piece on a good bill. - promoted by Matt Singer)
In the final fracas of the legislative session, a very important and good measure fell under the radar--SB 419. Sen. Greg Lind (D-Missoula) brought this bill to raise the age that dependents could stay insured by their parents from 23 to 25. This is a huge help to students since it also eliminated the requirement that the dependent be a full time student. Gov. Schweitzer signed the bill last Friday.
Sen. Lind had this to say:
Raising the age limit for dependent coverage from 23 to 25 and eliminating the full-time student requirement will ensure that Montana's insurance laws better reflect the realities of the world in which we live. A world where fewer and fewer young people have health insurance available through their employers when they first enter the work force, and where kids going to college may not have the luxury of being able to finish school in four years without the need to work.
Sen. Lind is a real asset to Montanans who need a little boost like this one, and I am glad to see that Democrats were able to push some common sense measures through the obstinate House. There isn't a link to one of the major papers because I didn't see this covered, which is more than a little dissappointing. I hope that the antics of the Sideshow Gang doesn't cripple the news folks from reporting on the few good things that Dems were able to pull out.
If you have questions about this bill or any of the other knockouts that Sen. Lind sponsored, including the global warming bill, he will be attending the Forward MT Progressive Happy Hour, this coming Monday at 5, Red's bar in Missoula.
If you were watching and appalled by the story about the medicare bill just shown, but couldn't find your glasses in time, it was our own Senator Max Baucus standing to the right of the President as he signed that awful bill. Now that the pressure is on in the Senate to approve the new bill, a little bit of grassroots pressure on our senior Senator is probably called for.
Remember three things when you call. First, Max is up for re-election in 2008. Second, every new election is a chance for Max to prove himself to us, again. Third and most important, Max works for us--not the pharmacos, not the richest few, but each and every Montanan.
Update - There are two editorials in the Gazette today that discuss this and associated topics.
Minority Leader Sen. Corey Stapleton (R-Billings) seems to feel left out of the process here:
Other Republicans on the committee were caught by surprise by the moves and suggested Senate Democrats had worked out the strategy behind closed doors.
Senate Minority Leader Corey Stapleton, R-Billings, asked Cobb whether he had spoken to Senate Democratic leaders about the plan. Cobb said he had.
"Is there some reason you haven't spoken to us?" Stapleton said to Cobb, an independent-minded senator. There was no response.
Could there be a reason why Sen. Stapleton was left out? It might be the fact that the Republicans openly declared war on the Governor and the Democrats, as the session began. Maybe it's because they have refused to consider compromising an inch to Democrats or sensibility throughout the session. Seriously, after the House leadership, with at least tacit support from Sen. Stapleton, brokered a closed door deal to subvert a thirty year old process--let alone the 11,000 or so constituents, whose testimony was disregarded--it is a pretty tall order for Democrats and reasonable Republicans to trust the Republican leadership.
Senate President Cooney apologized for any "out of the loop" feelings that may have been caused, but can we really blame the Senate for trying to take the last available rational action? I certainly can't.
That aside, Sen. Stapleton candidly raises an important issue:
Stapleton said he had no problem with the Senate committee doing what it was going to do, but he called on the Senate to take "the higher ground" instead of rushing through the process and risk making mistakes.
"I would just ask that we slow down so we don't do just as the House did," Stapleton said, later objecting to the Senate committee making the changes in "such a hurried method."
Stapleton said he didn't want the Senate to show disrespect to the House.
Without adopting the bad ideas that the House has lain before them, I am not sure that the Senate can tread around the Representatives' feelings. He is right, however, that Senate Democrats and reasonable Republicans should heed their own advice to the House. A hasty fix might be just as bad as the original hasty meddling. That said, none of the reported changes seem too outlandish.
The Trib makes a joke this morning of Sen. Don Ryan's plea for paper towels in public restrooms. Oddly enough, this is exactly the kind of thing that a Senator has to do to ensure dry hands for his constutuents when they leave public toilets. I remember, one of the aged bathrooms in the Liberal Arts building at the University of Montana had factory-engraved instructions on one of the many air-blowing hand dryers in three steps. Underneath the last step some inventive user had etched "Step Four: Wipe Hands on Pants." No truer words ever grafittoed a public bathroom.
There is some coverage in many of the National newspapers today (and has been for most of this week and last) of Pelosi's strategy to bring Bush to his knees over Iraq. They all fall under a title like the Globe's, "Pelosi vows no 'blank check' on Iraq funds: Wants Bush to justify use of additional troops." Am I the only one uncomfortably dissatisfied, that this is all that our strong progressive victory has rought? Honestly, I cannot even imagine that this was not expected of President Bush, even under a Republican Congress.
Most of the Representatives must have read the reports about how ineffective a surge will be and how very much opposed to John "Escalation" McCain's plan the American people are. The gazette reprints an EJ Dionne opinion today, that discusses this "No Blank Checks" plan as a paper tiger, considering modern American warfare, and the consolidation of power in executive hands.
Consolidation is really what this post is about. I am not a military scholar, and though I have felled many opponents on the blood-stained fields of Risk, I doubt that really qualifies me as a military strategist--though, I suppose it is possible that President Bush is using die to determine his next strategerific move in Iraq. I do know something about how this American government was devised and intended to run. Not much, but something is better than nothing. The legislative and executive branches were supposed to be jealous paramours of the full power of the United States and opponents for its affection. They were to guard what they had without yeilding, despite similarities of party or faith between branches.
These days, that sort of government seems fanciful. The legislative is at the beck and call of the executive, and the strongest defiance would be to force President Bush to justify our spending in Iraq (deep intake of underwhelmed breath). I have a suggestion for the Pelosi and the Democratic-controlled legislative: Stop playing footsie with the executive and grow the ovarios y cajones to take back what is yours. The power of the purse should not be a paper tiger.
The best part of this plan is that it is not really partisan. Denny should be just as anxious to protect the power of the legislative as Max or Jon. That tension is part of his elected duty.
John Edwards has a video up from Des Moines, Iowa. He seems to get it. Take a look and start informing yourself ridiculously early. He has taken his message of two Americas one step further to empower American folks into changing the way that the world views us and the way that we live together at home.
It was not so long ago that such blunt admissions would have led to a candidate's undoing, and there is uneasiness in Democratic circles that "Dreams From My Father" will provide a blueprint for negative attacks.
The article goes on to detail the Judge Ginsberg fracas and the inane admission-non-admission of Bill Clinton. I like Obama--although he is not my choice in the primary so far--and it is high time that we take down the absurd hoop for candidates to pretend that they are something they are not.
