who killed that wal-mart employee?

Yesterday (Black Friday), the New York Daily News reported the tragic death of a Wal-mart employee who was trampled to death by a pre-dawn crowd of "bargain hunters" at a Valley Stream, NY store.  Today, the Gray Lady weighs in.  Some snippets:

American business has long excelled at creating a sense of shortage amid abundance, an anxiety that one must act now or miss out.

...immense strains on the economy, which [have] made bargains more crucial than ever...

For decades, Americans have been effectively programmed to shop...Financial institutions have scattered credit card offers as if they were takeout menus and turned our houses into A.T.M.’s. 

Hollywood and Madison Avenue have excelled at persuading us that the holiday season is a time to spend lavishly or risk being found insufficiently appreciative of our loved ones.

These are excerpts, and perhaps the full article is more nuanced than these make it appear (though I don't find it so).  But is it really proper to lay the blame for that man's death at the feet of "American business," "strains on the economy," "financial institutions," or "Hollywood and Madison Avenue"?

The article draws parallels to the breadlines of the 1930s and the gas lines of the 1970s.  Are these really analogues?  At one point, reporter Peter Goodman does make a cursory reference to the fact that the bargains sought at that Long Island Wal-mart weren't exactly for essentials, but he does so by declaring that Chinese-made flat screen TVs have become our 21st century "comfort food."  

This is deeply misguided.  If Americans (uh, American consumers) are so enthralled by Madison Avenue's campaign of false scarcity, if they believe financial institutions have forced them into borrowing against their homes and catapulting their personal debt to 120% of their income, and if they best way they can think to address their economic anxiety is to buy a flat screen television at a discount then this "adjustment" is going to be far more painful than many economists imagine.

adorable!

This woman winked at us tonight. Cutesy!

Ladies, take two steps back.

Step down, Chairman Rangel

Bravo to the New York Times editorial board for publishing this today.

Democrats need to be serious about punishing corruption, especially in Congress, if they want to be justified in going after corrupt Republicans. After Rangel steps down from Ways and Means, he should also relinquish his seat by ending his reelection campaign, or at least pledging that this be his final term. Next up -- Rep. Murtha (PA).

the dream candidate?

VOTE SHEMALE 2008

presumptuous

From "Democrats in a Fight to Define 'Winner'," in today's New York Times (story by Patrick Healy):

"'Obama’s supporters are going to support whoever is leading our ticket,' [Harold] Ickes, [Senior Adviser to Senator Clinton,] said."



Um, think again.

deliver us

Hillary Clinton won't die!

"Why can't Obama close the deal?" is bound to be a discussion topic in the next few days/weeks. This is a reasonable question with an obvious answer.
Despite extensive press coverage, Obama begins his campaign anew almost every time a new state or set of states is contested. Clinton enjoys the hugest name recognition advantage ever, which is one of the reasons, if not the reason, she polls well among less politically sophisticated populations (meaning people who are not political news consumers, tend to vote on one issue, or tend to vote solely on name recognition). One exception to this rule is union workers, whose loyalty to Democratic politicians with whom they are already familiar is infamous. Another exception to this rule is [white] women.

This is the most dismaying part of the Clinton coalition to me. If white women were consistently voting for Clinton by 20 point margins or greater, then fine, I'd chalk it up to 20th century identity politics. The Democrats have made that bed and now they have to lie in it. But, Clinton doesn't always win this group. Obama made huge inroads with them in the Potomac Primary on February 12, and won them by a Hillary-style margin in Wisconsin on February 19. Why did this switch back in Texas and Ohio? The sad answer is victim marketing. Clinton figured out the magic of New Hampshire, when her tearing up both humanized her and made a show of how she was being treated unfairly by the press and by her rivals (Matt Drudge's wrinkly pic and Obama's "You're likable enough" remark are two examples). She used similar tactics successfully this past week. The appeal is essentially: "the media is unfair to me because I'm a woman. I am making an appeal to all women to join together in the bonds of victimhood and show the men that that's not fair."

Welcome back to 1992 both politically (a Clinton) and culturally (feminism as victims' screed). Nothing demonstrates this pairing better than Gloria Steinem, the ghost of feminism past, appearing on the campaign trail with HRC in Texas last week. The message is that women don't deserve to be in positions of leadership because they are strong and capable, they deserve to be there because life's unfair. Hillary Clinton IS strong and capable, but questioning her and being tough on her (which she invites by 1) being a Clinton, 2) changing personality and message every 72 hours, and 3) grossly mismanaging her campaign) is not victimizing her as a woman. It's critiquing her as a public figure.

On the topic of media bias - I think it's curious how successful the Clinton campaign has been in convincing a press corps that is apparently so hostile to her to pick up her narrative and run with it so gleefully. Nearly every reporter who addresses media bias against Clinton concedes immediately that coverage of her has been harsher than coverage for Obama. But "Bias" itself has become a media headline, rather than something that is simply addressed by running more investigative or critical stories on Obama. That's not the Clinton campaign's goal in flagging this issue -- the goal is to be seen once more as the victim. Hillary has learned that only when sympathy for her is at its zenith does her incredible unpopularity become neutralized, as after the Lewinsky scandal (indeed, she has that BJ to thank for her entire political career).

the real republican rip off

What's worse - acknowledging that Ronald Reagan had a profound impact on the American political system, or actually employing Republican fear-mongering tactics in a campaign?

predictions are in

The most significant development to emerge from Tuesday's Mega Primary was the propulsion of John McCain to indisputable Republican front-runner status. This revelation, cemented by Romney's withdrawal today, should help move the Democratic decision along, but it probably won't.

From today's George Will column:

Tuesday's voting armed Democratic voters with the name of the candidate that their nominee will face in the fall. Will their purblind party now nominate the most polarizing person in contemporary politics, knowing that Republicans will nominate the person who tries to compensate for his weakness among conservatives with his strength among independent voters who are crucial to winning the White House?

Perhaps. The Republican Party's not-so-secret weapon always is the Democratic Party, with its entertaining thirst for living dangerously.

[Full Text.]

Lots of Democrats have busied themselves with long-winded and specious discussions about the impact of racism on an Obama ticket in the general election. Their concerns are not unwarranted; however, their blindness to Hillary-hate (which I believe will be a more potent force in November than racism could ever be) is astounding. George Will is right - no one dooms Democratic candidates better than Dems themselves.

That being said, I finally feel prepared to make some official predictions about November.

The most likely scenario:
McCain/Huckabee vs. Clinton/Clark.
McCain wins by carrying all of the usual suspects for Republicans, including Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and either Oregon or Wisconsin, making 2008 the most decisive victory in the electoral college since 1996.

Mike Huckabee has spent the last week ingratiating himself to McCain, though now they are the only two left in the race. If he drops out soon, McCain will tap him for VP for credibility with conservatives and Southerners. On the Dem side, General Wesley Clark is a consummate Clinton loyalist, and was the Clintons' nominee in 2004. Even though he's not a war hero like McCain (and is, in fact, disliked by many in the military because of issues in Bosnia in 1994 and statements made about NATO shortly thereafter), he adds further military (and Southern) heft to the Clinton ticket.

Why will they win? That's fairly simple - conservatives don't like McCain, but they despise Hillary Clinton and will unquestionably come out to vote against her. (At the risk of overstating this -- McCain is not beloved of evangelicals, and James Dobson has pledged not to support him. But however much conservative Christians may feel wronged or dismissed by McCain, many see Hillary Clinton as actually evil. This is not just because she's a Democrat, either, as evidenced by Obama winning Relevant Magazine's "Who Would Jesus Vote For?" unscientific poll against EVERY other candidate.) Independents love McCain, and while they can't be said to absolutely loathe Hillary Clinton, Obama has consistently blown her away when they vote. And there are simply not enough Democrats in the United States to carry someone to the White House without help from Independents.

If Obama pulls it out against Hillary by August, things could turn out slightly differently. But since the Clintons are for the Clintons (as opposed to the Democratic Party, or the United States for that matter), he will emerge seriously bloodied unless he somehow locks up the nomination within a month.

Oh well, Dems. Better luck in 2012.





(Note: I really hope I'm totally wrong, especially about the first hypothetical domino to fall - a Hillary Clinton nomination.)

lazy

I'm going to do my lazy thing and cut-and-paste from someone else (Camille Paglia, unsurprisingly) instead of actually bother to write anything myself.

In this case I can easily forgive myself for several reasons. 1) I just can't bear writing this again, since I keep saying the same shit to myself, out loud, etc. And it's validating to see one's own views echoed in print, even if it's La Paglia. 2) I just started a very very busy new job and am too tired for erudition of my own. Ha.

Anyway, Camille's response to a letter about HRC in her most recent Salon.com column (from 1/10, right after NH -- emphases mine.):

A swarm of biographers in miners' gear has tried to plumb the inky depths of Hillary Rodham Clinton's warren-riddled psyche. My metaphor is drawn (as Oscar Wilde's prim Miss Prism would say) from the Scranton coalfields, to which came the Welsh family that produced Hillary's harsh, domineering father.

Hillary's feckless, loutish brothers (who are kept at arm's length by her operation) took the brunt of Hugh Rodham's abuse in their genteel but claustrophobic home. Hillary is the barracuda who fought for dominance at their expense. Flashes of that ruthless old family drama have come out repeatedly in this campaign, as when Hillary could barely conceal her sneers at her fellow debaters onstage -- the wimpy, cringing brothers at the dinner table.

Hillary's willingness to tolerate Bill's compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause -- which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.

It's no coincidence that Hillary's staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary's rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let's not forget Hillary, the governor's wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.

Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem's fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.

How does all this affect the prospect of a Hillary presidency? With her eyes on the White House, Hillary as senator has made concerted and generally successful efforts to improve her knowledge of and relationship to the military -- crucial for any commander-in-chief but especially for the first female one. However, I remain concerned about her future conduct of high-level diplomacy. Contemptuous condescension seems to be Hillary's default mode with any male who criticizes her or stands in her way. It's a Nixonian reflex steeped in toxic gender bias. How will that play in the Muslim world?

The Clintons live to campaign. It's what holds them together and gives them a glowing sense of meaning and value. Their actual political accomplishments are fairly slight. The obsessive need to keep campaigning may mean a president Hillary would go right on spewing the bitterly partisan rhetoric that has already paralyzed Washington. Even if Hillary could be elected (which I'm skeptical about), how in tarnation could she ever govern?

The current wave of support for Barack Obama from Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans is partly based on his vision of a new political discourse that breaks with the petty, destructive polarization of the past 20 years. Whether Obama can build up his foreign policy credentials sufficiently to reassure an anxious general electorate remains to be seen.

But Hillary herself, with her thin, spotty record, tangled psychological baggage, and maundering blowhard of a husband, is also a mighty big roll of the dice. She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark ("Cue the tears!"). Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary's real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House? Day one will just be more of the same.

I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee of my party, because I want Democrats appointed to the Cabinet and the Supreme Court. But I plan to vote for Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary because he is a rational, centered personality who speaks the language of idealism and national unity. Obama has served longer as an elected official than Hillary. He has had experience as a grass-roots activist, and he is also a highly educated lawyer who will be a quick learner in office. His international parentage and childhood, as well as his knowledge of both Christianity and Islam, would make him the right leader at the right time. And his wife Michelle is a powerhouse.

The Obamas represent the future, not the past.