This Isn't a Tickling Contest

In December 2007, after being knocked out by Floyd Mayweather, boxer Ricky Hatton was asked what had happened? "Well, as I said, this isn’t a tickling contest," he said.

I think that is true of the democratic primary contest, as well. A number of good candidates, who could have made good presidents, have been knocked out of the contest.

Today the candidate who seemed to best represent the progressive and liberal wings of the democratic party is dropping out of the contest. I am confident that John Edwards will continue to advocate for social justice, through the democratic convention and the 2008 election. I hope that he will be the next US Attorney General, because I am convinced that is the position where he could best continue to advocate for social justice in the land.

The contest now is between two candidates: Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. As we move closer to Super Tuesday, there are important events taking place. Both Obama and Clinton are getting important and impressive endorsements. It may be that in time John Edwards will endorse one of the two remaining democrats.

It is possibly that the contest between Obama and Clinton will continue to be ugly. The supporters from both camps feel that the other candidate is primarily responsible for the problems. The issue was highlighted by reports in the media of Senator Edward Kennedy calling former President Bill Clinton to request that he stop bringing the issue of race into the contest.

Senator Kennedy has since publicly endorsed Barack Obama. In large part, this was because Ted decided that Hillary Clinton can not win in the general election. He based this on two issues: (a) Senator Clinton’s high negatives; and (b) the Clinton campaign’s divisive tactics.

The Clinton campaign has been fully aware of her high negatives. They are confident that Senator Clinton can win the general election despite the negatives. They are also aware of the potential for damaged relationships before the convention, but believe that this is part of the primary process, and that the party will come together in the fall.

Since Senator Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama, other interests in the democratic party have accused him of betraying them. Of note is a harsh statement issued by some members of NOW.

The truth is that internal fighting has led to bitterness which has prevented the party from uniting in the past. We have had examples of in-fighting during primaries divide us, such as in 1968, the year which the current primary contests seems to most closely resemble.

This isn’t a tickling contest, but it does not have to be a bloody brawl. We should be able to have civil, rational discussions about the issues that are the most important to us. That doesn’t mean we will agree on every issue or either candidate. But we can move ahead in an attempt to find common ground. If we can’t try to do that now, it will become harder to do at the convention or in the general election.

The Emerald Thread

"All of us of Irish descent are bound together by the ties that come from a common experience; experience that may exist only in memories and in legend but which is real enough to those who possess it. The special contribution of the Irish, I believe – the emerald thread that runs through the tapestry of their past – has been the constancy, the endurance, the faith that they displayed through endless centuries of foreign oppression –centuries in which even the most rudimentary religious and civil rights were denied to them – centuries in which their mass destruction by poverty, disease, and starvation were ignored by their conquerors." – Senator John F. Kennedy; 1957

Today was a special day for those of us who went through that period of time known as "the Sixties." We had an experience this day which brought back memories of the promise of that young president John F. Kennedy; the power of ideas as presented by a young man named Malcolm X; the gospel – or "good news" – preached by a young minister named Martin Luther King, Jr.; and the passion for justice expressed by a youthful Robert F. Kennedy.

Our hearts beat faster on this day, when we had those memories brought back by Senator Edward Kennedy, who has been in the US Senate since 1962. His oldest brother died in WW2, and then JFK and RFK were killed when he was a young Senator. Yet he has continued to fight the Good Fight since. As the second-longest serving Senator today, Ted is the beloved Old Lion of the democratic party.

There are many today who only know of these legendary figures-- John, Malcolm, Martin, Robert, and the others who struggled in that Era of Hope -- from the text books and film clips. Today, they were able to experience what we experienced yesterday.

A person need not be a supporter of Senator Barack Obama to appreciate the power of today. Three of the adult children of Senator Robert Kennedy have endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton, and many people recognize that former Senator John Edwards is carrying on the struggle of RFK from 1966 to ’68. Our democratic family can, like the Kennedy family, respect that there are three good choices for the nominee of our party in 2008.

We must fight the Good Fight. Our dream did not die on the battle field of Dallas, or the Teresa, in Memphis, or Los Angeles. It did not die on an Ohio campus in May of 1970. No, for as a line that Martin loved to quote states– from William Cullen Bryant’s poem, "The Battle-Field" – "Truth crushed to earth will rise again."

We have seen the dream damaged, and endured the corrupt years of Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Cheney. But we have survived, much as that young Senator Kennedy noted that the Irish had survived. And that truth that was crushed to the earth turned to seed, and a new and powerful branch is growing today.

When I listened to Patrick and Caroline speaking today, I remembered when my favorite politician used to quote Tennyson: "Come my friend, ‘tis not too late to seek a newer world."

Nine Days

"There are those who regard this history of past strife and exile as better forgotten. But, to use the phrase of Yeats, let us not casually reduce ‘that great past to a trouble of fools,’ for we need not feel the bitterness of the past to discover its meaning for the present and the future." – John F. Kennedy, 1963.

{1} Hillary Clinton: A few years ago, my brother-in-law and I drove to the village of Sidney, NY. Senator Clinton was making an unannounced stop there, to meet behind closed doors with area business leaders, before heading to Binghamton for a large public meeting. We wanted to discuss a couple of issues with Senator Clinton, and figured it might be more better to try to speak to her in an informal setting.

Senator Clinton took the time to meet with a small group of people for about an hour. First she spoke to the group, taking questions, and just speaking off the cuff. I had a chance to talk to her after that, about two topics of interest to me (the Plame scandal and the EPA). No newspaper reporters, no television cameras. Just a US Senator taking the time to have a conversation with people, because she was interested in what they had to say.

When people say that Hillary Clinton is just a corporate politician, who is not very different from the republicans, and that she doesn’t care about the "common folk," I know that they are wrong.
{2} Barack Obama: When Senator Obama spoke last night, after his victory in the South Carolina primary, it was more than the typical politician’s speech in a primary campaign. In a very real sense, it is too bad that the message he delivered was in the context of a victory speech, because it makes it likely that it will be ignored by those who most need to hear it.

The people who support one of the other democrats in the race, or who reject Obama for other reasons, would benefit from listening to that message with an open mind. That does not mean that they need to switch and become Obama supporters before Super Tuesday. In fact, that is the type of thing that should be removed from our thinking before we listen to Senator Obama’s speech: it deserves our attention beyond "politics."

Gandhi said that "truth never damages a just cause." The same cannot be said of some of the tactics used by campaign strategists. There are those who will attempt to spin Senator Obama’s message in a negative way. I prefer to listen to people like Caroline Kennedy, who are invested in the just cause of repairing our Constitutional democracy.

{3} John Edwards: As we watched the results of the South Carolina primary being reported on MSNBC and CNN last night, my son asked why John Edwards was not getting more votes than he is? He said it doesn’t seem fair, because Edwards is campaigning on the issues that should be the most important for the American people who reject the damage done to this country by Bush and Cheney.

Life is not fair, I reminded him. But isn’t that more reason to support a candidate who has worked so hard to represent those people who have been treated unfairly, he asked? This will be the first election that he will be able to vote in, and as a citizen as well as a parent, I welcome the interest and the energy of his generation.

This is a fascinating primary for anyone participating in their first election. We are witnessing history, and it may be that a primary that involves a black man and a white woman being given this serious of consideration for president will overlook Edwards’s qualifications and passion. Yet John Edwards is in a unique position, because even if he decides to withdraw from the contest, his endorsement would be perhaps the single most important in the nation at this time.

The Clinton Melodrama

(NOTE: This is an essay I posted on the Democratic Underground political discussion forum.)

{1} "Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed."
--Mao Zedong; 1938

Yesterday I posted an essay about Senator Barack Obama’s difficult campaign choices ("Hamlet’s Soliloquy"). I thought that it might be of interest to those DUers who, even if they endorse one candidate or another, appreciated the complexities of the primary season. Today I am hoping to spark some interest in a discussion of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

As the South Carolina vote approaches, Senator Clinton has opted to spend time outside of the state. She has been represented there by her capable daughter, Chelsea, and by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Much of the media attention – and debating on DU – has focused on the role of President Clinton. Indeed, my piece on Senator Obama had to do with his options for responding to Bill Clinton’s attacks.

Hillary and Bill Clinton represent, as much as any democratic politicians, the concept that politics is war. Frequently, like their republican counterparts, they are viewed as ruthless in their campaign tactics. One may question if this reputation is fair, but not that it is part of the public perception of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

{2} "There is an evident disjunction between the media people, who are obsessed with the scandals and many of whom manifest deep dislike for Clinton, and the ordinary people, who may gulp in the endless flow of stories but still like Clinton, want him to stay on as President and wish the scandals would go away. His approval rating for presidential performance remains high, even as his character and morals seem to be heading towards a free fall. Blacks are especially united and vehement in his support."
--Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; Journals; September 19, 1998

In their attempts to sell their product, and to influence the public’s perception, the news media often presents issues in rather shallow, stark, and black-versus-white terms. This method generally works best for communicating with republicans. However, there are also many non-republican citizens who limit their thinking to binary options.

Bill Clinton is a prime example of a person who is often portrayed in the media in good-versus-bad terms. The former president makes a fascinating study at the severe limitations of these attempts to define him, and the way democrats tend to view him. Let’s take a look at why.

Clinton is a complex figure. His public life can be broken into at least five phases: the young man who was a student not only in college, but who studied the system closely; the young politician who showed the ability to move from the state level to the national field; the candidate for president; the president; and, of course, the former president.

Like all human beings, Bill Clinton is a mixture of good and bad qualities. Being a high-functioning person, Clinton’s range for both good and bad has stood out from the average person’s. Unlike the average person, however, a significant portion of Bill Clinton’s adult life has been viewed through the lens of the corporate media. Again, this results in a percentage of the public – including both democrats and republicans – seeing Clinton in rather concrete terms: he becomes their projection of a super hero or a fraudulent villain.

Discussions with those who think in concrete terms are often difficult, because they lack the capacity to see that Bill Clinton is both good and bad. That includes Bill the man, Bill the politician, and Bill on the campaign trail today.

On the internet today, some of the Clinton campaign supporters have pointed to a poll that indicates Bill Clinton enjoys a 70% approval rating among democrats in South Carolina as evidence that his anti-Obama rhetoric has not offended black voters. This is concrete thinking: it leaves no room for the many voters who like Bill Clinton, but do not think his recent behavior is dignified.

{3} "All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs."
--Enoch Powell; 1977

I never cared for the conservative British academic and politician Powell, and quote him here because of the timing. When US citizens think of 1977, it was at a time when the republican party had been damaged by the crimes and humiliation of Richard Nixon. And, as historian Robert Dallek pointed out, Nixon was a true "comeback kid" long before Bill Clinton was.

Liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., considered Nixon the worst president ever. Schlesinger had started his classic work on impeachment, "The Imperial Presidency," before events unfolded to force Nixon’s resignation. Arthur felt that Nixon’s good qualities were overshadowed by his criminal nature. Yet he understood that no one was either all good or all bad.

In his next book, "Robert Kennedy and his times," he included Jules Feiffer’s classic 1967 cartoon about the "Bobby twins." The six panels compared the "good Bobby," who was a courageous reformer, civil libertarian, and civil rights advocate, with the "bad Bobby," who made deals, appointed racist judges, and approved wire taps. It ended by saying, "If you want one Bobby to be your president, you will have to take both … because Bobbies are widely noted for their family unity." (page 868)

In terms of Clinton’s problems, Schlesinger wrote in his private journal: "If Clinton is forced to resign, it will be because of self-inflicted wounds." Still, Schlesinger was among the academics who testified before congress on the inappropriateness of efforts to impeach Clinton. Arthur was subjected to vicious attacks by the self-righteous South Carolina Representative Bob Inglis at the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution ("That is typical of these sophisticated people. It is Schlesinger’s view that you can lie as you choose because it doesn’t matter. Lie, lie, lie – that is what Schlesinger advocates! …. But we simple, unsophisticated people down in South Carolina believe in telling the truth.").

Other examples of simplistic, dishonest reporting of Arthur’s position came from journalists including Christopher Hitchens and Michael Steinberger. As too often is the case, the media made it a black-versus-white issue, as if because he opposed impeachment, that Schlesinger was okaying Clinton’s personal baggage.

It is interesting to note that Clinton, who has falsely accused Barack Obama of approving of the policies of Ronald Reagan, was the first President to actively seek the advice of Richard Nixon on the issues involving Russia. It was Clinton who was both intelligent enough and decent enough to recognize that, although he did not approve of Watergate, that Nixon had some valuable insight on foreign affairs.

It is ironic that Clinton’s attempt to heal some of the growing divides between the political parties by showing Nixon a degree of respect, would not register with the concrete-thinking rabid republicans. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was largely done as an attempt to get revenge for Nixon’s being disgraced.

{4} "It is an easy thing for one whose foot
Is outside of calamity
To give advice and to rebuke the sufferer."
--Aeschylus; Prometheus Bound

Richard Nixon told people that once a man has been in the seat of power known as the Oval Office, he will spend much of his later life wishing he were the president again. One suspects that this is something that Bill Clinton could relate to. Surely, if the law had allowed it, President Clinton would have been easily re-elected in 2000.

However, it is Hillary Clinton who is running for the democratic nomination in 2008. It is up to Senator Clinton to make the decisions about to what extent Bill Clinton will go on the attack against Barack Obama after tomorrow’s South Carolina primary.

The issues involve things that go far deeper than the reactions of Obama supporters to some of the provocative things President Clinton has been saying. Some of them are part of the usual give-and-take of the sport of politics. And some of the things he has said have been offensive to people – including but not limited to black democrats – who like Bill, but are unhappy with his behavior.

It may be that he believes this is war without bloodshed, and that after the democratic convention, all will be forgotten or forgiven. But there are a growing number of neutral democrats who are requesting Bill Clinton to stop what he is doing, because there can be long-term consequences.

If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, and then the general election, having Bill Clinton as a resource will be a huge advantage. His grasp of international politics, and his already well-established relationship with foreign leaders, is significant. But that does not mean that Hillary Clinton does not need to give close examination to the negative potential that Good Bill’s twin, Bad Bill, brings. Because, as we know, the Clintons are widely known for their family loyalty.

Hamlet's Soliloquy

(Note: This is an essay I posted on the Democratic Undergound political discussion forum.)

{1} To be or not to be, that is the question;Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,And by opposing, end them.
--Hamlet

There have been a few interesting threads in DU:GD-P regarding how Senator Barack Obama can best respond to some of the slings and arrows being aimed at him from the Hillary Clinton campaign staff. This issue is of particular interest in light of the increasing attacks by former President Bill Clinton.

After Barack Obama delivered the word at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I can remember one particular DU discussion thread. On it, I wrote that I was reminded of a story that Malcolm X had told years earlier. The convention was being held at the FleetCenter in Boston (which I believe is now known as the Banknorth Garden), not far from where Malcolm had spent time.

"I was the invited speaker at the Harvard Law School Forum," Malcolm noted on page 293 of his autobiography. "I happened to glance through a window. Abruptly, I realized that I was looking in the direction of the apartment house that was my old burglary gang’s hideout."

And on page 387, Malcolm says, "My greatest lack has been, I believe, that I don’t have the kind of academic education I wish I had been able to get – to have been a lawyer, perhaps. I do believe that I might have made a good lawyer."

My feeling in 2004, upon listening to Barack Obama, was that I had heard something similar to what a Harvard educated attorney named Malcolm might have said to this nation. Four years later, fully aware that a post about Shakespeare and the 2008 democratic primary is almost sure to sink to the bottom of the angry DU debates, I thought I’d still try this.

{2} "I do not know
Why yet I live to say ‘this thing’s to do,’
Sith I cause, and will, and strength, and means
To do’t. Examples gross as earth exhort me."
--Hamlet

During the 2004 campaign, Senator John Kerry seemed to hesitate before responding to the slings and arrows of a group known as the Swift Boat Liars. At that time, I compared him to Hamlet, and suggested that he should read Minister Malcolm X’s take on this issue from a speech at the Harvard Law School. Other DUers have a variety of opinions on the issue today, just as they did four years ago. I consider it a valuable example for Senator Obama to consider as he decides how best to respond to the charges being made by former President Clinton.

It is important to recognize that this lesson can be applied to both a primary and general election campaign. In the 1968 republican primary, NYS Governor Nelson Rockefeller earned the sobriquet "The Hamlet of Fifth Avenue" as a result of his politically fatal inability to make a firm decision. (John K. Hutchens’ Book of the Month Club review of "An American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968"; 1969)

Rockefeller was being advised by two men: Emmett John Hughes, a democrat who wrote speeches for Eisenhower in the White House (see his classic "The Ordeal of Power"); and George Hinman, who had been an attorney in Binghamton, NY, a few miles away from where I live. (One of my uncles was Rockefeller’s head of security when he traveled outside of Albany.)

Richard Nixon, the former vice president and political machine technician, made bold moves in the ’68 republican primary. Rockefeller hesitated and was left behind.

"Why now, blow wind, swell billow, and swim bark!
The storm is up, and all is on the hazard."
--Julius Casear; (William Shakespeare)

There was a DU:GD-P thread today reminded me of Archie Epps’ classiv "Malcolm X: Speeches at Harvard." Epps notes that those with communication skills use imagery to plant ideas in the minds of those in their audience. Certainly, this is true of what President Clinton is attempting to do with his attacks on Barack Obama. The use of these images has been described as an "act in which the code of names by which (we) simplify or interpret reality. These names shape our relationship with our fellows. They prepare us for some function and against others, for or against the person representing these functions. Call a man a villain, and you have the choice of either attacking or cringing." (Kenneth Burke; Attitudes Toward History; Boston; 1961; page 4)

John Illo compared Malcolm X’s speaking ability to "poeticized logic, logic revised by the creative and critical imagination recalling original ideas." (John Illo; The Rhetoric of Malcolm X; Columbia University Forum; 1966; page 5) I’ll close with a single paragraph of Malcolm’s December 16, 1964 speech at Harvard:

"There was another man back in history whom I read about once, an old friend of mine whose name was Hamlet, who confronted, in a sense, the same thing our people are confronting here in America. Hamlet was debating whether ‘To be or not to be’ – that was the question. He was trying to decide whether it was ‘nobler in the mind to suffer --peacefully-- the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,’ or whether it was nobler ‘to take up arms’ and oppose them. I think his little soliloquy answers itself. As long as you sit around suffering the slings and arrows and are afraid to use some slings and arrows yourself, you’ll continue to suffer." (Epps; page 175)

If Barack Obama fails to respond to President Clinton’s attacks, his opponents will define him as "weak" in the public’s mind, as so defined by Ken Burke 47 years ago. And if Senator Obama merely reacts on a tit-for-tat level, he will be defined as an angry politician. Instead, he needs to point out the errors in Bill Clinton’s charges, and define them as part of the former president’s pattern of distorting the truth.

A Testament of Hope

As we approach the democratic primary in South Carolina, just a short time after Martin Luther King Day, I thought it might be interesting to look back at a couple of paragraphs from this essay. Martin’s "A Testament of Hope" was published posthumously, and perhaps for that reason, has too often been overlooked. I like it because he speaks of "human rights" instead of simply "civil rights." And he is talking about political power in a manner that reminds me of another minister from the 1960s, Malcolm X, who said that when black people began to understand the science of politics, they could use their vote to determine who went to the White House, and who went to the dog house.

Martin warned that blacks should not view their political power as separate from others; he knew that all Americans needed to work together to reach the higher ground he saw in our future. Intelligent people, he noted, " must see this as their task and contribute to its support."
King also speaks about the contributions of the civil rights workers and two presidents, to the gains that were made in federal legislation:

"One of the most basic weapons in the fight for social justice will be the cumulative political power of the Negro. I can foresee the Negro vote becoming consistently the decisive vote in national elections. It is already decisive in states that have large numbers of electoral votes. Even today, the Negroes in New York City strongly influence how New York State will go in national elections, and the Negroes in Chicago have a similar leverage in Illinois. Negroes are even the decisive balance of power in elections in Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia. So the party and the candidate that gets the support of the Negro voter in national elections will have a very definite edge, and we intend to use this fact to win advances in the struggle for human rights. …..

"The past record of the federal government, however, has not been encouraging. No president has really done very much for the American Negro, though the past two presidents have received much undeserved credit for helping us. This credit has accrued to Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy only because it was during their administrations that Negroes began doing more for themselves. Kennedy didn’t willingly submit a civil rights bill, nor did Lyndon Johnson. In fact, both told us at one time that such legislation was impossible. President Johnson did respond realistically to the signs of the times and used his skills as a legislator to get bills through Congress that other men might not have gotten through. I must point out, in all honesty, however, that President Johnson has not been nearly so diligent in implementing the bills he has helped shepherd through Congress."

Our nation faces many problems today, and it would be foolish to think that the leaders of the democratic party alone are going to solve them. But we make progress, and the democratic party offers us the best chance at healing the damage done in the past 7 years.

No matter which candidate we support in the primaries, I think that Saturday will show that Martin was correct in his beliefs. And we can best do our part by taking part in voter registration drives in the spring and summer months, to prepare for the fall elections.

Common Ground

{1} "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. lies only a few miles from us tonight. Tonight he must feel good as he looks down upon us. We sit here together, a rainbow, a coalition -- the sons and daughters of slave masters and the sons and daughters of slaves, sitting together around a common table, to decide the direction of our party and our country. His heart would be full tonight. ….

"We meet tonight at the crossroads, a point of decision. Shall we expand, be inclusive, find unity and power; or suffer division and impotence?" – Jesse Jackson; Democratic National Convention; 1988.

Martin Luther King, Jr., helped to unite a number of the progressive movements in the turbulent decade of the 1960s. He is most closely associated with the civil rights movement; however, he was also a powerful advocate for the anti-war movement, for unions, and for other people who were being shut out of the Great Society.

When President Johnson signed some of the civil rights legislation in 1964 and ’65, he recognized that it would come at a political cost: he knew that many southern whites would leave the democratic party. In 1968, Richard Nixon’s "southern strategy" exploited the fractures in the greater society.

A year earlier, in his "A Time to Break Silence" speech, King had addressed some of the issues beyond civil rights. Although there were numerous forces at play, King’s speech marked the point where a group that has become known as the "neoconservative movement" began its exodus from the democratic party. The neocons became one of the most entrenched powers within the Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 administrations.

{2} "Common ground. That's the challenge of our party tonight -- left wing, right wing.
Progress will not come through boundless liberalism nor static conservatism, but at the critical mass of mutual survival -- not at boundless liberalism nor static conservatism, but at the critical mass of mutual survival. It takes two wings to fly. Whether you're a hawk or a dove, you're just a bird living in the same environment, in the same world. ….

"The only time that we win is when we come together. In 1960, John Kennedy, the late John Kennedy, beat Richard Nixon by only 112,000 votes -- less than one vote per precinct. He won by the margin of our hope. He brought us together. He reached out. He had the courage to defy his advisors and inquire about Dr. King's jailing in Albany, Georgia. We won by the margin of our hope, inspired by courageous leadership. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson brought both wings together -- the thesis, the antithesis, and the creative synthesis -- and together we won. In 1976, Jimmy Carter unified us again, and we won. When do we not come together, we never win. In 1968, the division and despair in July led to our defeat in November. In 1980, rancor in the spring and the summer led to Reagan in the fall. When we divide, we cannot win. We must find common ground as the basis for survival and development and change and growth."

In the 1980s, Jesse Jackson would give a voice to many of the smaller voting blocks in the progressive left and democratic party. This was the "Rainbow Coalition." There were those in the democratic party who were uncomfortable with some of the groups and individuals who comprised this coalition. Some even disliked Jesse.

But he made two runs for the White House. And in 1988, the Rainbow Coalition came of age. Jesse was able to organize those involved in the anti-war and nuclear disarmament movements; union workers from factories, and family farmers, who were the victims of "Reagonomics"; and civil rights and human rights workers.

Jesse was not perfect. He made mistakes. But he also was able to do things no one in Washington, DC could do, when it came to communicating with those in foreign lands who held Americans hostage. That ability caused some of the same people who rejected Martin for his "A Time to Break Silence" speech to try to silence Jesse. And they are the same people who still want to silence those people who could comprise an updated Rainbow Coalition in 2008.

{3} "Farmers, you seek fair prices and you are right -- but you cannot stand alone. Your patch is not big enough.

"Workers, you fight for fair wages, you are right -- but your patch labor is not big enough.

"Women, you seek comparable worth and pay equity, you are right -- but your patch is not big enough.

"Women, mothers, who seek Head Start, and day care and prenatal care on the front side of life, relevant jail care and welfare on the back side of life, you are right -- but your patch is not big enough.

"Students, you seek scholarships, you are right -- but your patch is not big enough.

"Blacks and Hispanics, when we fight for civil rights, we are right -- but our patch is not big enough.

"Gays and lesbians, when you fight against discrimination and a cure for AIDS, you are right -- but your patch is not big enough.

"Conservatives and progressives, when you fight for what you believe, right wing, left wing, hawk, dove, you are right from your point of view, but your point of view is not enough.

"But don't despair. Be as wise as my grandmamma. Pull the patches and the pieces together, bound by a common thread. When we form a great quilt of unity and common ground, we'll have the power to bring about health care and housing and jobs and education and hope to our Nation."

The struggles from 1968 and 1988 have made the options we have in 2008 possible. Yet it is important that we also examine some of the mistakes that were made along the way. If we had fully understood and responded to the tragic errors of Vietnam, we would not be involved in the war of occupation in Iraq today. If we had made greater advances in civil rights and human rights struggles, we would not still be struggling with racism and sexism in the 2008 democratic primary.

The republican machine will attempt to sow the seeds of anger and division within our party. They will try to do this from the grass roots to the convention hall. It is our responsibility to stop this from happening. The primary contest is at times harsh, and this is not new. But we can disagree without fanning the flames of racism or sexism.

There are three people who might be the democratic nominee: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Each of the three could be elected president – and only divisions within our party could prevent that from happening. However, once elected, each one would have to deal with republicans. Each will consider appointing one or more republicans to positions in their administration. And each of their administrations would have to deal with both parties in congress. But that beats the alternative, which is a republican administration that refuses to listen to those people from the progressive and liberal wings of the democratic party.

{4} "Wherever you are tonight, you can make it. Hold your head high; stick your chest out. You can make it. It gets dark sometimes, but the morning comes. Don't you surrender!

"Suffering breeds character, character breeds faith. In the end faith will not disappoint.

"You must not surrender! You may or may not get there but just know that you're qualified! And you hold on, and hold out! We must never surrender!! America will get better and better.

"Keep hope alive. Keep hope alive! Keep hope alive! On tomorrow night and beyond, keep hope alive!"

Martin sets some goals for this country in 1968, and Jesse identified some others in 1988. We have made progress on many of these, and have lost ground on others. The Bush-Cheney years have been especially harsh. 2008 offers us new opportunities to get our nation back on track. Let’s work together to reach that higher ground.

Feuds & derailed democracy

{1} feudal system: A medieval European political and economic system based on the holding of lands on condition of homage or military service and labour. Feudalism probably originated in the Frankish kingdom in the 8th century and spread into northern Italy, Spain, and Germany. It was introduced by the Normans into England, Ireland, Scotland, southern Italy, and Sicily. The nobility held lands from the crown and provided troops for the king in times of war. The knight was the tenant of the noble and a class of unfree peasants (villein) lived on the land under the jurisdiction of their lord (manoral system). Bishops and abbots were invested by secular lords with their livings in return for services and the church received produce and labour from the peasantry. It became a varied and complex system: lords built up their own military forces and power to the point where they became semi-independent of the king; from the 12th century payments (scutage) could be substituted for military duties. The system broke down in the 12th and 13th centuries as towns (commune) and individuals achieved independence from their lords, though serfdom survived in some countries for much longer. – Oxford Desk Encyclopedia of World History; 2006; page 218

When I think of President Ronald Reagan, I think of a petty, cruel and vain man who fronted for forces that re-instituted a modern form of feudalism in the United States. Some compared Reagan’s policies to those of the English crown that Americans fought to overthrow in the Revolutionary War. I think the Reaganites were more along the model of the landed aristocracy that held hundreds of thousands of people in semi-feudalism 50 years after the Revolution, which led to the Anti-Rent War. Of course, they don’t teach that one in schools today.

All of the Reagan policies, from the international to domestic level, were based upon a ruling class that could violate any law and crush any people that got in their way. A series of crimes known as the "Iran-Contra scandal" posed a more serious threat to the US Constitution than those known as "Watergate." More, in the Iran-Contra scandals, the congress failed to take the steps necessary to uphold their oath of office: both President Reagan and VP Bush should have been impeached.

The damage done to our Constitutional democracy is beyond debate. Let’s take a brief look at four areas that should be of interest to every citizen who believes in the concepts expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

In a healthy democracy, the legislative branch of the federal government would function properly. A book that indicates how dysfunctional congress is, is "The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get it Back on Track," by Thomas Mann & Norman Ornstein. They trace the dysfunction back to the 1990s; actually, when the congress fails to do its duty, it betrays our democracy. Just as congress is failing us today by refusing to impeach Bush2 and/or Cheney, the congress failed this nation by giving Reagan and Bush1 a free pass.

The judiciary has been compromised. If you doubt it, read Vincent Bugliosi’s "The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President."

What has the failure of the congress and the courts allowed to happen? Read "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush," by Kevin Phillips. In a true democracy, there are not "ruling families" that consider the presidency their private property. (And, while you are at it, read Phillip’s "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century.")

The 2008 elections should be about who can rekindle the democratic spirit in this country. All of the republican candidates are part of the sick system. None of the democratic candidates are perfect, or any where near it. The question is: which one has the most potential to begin to make the changes needed to move us back in the direction of democracy?

On the Great Writ

It was twenty years ago this week that the US Supreme Court denied a New Jersey prosecutor’s appeal, thus affirming Judge Lee Sarokin’s 11-7-85 reversal of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter’s conviction for a crime he did not commit. It was the end of what F. Lee Bailey called "one of this century’s most important legal sagas." I was looking through some of the old paperwork related to Rubin’s defense, and thought that some of the issues might be of interest here.

Judge Sarokin noted that Carter had been convicted by the prosecutor’s "appeal to racism rather than reason, concealment rather than disclosure." He cited "grave constitutional violations," and stated that "this court is convinced that a conviction which rests upon racial stereotypes, fears and prejudices violates rights too fundamental to permit deference to stand in the way of relief sought."

Rubin Carter’s case had been tied up in New Jersey for almost 20 years. It remains the criminal case with the longest record of litigation in US history. Because of this, his defense attorneys brought in Professor Leon Friedman, an expert at constitutional law at Hofstra University school of Law. Professor Friedman based the federal appeal on The Great Writ, or "habeas corpus."

Habeas corpus is one of the most important parts of our Constitutional democracy’s foundation. It is included in the US Constitution because it was recognized as essential for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state actions.

After Judge Sarokin’s rulings in the case, on November 7 and 8, 1985, the prosecutors appealed his decisions three times in federal court before going to the US Supreme Court. In each instance, the courts upheld Judge Sarokin’s findings.

When people consider who they will vote for in the 2008 elections, they should keep in mind that the next president will be appointing people to the federal courts. It is important that we have judges who believe in the Constitutional protections that are afforded to individuals to protect them from appeals to racism rather than reason, and concealment rather than disclosure."

In the decades since his release, Rubin has been an advocate for the wrongly-convicted, an opponent of the death penalty, and has worked with Nelson Mandela on the Reconciliation Movement, including trying to promote peace in the Middle East. He has spoken at the United Nations and to hundreds of universities, colleges, and high schools across North America.
However, the door was closed on the type of habeas corpus appeal that Professor Friedman filed in 1985. And one of the most important things for us to keep in mind that this door was not closed by the Bush-Cheney administration. The first attempt to erode the Great Writ took place under the Clinton administration.

Shortly after the bombing in Oklahoma City, the Clinton administration began pushing for new legislation. The republican-authored bill became the law as the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996." The most vocal opponent of this bill/law was NYS Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. His opposition was based on the damage the bill/law did to the Great Writ. Senator Moynihan believed as strongly as anyone in the need to keep Americans safe; however, the bill that President Clinton signed created restrictions in the ability of citizens to appeal to courts for relief in cases that had nothing to do with "terrorism."

One of the issues that many democrats are concerned about is the Bush-Cheney attack on habeas corpus. It would be beneficial if at the next democratic debate, the candidates were asked for their position on restoring the Great Writ. And that should include asking about the damage that both the Clinton and Bush administration have done.

Schlesinger's Journal

June 9, 1968

"It is beyond belief, but it has happened – it has happened again. …

"It is all too much. That evening I went with so many others to Butler Aviation to await for the plan bearing the body from Los Angeles. It was all too familiar. The night was warm rather than cold; but the same sadness penetrated everything. In a way my friendship with Bobby had become closer than my friendship with Jack. How can one compare the two? JFK was eight and a half years older; Bobby would have been 43 in November, which was JFK’s age in May 1960. One thinks of (Governor) Paul Dever’s epigram: JFK, the first Irish Brahmin; RFK, the Irish Puritan. JFK, one sensed, was always a skeptic and an ironist; he had understood the complexity of things from birth. RFK began as a true believer; he acquired his sense of the complexity of things from hard experience. He remained a true believer to the end but at a far deeper level; he had long since shucked away from the external criteria and the received simplifications and got down as far as one can in politics to the human meaning of things. JFK attacked conditions because they were irrational, RFK because they seemed hateful. JFK was a man of celebration; Bobby was very bright and reflective, but he was a man of commitment. If JFK saw people living in squalor, it seemed to him totally unreasonable and awful, but he saw it all, as FDR would have done, from the outside. RFK had an astonishing capacity to identify himself with the casualties and victims of our society. When he went among them, these were his children, his scraps of food, his hovels. JFK was urbane, imperturbable, always in control, invulnerable, it seemed, to everything, except the murderer’s bullet. RFK was far more vulnerable. One wanted to protect him; one never felt that Jack needed protection. In Bobby’s case the contrast between the myth and the man could not have been greater. He was suposed to be hard, ruthless, unfeeling, unyielding, a grudge-bearer, a hater. In fact, he was an exceptionally gentle and considerate man, the most bluntly honest man I have ever encountered in politics, a profoundly idealistic man and extremely funny man. JFK had much better manners. RFK was often diffident and had no small talk. He would do much better at Resurrection City than at the Metropolitan Club. There was for me such a poignancy about RFK – all the greater now that they have killed him even before he had a chance to place his great gifts at the service of the nation in the presidency; Jack at least had two and a half years."

--Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.; Journals: 1952 - 2000; Penguin Press; 2007; pages 291-292

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr (1917 - 2007) was one of our era’s great liberal thinkers and historians. He won two Pulitzer Prize awards (The Age of Jackson, and A Thousand Days), and two national Book Awards (A Thousand Days, and Robert Kennedy & his times). In 1998, Arthur was awarded the National Humanities Award.

His two oldest sons took his private journals, from 1952 (when he worked for Adlai Stevenson, who he would come to strongly resent), through the 2000 election, and edited the 6,000 plus pages into a fascinating 858 page book. In it, the reader is treated to the private thoughts of a man who noted, for example, "Honors are sometimes things based on external consideration. I know better than the bestowers whether I deserve them or not" (page 851)

For those interested in political history – and perhaps especially political campaigns – this book is a great addition to his other works. "The Imperial Presidency," his 1974 look at the role of impeachment as the correct method for dealing with executive branch crimes and abuses of the power of office, focused primarily upon Richard Nixon, but surely applies to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney today.

Bush and Cheney are among the current politicians that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Viewed in highly unfavorable terms. His journals detail his utter contempt for Joseph Lieberman during the 2000 campaign. "Lieberman is not only sanctimonious but a hypocrite …. Lieberman is also president of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Republican wing of the Democratic party …." (page 847)

The final sentence in the book sums up Schlesinger’s opinion of George W. Bush: "Bush looked like a frightened ventriloquist’s dummy" (page 858)

It is one of two books that I picked up today; the other is Joseph Ellis’s "American Sphinx : The Character of Thomas Jefferson" (Vintage; 1998) The book notes that Jefferson has been claimed "by Southern seccessionists and Northern abolitionists, New Deal liberals and neo-conservatives." In 1993, Joyce Appleby noted that the "true Jefferson legacy is to be hostile to legacies." Thus, I am confident that this book will be worth reading after finishing the Journals.

The Hate that Hate Produces

For my generation, "The Hate that Hate Produced" was a 1959 TV documentary in which Louis Lomax and Mike Wallace introduced middle class white America to the Nation of Islam. It featured the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, Louis Farrakhan, and most importantly, Malcolm X. The next generation knows it as a Sister Souljah production, with some curious relationship with the 1992 elections. We all have our personal and generational experiences with the dark side of American life, with racism, sexism, and other "-isms" that divide us as people, and which too often produce anger and hatred.

In 1959, Minister Malcolm X was still preaching Elijah’s gospel of separation. When the sun goes down and the danger of the darkness becomes the greatest, he said, every being naturally sought out its own type for security: black birds with black birds, blue birds with blue birds, and on and on.

In the early 1960s, Malcolm began to question Elijah’s rigid separation theology. He had contact with politicians and attorneys including Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Percy Sutton, and Charles Rangel. He also began to work in cooperation with some of the more radical grass roots civil rights leaders. And, indeed, after being expelled from the NOI, Malcolm began to have contact with Martin Luther King, Jr.

At one of his last public meetings, an advocate of separatism confronted Malcolm: "We heard you changed, Malcolm. Why don’t you tell us where you’re at with them white folks?" Village Voice writer Marlene Nadle wrote that "without dropping a syllable he (Malcolm) gave a black nationalist speech on brotherhood" (2-25-65)

"I haven’t changed," he said. "I just see things on a broader scale. We nationalists used to think we were militant. We were just dogmatic. It didn’t bring us anything. …. We’ve got to give the man a chance. …We’ve got to be more flexible. … I’m not going to be in anybody’s straitjacket. I don’t care what a person looks like or where they come from. My mind is wide open to anyone who will help get the ape off our backs."

In the late 1960s and the ‘70s, the democratic party began to change. It involved struggle. There were groups that had their own identity, and which were able to access political and social power by having a "special interest" that translated into a voting block. Two that come to mind were blacks and women. But there were also many other groups, including other non-white people, anti-war and social justice activists. Many groups had overlapping interests.
Alone, each of the individual groups was like a finger that their enemy could easily break. Together, they formed a powerful fist that could be used to protect everyone’s interests.
The democratic party experienced other changes. In ’68 and ’72, a large number of people in the southern states moved into the republican camp. And in 1980, the neoconservatives also changed party affiliation.

The strength of the democratic party was the ability to unite people, and to engage in "the Good Fight." A generation of progressive leaders had been schooled in the arts of struggle by men like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy. There were also many leaders at other levels, from Cesar Chavez to Gloria Steinem to David Dellinger and many others, who may or may not have been members of the democratic party, but who worked in cooperation with others advocating a just society.

The fight has never been easy, and every gain that has been made in 40 years has required sacrifice. The forces that oppose a just society have attempted to isolate and break different groups, usually by turning one against another. In the past few years, more of the democrats at the grass roots level have become aware of the growing threat to our nation, including attempts to destroy the Constitution.

Throughout human history, dictators have always known that in order to oppress a group of people, one needs to appeal to what Robert Kennedy called "the darker impulses." If a "leader" can make a population hate and fear a common "enemy," they can trick those people forget about their own low level of being. Yet this can only lead to an eventual break-down in any society.

That Constitution is the social contract that can keep our society from a total break-down. It requires that we learn from history, and not repeat those mistakes that have kept us from maintaining higher ground. Our difficulties are not only caused by the actions of people like Bush and Cheney. In the past seven days, we see the democratic primary contest raising issues of racism, sexism, and conflict between social classes.

Too often, we identify issues in "us" versus "them." We can find goodness and strength in being male and female; black, brown, red, yellow and white; young and old; Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, and atheist; heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual. Or we can allow these same things to divide and weaken us.

Hatred and fear lead to violence. Always. It has done so all around the globe, throughout history. It has happened here, and not just in the Civil War. Just as mosques have been bombed in Iraq, we have had churches bombed in America. We have had abortion clinics bombed. If we read the reports of the Southern Poverty Law Center, we find many current examples of hatred translating to the ugliest forms of violence, targeting our brothers and sisters because they are Jewish, or gay, or have brown skin.

We must unite, and work towards making our society safe and just. This includes putting the lessons of Martin and Robert into practice. It does not mean that we allow ourselves or our families to be victims. Nor does it mean that we take on the tactics of those we must confront, from the violent thug on the street to the advocates of hatred in the White House.

2008 should not become known for the hate that hate produced. We need to put our differences behind us, to the greatest extent possible, and focus on what we have in common. And then, and only then, can we move towards that higher ground.

The Televised Candidates

"Comedians have often suggested that Ronald Reagan’s immense popularity might have been helped by television-induced confusion. But I would like to make the case that this was concretely true, and that it’s not so funny.

"Ronald Reagan spent his adult life being an image, sometimes fictional – as when performing in films – and sometimes in that odd semi-reality that performers obtain in commercials. For his career combined film acting and, perhaps more important, spokesperson roles for General Electric Company advertising.

"Because of his background, Reagan handled television as president with astonishing skill and power. He understood, as no one did before, that on television, style supercedes content: The way you behave and look is more important than what you say or do. He knew that complexity and historical perspective do not come across on TV as well as simplicity, bald assertions, the heavy use of symbolic content, and the appeal to formulaic values, deeply imbedded in Americans by previous decades of television and film: Good vs. Evil, America vs. The Enemy, Revere the Flag. ( Reagan’s protégé, George Bush, also learned these lessons; he was elected in 1988 because of his embrace of TV symbolism – the flag, the pledge of allegiance, black rapists – mixed with spots about Dukakis and pollution, which turned out to be lies.)

"Reagan’s most remarkable achievement was to incorporate in his own persona an amazing set of archetypes from the popular movies of the 1940s and 1950s. In the real role of president, Ronald Reagan re-created a set of images that had been reinforced by standard story lines since World War II; he was making real what was previously just imagery held in the minds of the population.

"Ronald Reagan became the World War II hero, standing tall. He became the admiral on the bridge of the ships, taking on the hated Nazis and Japanese, though it became the Commies and Iranians. He was the western hero, slow to anger, but push him too far and he became fierce in his response. He was not a Rambo, a contemporary unfeeling slaughterer. He had morals. He was John Wayne. He was Gary Cooper in High Noon."
--In the Absence of the Sacred; Jerry Mander; Sierra Club Books; 1991; pages 90-91.

Presidential campaigns, including the primary season, are often decided by the public’s perceptions of each candidate’s communication skills. In 1960, the televised Kennedy vs. Nixon debate was a classic example: those who watched it on TV believed JFK won, while those listening to radio favored Nixon.

The republican party recognized that the public could be manipulated by the use of TV imagery, which is what Mander described so accurately in the sub-chapter "The Televison President." They had Reagan front for outrageous lies: the attack on Grenada became a "rescue," and the MX missiles were "peacekeepers." Mander notes that Reagan and Bush1 learned from Orwell to have a frequent "Two Minutes Hate" of shifting Goldsteins: Khomeni, Khadafy, Ortega, Willie Horton, Noriega, and Saddam Hussein.

There could be no more bizarre example of manipulating the screen than in the 2004 campaign: George W. Bush was presented as a patriotic military leader, while John Kerry was portrayed as a shady figure who betrayed the uniform.

Still, it would be an error to assume that because the republican party has stolen something from the democrats, that the stolen good is irreparably contaminated. Like the lead-in to Helter Skelter on U2’s "Rattle & Hum" says, "This is a song that Charles Manson stole from the Beatles … we’re stealing it back."

It is a good thing for the democrats to promote Barack Obama as being in the image of JFK; of John Edwards as this generation’s RFK; and Hillary Clinton as our Eleanor Roosevelt. Are the comparisons exact? Of course not. But one similarity is that the same negative things the nay-sayers respond with are much like the negative things people said about JFK, RFK, and Eleanor Roosevelt.

It is interesting to note that there is greater difficulty in projecting the Eleanor image, because she is not embedded in the collective TV consciousness. People who have learned about her in modern times are those who read, and reading creates a different type of mental activity than watching TV. When we look at how image played in modern times, Reagan convinced those who preferred to watch the movie rather than read that book, while Carter appealed to literate people.

Today we have the computer/ internet. This form of communication combines many of the best qualities of both the book and the TV screen. During the 2008 elections, we can be sure that the republican party will make every attempt to use it against the democratic party. We need to use every tool available to us in the contest for image.

A Marist Poll

Late last week, a person taking a poll for Marist College in Poughkeepsie, NY, called my house. They asked if there was a registered voter who would be willing to answer a few questions about politics, and my son said, "You should probably talk to my father."

The questions were part of a survey to measure possible support for a potential 3rd party run by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. I am not really familiar with Mayor Bloomberg, and had assumed that if he did run, he would tend to hurt the republican candidate in the ’08 election. However, the nature of the questions that were posed made me wonder if that is accurate.

One of the first questions was about how I felt about the candidates in the republican primary? As a democrat, I am delighted, because they are damaged goods. How do I feel about the democratic candidates? Again, as a democrat, I am pleased, because I think that we have strong candidates.

What do I think of 3rd parties? Generally speaking, I think there should be more than three political parties. I think that if the democratic party is representative of the majority of people’s needs, our party would be easily able to create a coalition based on common interests. At the same time, I recognize that a 3rd party candidate can cause difficulties.

The questions that followed were focused on if Senator Clinton faced each of the republican candidates, plus Mayor Bloomberg. There were no questions about if either John Edwards or Barack Obama is the democratic nominee.

After the call, I tried to think of what it meant. I came up with three possibilities: (1) If Senator Clinton is our nominee, Michael Bloomberg thinks he can win; (2) If Senator Clinton is our nominee, Michael Bloomberg thinks his campaign would help her win by dividing the republican and independent vote; or (3) If Senator Clinton is our nominee, Michael Bloomberg thinks his campaign would help the republican, by splitting the democratic and independent vote.

In recent times, discussions about 3rd party candidates tend to focus on Ralph Nader in 2000. After this phone call, I was far more reminded of John Anderson in 1980.

Looking Forward

"There are those who regard this history of past strife and exile as better forgotten. But, to use the phrase of Yeats, let us not casually reduce ‘that great past to a trouble of fools,’ for we need not feel the bitterness of the past to discover its meaning for the present and the future." – John F. Kennedy; 1963.

I watched the presidential debates again on CNN last night. Two things stand out: the top republican candidates are fools stuck in the bitterness of the past, while the top three democrats represent the potential to use that past to rebuild the foundation of our country, in order that we can deal with the present and move into the future.

The republican debate was an episode of jackal pack behavior. Ron Paul was viciously pack attacked for attempted to tell the truth about the relationship between the US policy in the Middle East, and terrorism. Mitt Romney was treated like a poodle attempting to exercise dominance over the jackals.

As a democrat, I found the republican debate to be encouraging. Each of their candidates has serious flaws. Although the republican political machine will gear up for the fall campaign, they will still be running jackal. They will try to disguise their jackal as a cuddly family dog; but it will be easy to expose that dog as Old Yeller with the rabies, or a blathering Hucklebee Hound.

It is clear that their top candidates feel pressured to embrace the Bush-Cheney administration. They do not dare move too far away from the administration’s positions and policies. They are stuck in a bitter sludge that the country is rejecting. It is clear that the real excitement is found not in the republican debates, but in the democratic contest.

As can be expected, the supporters of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards all see the debate as a victory for their candidate. They are able to focus on both what their candidate did right, and to make note of any slight error that the other two may have made.

The truth is that each of the three did well in the debate. The three share many of the same positive attributes, though each one offers something unique and good for our country’s future. Although some of the campaign aides will promote their candidate, and dismiss the other two, it is possible to step back and see that all three are good and capable politicians.

The Bush-Cheney administration has done damage to our country, and the world, that will take decades to repair. No matter which of the three democrats is elected, the truth is that they will not be able to work miracles overnight. No matter what the commercials may say, each will be working with congress, and dealing with the same crooked influences that have poisoned the political atmosphere in Washington, DC.

Karl Rove & Co. were a tumor on the state, but they were not the first. Newt Gingrich and his ilk created a toxic element in congress, but they were not the first. In order to appreciate the nature of the disease that threatens our democracy, we need a good understanding of the connections between the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush1 administrations, and today’s illness.

We must also be willing to recognize the role that some in the democratic party have played. It’s not limited to an obvious weak link like Joe Lieberman. When we think of the damage done to the Great Writ of habeas corpus, we have to start with the Bill Clinton. When we look at the current democratic congress, we must admit that they have utterly failed to show respect for the voters who demanded an end to the Bush-Cheney madness in Iraq when they went to the voting booths in 2006.

We need to select the candidate who is most capable of leading this nation in the present and the future. It will not be the candidate who can be most divisive in the primaries. The ability to protect our rights, and to heal the wounds, will not be found in the most vicious campaign. As citizens, we have the responsibility to keep our eye on the prize, and to work towards unity within the party, because without question, we need the vast majority of the supporters of each of the top three candidates to work together, if we are going to win come November.