Posts by Chris Bowers

Chris Bowers was a full-time editor at MyDD from May 2004 until June 2007. Some of his projects have included the creation of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, the first scientifically random poll of progressive netroots activists, the Use It Or Lose It campaign, the nation's most accurate forecast of Democratic house pickups in 2006, and the 2006 Googlebomb the Elections campaign.

The Medium is the Movement
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on May 6, 2008 at 4:27 AM.

Is there a progressive movement? This question has seemed particularly relevant over the last two weeks, as support for Barack Obama has washed away apparent long-standing principles of the movement: do not legitimize Fox News and Democrats should become more partisan. Now, apparently, we need to go on Fox News as much as possible and we much ditch partisanship altogether. If the Obama campaign can change the principles of the movement so quickly, perhaps there isn't a movement at all.

Perhaps a different question is necessary: what is a political movement, anyway? Thinking back over the 20th century, the defining characteristic seems to be a large-scale political undertaking that not only had goals of changing governmental institutions, but that changed the way people lived by shifting the balance of power in other major institutions as well. A political movement seeks to reorganize society on a far broader level than simply changing governmental policy. Examples include:

• The labor movement fundamentally changed the economic structure of this and other countries by granting wage-laborers more power over the American workplace.

• In addition to expanding access to government, the civil right's movement sought to reorganize educational, housing and employment patterns throughout the country. Other examples from this time period include the Black Panthers and the "counter-culture," which were primarily organized around institutions other than governmental policy (law enforcement and cultural consumption).

• Radical Islamicist movements have worked to reorganize virtually every major institution in a given society, from education to religion to familial structures to cultural consumption.

A political movement always targets more than governmental policy change, since only changing policy would not alter the general framework of how people live in a given society. With that in mind, in what ways is the contemporary progressive movement going beyond seeking governmental policy change, and directly altering the way people interact with other major institutions in our society?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

If Elections Were Football
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on April 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM.

This odd statement from Bill Clinton sums up quite a few things about the campaign:

Following a rally for his wife's campaign at Market Square in Pittsburgh, former president Bill Clinton suggested his wife would already be the nominee -- if she were running under Republican party rules.

"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here," he said. "I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."

Yes, and Mitt Romney would have been tied with John McCain in delegates if Republicans used the Democratic system. However, Clinton and Obama are not following the Republican system, and McCain and Romney were not following the Democratic system. This is a fact the Obama campaign appeared well aware of, but the Clinton campaign did not. The strange belief that winning eight or nine large primary states by narrow amounts, and ignoring virtually all other post-January states, would lead to victory in a proportional delegate system appears to be the largest strategic mistake of the campaign. Obama's massive caucus victories in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and Washington actually netted him more delegates (+85) as Clinton netted from her victories in California and New York (+84), despite vast population differences and monetary requirements to win the two groups of states. The Obama campaign executed a strategy to grab delegates wherever they were, and often found cost-effective ways of doing so. Their strategy worked, and Clinton's did not.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The ABCs of Getting out of Iraq Responsibly
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on April 8, 2008 at 9:00 AM.

Since Cokie Roberts brought it up, I've always wondered what, exactly, there is for us to "win" in Iraq. Seriously-what is our national Iraq prize? It is not even clear to me what those people who cheerlead for the war are seeking for us to win. I know the permanent bases in southern Iraq serve numerous purposes for the architects of the war (influence over southern oil fields, a forward position against Iraq, redeploying out of Saudi Arabia, control over a puppet Iraqi government), and were actually listed as the rationale for war in a September 2000 Bush campaign document. However, no one ever publicly defends the war on those grounds.

Is our national prize for "winning" the Iraq war a free and stable Iraq? Really? That's what we have to gain from all this? That is why we severely damaged our economy, our reputation in the world, why 5% of all Iraqis are dead and another 16% are refugees, and why over 5,000 Americas are dead? There aren't many Americans who think that this is worth that. When CBS and CNN polled that exact question in March, only 29% and 36% of the country thought the costs of the war were worth the results so far.

It is all well and good to say that the American people want to win. After all, in general, people want to win things, at least as opposed to losing things. However, no one wants to win regardless of the cost, and Americans decided a long time ago that whatever "victory" in Iraq might look like, it was not been worth what has happened there. When people decide that "victory" isn't worth the cost, they want a way to end the entire project, and that is what the Responsible Plan offers.

Clinton Superdelegate Lead Nearly Erased
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on April 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM.

Right now, Democratic Convention Watch prominently displays the superdelegate endorsement totals compiled by four major sources. The AP shows Clinton ahead 250-220, CBS shows Clinton ahead 249-217, CNN gives Clinton an advantage of 243-212, and DCW itself shows Clinton ahead 246-216. These margins are virtually identical, and all show Clinton ahead by between 30 and 32 superdelegate endorsements. However, a closer look at the numbers strongly suggests that Clinton's superdelegate advantage is actually much smaller, and will probably be erased entirely before Pennsylvania.

Consider the following:

• Add-on superdelegates: Democratic Convention Watch currently shows Obama ahead 2-0 among add-on superdelegates. At this point, very few add-on superdelegates have been chosen, and the complete schedule for when the rest of the 76 add-ons will be selected can be found here. Looking over the number of add-on superdelegates from states that have already held primaries or caucuses, and keeping in mind that add-on superdelegates are reviewed by each campaign before state party committees or state pledged delegate committees vote on these delegates, it seems that Obama will lead Clinton 40-24 among these delegates. (For this calculation, I am projecting a Clinton add-on victory in New Hampshire, a split in Missouri, and an Obama victory in Nevada and Texas). This means that Obama will actually close the superdelegate gap on Clinton by another 14 delegates once all of the add-ons are chosen, reducing Clinton's advantage from 30-32 down to 16-18 in favor of Clinton.

• "Pelosi Club" superdelegates: Democratic Convention Watch also posts a list of seven superdelegates who have publicly stated they will endorse the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates. They call this group the "Pelosi Club," since Nancy Pelosi first made this pledge. At this point, since Obama only needs 37.4% of the remaining pledged delegates to win pledged delegates, he is a lock to be that candidate. As such, the four uncommitted superdelegates and one Clinton endorsing superdelegate in this "club" are all effectively Obama superdelegates. This adds five superdelegates to Obama's total, and removes one from Clinton, allowing Obama to close the 16-18 delegate gap down to 10-12.

  Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

  

  
  

Hillary Plays the Rev. Wright Card and Blames Bosnia Lie on Sleep Deprivation
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on March 25, 2008 at 2:08 PM.

So, apparently Clinton decided to go there:

Clinton decided to weigh in on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

She continued later, "You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that. I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."

On her sniper gaffe, "I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke."

Even though it is not the main subject of this post, I really like that last line. I mean, if you are arguing that you are better at answering the red phone at 3 a.m., it seems like a really good idea to claim that you misspoke about national security experience because you were too tired. It really instills a lot of confidence in the 3 a.m. claim.

But anyway, do we really need to be telling other people where they are praying? Is that a pandora's box we really want to open in this country? Does a country built on religious freedom need one of the three people vying to lead the country comment on where one of the other two candidates should be praying? Really? That's a good thing for the country? That's a good thing for Democrats?

And hey, via BooMan Tribune, since we have decided to cross that line, let's see where it could lead us:

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.(...)

The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God-leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit." According to the Fellowship's archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators.

Military dictators and death squad leaders, eh? The elite winning power by the will of God, eh? This all kind of makes me wonder if Clinton's support for the Bush-McCain mission in Iraq is actually based on her right-wing prayer circle.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

We Are Way Past 4,000 Dead in Iraq
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on March 24, 2008 at 3:13 PM.

Whenever one a terrible milestone is reach in Iraq for the number of American soldiers killed, such as 4,000 today, it is necessary to point out that the milestone being focused on was actually reached a long time ago. In addition to the 4,000 dead American soldiers, the following fatalities have also occurred in Iraq over the past five years:

• Journalists: 135 fatalities
  
• Non-American military coalition forces: 308 fatalities
  
• Non-military contractors: At least 1,001 fatalities as of June 30th, 2007
  
• Iraqi Security Forces: At least 8,057
  
• Iraqi military forces: During the invasion, between 15,000 and 45,000 Iraqi military personnel died.
  
• Civilians: Between 400,000 and 650,000 as of June 2006, and over 1,000,000 now.

We are way, way past 4,000 deaths in Iraq. The non-civilian death toll, including journalists, all coalition military forces, contractors and Iraqi security forces, currently stands at a minimum of 13,501, or about 15 every two days since the start of the war. The civilian death toll is actually the greatest humanitarian crisis since the Rwanda genocide, and possibly since even before then (I don't want to start ranking genocides). Somewhere between 4% and 5% of the Iraqi population has died what is termed an "excess death" since the start of the Iraq war. For the sake of comparison, Pennsylvania represents just under 4% of the population of the United States.

Also, keep in mind that these are just deaths, and damage has been done in many other ways. Nearly four million living Iraqis are now refugees, roughly 16% of the population, 40% of the middle class, and larger percentages of religious and ethnic minorities. Between 60% and 70% of Iraqi children suffer from psychological trauma. Tens of thousands of American soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, have been injured. And oh yeah, the war will cost more than two trillion dollars.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Clinton Campaign Pushes Rev. Wright Story to Win Over Superdelegates
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on March 21, 2008 at 5:47 AM.

ABC News asks Hillary Clinton if her campaign is pushing Jeremiah Wright to superdelegates:

ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has strictly maintained a public position not to comment on Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Many times, questions have been answered with -- "you will have to ask Senator Obama about that."

However at a Thursday press availability in Terra Haute, Indiana after a report surfaced that the Clinton campaign was pushing the Wright story to superdelegates arguing that the relationship hurt Obama's electibility -- Clinton refused to deny that her campaign was pushing the story.

When asked, Clinton ignored the Wright portion of the question and said "well my campaign has been making the case that I am the most electable that I have said that for a year or more that I am the person best able to make the challenges that our country faces as commander in chief."

When Clinton was then asked specifically if her campaign was pushing the Wright story -- she shrugged and took the next question, ignoring the reporter.

Well, I just returned from my ward meeting tonight in University City, Philadelphia, and two Clinton staffers made an appearance. When one spoke on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he specifically listed Jeremiah Wright as an example of why Obama would be less electable in the general election. The context of his argument was that the Wright story demonstrated that Obama had not gone through the rigors of a presidential election before, and it was possible that more damaging stories like that would come out as the campaign progressed. Aka, the Wright story is demonstrative of how Obama is less electable.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

War, What Is It Good For? Not the Economy
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on March 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM.

As already linked by fladem in quick hits, this is it. This is the message that is both the winner for 2008, and for a long-term progressive mandate for sweeping change in governance:

More than 7 out of 10 Americans think government spending on the war in Iraq is partly responsible for the economic troubles in the United States, according to results of a recent poll.

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last weekend, 71 percent said they think U.S. spending in Iraq is a reason for the nation's poor economy. Twenty-eight percent said they didn't think so.

The argument over whether Democrats should run on Iraq or run on the war is not a useful argument. Ultimately, both are temporary messages that do not carry a mandate for comprehensive progressive change. If Democrats winning an election on Iraq, the rationale to vote for Democrats disappears when the Iraq war ends, since few Democrats are running a message that all wars in the Iraq mold should be avoided. Also, if Democrats win on the economy, the rational to vote for a Democrat ends either when the economy turns bad while Democrats are in power, or when the economy is doing well while Republicans are in power. Eventually, one of those to contingencies will come to pass.

However, winning an election on the platform that war spending is bad for the economy is exactly the sort of mandate for change that we need to order to end the national security state, reduce military spending, and implement the comprehensive reforms of The Responsible Plan When 71% of Americans view spending on war to be a drag on the economy, the justification to reduce military spending is accepted by a super-majority of the public, and skepticism about engaging in future military operations of this scale is cemented in the public consciousness for decades. If war spending is understand to be bad for the economy, then over the long-term people will want to spend less on the military, engage in fewer wars, and attack the root cause of wars like Iraq in order to prevent them from happening. Winning an election on the platform that Iraq is bad for the economy thus becomes a long-term progressive mandate.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

There's No Good Reason for Hillary to Drop Out of '08 Race
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on March 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM.

There is a sentiment in some parts of the blogosphere that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the campaign, "for the good of the party." The various aspects of the argument go as follows:

1. Clinton cannot win unless she convinces delegates to thwart the popular vote, which would invariably anger many people in the party and create lasting divisions for some time to come.

2. Clinton can only win by going nuclear on Obama in a way that will damage the party via right-wing arguments that will damage the party for a long time to come.

3. We need a nominee early enough in order to start directly taking on John McCain.

4. Obama has stronger coattails, and nominating him will help Democrats downticket in more areas of the country than Clinton.

5. Given her low chance to become President at this point, Clinton should start working on building her future position in the party through means other than a presidential campaign.

I disagree with all of these arguments. In fact, I think arguing for Hillary Clinton to drop out is counter-productive at this juncture for the party, and even for Barack Obama. A distinction needs to be made between the dangers of running a destructive campaign, and of the dignity in running a long-shot campaign. In the extended entry, I counter these arguments point by point:

1. Without a single more superdelegate making an endorsement, it is still possible for Clinton to move pretty close in the delegate count. I presented this case yesterday in a table projecting future delegate counts based on current polling in remaining states, which shows Clinton down by 79 delegates when all the voting is completed. However, it should be pointed out that it is also possible for Clinton to surpass current delegate projections and polling. She could, for example, net 18 more delegates in Michigan, 16 more delegates in PA, 12 more in Indiana, 10 more in Florida, 6 more in North Carolina, 4 more in both Puerto Rico and Oregon, and 2 more in West Virginia, Montana, and Kentucky. All told, that would put her within three delegates of Obama. If that winning streak also results in her winning the national popular vote, then she would have an overwhelming argument to bring to superdelegates based on both momentum and the popular will.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Mississippi Goes for Obama Big Time
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on March 11, 2008 at 7:54 PM.

Obama wins Mississippi 60% to 38% with 98% of the precincts reporting.

****

Two elections of national note tonight: the Mississippi Democratic presidential primary, and the special election for IN-07. The former is expected to be an easy win for Obama, while the later is expected to be a fairly easy win for Democrat Andre Carson, son of the late Julia Carson who previously held the seat.

IN-07 results can be found at Blue Indiana and the Indianapolis Star. Polls close, I believe, at 7 p.m., eastern.

For Mississippi, results can be found at the websites for most national news outlets. Polls close at 8 p.m., eastern. Also, even though the polls have not closed yet, we can already project the delegate count reasonably well (see here and here for more):

• At-large and PLEO delegates: Of the 11 delegates determined on the statewide vote, the split will be either 7-4 or 6-5, with I believe 59.1% being the over / under line for Obama. Or at least I think that is how it works, and the at-large and PLEO are not determined separately. If they are determined separately, than 6-5 Obama is a virtual lock.
  
• MS-01: Either 3-2 Clinton or 3-2 Obama, but probably 3-2 Clinton.
  
• MS-02: Probably 5-2 Obama.
  
• MS-03: Either 3-2 Clinton or 3-2 Obama
  
• MS-04: Probably 3-2 Clinton.

Overall, that means we start with a delegate count of 17-13 in favor of Obama. Three "loose" delegates could go either way, and two of those three lean toward Clinton. While that does not seem like much to watch for, there are two interesting sub-plots. First, whoever wins two of the three "loose" delegates wins the most pledged delegates for March. Second, if Obama wins the state by more than 20,000 votes, he takes the overall popular vote lead in even the most favorable count for Clinton. A more complete count shows that Obama is already ahead.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama Wins Wyoming Caucuses in Landslide
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on March 8, 2008 at 11:11 AM.

And Obama wins Wyoming by a 61-38 margin, in the caucuses.

Incidentally, is everyone on the Clinton campaign a resentful white male who time-traveled from 1984 just so they could get another whack at Gary Hart?

... I'm mocking this quote.

One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama's victories in "boutique" caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: "Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don't need a president, they need a feeling."

****

78% Reporting
Obama: 59%

Clinton: 40%

Looks like Obama's strength in caucuses is continuing. However, since this is the last caucus outside of Guam and a possible caucus in name only in Michigan, his dominance in caucuses is also ending.

The key number to watch in terms of delegates is 64.286%. If Obama goes over that number, the delegate split is 8-4. If he goes under that number, which seems pretty likely from the results so far, the delegate split is 7-5.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Right-Wing Attacks Are Becoming Effective in the Democratic Primary
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on March 7, 2008 at 1:54 PM.

Hillary Clinton is attacking Barack Obama on national security in almost exactly the same way John McCain is attacking him, and it is causing real problems for Obama:

Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.

It is difficult to shake an attack when both the most prominent Republicans and many of the most prominent Democrats are saying the same thing. It does not help when, according to a recent Pew survey, the most common word that comes to mind when people think of you is "inexperienced," and the most common word people think of when they hear Hillary Clinton's name is "experienced." In fact, "inexperienced," is the only negative word among the top ten for Obama, with charismatic, intelligent, change, inspirational, young, new enthusiastic and hope rounding out the top ten. The attacks Clinton is making about 3am and the "commander in chief threshold" are effective both because they exploit the only negative on Obama that has been established in conventional wisdom, and because they are attacks where Clinton and McCain can jointly "close the triangle" on Obama in the national media. Remember what Peter Daou, a senior staff member of Hillary Clinton's campaign, wrote about the creation of conventional wisdom two years ago:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Does Hillary Want to Pick McCain for VP?
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on March 7, 2008 at 5:26 AM.

Clinton yesterday:

Asked on CBS's The Early Show whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said: "That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket."

Clinton today:

In a Cabinet-style setting, surrounded by retired military leaders, Sen. Hillary Clinton said the public should ask whether Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has met the criteria needed to become the nation's commander in chief.

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country," Clinton said, "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »