Hillary and the World of the Possible

After several weird clown shows performed by the Republican right, the first Democratic debate gave people something to think about.

Specifically, with her fine-tuned performance, Hillary Clinton gave Bernie Sanders supporters much to mull over.

Clinton’s performance and her preparation, persona and demeanor were calculated with precision to appear presidential, to soften the negatives people see about her and to be ready to appeal to the left flank sufficiently while not being harsh with Sanders.

Clinton won the debate with skill. Good acting is best when you don’t seem to be acting. She made it look easy.

She handled Sanders skillfully when he spoke about democratic socialism and Denmark, and gently but forcefully reversed left to left alignment on Sanders’s stand on gun control. hil bernie

No one was great on foreign policy — Bernie was strange and stumbling about Syria and Putin. Hillary has no good answer, if anyone does, on the Middle East. [The other candidates don’t factor well–Jim Webb was self-referential and not convincing as the moderate right option; Martin O’Malley did not impress; and Lincoln Chaffee was oddly inconsequential]

More broadly, Bernie Sanders fit into an expected role.  He is a one-note samba about wealth in America and it is a tune we need to hear and deal with. He pulls Hillary in that direction. However, acknowledge it or not, Bernie Sanders is basically a tool of the Billary campaign to energize progressives who he will eventually then encourage to vote for her.

It was a strong evening for Hillary Clinton. She appeared to achieve a presence and persona that eliminates any other candidate–Biden, that is– from jumping in.

In short, Hillary Clinton re-introduced herself and restarted her campaign. She jumped over the media gabble against her. If the issue was email and Benghazi and trust, she turned the corner. That comes thanks to the bumbling admission by Kevin McCarthy, the failed Republican candidate for Speaker of the House, and Clinton’s ability to use that in her upcoming appearance before the politically venal House Benghazi committee. Sanders’s call to put an end to the email business took it off the table as a question, if it ever was, during the Democratic vetting of their potential candidates.
Many would agree that a country of 320 million people could have a better candidate and one who is not named Clinton. But Hillary Clinton was working to counteract that sentiment. She sought to coax the progressive coalition in her direction: listen to her repeated support for LGBT issues and mentioning, by the way, that America stands to follow the first African-American president with the first woman president. Combined with choosing — as one can imagine — Julian Castro as her running mate, Clinton took a giant step in the first debate on her march toward the presidency.

There is an implicit reminder, meanwhile, about Bernie Sanders’s electability. He did not do much to help his cause and he probably realizes where this is headed. He is not Ralph Nader, and Ralph Nader voters should take heed. Years after the 2000 election, Nader told me in an interview — after eight years of the Bush presidency — that the choice in 2000 between Bush and Gore was no choice. He was wrong.


Filed under 1


There is a broad majority in favor of changing gun laws in this country. That majority should reject anyone who dismisses the insanity by saying or supporting the statement: “stuff happens.”

I wrote the following in 2012, after the mass killing at Sandy Hook.

in Homicide Rate U.S. versus Britain: 100 TIMES GREATER CHANCE OF BEING SHOT IN U.S.

I was having dinner at an outdoor café one afternoon in London when suddenly I saw a scene that could have been from a movie. First a man holding a package ran past us as fast as he could run, followed by a man dressed as a chef waving a meat cleaver in pursuit, shouting “stop thief!” Both in turn followed by whistle-blowing Bobbies. The cops caught up with their man and paraded by in the opposite direction.

Something evidently was missing from the picture: no f-ing guns.

We are all at a loss for what to say about guns after the Connecticut [note, or Colorado, or Oregon or…..] massacre. How many more times before leaders will stand up?

Listen to Europeans this evening or read their newspapers tomorrow. Another mass killing across the water, they will say — “the Wild West,” using those very words in Spain, Italy many other countries in the original, not bothering to translate. There will be sympathy in Europe, but there will be sneers.

Britain, where bad guys have to run for and their pursuers carry sticks, has one of the toughest gun control laws in the world.

The intentional homicide rate in Britain is 0.03 per 100,000 people, ranked just under Japan at 0.02 per hundred thousand. Among other European countries, the rate in France is 0.06; Spain, 0.63; Germany, 1.10; Italy, 1.28.

The rate of intentional homicides in the United States is 2.98, 100 TIMES HIGHER than the rate in Britain.

No gun control advocate in Britain — where people with a license have no problem to go hunting and shoot squirrels and foxes with shotguns – right-wing or not could ever use guns a campaign issue.

The gun lobby in the United States is wrong and has to be stopped. No one will lose his or her right to go hunting. Everyone must lose the right to carry concealed or automatic weapons to kill.

What country is this and what century is this?


Filed under 1

Dorothy Day and the Pope

The Halls of Congress well could have shuddered when Pope Francis stood before a joint session of Congress and listed Dorothy Day as one of four great people who represent the best of America. Dorothy Day is considered by many Catholics and others to be an American Mother Teresa. Yet when I met her in 1974, she was virtually banned by the Roman Catholic Church and the priests around her celebrated mass at risk of excommunication.

J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI had a classified file that described her as a communist dupe and “a very erratic and irresponsible person.” Not from what I could see.

Pope Francis’s mention of Dorothy Day offers insight about who he is and what the Catholic Church is and whence it has come.

I was a very young reporter at the Hudson Register Star in upstate New York in the late fall of 1974 when a dispute arose in Tivoli, a bucolic Hudson River village of about 1,000 people, adjacent to Bard College.

Local burghers were concerned about the streams of hapless men who came to the village in search of Dorothy Day and her Catholic Workers retreat house established in a dilapidated old mansion there. The village council was looking at plumbing, electrical and health violations in the 19th Century building and its outlying shacks.dorothy-day

I remember driving up the rutted driveway to the old mansion one day that fall and that one or two men wearing thread-bare clothes were shuffling up the hill on the side of the road as I got there.

The building, it was true, was in bad repair, but something else was going on. I recall being brought in to meet Dorothy Day, who was just about to celebrate her seventy-fifth birthday. She was seated in a broken down easy chair, slightly reclined and wore simple clothing, a shawl or a sweater. Sharp, thin features, a bright, warm gaze under glasses that needed repair;  she spoke easily and calmly about what she was doing.

She said she split her time between a Catholic Workers’ site in Brooklyn and this place in Tivoli. The problem was that every time they opened a soup kitchen or a retreat it was immediately filled and overcrowded. The need was great.

She told me that people were always afraid of having poor folks in their midst, and that was probably the trouble the organization was feeling from the village fathers of Tivoli. But helping these poor men was her vocation — some of them winos, homeless, mentally ill, or just too poor and alone to have any place to go. The goal was to offer these men safety, mercy and forgiveness. No drinking, no carousing, a place of meditation.

She invited me to stay for a Mass, the only Mass I have ever attended. It was celebrated by a priest who wore a work shirt and jeans, broke bread and gave communion — probably not with real wine — and then joined in with a communal lunch. I remember beans and rice and garden vegetables grown on the property.

The rest of the memory is fogged by time, except that I did write a feature about Dorothy Day, impressed as I was by these Catholic Workers who saw that their simple mission in life was to serve the poorest of the poor, and to live among them as they did.

After publication, I received a phone call from a local nun who asked — virtually demanded — that I meet her and a friend for a cup of coffee in nearby Rhinebeck. I didn’t know what to expect.

The two nuns showed up nervously, hoping no one was watching. For the next hour, they grilled me for every detail of my visit with Dorothy Day, tearfully confessing that their mother superior had banned all contact with Dorothy and the Catholic Workers, even though they lived less than ten minutes away. Was she healthy? Was she eating well? What did she say exactly? They wanted to hold the hand that had held the hand of Dorothy Day. They wanted every detail. They were devoted to Dorothy Day, who was the embodiment of why they had entered their vocations.

As I moved on from upstate New York, I reported from Brazil and Argentina and Central America, where I met other renegade Catholic Church workers who took, as Liberation Theology put it, “the option for the poor.” Now, for the first time in a long time, the renegades — who saw their humble purpose as central to the meaning of their faith — are seated at the center of their church with a bishop, now pope, who agrees and breaks bread with them.


Filed under 1

Popes For All Seasons

The refugees, tens of thousands, teeming across Europe, sought nothing more than a safe haven and an end to violence, life for their children.

As soon as the pope recognized the scope of the looming refugee crisis, he appealed emotionally to European and American leaders. He called on Catholic dioceses to take responsibility and welcome a strong quota of people to save them.

Some leaders listened, others did not. The president of the United States agreed to admit some thousands of refugees — he faced opposition from ultra-conservatives in Congress if he tried to do more.

The year was 1938, seventy-seven years ago. Substitute the names and we go back to the future.

Pope Pius XI, a relative progressive, stood out from the conservatives around him and decried attacks on the Jews.

Today, Pope Francis calls on every Roman Catholic parish, on all people of conscience, to aid Middle Eastern refugees:

“Facing the tragedy of tens of thousands of refugees — fleeing death by war and famine, and journeying towards the hope of life — the Gospel calls, asking of us to be close to the smallest and forsaken. To give them a concrete hope,” he said. “And not just to tell them: ‘Have courage, be patient!’ ”

President Roosevelt was hamstrung by people in Congress and their constituencies: American xenophobia warned that there likely would be terrorist agents among prospective asylum-seekers.

On the eve of Pope Francis’s visit to the United States, I was reminded about the parallels of history. I wrote about Pope Pius XI and his last minute attempts to challenge Hitler, Mussolini and anti-Semitism in The Pope’s Last Crusade.

A new generation of refugees faces slurs and racist attacks–and only occasionally a welcome sign. Jews then were fleeing Hitler and Germany. Among the ironies of history, Syrians, Iraqis and other Middle Eastern refugees now find Germany among the most welcoming and hospitable countries.

How does a papal message or a pope’s moral stance convert into real change?

Notes on Pope Francis’s visit.

Among the many opinion pieces on Pope Francis’s U.S. visit, George Will’s take on the pontiff is notable for its shrill, ultimately absurd complaints.

He writes in The Washington Post that the pope

“…stands against modernity, rationality, science and, ultimately, the spontaneous creativity of open societies in which people and their desires are not problems but precious resources. Americans cannot simultaneously honor him and celebrate their nation’s premises.”

Will’s frothing rejection of the pope is an argument based on a ridiculous false premise, that Francis represents a rejection of modernity and all advancements in agriculture and capital development in the last century. Nonsense. Will sets up a straw man and then tries to beat it down as much as he would try to recreate President Obama as a socialist.

Gerald Posner, also writing in the Washington Post, does make an important point, when he renews his call for Francis to open the Vatican files on World War II:

“If Francis does not act to open the Vatican’s Holocaust-era files, they could stay sealed for a very long time. It took more than 400 years for the church to release some of its Inquisition files. And it was not until 2007 — after more than 700 years — that the Vatican cleared the Knights Templar of a heresy charge and opened the trial records.”

Pope Pius XI is little recalled for his bold stance against Hitler and anti-Semitism. But his secretary of state, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, was elected in 1939 as his successor, Pope Pius XII. Pius XII was as different from Pius XI as Francis is from his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI.

How much support did Pius XII give to the Nazis and at what profit? Posner asks.

Francis, progressive though he may be, has been equivocal on previous pledges to open the files. Posner writes:

“Those sealed records may help settle debate about whether the wartime pope, Pius XII, could have done more to prevent the Holocaust. They could also resolve questions about the extent to which the Vatican did business with the Third Reich, particularly whether it invested in German and Italian insurance companies that earned outsize profits by escheating the life insurance policies of Jews sent to the death camps.”

Pius XI then and Francis now spoke out for morality and change. Pius XI was praised by Jewish leaders in the United States at the time, even though his advocacy came late in his papacy. Pius XII muted his predecessor’s attempts to attack anti-Semitism.

Francis has hinted at major changes at the Vatican. But as George Santayana always reminds us: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”


Filed under 1

Stuck on the Ideological Divide


The week closes with the ongoing sense that many Americans are not tuned into dealing with the crucial issues that really face us. The old question resurfaces: where is the outrage?

I have been passionate in posting and commenting about the underlying issues surrounding the Amtrak tragedy outside Philadelphia. I am outraged that such an accident could happen at all. For me, the key is infrastructure – why hasn’t the government already pushed completion of Positive Train Control?

I’ll admit a bias. I live in Washington and the response and coverage of the train crash has been strong among media types who — like me – live and work along the Northeast Corridor and use Amtrak all the time.

So in the flurry of retweets and shares this week from Daily Beast and The New Yorker and The New York Times, I was slowed down when one of my Facebook buddies–not a product of the Northeast–questioned the basic notion that Amtrak should be “subsidized.”

Here’s how the story came down:

I had just shared an item on Facebook from the New York Times:

One Day After Wreck, Increased Funding for Amtrak Fails in a House Panel.


WASHINGTON — The bodies had not yet been fully recovered from theAmtrak derailment in Philadelphia before Capitol Hill erupted hours later into its usual partisan clash over how much money to spend on the long-struggling national rail service.

My Facebook contact, who I know to be a thoughtful fellow, left this comment:

I’m not convinced that the government should subsidize travel for parts of the country. It seems that Amtrak actually makes a profit in the Northeast (~$250 million a year), but its losses elsewhere are much larger (I think 6 or $800 million). I don’t think keeping Amtrak afloat everywhere is a wise use of government funds.

Rightly or wrongly, I perceived that comment to come from the political right. I answered gently, wary of getting into an argument that would never end:

It’s part of rational infrastructure development and rehab which should include nationwide regional success stories like the Northeast Corridor — Atlanta // Tennessee major cities // Florida major cities // California and many more. Try taking a train from Chicago to Cincinnati. The country is 3/4 of a century behind on railroads. Admittedly it is a much larger divisive argument — does spending money for infrastructure fuel progress, jobs and progress?

I then dropped in another shared file, this time from NPR:

“One key safety feature was missing from the stretch of track where an Amtrak passenger train going more than 100 mph derailed and killed seven people.

“Investigators say that if positive train control had been installed on that stretch, the technology could have automatically slowed the train and perhaps saved lives.”

My Facebook friend had an answer for that:

      I’m not saying that it’s not a conversation worth having. If the federal is going to spend money on infrastructure, however, I’m not convinced that increasing subsidies to an unprofitable, private business is the wisest choice. Even if it is, I don’t think the accident near Philadelphia is a sound launching point for that argument. Indeed, I would wager that had the government given more money to Amtrak in the name of infrastructure, it wouldn’t have prevented this accident.
     Although it’s not in the article you linked, I heard on NPR this afternoon that it would cost *billions* to outfit all of Amtrak’s rails with Positive Train Control.

I decided not to answer, at least until now. I saw an argument without end.

One of the dangers of social media and the Internet is that people tend to flock to birds of their own feather. I worry often about preaching to my own choir – and also about bothering to pick a fight with those who will never stray from their own ideological lines.

That all said, my answer to my friend would be: billions of dollars doesn’t sound like too much to fix the system. In fact, I agree with the argument that we need to spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure.

Does the American Society of Civil Engineers fly a communist banner when it says in its infrastructure scorecard that the United States earns an average D+ on questions of infrastructure? It says we face an array of crumbling disgraces that threaten the future – bridges that are crumbling, rails like Amtrak that have delayed maintenance programs – run down the list from safe drinking water to schools to hazardous waste.

The organization says the United States needs to spend more than three trillion dollars this decade for crucial upgrades. It says that “infrastructure is America’s backbone.”

I agree with economists such as Paul Krugman that the 2009 stimulus plan that followed the disastrous Bush era-induced economic collapse should have been vastly more ambitious, the equivalent of a modern New Deal recovery. Building infrastructure fuels jobs, investment, a cycle of progress.

There is a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness in saying such things. I suspect my Facebook buddy will deeply reject what I say. And I know that the broken political system we face – run by “I’m-no-scientist” Congressional leaders and end-of days-presidential candidates– has everything to do with stagnation, with virtually no chance of infrastructure improvements anytime soon.

So I write this hesitantly, figuring that some of the usual subjects will agree and hit the like button, while others will come out screaming. To what end? There is no national debate – there are only sectorized talking points. Too often, what passes as news is handled–never moderated–by cable television discourse that looks for noise and ratings, rarely with the focus on civility, compromise and common sense.

1 Comment

Filed under 1

Them Bones — Cervantes Warns: “Don’t Touch.”

Interesting and somewhat creepy news from Madrid –– Researchers have apparently found the remains of Miguel de Cervantes — 399 years after his death –and are sifting through bones.Cervantes

A team of forensic scientists in Madrid say they have located the remains of Spanish novelist, poet and playwright Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547­ 1616), but have stopped short of a definitive identification given the lack of DNA evidence…(EL PAIS in ENGLISH] [EL PAIS IN SPANISH]

Toward the end of his great masterpiece, Don Quixote, Cervantes issues a warning to grave robbers in Don Quixote’s name that could serve as an admonition as well to current day meddlers:

If by chance you come to know him, be warned, leave be the weary and long-moldering bones of Don Quixote, and make no move, against all the privileges of death, to carry them unto Old Castille, making him rise from the
grave where in reality and truth he lies extended at full length, powerless to make any third expedition or new departure….” Don Quixote [Part II Chapter 74]

“si acaso llegas a conocerle, que deje reposar en la sepultura los cansados y ya podridos huesos de don Quijote, y no le quiera llevar, contra todos los fueros de la muerte, a Castilla la Vieja, haciéndole salir de la fuesa donde real y verdaderamente yace tendido de largo a largo, imposibilitado de hacer tercera jornada y salida nueva…” El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha [II, Cap. 74]

1 Comment

Filed under 1

Substance and Reason? Netanyahu Before Congress

Netanyahu (NBC)

Netanyahu (NBC)



Make no mistake, the substance of Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress today is likely irrelevant – the fact that he is delivering the speech is all that matters.

Many Israelis and Americans– including those who would ordinarily be his supporters – oppose the fact that Netanyahu delivers a speech in cahoots with John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, and in defiance of all protocol and diplomatic precedent.

He will oppose negotiations with Iran, he will warn about Iranian terrorism, he will warn about a bomb – the same warnings from the same neo-conservative cabal he and his Likud Party consort with. These are the people that brought us the trillion-dollar debacle that was the Iraq War.

These are the same people that would attack Iran – even though Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies and the Joint Chiefs of Staff reject the idea.

Netanyahu will stand before Congress in defiance of the President of the United States – no matter how he denies that and no matter what he says.

He will propose, perhaps, increased sanctions and no negotiations. He does not represent reason—he stands for war.


Filed under 1