I saw Miles Davis a few times, the last about a year and a half before he died. It was the most incredible concert I've ever heard. I could go on for pages about that concert but there was one moment that stands out. You see, Miles was not just a great trumpet player and one of the most creative improvisers. He was like a guru of jazz and subsequently of life.

So the band plays the head and Miles riffs a bit with the bass player to set him up for his improvisation. The bass player begins to build on the head, chords, and the riffs Miles set him up with. After a bit he plays this really cool funky bass line and the people clap and make a bit of noise, like you know, its so cool.

For those that know jazz there are certain things a musician can do that will grab the attention of the crowd. A funky base riff, a gospel like organ line, easily recognizable cool sounding musical moments, cliches that many in the audience dig.

The whole band has radio mikes on their instruments and Miles waves and the band backs off a bit and gets quiet. The bassist stopped playing. Miles puts the bell of his horn where the mike is to his mouth and says, "What did you do that for?"

The bass player is silent and after 10 or so seconds Miles asks again, "What did you do that for?"

Finally the bassist responded, "I guess I wanted them to clap."

Miles walked over the the bassist and takes his hand and holds it up in the air. And, of course, the crowd yelled and clapped. Then Miles walked over to the sax player and holds his hand up in the air and again the crowd roars. The sax guy yanked his hand out of Miles' hand a little angry like and walked away.

You know, sometimes I wonder if I imagined this, because most of the people there were busy grooving on the sound and the show and didn't see it. But clear as sunshine to my eyes Miles was showing that young bassist:  Look, you don't have to do nothing and all I have to do is hold up your hand and the people will clap and cheer. Get serious.

Jazz is not about playing the cool riffs that everyone knows and loves. Its about coming up with some thing new and unusual and different than the same old lines that everyone has heard a thousand times before.

So why did I feel like posting this? Earlier today there was some discussion on a thread about who gets the rec's and who gets how much commentary putting someone down for not getting recced. Well I've seen many an interesting post generate a fair amount of dialog only to sink off the page with few rec's because it just wasn't one of the cool lines we all love hearing over and over again. And I've seen many of the same old same old bumped to the rec list with almost no comments because it said the things we love to hear.

Popularity and quality are not synonymous.   

Joe Wurzelbacher is not as educated as most of us here. He couldn't refute Das Kapital with quotations from Wealth of Nations. He couldn't explain Obama's or McCain's tax plans and how they would affect him. But that doesn't matter andit doesn't matter whether he would be better off under obama's tax plan or McCain's either. I think many here are making some of the same mistakes as Thomas Frank made in What's the Matter With Kansas. Its about values, working class values. And I'm really not all that sure how much similarity those working class values are to the liberal educated values.

Among the most left leading liberals there's a very real sense of compassion and a desire to take action based on that compassion. That's all good, imo, but so often the tendancy is toward some sort of welfare.

The thought of welfare rubs against the grain of working class people. You might call it the protestant work ethic, this belief that one should work for what they have and get to keep what they work for. Tax policy is progressive in this country and most accept that as generally fair. Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthest 5% is probably seen as fair given the benifits those same 5% have had over these at least last 8 years. But when obama so clearly says he is taking from the top 5% so that he can give to the lower 95% it smacks of redistribution of wealth, not progressive taxation. When Obama choses such an inept way of describing his tax plan, "spreading the wealth around" this is offensive to many working class people who don't want wealth spread around in that manner.   It simply does not matter that they're the ones getting something.

Let me give you an example. I grew up working class. I internalized those values. I still believe in them. I didn't make enough money to pay income taxes last year. In May I got all I paid in back. In August I got an extra few hundred dollars from the stimulis package. Certainly it helped me, certainly I was happy to get it. But ethically it didn't feel right. It was a welfare payment I didn't need and I didn't ask for. Now Obama and Pelosi are talking about what appears to me to be another stimulis package early next year, couched in terms of early rebates.

Working class people vote their values, whether those values are social or economic, and will vote against their economic interests based on those values. To be sure those who are struggleing and have a sense that they have not gotten their fair share of the economic pie want change, want to see a fairer economic society. There are liberal programs to move toward that goal and Obama does have some plans to move toward a fairer society. But each time Obama says raise taxes on 5% and lower taxes on 95% working class folks hear, as Joe said, Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor. Hence shouts of socialism even from those who would likely benifit. To make such a direct connection rubs negatively against a core working class value, that one should work for, earn, what they get. This, I believe, is one reason that Obama is having trouble winning over working class voters. He's not speaking to their values.   



 

Forty one years after three civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi Edgar Ray Killen was found guilty and sentenced to three 20 prison terms. At the time he was tried but there was a hung jury. The government waited 38 years to retry him. There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder and I agree with that. I was happy that he was finally found guilty. Forty one years was too long for it to happen but better late than never. Are you telling me it was too long ago to matter? That Killen shouldn't have been retried?

At the same time Ayers was setting off his bombs other people were bombing black churches in the south. What if one of the people who bombed a black church got off on a technicality and admitted he set the bombs multiple times, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird, America is a great country."  When asked if he regretted burning down black churches and killing people inside he said,  "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." If I kicked off my political career in the living room of this person who bombed black churches are you seriously telling me it would not matter to you?

Something else happened in  this debate that we're still analysing within  the campaign. First of all we're moving on to the final 35 days. But there were tears that melted people and those tears that Biden cried on that day clearly moved voters. He somehow connected with those voters. but those tears have to be analysed. They have to be looked at very very carefully in light of Katrina in light of other things that Biden didn't cry for particularly as we move to these final days. We saw something very clever in  this campaign. We saw a sensitivity factor something that Biden has not been able to do with voters that he tried in the debate. Not in response to Katrina not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq. We saw tears in response to his appearance. So his appearance brought him to tears but not hurricane Katrina, not other issues.

Are you suggesting it was a little bit affected, his tears, that it was staged?

I wouldn't say that, but I am saying that there are a lot of issue that we can be emotion about in this campaign. And I'm super sensitive to that. There are people without jobs, we're approaching a recession, the sup prime market is collapsing and people are losing their homes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA&eurl=http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/09/jackson/index.html

There has been quite a bit of discussion on this board on the value of bipartisanship and many people extrolling Obama for his commitment to bipartisanship. In the final vote on the bailout bill 140 democrats and 65 republicans voter yes and 133 republicans and 95 democrats voted no. Looking at the percentages of democrats and republicans voting for or against this bill, I was struck by the large number of democrats that voted against the bill.

Exactly what is bipartisanship? I'm only asking because it really seems to me that there was bipartisan support to stop this bill from passing. Clearly the vote to block this bill was significantly more bipartisan than the vote to pass it.

So maybe someone can explain to me what they, and Obama, mean when they talk about the value of bipartisanship?

I admit I don't know much about economics. That said its hard for me to see how this changes anything. We were 10 trillion dollars in debt and all the candidates, except Paul, didn't have a problem with that. What is it about 11 trillion that causes the politicians and us to suddenly sit up and take notice?

No candidate promised to balance the budget in their first year, second year, third year, etc. By the time Obama or McCain finished their first term in office the debt would have been way over 11 trillion anyway, now it will be over 12 trillion. Is that the magic number that is just too much debt?

I'd like some genius of the economy to explain to me why we could afford all these tax cuts and all the additional spending at 10 trillion but it all becomes unaffordable at 11 trillion debt.

The whole scheme seemed like a bribe to people for their vote, income tax cut for the middle class financed from letting the Bush cuts expire, an energy rebate from a windfall tax on oil companies. This with a projected deficit next year of 400 billion. This is not just Obama, Hillary had her payoffs on the table too and so does McCain.

I understand you don't get elected by telling the American people we can't afford any tax cuts, not for anyone, not if we want to stop the exploding deficit and begin to pay it down. Not if we want to invest in rebuilding the infrastructure. Not if we want to reset our whole nation on a path away from fossil fuels and into alternative energies.

To all those people who thought we could afford all these tax cuts and new spending when we had 10 trillion in debt and thought Obama was so wonderful for proposing them and are now oh so worried that we can now not afford them. What is it about 11 trillion dollars in debt that changes everything while 10 trillion dollars in debt was just hunky-dorey?

Drug abuse is a problem in our society. A large number of the population has gone through a period of their life abusing drugs. As I was reading the Washington Post article on Cindy McCain's period of drug abuse I wondered about the relevance to the presidential campaign.

Perhaps you think its relevant. Perhaps you believe a detailed account of her drug use and abuse and the ways and means she used to illegally obtain them is important information that the public needs to know and consider when choosing a president.

If the drug abuse by the wife of a presidential candidate is of such importance that it gets front page coverage in the Washington Post it seems to me the drug abuse of a candidate for president is equally if not more relevant and important.

"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though."

Frankly I think Obama's drug use was long enough ago to be irrelevant. I also believe Cindy McCain's drug abuse was long enough ago to be irrelevant. But the Washington Post disagrees, at least as far as Cindy's drug use.

Far be it for me to suggest that the Washington Post is in the tank for Obama and has turned its newspaper's front page into the liberal equivalant of faux news. As much as I disagree that a candidate's, or a candidate's wife's, long past drug abuse is news worthy I'm sure they think that they are serving the public's interest.

So what about a detailed front page story about Obama's drug abuse. How often did he smoke marijuana? Everyday, just on the weekends, several times a day? And for how many years? Blow would imply powder cocaine. How often was he able to "afford it?" Or was he also abusing crack cocaine? "No smack" he tells us, but are there any other drugs he didn't mention that he abused? Did he ever use the same drugs Cindy McCain used, vicodan and percocet? What about LSD or qualudes?

The means that drug addics use to illegally optain their drugs are often quite sordid. Again, not a topic I think worth discussing. But the Washington post thinks these details are front page news in the story of Cindy McCain. So how did obama get the illegal dugs he was addicted to? Did he ever sell them as well?

If this is "news" it seems to me its news not just about Cindy McCain, but news about Obama and Palin as well. I look forward to a fair and balanced front page story about them on this subject in the Washington Post.

There's been a lot of discussion about Obama changing his views on several issues, FISA, guns, abortion, off shore drilling, as soon as the primary was over. There was some upset, some anger, but the main reaction has been resignation, acceptance, an understanding that he must move to the center to win this election. I saw many posts expressing the sentiment that we all know what Obama really believes on those issue but he had to move to the center to win in the GE. Well we may be right, we may have correctly analysed what Obama really believes in spite of these moves to the center or we may be wrong. But we do pride ourselves on having a sophisticated enough view of the political process to not be shocked by the changes and to understand the necessity for them.

You might want to consider the possibility that the average voter is not a moron, that they've been watching this process for years too and have just as sophisticated and nuanced a view as we do. Conservative democrats, independents, and moderate republicans know that McCain has fought with his party over the years on immigration reform, the Bush tax cuts, torture, earmarks, even the power of the evangelicals.

Perhaps this is why McCain is staying even with Obama in spite of the overwhelming dislike of bush. Perhaps the average voters are saying the same thing many have said about Obama. We know what McCain really believes on those issues but he had to move to the right to win  in the primaries.

The average voters may have correctly analysed McCain's real views on those issues or they may be wrong. But that may be the reason the democrats have been unsuccessful in defining McCain as Bush's third term.

I've seen several posts here complaining, even horrified, by the chanting of USA at the RNC. I wasn't thrilled with it either. I hate pep rally politics. I just can't be part of a group and yell with them. I could see myself at either convention standing quietly with my back against some wall as people chanted USA, O-BA-MA, or Yes We Can. I'd look on mystified at what I perceived to be the antics of those extroverts. I could never be a part of it, not for anyone, no matter how much I admired her.

I'm an introvert, I know I'm different than most. We are a minority among the population. But most of you are not. Most of you who are offended by the chanting of "USA" found the chanting of "Obama" or "yes we can" to be a positive emotion experience, inspiring. So maybe you can explain it to someone who finds all the shouting and chanting mystifying, someone who can't be a part of that group energy no matter who or where its directed at.

Why is chanting "Obama" good and chanting "USA" bad?

There have been complaints about how boring the cafe has been since the primary ended. Oh there have been moments, like when it was announced Hillary would get a roll call vote, but mostly just that silly wonkish issue related blogs. Spiced of course with personal attacks on other bloggers not toeing the party line.

Good news people, our 2 minutes of daily hate are back. The blogs are bubbling with excitement. No no, Hillary hasn't done anything to undermine Obama, recently. (we'll be watching though) Almost better than Hillary, we've got a new Emmanuel Goldstein to slime and hate on.

Welcome to the monkey house Sarah Palin.

Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

There seems to be wide spread misconceptions about what Roe v Wade actually said as well as what the current policy concerning abortion in the US is. At least that's how it appeared when last this subject came up. Abortion is not an unfrettered right in the US. Roe v Wade gave the states the right to ban all abortions in the third trimester except if the life or health of the mother is threatened. Mental distress, mental health or psychological issues are accepted as falling under the health of the mother exception. Over 40 states now ban abortions in the third trimester except where the life or health of the mother is threatened.

Figures vary but I have never seen any number relating to the amount of third trimester abortions that exceeds 1% of the total of yearly abortions. There is no clear information as to why these abortions have been done.

The pro choice contingent plays up those instances where there are severe medical problems to the mother, the fetus, or both. In these examples its clear that the late term abortion was necessary. The pro life movement plays up those instances where there is not a physical cause and claims that the mental distress exemption has been abused. Obama appears to be echoing the argument set forth by the pro life movement that the mental health exemption has been abused or quite possibly should be eliminated or greatly restricted. This would increase the states ability to restrict abortions in the third trimester. But wait, its not just the third trimester.

To further complicate matters there is a flaw in Roe v Wade that has been somewhat corrected, but to the detriment to those who are pro choice. A rather arbitrary line was set at the beginning of the third trimester. At the time of the decision that was pretty close to the time that a fetus was viable outside the womb with reasonable medical attention. Anyone with even a small amount of knowledge about the advances in medical science could see how easily that line of viability could be broached. And, of course, it has been. Its quite possible that a fetus at 4 1/2 months could be considered viable.

In a court case, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the court refined the third trimester rule and replaces viability as the line at which the state could ban abortions to protect the life of the fetus. Again, excepting when the life or health of the mother is threatened.

As decided by Roe v Wade and refined by PP v Casey states can ban abortions at any time that the fetus is viable given reasonable medical attention. This could easily mean abortions can be banned at 4 months or, as medical science shifts, sooner. If the standards for mental health as it falls under the "life and health of the mother" exemption are tightened as obama seems to propose women could find it increasingly difficult to find an abortion provider early into the second trimester as they now find it in the third trimester.

I find it laughable that so many here are upset that Clinton didn't concede last night. Your political naivety and lack of historical perspective is astonishing. Though perhaps I'm being a bit harsh since for many this is the first or one of a few presidential primaries you've ever pay attention to. Not that most of you have paid much attention. But I guess I shouldn't expect much intellectual rigor or study since I haven't really studied past primaries all that much either. I have the advantage of having lived through 10 presidential primaries so I can just remember.

I never expected Hillary to concede last night. I can't think of any hard fought primary where the losing candidate rolled over and supplicated themselves before the winning candidate. With this being the closest primary in my lifetime I knew there would be some negotiations before Hillary got on board.

I remember the negotiations between Mondale and Hart after the primaries were over. Hart also was threatening to take the fight to the convention floor. There were disagreements about the primary rules and superdelegates. Before Hart was willing to suspend his campaign and support the nominee he had certain issues he wanted addressed.

Hart wanted reforms in the campaign rules that hurt his candidacy. He called them pro democracy reforms and maybe they were. But they were also the rules that stymied his candidacy that year.  He wanted changes in the number of supers and changes in the caucus rules. There was extensive behind the scenes negotiations and when an agreement was reached there was a meeting between the two candidates with a public announcement afterwards. Even then Hart did not end his candidacy, he simply suspended it and agreed to not bring any fights to the convention floor.

The 84 primary was much less close then this one yet still  Hart had earned enough political clout to bring up issues, make demands and expect discussion  with some acceptable compromise to be reached before he gave his support.

This primary has been the closest one in my life time. Hillary has earned considerable political capital from this fight and I fully expect her to spend it. I don't know what she'll ask for but what ever it is she will get most of it. There are likely behind the scenes negotiations going on at this very moment and quite possibly some party elder acting as mediator. A truly neutral party like Gore is the most likely mediator.

When some compromise is worked out there will be some public meeting between Obama and Hillary. There'll be smiles and hugs all around and all sorts of cliches about party unity and how lovin' and friendly they all are. The show must go on, you know.

For the few of you who aren't partisan hacks spinning superficial MSM talking points for your candidate I took a little time to find a link to a article written at the time to back up my memory of the situation.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950074,00.html?promoid=googlep

I'm angry, there's no doubt that many people are. So while bitter isn't the best choice of a word, I guess it fits. Now a lot of people here have posted that they are bitter and how true Obama's statement about bitterness was. Apparently the anger or bitterness I feel causes me to cling to guns to explain my frustrations. And apparently its was a good thing for Obama to tell me this. Now I don't go to church. So clearly I don't cling to that to explain my frustrations. I'm just wondering. What do you use to explain your frustrations? Is it on the list?

guns
or religion
or antipathy to people who aren't like them
or anti-immigrant sentiment
or anti-trade sentiment

Or is it something not on the list? You all have told me you're bitter. You all have told me what a wonderful thing Obama has said. It would be just so much more wonderful if you would join the wonderful Obama and add to his wonderfully true comment. I get bitter, I cling to _________ as a way to explain my frustrations. Or is it just those working class people who cling to things to explain their frustrations?

I'm angry, there's no doubt that many people are. So while bitter isn't the best choice of a word, I guess it fits. Now a lot of people here have posted that they are bitter. And how true Obama's statement about bitterness was. Apparently the anger or bitterness I feel causes me to cling to guns to explain my frustrations. And apparently its was a good thing for Obama to tell me this. Now I don't go to church. So clearly I don't cling to that to explain my frustrations. I'm just wondering. What do you use to explain your frustrations? Is it on the list?

guns
or religion
or antipathy to people who aren't like them
or anti-immigrant sentiment
or anti-trade sentiment

Or is it something not on the list? You all have told me you're bitter. You all have told me what a wonderful thing Obama has said. It would be just so much more wonderful if you would join the wonderful Obama and add to his wonderful comment. I get bitter, I cling to _________ as a way to explain my frustrations. Or is it just those working class people who cling to things to explain their frustrations?

 "I can't wait for someone to say that they were the son of mill worker." (just a little post for genghis)

I'm sitting here reading tpm and eating a nice venison steak. Road kill I picked up a month or so ago. Its hard to poach where I live now in Florida. I haven't been able to poach a deer since I left Bethlehem PA. My father worked at the Bethlehem Steel mill. Fortunately he retired with a nice pension at the first downsizing, several years before they closed down the plant.

I reach for my Rugar (22 cal automatic pistol) thinking about the uncountable squirrels I've killed and fried up. Not in a corn popper like Huck, I use a cast iron skillet.  A person's home is their castle its said and even though I live in a 27 foot Winnebego RV, well, its a castle to me. So I do keep a gun loaded and near by at all times.

There was a time when I thought I liked to hunt. I thought I liked wild free high quality meat. I thought I held the second amendment to the constitution as sacrosanct as the first. I thought an armed populace was a necessary check on authoritarian government. I know, "It can't happen here." But now I'm beginning to wonder if it all comes back to the closing of the steel mills in my home town. It's not surprising I got bitter, I cling to guns  as a way to explain my frustrations.

I'm guessing I'm just a bit different than most of the posters here. I'm guessing many will find this post hard to relate to. Spin Obama's little gaffe anyway you want but there's a lot of people in my home town who grew up like me. This was more than a bad choice of words by Obama. Its not going to play well with folks like me. It does seem like obama just doesn't get it and it does seem condescending.

You can take the son of a mill worker out of the mill town but you can't take the mill town up bringing out of the man.

Ah well, it probably won't lose him the election but it surely will move some undecided people into the Hillary or McCain column.

And in case you're wondering, While this was somewhat tongue in cheek none of it is made up. Bon appetit