Holy shit. What a week. Excellent speeches and few momentous surprises made for a great capstone to the 2008 primary season. It was History occurring before our very eyes. Ancient curses condemning us to live in interesting times aside, I am happy to have witnessed it.

I watched Hillary Clinton's speech with interest and an open mind. Still, she left me feeling as though her speech was less about her supporters and her party's candidate for the presidency than it was about her own aspirations. The only saving grace was that she did not insert an ounce of discernible invective or slight against her former opponent into the speech. In short, she went through the motions and did the bare minimum for the Democratic party and Barack Obama.

Bill Clinton's speech was good. Not great, but good. He went significantly further than Hillary in voicing his support for the Obama/Biden ticket, and after his comments and posturing on the primary campaign trail I think he needed to; if only to reposition himself as a valued former president and elder statesman instead of a feckless shill. One commentator summed up his speech by noting that President Clinton's speech went after the current administration, and by extension the McCain campaign, as only he could. Clinton attacked the status quo with a litany of contrasts between his own tenure as president and the present debacle of governance we now endure.

Joe Biden followed with a show stopping acceptance speech. Introduced by his son, Captain Beau Biden of the Delaware National Guard – soon to be deployed to Iraq - who also serves as Delaware's Attorney General, Senator Biden took the stage fully formed following one of the best character introduction pieces of the convention. I'm not thrilled with all of his policies as a Senator, but the man delivered for the party and for Barack Obama, and I believe he will make a dogged and tenacious Vice President.



As good as these speeches were, all of them paled in comparison to the oratorical masterpiece that was Barack Obama's acceptance speech. I've mentioned in previous posts that I've been a political junkie for a good portion of my life and have never, ever, seen anything like this speech. Not even in the history reels.

I watched the speech coverage on MSNBC. Chris Matthews and Kieth Olbermann are as explosive and unpredictable as they are intelligent and interesting in their analysis, and I was floored by their reactions to the speech. Matthews has suffered slings and arrows from media critics for his exuberant praise of Obama's rhetoric and style in the past. Too often, it would seem to some, Matthews allows himself to listen to the speeches of our would-be governors not as a newsman, but as an American. And the night of Obama's acceptance was no exception.

Following Obama's speech the entirety of MSNBC's analysis and commentary was conducted off camera as we were inexplicably treated to views of the crowd milling about during the inaudible closing benediction and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's adjournment. The reason for the odd camera work during what should have been the pièce de résistance of MSNBC's Democratic Convention coverage, the culmination of their long running primary season coverage, was that Matthews was emotionally unable to appear on camera. The man was stricken, as many who heard the speech were, with patriotic fervor. You can actually hear the tears in his voice as he chokingly delivers his summations of the key moments of the speech.

It was that good.



But how did it play at home? If the anecdotal evidence I've collected over the past few days is any indication, Barack's speech hit home in a big, big way. One friend confided that his father, an apolitical man in his 60's who has never voted in an election will be going to the polls in November for Obama. Another, an independent who is a daily listener of conservative talk radio, told me that Barack Obama was definitely growing on him. That might not sound like much, but believe me that sort of sentiment is nothing short of catastrophic for the GOP come November.

Labels: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, bill clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden

The National Archivist is the custodian of American history. The head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is tasked with preserving “precious and irreplaceable national treasures.” (Things like presidential documents, State Department e-mails, and the 9/11 Commission's research and findings.) Naturally - given the potential that should the archivist be appointed “arbitrarily, or motivated by political considerations, the historical records could be impoverished [or] even distorted” - it is vitally important that the right person be selected for the post.

To that end, since NARA became an independent agency in 1985, the process of nominating a National Archivist has been open for "public discussion and input." Meaning that other archivists, researchers, and historians have done their best to lobby against the selection of archivists who might - for whatever reason - impede access to politically sensitive national records. Fortunately, the American people will no longer needlessly suffer this scourge of transparency in government.

"On April 8 the Bush Administration quietly pushed the current archivist, John Carlin, a Clinton appointee, to step down. To replace him, Bush will nominate Allen Weinstein, a historian who has been criticized for failing to abide by accepted scholarly standards of openness".

People have put forward several theories as to why the Administration has taken this unusual step. One is that the White House is out to protect dad's "legacy" by having their man on the scene to manage access to Bush 41's documents set to be released to the Archive in January 2005. Another theory concerns the Administration's desire to limit access to the records collected and produced by the 9/11 Commission later this year. And then there's my theory.

In addition to being the gatekeeper of the whats, wheres, whens, whys, and whos of our government, the National Archivist has another responsibility. I'll explain.

While you and I are busy making hanging chads in November the REAL voters - those elite few known as the Electoral College - will be...well, they'll probably be sitting on their asses enjoying their inherited lives of wealth and privilege however they damn well please. They won't get together to decide who the 44th President of the United States of America will be until December 13th. We're all taught in civics class that the electors are supposed to vote according to the outcome of the popular vote in their respective states, but "there is no Constitutional provision or Federal law" requiring this.

After the 538 electors vote, the governors of the 50 states (and the mayor of DC) send the Certificates of Ascertainment to NARA...by registered mail. Yup. Registered mail. I won't even bother with that one.

And that’s where Bush's hand-picked National Archivist comes in.

Now if one were to say - oh I don't know - attempt to rig a presidential election, which would be easier: Tampering with the popular vote in thousands of precincts nationwide, or just waiting until 51 Certificates of Ascertainment are in one envelope, on the desk of one man?

Delusional fantasy? Yeah, in a sane world.

Labels: 2004 election, 9/11, bill clinton, George W. Bush, NARA

Richard A. Clarke, former counterterrorism coordinator to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush has hit the administration where it hurts. He claims the White House - prior to September 11, 2001 - couldn't be bothered with talk of terrorism. Furthermore, Clarke comments on the administration's obsession with Iraq, not Osama since day one of the administration despite overwhelming intelligence that something big was about to go down.

Before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the White House was hell bent on going to war with Saddam Hussein. So much so that Clarke was pressured to concoct a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. When he refused to do so, he was shuffled off to head a new cyber-terrorism initiative.

As expected the administration has come out with guns blazing. Fortunately for Clarke, he isn't married to a covert CIA agent whose life can be threatened by exposing her identity to the world with a few well placed phone calls. Nevertheless, it's character assassination a-go-go inside the beltway today as the White House fights to keep this story out of American diner conversation. Ain't election years a bitch, George?

Labels: 9/11, al-Qa'eda, bill clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, iraq, Richard A. Clarke, Ronald Reagan, saddam hussein

Remember when we had 'good' presidents? What was so bad about the last one?

Labels: bill clinton, John F Kennedy

The Bush administration has been busy tweaking various policies concerning the operation of our government while world media and attention are focused on the war in Iraq. I find this troubling to say the least.

Having spent the last 24-hours nearly absorbed in the coverage of the war I have come close to ignoring these seemingly minor events myself. I have however made note of them, and I plan to watch for consequences of these tweaks in the future.

I will continue to comment on major occurrences in Iraq.

I will not continue to keep a precise - moment-to-moment - log of these tragic events.

We can no longer hope to prevent the death of innocents. We can not stop this war. Now it is up to us to ensure that it is fought justly, and that our troops are brought home as soon as possible. Equally important is that we ensure that the America they come home to is not a nation under siege by its own government. We must pay attention - it's that simple.

Beyond the bread and circus:

U.S. Ready to Rescind Clinton Order on Government Secrets

WASHINGTON, March 20 — Making it easier for government agencies to keep documents secret, the Bush administration plans to revoke an order issued by President Bill Clinton that among other provisions said information should not be classified if there was "significant doubt" as to whether its release would damage national security.

The new policy is outlined in a draft executive order being circulated among federal agencies. A final version is expected to be adopted before April 17, when the last elements of the Clinton order would take effect, requiring automatic declassification of most documents 25 or more years old. Under the draft, such automatic declassification would be postponed until Dec. 31, 2006.

Labels: bill clinton, George W. Bush, national security, secrecy

I agree that Saddam and members of his regime are guilty of crimes against humanity. The world knows this, and believes he should be removed from power. I don’t believe that is what is at issue here. Let me explain why I feel this way.

Bill Clinton successfully presented the American people with a war criminal in eastern Europe. Then he rallied support around a diplomatic effort convincing the UN - with NATO military support for the first time in history - to depose a government, and bring its top officials to trial in the World Court. The entire thing was a sham to distract media attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Yet the governments of the world still went along with him for the ride.

Why has the UN Security Council and three NATO member states chosen now to obstruct US endeavors to police the world from bad men? Are they the pacifists they claim to be? Since when?

I don’t believe for a second that France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and China have become pacifists. They are not. Their opposition to war has little to do with pacifism, and nothing to do with policing the world. Not a single government on the globe gives a damn about the suffering of the Iraqi people under an oppressive regime.

This is about money - not people.

If that’s true, how much would this war cost the United States? It’s being bandied about in Washington D.C. that a war in Iraq – and its subsequent occupation – would cost US taxpayers several tens of billions of dollars over the next two years.

How much more than this must we pay our “allies” to go along with this plan in the first place?

Turkey alone is going to cost the US in excess of 26 billion in grants and loans. What about all the fledgling EU states to be? How much are they each costing us? Why are the poorest nations of the world suddenly so vocally supportive of our policies? Were France, Germany, and Belgium simply too expensive the first time around? Are Russia and China just holding out for better deals when the second UN resolution gets put forward?

Turkey has come late to this game, but they stand to make a considerable profit. With US troops floating off their costs – unable to unload, and unable to turn around – how long can we hold out on them. Even if they only manage to negotiate one or two billion more, its still coming out of our pockets. And when I say “our pockets” I mean that literally.
Everyday the long-term costs of this potential war increase. I am concerned that a war is too costly a venture for our economy to sustain.

So what is our best alternative?

Labels: bill clinton, iraq, saddam hussein, UN