Hey, Democrats: So "Experience" and Willingness to "Fight" Actually Matter in a President

During the Democratic primaries, I often felt that I was on Jupiter. My fellow Democrats rejected qualities in Hillary Clinton that are essential to a successful presidency.

When Clinton claimed she had more experience than Obama, Democrats either denied this reality or said that experience does not matter. They insisted that "ideas matter more" or that "Lincoln did not have experience either." Instead of experience, they preferred a "fresh face."

When Clinton said she was a fighter (explicitly embracing a "Rocky" theme), Democrats turned this into a bad thing, accusing Clinton of negative campaigning. Obama said that Clinton only knew how to fight, but that he would bring together the American people. Democrats wanted a "unifier" rather than a "fighter."

Well, I think it is time for people to evaluate their choices. From where I sit, I believe we could use a healthy dose of fighting and experience in the White House. What do you think?

On issues ranging from healthcare, anti-terrorism tactics, war, and crime, President Obama seems committed to making deals with moderates and conservatives, rather than fighting for the values of the Democratic Party. Or, is the failure to fight an official value of the Democratic Party?

Lawyer for Idaho Kidnappers Possibly Tied to Trafficking Ring

The El Salvadoran government is conducting an investigation to determine whether Jorge Puello, a lawyer for 10 Americans accused of attempted kidnapping in Haiti, is connected to a trafficking and prostitution ring. The Haitian judge presiding over the criminal case has also initiated an investigation into the matter.

The 10 Americans, who are members of an Idaho Baptist sect, say they only intended to "rescue" the children from the earthquake-ravished country, and several news articles have portrayed the group in sympathetic terms. Dissenting Justice, however, has argued that this type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable and goes against the legal standards for treating children in every civilized country. The earthquake and poverty in Haiti should not invalidate established legal norms that protect children from exploitation. Indeed, poor children are among the most vulnerable for exploitation and abuse.

This Is Not A "Politically Charged" Case
In its latest coverage of the case, the New York Times reports that the prosecution of the Americans is "politically charged." The article, however, does not offer any evidence to support this claim. An earlier New York Times article similarly described the case as being "fraught with diplomatic and political land mines."

Perhaps the New York Times believes that it is inherently a matter of politics for an impoverished nation to prosecute a clear case involving crimes against innocent children if the defendants are Americans. I disagree. Also, the State Department has rebuffed a request by the group to negotiate a release.

The United States prosecutes foreign nationals routinely, without the major media, including the New York Times, describing the cases as politically charged. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the infamous "underwear bomber," is a religious foreign national subject to prosecution in the United States for trying to harm innocent Americans. Most media would not consider his prosecution "politically charged." It is unclear what distinguishes these two cases in that regard.

For more on the story of the 10 Americans, see: So God Authorized Attempted Mass Kidnapping? Give Me a Break!

For more on the possible tie between the group and a suspected human trafficker, see: Adviser to Detained Americans in Haiti Is Investigated.

WaPo's Ezra Klein Defends Rahm Emanuel; Says Growing Criticism Is "Weird"

Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein has defended Rahm Emanuel against a growing number of critics who insist that he is bad news for President Obama. Klein argues that "[i]t's a bit weird to see so much blame accruing to Rahm Emanuel for the administration's woes." More specifically, Klein contends that:

I'm not an Emanuel fan, as it happens. In most of my reporting, he was not particularly pleased with doing a big health-care reform bill in the first place, and at multiple steps along the way, he's argued for scaling it back dramatically. But his personal opinions aside, I'm not sure what else he could've done in shepherding the bill through the process. And if Martha Coakley hadn't insisted on mocking Red Sox fans, health-care reform might well have been signed by now and the White House would've pivoted to a more populist argument about jobs and banks while being able to brag about the largest legislative achievement since Lyndon Johnson.

Bad luck has left them in a very different place than that, and a lot of people want someone to blame. But given the precise contours of Emanuel's job -- keep the White House running smoothly and help craft its strategy with Congress -- I'm not convinced that he's the right guy. What's clearly the case is that his strategy stopped being suited for the circumstances the day Scott Brown won the election. But after a week of readjustment, the White House seems to be doing what it can to take control of the process, and I'd say it's too early to tell whether its new approach will work.

So, "bad luck" explains the series of problems -- not the administration's top political strategist. For contrary opinions, including my own, see: Democrats Offer Scathing Criticism of Obama's Senior Staff.

Earlier this year, Klein defended Obama against liberal critics who argued that by dropping the public plan option during Senate negotiations, President Obama betrayed a campaign promise. Klein made the utterly inaccurate assertion that the Senate bill and Obama's campaign proposals were "remarkably similar." See: Ezra Klein's "Pink=Blue=Colors" Logic Regarding Healthcare Reform.

See also on Dissenting Justice:

OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!

Rahm Emanuel: Ghostwriter for Dana Milbank?

Savvy Americans Love "Gay Men" and "Lesbians" More Than "Homosexuals"

Framing matters in public opinion polls, but a new CBS/New York Times survey related to Don't Ask, Don't Tell has some interesting results. Apparently, while the public favors ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the level of support for discarding the policy depends upon whether the military will admit "homosexuals" or "gay men" and "lesbians." The poll finds that:

[T]he wording of the question is key when it comes to determining whether Americans support allowing gays to serve in the military.

In the poll, 59 percent say they now support allowing "homosexuals" to serve in the U.S. military, including 34 percent who say they strongly favor that. Ten percent say they somewhat oppose it and 19 percent say they strongly oppose it.

But the numbers differ when the question is changed to whether Americans support "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military. . .70 percent of Americans say they support gay men and lesbians serving in the military, including 19 percent who say they somewhat favor it. Seven percent somewhat oppose it, and 12 percent strongly oppose it.

Also, when asked whether the groups should serve "openly," 44 percent (versus 42 percent) said yes for homosexuals, but 58 percent (versus just 28 percent) said yes for gay men and lesbians.

Opponents and proponents of DADT could learn from these polling results. Proponents will likely continue to endorse including "gay men and lesbians" in the military. Opponents, however, will decry the horrors of "open homosexuals" serving in the military. If this does not work, perhaps opponents will argue that sexually deviant immoral pedophile terrorist rapist queers have no place in the armed forces. Stay tuned!

President Obama Says He Is "Agnostic" On Ways to Reduce the Deficit

President Obama's recent statement regarding deficit reduction will not alleviate the growing criticism that he does not show strong "leadership" or "commitment" on policy issues. During an interview with Bloomberg News, Obama said that he is "agnostic" on strategies to reduce the deficit, including raising taxes on individuals who make less than $250,000 or households that make less than $200,000.

During the presidential campaign, Obama promised not to raise taxes for people in these income categories. Apparently, he did not learn from Bush, Sr. ("No new taxes").

Earth to Conservatives: The Harsh Winter Does Not Disprove "Global Warming"

Conservative media and politicians are having fun showing how ignorant they are of science and basic statistical concepts. It seems that many of them mistakenly believe that record-breaking snowfalls in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast disprove the concept of global warming.

Earth to Conservatives
The science behind global warming observes that the average temperature on the entire planet has increased and that this increase results from the emission of greenhouse gases. Average global temperatures include localized and annual deviations from that norm. All "averages" include deviations.

Hence, the harshness of winter 2000-2010 in the eastern United States proves NOTHING with respect to global warming. Perhaps conservatives oppose climate control measures because they do not even understand what global warming actually means!

Media Matters has spent much more time debunking this ignorance than I care to do. Here's the link: Brain Freeze: Conservative media still using winter weather to attack global warming.

Update: Some experts believe that harsher winters are in fact a sign of global warming. See: Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change.

Democrats Offer Scathing Criticism of Obama's Senior Staff

Career Democrats (not just "outsider" liberal critics) are beginning to criticize President Obama's senior staff. The Hill, for example, reports that liberal and moderate Democrats in Congress blame Rahm Emanuel for the Obama administration's poor performance on healthcare reform.

Although both sides point to Emanuel, they do so for different reasons. Moderates fault Emanuel for only seeking the support of a narrow band of politicians, like Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Liberals, on the other hand, argue that Emanuel gave Senator Max Bachus too much time to negotiate with Republicans, like Senator Charles Grassley (who shamelessly joined Sarah Palin to condemn the bill for promoting "death panels").

On some level the criticisms sound contradictory (too much outreach versus not enough outreach to Republicans). Nevertheless, they all single out Emanuel as a problem for Obama. They also attribute Emanuel's shortcomings to his lack of Senate experience (which raises the question: Where is Joe Biden?).

In addition to The Hill article, former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder has written a scathing critique of Obama's senior staff in Politico. Wilder, who supported Obama over Hillary Clinton, argued that Obama needs to shake up his senior staff and remove Tim Kaine as Chair of the Democratic National Committee:

I am an admirer of Tim Kaine, whom I backed in his current position and as one of my successors as Virginia governor and even recommended for the vice presidency. But a spate of recent losses in races that Democrats should have won underscores what has been obvious to me for a long time: The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is the wrong job for him.

The changes must go much deeper. Obama’s West Wing is filled with people who are in their jobs because of their Chicago connections or because they signed on with Obama early during his presidential campaign.

One problem is that they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level. The deeper problem is that they are not listening to the people.

Hearing is one thing; listening is another.

Although these recent critiques focus on Obama's staff, they implicitly raise questions regarding the extent to which Obama himself is responsible for his shortcomings. Admittedly, while Obama filled many policy positions with experienced individuals, a lot of his senior advisers in the White House are Chicago pals or people who endorsed him at critical stages of his campaign. Accordingly, Wilder's critique seems legitimate.

Nevertheless, some of the qualities that Democrats now demand -- experience and toughness -- are things they explicitly rejected in Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries. Democrats said that they wanted a "fresh face," rather than "experience," and that they wanted a "unifier," rather than a "fighter."

Now, hearing Democrats demand that Obama become tougher or that he replace his staff with veteran Washington politicians reminds me of Clinton's famous campaign statement: "You campaign in poetry and govern in prose." At this point, no one can honestly debate these words.