The last season of the West Wing totally predicted this election. Watch for yourself- Hillary never had a chance
(pragmatic? really? Barack?! wha?!) So maybe if I had watched the West Wing during that time I'd actually be happy with what's going on right now. I guess this just goes to show television has a huge impact and influence on us as does this Slate XX blog (which I usually avoid because of their Barackian vibe) post about what happens if you turn off the t.v. and actually pay attention. Issues not image, much?
I'm afraid to even say that among in this crowd, but I'm just trying to be fair. I mostly read the transcript of the debate, because I got home too late to watch it. And from the transcript, one gets a whole different impression. For one thing, you don't get the full force of her pettiness when you don't see it delivered from her pinched mouth. For another, she is just much more impressive, intellectually. Time and time again, she comes up with a smart and, more importantly, specific response that seals the argument, like the line: "It would be as though Franklin Roosevelt said let's make Social Security voluntary." That is a perfect and pithy summary of what her plan does, and it kills his complaint. And in this case, it was Obama who whined no fair and appealed to the moderator: "Brian, I'm getting fillibustered here." Whereas usually he just resorts to generalities, or refers to his days as a community organizer, or some version of the hope riff.
It's hard not to like him more than her. When I'm watching him, I'm thinking about his first book, and some of his great lines, and his wife, and all the things I like about him. When I'm watching her, I'm thinking of Bill's Jesse Jackson line, and her incredibly tedious books, and that embarrassing "Hillary" jazz-hands video. Unlike her, Obama seems constitutionally incapable of losing his cool. But he does not win these debates. On nearly any subject—health care, Iran, Korea—she's more impressive. So, I guess what I'm saying is I wish people would admit they prefer him just because they prefer him, and not give him points he didn't earn.
word. Poor Hillary if she'd run before 1960 (and been a man I guess) she totally would have won. Beauty before brains :( Sphere: Related Content
Did you vote yet? Are you a Democrat bemoaning the departure of Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson, et. al. or are you conflicted about Obama vs. Hillary? Take heart: Mike Gravel is still in the race! (In states where it isn't hugely expensive to get on the primary ballot, that is). Gravel is experienced: he has been a state legislator and a Senator, run a business and spent a few years working, without a salary, for a non-profit dedicated to getting Americans the right to ballot initiatives on the federal level. He's angry about the war too! (He thinks WWII was the only armed conflict that was absolutely necessary). And he's supportive of women's rights. In fact, speaking of women, when many of you took a candidate-matching survey a few months back, he ranked at the top of many lists, but I'll bet most of you didn't take a closer look. Why is that? Well, Mike's got some answers...
Megan: So, the reason I wanted to interview you is that a couple months back, Jezebel invited its readers to take a candidate match survey and an absurd proportion of readers found you at the top of their lists when going on issues alone. Mike: Actually, I get that a lot. It's really interesting to me because it just shows that when people know where I stand they end up finding out we have a lot in common. The problem is that the corporate owned media has gone out of its way to stop me from being visible.
Megan: So, it's not just Jezebel readers? Interesting. I did notice that you were kept out of the (many) recent debates, and then they did it to Kucinich too. Mike: Kucinich didn't lift a finger when they did it to me, actually.
Megan: Sort of like, when they came for the labor unionists, I didn't say anything, huh? But, why do you think that is that they decided to keep people out? It's not like you got an equal amount of time to talk, or that the most recent debates were more interesting because they were smaller. Mike: In my case, I'm well know to the Powers That Be, and they know that I'm not politics and usual and that I'm not afraid to go out and do stuff even if people disagree with it. Those that are informed, particular those companies [like GE, parent company of NBC] that are part of the military industrial complex, they know me very well and they know that I'm the last person in the world they want to see in power. Unless they're looking for good government, they know there's no way to influence me.
As for the body politic, the elected officials in Washington, they don't understand that the most important change we can make is to empower the American people with the same power they have: to make laws. They're opposed to that. They don't even understand it. What I want to do is give the power of lawmaking back to the people, by allowing ballot initiatives and referenda at the federal level.
Megan: Well, by those metrics, how do you think your campaign is going so far? It's obviously been difficult attracting attention despite a relatively simple series of policy messages. Mike: Well, I've spent $300,000 so far, half of which came from me and the other half from small, individual donations. It makes it hard to compete with candidates that can and will spend $300 million and more. But, we're getting along. I'm getting some earned media, like this interview, based on my positions which is really helpful.
Megan: Well, that's kind of cool. But, if you wouldn't mind a terrible segue, can we talk about some of your positions? One of the issues of utmost importance to Democratic voters is the War in Iraq. You've been a strong anti-war advocate for your entire political career. Has there been a war you were keen on? Mike: I am strongly against war- all of them. Vietnam, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and soon Iran. While I think that World War II was necessary, it only became necessary because Woodrow Wilson got us involved in World War I and the aftermath of that.
For me, that's the crux of the matter. Wars do not solve problems, they merely beget other wars. That's the tragedy of history... Iraq is not a problem. The problem is that we will go into another war, in part because the military-industrial complex needs conflict to justify production. The underlying structure that permits this to go forward is this attitude of American imperialism. We have a military presence in 130 countries and 700 military bases around the world. If Americans understood this, they wouldn't be for it. They don't want to to be the world's policemen- not when we have an educational system that is shameful, a health system that is shameful and a crumbling infrastructure. What we're doing is following the pattern of prior empires, particularly the Spanish empire who became the sword-makers to the world and were lost in the fog of history.
The people that are running for President, that are left on the scene today, are all supporting this imperialist trend, particularly McCain and Hillary Clinton and even Obama, who doesn't even know that he's supporting it.
Megan: But, let's draw a distinction between you and another candidate who's against American imperialism -- Ron Paul. He's for isolationism. That's not your position, I'm given to understand. Mike: Oh, goodness, no, I'm not an isolationist. Ron would retreat to Fortress America. What I want us to do is to take our place as an equal in the world and commit to the United Nations and work for world governance and world peace. We now have globalization of the economy; of science; of the ability to destroy the planet; and of the environment. You can't just turn back time. He's steeped in that redneck philosophy that we can't give up sovereignty. I'm suggesting that we move some of that sovereignty away from the nation-state structure and into a world governance structure. We will never have peace on earth until we have global governance. The United Nations is a good charter but it's not functioning on its charter, it's become paralyzed and non-functional as states seek to use it to protect sovereignty at all costs. That's not how to get to world peace.
Megan: That's an interesting perspective. Not too many candidates are advocating world government, so to speak. How does this tie into your position on immigration? Do you feel that your experience as a first generation American informed your position on immigration? Mike:: Although my parents were both French-Canadians who immigrated here in the twenties, I wouldn't say that their experience motivated my position on immigration, except to realize that you come to love your country through choice. They were really proud to become Americans. My attitude toward immigration comes from living various parts of the country, knowing a lot of various minorities in the community I grew up in and where I studied ... I was never exposed to Latinos until I lived in California when I developed a great deal of respect for their willingness to work hard in this country, which is a value that I got from my father.
But, the immigration issue is nothing more than scapegoating. We have an immigration problem in the minds of our leaders, not in the economy. Because our economy is failing, though, they're looking for someone to blame. There's an interesting parallel: the EU, which is surging ahead of us in many facets of development, they just had 6 countries which lowered all their barriers to the movement of people and capital. But we're erecting a fence on the Southern border. If I were President, I would lower barriers, and I would like to see some of further unity in North American, some sort of central economic entity, to try to match the EU and China on the global stage
Megan: Ok, I apologize, I'm really awful at interview segues, but I do want to take a minute to talk about women's issues for our readers. You are a really progressive candidate on the issues of importance to Jezebel readers, and I just wanted you to talk about them for a minute. Mike: It's not just women's issues. It's gay rights. It's the drug war, too. It's about individual rights. Let's start with the drug war. Everyone knows marijuana isn't addictive or a gateway drug or anything. But, we arrested 800,000 people last year for marijuana crimes. This is appalling, especially when you consider that we could have spent this money on things like health care. Women are in more danger at childbirth than in any other major industrialized country in the world. It's appalling, and yet we're spending the money that could change that on jailing people who smoke marijuana.
When it comes to abortion, we have a government that, whether it's run by Republicans or even Democrats, has failed to make education about sex, sensuality or love the preeminent education of our children. What is more important in life than that? We make out that something's dirty about sex, and let religion get a hold of what we can do in the bedroom. It's appalling, and there's no reason for this. We're free people, and the definition of freedom is the participation in power. When you as a woman lose power over your body by virtue of people determining when you can procreate, then you're not free. Whether you want to talk about LGBT rights or sex education or anything to do with procreation, the dispensing of condoms, needles... health should be the preeminent concern and the government should get out of the equation after that.
We need more women getting elected to public office, definitely. But I have not seen in my career that women who get into power act that much differently than men. For instance, since I'm in California, Barbara Boxer is very liberal and very good, but Diane Feinstein is more politics as usual. Nancy Pelosi is a liberal politician by virtue of her district, but as Speaker she has governed the same way as any man did before her, and it's disappointing. I would love nothing more than to see a minority or a woman as President. But I want the right woman, or the right minority person: one who believes in civil rights, and who believes in peace and not in defense spending. Otherwise, what's the use? It's just voting for the same policies in different clothing.
Megan: That's a really harsh indictment of some pretty seniors Democratic politicians, and I'm not brave enough to delve any deeper than that. So, let's talk a little about you. On a more personal note, what would you say is your biggest regret? Mike: My biggest regret was when I was in the Senate, I was very controversial. I was a maverick. I used to get a lot of pressure from my staff, and peer pressure, to be more like everyone else. And I regret not being hard enough, not being more partisan, because that's when I got things accomplished. Today there is this whole attitude that we have to reach across the barriers of parties to accomplish anything. But, by reaching across barriers, they don't actually end up accomplishing anything. Whether it was ending the draft or building the Alaskan pipeline, reading the Pentagon papers or stopping nuclear testing in the North Pacific, all of that was done in my first four years, and none of it was done by reaching across the aisle. By reaching across, what it means is that you put the lobbyists in charge, by giving them more control.
Megan: One thing I hear a lot from some readers is that it's supposedly really important to band together and vote for the candidate most likely to win against the "other" guy rather than voting one's conscience. It's something that really frosts my ass [Yes, I really said this] because it seems to me that it flies completely in the face of the whole point of voting. I thought you might have something to say about that. Mike: You have it absolutely right. If you vote for power over substance, then you won't ever get either. You've got to vote for substance regardless of who you think will win, because you'll see that substance will win out in the end.
Megan: Any last thoughts? Mike: The key to everything I stand for is: the definition of freedom is participation in power. The American people at the federal level do not participate in power. They give it away on election day, because they vote for people to make laws rather than the laws themselves. So, we don't have the freedom we think we have, and it shows.
I really think there's something incredibly noble and inherently American about all these "long shot" presidential candidates who travel around the country scrapping by talking to only a few people at a time with no realistic chance of winning. I think it would be an amazingly fascinating documentary to follow around a "Mike Gravel" candidate. It's all just tilting at windmills but it's just like Sam said about the Republican running in his district in New York on Process Stories
or to paraphrase Will Bailey from Election Night “but it does matter who you vote for so how ‘bout we change that sign to say ‘No Matter Who You Vote For…is that okay with you?”
(I’ve had this since before the Iowa Caucus and today seems fitting enough) “Fancy Clothes and Overalls”-Emma Claire Edwards reads a poem about voting written by her brother, Wade Edwards.
(and that’s really sad because Wade never was able to vote and Emma Claire never knew him)
Because life on The West Wing was always better than reality here are some clips from a few episodes that dealt with the State of The Union, the Super Bowl of speech writing and oration) from a show I had almost forgotten how amazing it truly was. Sigh; where have you gone Josiah Bartlet? I still turn my lonely eyes to you
*The title refers to Sam's explanation of why overreaching is good:
"In 1940 our armed forces weren't among the 12 most formidable in the world, but obviously we were going to fight a big war. And Roosevelt said the U.S. would produce 50,000 planes in the next four years. Everyone thought it was a joke and it was 'cause we produced 100,000 planes. Gave our armed forces an armada which would block out the sun
He Shall, From Time To Time… Season 1 Episode 12 Wednesday January 12, 2000 “He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”- Article II Section 3
"C. J.: Should we postpone the State of the Union? What are the rules on that? Toby: He's required to give Congress information on the state of the union. If he buys Congress a subscription to The Wall Street Journal, he's fulfilled his constitutional [obligation]" - 100,00 Airplanes
In ways large and small, as we look to the millennium, we are keeping alive what George Washington called "the sacred fire of liberty."
Six years ago, I came to office in a time of doubt for America, with our economy troubled, our deficit high, our people divided. Some even wondered whether our best days were behind us. But across this country, in a thousand neighborhoods, I have seen, even amidst the pain and uncertainty of recession, the real heart and character of America.
I knew then that we Americans could renew this country.
Tonight, as I deliver the last State of the Union address of the 20th century, no one anywhere in the world can doubt the enduring resolve and boundless capacity of the American people to work toward that "more perfect union" of our founders' dreams.
We're now at the end of a century when generation after generation of Americans answered the call to greatness, overcoming Depression, lifting up the dispossessed, bringing down barriers to racial prejudice, building the largest middle class in history, winning two world wars and the "long twilight struggle" of the Cold War.
We must all be profoundly grateful for the magnificent achievements of our forbears in this century.
Yet perhaps in the daily press of events, in the clash of controversy, we do not see our own time for what it truly is: a new dawn for America.
A hundred years from tonight, another American president will stand in this place to report on the State of the Union. He - - or she -- will -- will look back -- he or she will look back on a 21st century shaped in so many ways by the decisions we make here and now. So let it be said of us then that we were thinking not only of our time, but of their time; that we reached as high as our ideals; that we put aside our divisions and found a new hour of healing and hopefulness; that we joined together to serve and strengthen the land we love.
My fellow Americans, this is our moment. Let us lift our eyes as one nation, and from the mountaintop of this American century, look ahead to the next one, asking God's blessing on our endeavors and on our beloved country.
