There went the neighborhood

Save us, Ben Bernanke?

The worst of both worlds

Before it gets too far away from me, I want to point out John Nichols' cover piece in The Nation a couple of weeks ago about our broken, anti-democratic primary system (also in case anyone thought writing about the primaries as they are constitutes any kind of endorsement of the process itself.)

I've tentatively supported a "national primary" as an alternative to the current system, but Nichols' article points out an important flaw in that idea. A national primary would likely be decided by the candidate who can afford to blanket the country with the most ads, making our present "money primary" situation even worse. We are already seeing this with our upcoming miniature version of a national primary on February 5. The advantage of "out front" primaries in small states is in giving lesser-known candidates with not a lot of cash the chance to get a boost in national exposure by zeroing in on a focused population.

The current primary system manages remarkably to capture the worst of both worlds. Iowa and New Hampshire have a permanent place at the top of the primary slate giving them undue influence over the eventual nominee. And, since the candidates have spent most of their political, financial, and temporal capital in those states, the "Super Tuesday" mini-nationals are decided by a national ad blitz. The best solution, without publicly financed campaigns, may be "rotating regional" primaries, a month-long campaign of evenly-distributed elections, with a rotating cycle of states sharing the "Iowa/New Hampshire" role.

Like the electoral college, the primary system is disliked much more by states getting left behind than by the national party. I often feel the primacy of overwhelmingly white Iowa and New Hampshire is enjoyed particularly by the national Democrats because of their natural inclination to select the most conservative Dem candidate. There won't be enough fainting couches in Washington to hold everyone on the day Oregon or Vermont gets first crack. Indeed, only one of the contested upfront primary states has gone to a Democrat in the past two presidential elections (New Hampshire 2004). If the Republicans get South Carolina, the Democrats should at least get Wisconsin.

The Passion of the Huckleberry

An election on a Saturday, when more people are likely to be off work/out of school? Now there's a concept you could almost get behind.

Clinton wins in Nevada, Obama invokes Ronald Reagan, then claims he got more delegates out of the deal. Edwards is non-existent. America's faith in hopelessly corruptible spineless liberals bears no fruit yet again. Demographics are pretty much the last thing they have to argue about now.

Romney wins Nevada, GOP edition, which wasn't contested, while McCain scores narrowly over Huckabee in South Carolina, which was. This may be the dagger thrust for Huckabee, who doesn't have the cash to compete on Super Tuesday and needed the boost from a state where his unique base of support is pre-eminent. Huckabee may have suffered from the uniting of the factions opposing him coalescing behind the lesser-evil McCain who's seen, correctly, as more electable. (The only Republican candidate who is.)

Indeed, the McCain-Clinton matchup that now looks most likely among those possible would be a seriously bad portent for the Democrats. McCain is only Neutral Evil, and doesn't have anything for the liberals to arrange the easy talking points around. He is a hawk, but not a torture not, and not distinguishable enough from Clinton. He is not particularly religious, which is a double-edged sword; he isn't loved by the Christian Right, but nor does he stir the hive of liberals prophesying a pending theocracy. The Mushy Middle adores him with the same fervor it deplores Clinton, who often struggles to expand her draw beyond the yellow dogs. Both are distrusted by the natural base of the party, but McCain will be more willing to pander before the Clintonites come begging to the hippies. Were I put on the spot today, I'd have to predict McCain coming out on top of that hypothetical race. Of course, his fate is linked more than anyone to the situation in Iraq. If the present illusion of calming were to erupt again, his stature would have to be reconsidered. On the other hand, well, I'd advise you not think about it.

Saturday song

Yeasayer "Wait for the Summer"

With single-digit (and below) temps in most of the Midwest tonight I thought this was especially appropriate.

Out there

From Matthew Yglesias comes this Pew survey measuring voter perceptions of the candidates.



Upton Sinclair once said "Americans will take socialism, but not the title." Nearly a century later, that principle remains basically intact. The right's war on meaningful language has long since passed "socialism" and moved on to "liberal" as the epithet du jour (although the "s" word is still brought out from time to time as the ultimate curse of the underworld, such as Richard Viguerie slurring Huckabee as a "Christian socialist."). Joe Public probably has a lot of liberal-to-left opinions but only has a faint understanding of what those words mean. Whatever a "liberal" is, he's sure he doesn't want to be one. The Pew survey here contributes to this problem by using these terms that have been irreparably corrupted by decades of right-wing propaganda.

But Yglesias hits upon a more important point. This crude, single-axis graph is predominantly an accurate depiction of the field's social and cultural views only. Hence Giuliani, who has surrounded himself with all the Neocon Nutjobs he can find, but is seen as the most "liberal" GOP candidate. The erstwhile ruling-class lament that the public votes with its wallet in mind has been seriously damaged if not destroyed, and, at the very least, they have removed themselves from the spectrum through which the public views politics. The exclusion of Edwards is particularly unfortunate for this reason; as he's likely seen as the most culturally conservative of the three Dems, but by far the most populist. His inclusion to the right of Clinton and Obama would have made this nearly irrefutable.

This graph does become more accurate as long as you concede that cultural values are all its really measuring. The American public is, I think, indisputably more conservative than average on those issues. What we aren't going to get, of course, is any concession from the press or mainstream pundits that the stalwart terms "liberal" and "conservative" have no meaning to the mass public beyond the social/cultural sphere (to the extent they represent anything substantive beyond buzzwords). But that's rather the point, isn't it?

The Bible and Mike Huckabee

""But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

-Mike Huckabee

²⁶²⁷ If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. If you take your neighbour’s cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes down; for it may be your neighbour’s only clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep? And if your neighbour cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate.

-Exodus 22: 25-27

""But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

-Mike Huckabee

In you, they take bribes to shed blood; you take both advance interest and accrued interest, and make gain of your neighbours by extortion; and you have forgotten me, says the Lord God.

-Ezekiel 22:12

""But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

-Mike Huckabee

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

-Galatians 3:28

""But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

-Mike Huckabee

‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

-Matthew 5

""But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

-Mike Huckabee

For if the eagerness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has—not according to what one does not have. I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. As it is written,
‘The one who had much did not have too much,
and the one who had little did not have too little.’

-2 Corinthians 8

"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

-Mike Huckabee

For out of Zion shall go forth instruction,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
⁴He shall judge between the nations,
and shall arbitrate for many peoples;
they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning-hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

-Isaiah 2

"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

-Mike Huckabee

Thus says the Lord:
For three transgressions of Israel,
and for four, I will not revoke the punishment;^*
because they sell the righteous for silver,
and the needy for a pair of sandals—
⁷they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth,
and push the afflicted out of the way;
father and son go in to the same girl,
so that my holy name is profaned;
⁸they lay themselves down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge;
and in the house of their God they drink
wine bought with fines they imposed.

-Amos 2

"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

-Mike Huckabee

Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home ^* and ate their food with glad and generous^*47 hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

-Acts 2

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means ‘son of encouragement’). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

-Acts 4

"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

-Mike Huckabee

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ²⁰²¹’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money^*22 to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

23 Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!’ ²⁴And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, ‘Children, how hard it is^* to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ ²⁶They were greatly astounded and said to one another,^* ‘Then who can be saved?’ ²⁷Jesus looked at them and said, ‘For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.’

28²⁹ Peter began to say to him, ‘Look, we have left everything and followed you.’ Jesus said, ‘Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news,^*3031 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.’

-Mark 10

LOL

I can't wait to read Stefan Theil's article in the current Foreign Policy warning us that learning anti-capitalist prejudice in school is causing the French and German economies to fall behind the rest of the world.

Because, you know the opposite approach is working out so well.

Death by ugly

A moment for those fallen by the wayside:

Bill Richardson













Chris Dodd













Joe Biden


Mike Gravel


Dennis Kucinich

Eh, I liked it better when it was called Big Brother

""Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

-Rudy Giuliani

More fun and games

Traveler IQ Challenge

This game varies quite a lot in difficulty, because for much of it you can be successful just by getting the country right (i.e., you don't need to know where Dublin is within Ireland, so long as you know where Ireland is). Then they start hitting you with the Oceanic states and minor cities in Russia which you can easily miss by 4,000 miles. So far I've been unable to get past level 11.

Not a lot of replayability, though, because there's not a large database of cities.

New Hampshire postgame

Well, I didn't go on record with any predictions yesterday, but rest assured I'd look just as silly as everybody else does today. Jonathan Stein at MoJo has a list of reasons for Clinton's surprise comeback, the most likely of which, I think, is the irritability of New Hampshire voters, who decided they didn't want the race to be over.

Bad news first: I'd have been quite happy, frankly, if the Clinton machine had been crushed in its infancy. Now she's managed to restore Inevitability and picked up Momentum along the way. The good news: She needed a lot of breaks to squeeze out a narrow win after she had a big lead in New Hampshire just a couple of weeks ago. I've read some libloggers extolling the primary season's extension, believing it will eventually force both candidates to the left as the race gets hotter. I'm less enthusiastic about this possibility, given that both candidates have been eagerly bashing each other with right-wing talking points. (Clinton even broke out OMG TEH TERRISTS! during Saturday night's debate. Yeah, I couldn't wait for that one.)

The wild card will be what Edwards decides to do. Over the weekend Edwards claimed he's staying in through the convention. This might be based on the hope that Obama and Clinton battle to a stalemate and he emerges the compromise candidate at a brokered convention. More likely, given that far-fetched scenario, he was hoping to outlast Clinton when Obama swept through the early states and then take on Obama one-on-one. That's now squashed, and with it any possibility for Edwards to win is probably closed.

I've been assuming, without seeing any poll data, that most of Edwards' support would shift to Obama if he withdrew. Edwards himself has been hanging on Obama's coattails in recent weeks. Is Edwards waiting to see who'll give him the best offer to do what they want? What could Obama offer anyway? Edwards has said he won't take a veep slot, and given his wife's cancer, I'm taking that as sincere.

If you aren't depressed enough today, Jonathan Shwarz considers a couple of potential Clinton veeps. Clinton/Biden? C'mon, not funny. Clinton/Bayh? Oh, God, just take me now.

Dept. of Inevitability, part the second

"If left to my own devices, I'd spend all my time pointing out that he's weaker than bus-station chili. But the man is so constantly subjected to such hideous and unfair abuse that I wind up standing up for him on the general principle that some fairness should be applied. Besides, no one but a fool or a Republican ever took him for a liberal."

-Molly Ivins on Bill Clinton

One could also apply this general principle to the other Clinton. While there are undoubtedly any number of vile sexist narratives infecting press coverage of HRC, I'm wary of the instinct to use it an excuse to bail out the sadsack Clintons. The latest incident which has liberals on the brink of succumbing to Clinton sympathy was Hillary choking up at a campaign event Monday in New Hampshire. And, once again desperate for a lifeline, the Clintons will especially appreciate your sympathy, especially if it results in your vote.

Now, I'm not going to knock Clinton for having an emotional moment on the campaign trail. I'm all for deflating the Macho McTuffy nature of the presidential race. On those grounds, Edwards deserves to get stung for his counterattack, which may itself need more contextualizing. However, let's look at exactly what Clinton was saying to get herself choked up:

“I have so many opportunities from this country, I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. This is very personal for me — it’s not just political, it’s not just public.”

Falling backwards? To whom, a Republican like Giuliani or Huckabee, or to Obama? Given that Clinton isn't yet running against the former, I'm inclined to believe it's Obama. And that makes the reaction smell like lost entitlement; "I can't believe you blockheaded voters going for that empty suit. Don't you know I was inevitable? It's mine, damnit!"

I occasionally wonder if the Clinton-DLC machine isn't more contemptuous of the DFH/progressive Democrats than it is of Republicans. One frequently hears Clinton boosters boast about how they coolly stand up to the right-wing noise machine. And here she's on the verge of cracking over the thought of losing--to another Democrat?

As far as I can tell, this isn't part of a grander calculated strategy by the Clinton camp, although they are naturally hitting out more openly at Obama rather than merely leaking smears about him. They also released a mailer questioning Obama's record on reproductive rights. Clinton has so far been unsuccessful at turning the race into a nasty battle of base identity politics, but she may be raising the stakes in a desperate attempt to turn things around. Whether this mainstreams or, more likely, just flops around the libosphere collecting casualties remains to be seen.

Latest from the Dept. of Inevitability

Clinton camp: Obama's too liberal.

This Titanic is going bow-up. Clinton has been swamped by the "change" narrative, and is trying to bail out water by adopting it herself, but that's not very believable when you've surrounded yourself with all of your husband's old cruise-missile liberals and anti-union thugs.

That's one problem down. Alas, we may have replaced it with an even greater albatross. Lambert at Corrente has the essential Obama-skepticism post.

On my worst days, I imagine Obama as an Mr. Potato Head candidate, to which consumers can attach all of their own disparate beliefs onto his giant personality. But the only people getting any material benefit are the manufacturers of Mr. Potato Head, and the only people President Obama will be indebted to are the people who built him. It's fitting that Obama would be so closely aligned to a similar phenomenon, but what works for uplifting daytime television may not translate to the more hostile world of politics.

Iowa postgame

Obama wins, by a slim but breathable margin. Witness the friendly face of fascism, and despair? OK, that's probably harsh. There is a more optimistic view of Obama that imagines him as a Trojan horse, playing the Bush-in-reverse card by racing to the center during the campaign, then governing as a liberal when elected. For the dangers involved in such a scenario, one need look no further than Bush in 2005, when he turned almost immediately post-election to the Big Bidness fever dream of privatizing Social Security, an issue almost completely ignored during the '04 campaign and quickly turned into a disaster which began Bush's long popular nosedive. Campaign rhetoric ain't worth whipped cheese, but in our shadow of a democracy, it's what people remember most.

Huckabee wins the GOP caucus with a much smaller turnout. While watching the pundit roundtable on Charlie Rose tonight, I noticed that MSM wisdom still doesn't consider Huckabee to be a serious contender over the long haul. Yes, he will not do well in New Hampshire, which has few social conservatives, but beyond that lies South Carolina which is, well, South Carolina. The new hope of the press and the Republican aristocrats is McCain, whose 4th place finish is being hailed as a dramatic comeback.

Assessing Bloomnberg and (finally) Iowa

The Donkeyman makes some good points in response to my assessment of Bloomberg's potential candidacy, although I would dispute the sincerity of Bloomberg's backers vis a vis Obama. Obama's transcendental rhetoric, while perhaps vacuous and misguided, seems to be an honest impulse, or at the very least has attracted a following who believes in it, while Bloomberg strikes me as a lot of the same cynical Broderist wankery. Partisan Democrats, for all of their faults, have rightly been wary of the Beltway media pleas for "compromise," seeing as de facto capitulation to Republicans because it only works one way, pushing the Overton window inexorably to the right. Democratic candidates seen as too cozy with the hippies are lustily scolded, while Republican appeals to the far reaches of their base are waved away as a natural phenomenon.

Politically, Bloomberg is closer to Giuliani than Clinton, I admit I've left Giuliani out of the equation because I've written him off. Giuliani doesn't look likely to win any of the upfront primaries, and his national lead has disappeared. Barring a miracle, his slide looks irreversible.

But there are practical reasons why Bloomberg is less likely to oppose a Clinton nomination; she remains the most beatable Democratic candidate, and he doesn't want to jeopardize the chances for the "normal" Republican candidate. He probably needs an Edwards-Huckabee race to undergo Perotization, parlaying middle-class fear of hippies and religious nuts to give himself a chance to win. Otherwise, it's just a vanity campaign chasing a voting bloc that only exists in the minds of Washington pundits.

Now, for some more vapid horse-race inanity:

After tonight there will finally be some real votes in the box to talk about. Conventional wisdom says a low turnout at the Iowa caucuses favors Clinton, while a high turnout signals a boost for the two underdogs. If you needed to know anything about the Clinton campaign and the Democratic race in general, that might be enough. A Clinton win likely means game over; Obama wins and we go to the next round. Edwards must win to have any hope at all. If it goes Edwards-Obama-Clinton, we'll have a real ballgame on our hands. That's my (admittedly hopeful) prediction.

Huckabee looks more and more to me like a solid frontrunner. If Romney doesn't win in Iowa after using so many resources there, he'll look crushed and direction-less. Like Giuliani, see above. McCain may be catching a late wave of the not-totally-insane hawk vote, but it's too little, too late. Prediction: Huckabee/Romney/Who Cares.

Diversion

FreeRice.com

Highly addictive. I managed to peak on level 42, but the highest I can sustain is between 38-40 (and I'm close to 6,000 grains donated.)

See if you can outdo me (not hard).

Short-sell democracy

A couple of weeks ago, former Fed chairman and Ayn Rand fanboy Alan Greenspan delivered an attack on John Edwards' populism on ABC's This Week. Greenspan and others are were reacting to a then-recent poll showing Edwards with a brief lead in the Iowa caucus (which has since flipped back) by reminding the proles who's running the ship, and too much democracy makes the rich white guys uncomfortable.

This story reminded me of another tale from The Shock Doctrine, where Klein writes about post-apartheid South Africa and how the ANC found itself hog-tied to the neoliberal program of the Washington Consensus despite its history of reform and nationalization.

As soon as [Mandela] was released, the South African stock market collapsed in panic. South Africa's currency, the rand, dropped by 10 percent. A few weeks later, De Beers, the diamond corporation, moved its headquarters from South Africa to Switzerland. This kind of instant punishment from the markets would have been unimaginable three decades earlier, when Mandela was first imprisoned. In the sixties, it was unheard of for multinationals to switch nationalities on a whim and, back then, the world money system was firmly linked to the gold standard. Now, South Africa's currency had been stripped of controls; trade barriers were down and most trading was short-term speculation.

Not only did the volatile market not like the idea of a liberated Mandela, but just a few words from him or one of his fellow ANC leaders could lead to an earth-shaking stampede by what the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has aptly termed "the electronic herd." The stampede that greeted Mandela's release was just the start of what became a call-and-response between the ANC leadership and the financial markets--a shock dialogue that trained the party on the new rules of the game. Every time a top party official said something that hinted that the ominous Freedom Charter might still become policy, the market responded with a shock, sending the rand into freefall. The rules were simple and crude; the electronic equivalent of monosyllabic grunts: justice--expensive, sell; status quo--good, buy. When, shortly after his release, Mandela once again spoke out in favor of nationalization at a private lunch with leading businessmen, "the All-Gold index plunged by 5 per cent."

The increased viability of the populist candidates Edwards and Huckabee may explain why the wheels are starting to turn faster on Michael Bloombeg's Unity08 run, more truthfully titled the Rich White Guy Emergency Plan. This group certainly fears Edwards more than Huckabee, since the former has the much better chance at winning the general election, and I suspect that, once he has been disposed of by the Corporate Dems, Bloomberg's backers will magically dissolve into the ether. (It's certainly hard to see where Bloomberg fits in a race that includes Hillary Clinton, who's basically pulling the same roots.)

Political ad of the year (that you won't see)

The troubadour Mike Gravel:

Pakistan for dummies

Like everyone else, I've been following the ongoing political crisis of the past several months in Pakistan, but never really felt like I had my head around it and, after yesterday's assassination of Benazir Bhutto, it's likely to get even more complicated. So let's see if you and I can figure it out like the couple of 'Murican yahoos we are.

In 1999, chief of the army Pervez Musharaf takes power in a military coup after rising tensions between the army and civilian leader Nawaz Sharif. Musharraf is relatively secular and moderate, so after 9/11 we bribe him into becoming a key ally in the War on Terra. (Remember, kids, we like democracy, but it works so much better if we can cut out the middle man!)

But after five years or so of happy vassalage, the strain on the relationship starts to show. Musharraf's complicity in the GWOT is making him increasingly unpopular with his own public which starts to realize that, hey, it's been awhile since we've had one of them "elections." He realizes he now has to play both sides to stay in power, but neither bites. The US in particular is unhappy with his reluctance to crack down on the various Islamist factions who control the remote tribal regions of Pakistan, and begins to question his commitment to Sparkle Motion.
We also conveniently realize it's been awhile since Pakistan's had some elections. Time for some democracy action! Meaning--as it always does--getting someone more compliant to our wishes in power.

Enter Bhutto, a Western-educated former prime minister and scion to a famous political family (the Pakistani version of the Kennedys) who still has a significant base of support inside the country. Both of Bhutto's terms as prime minister ended prematurely on corruption charges, which Bhutto claims were manufactured by political opponents. But other accusation of shady dealings have continued to dog Bhutto and--particularly--her husband Asif Ali Zardari during their Western exile. During Bhutto's time in power, Zardari earned the nickname "Mr. Ten Percent" for his various business dealings. Bhutto, who may once have had radical tendencies many years ago, has since remade herself as a safe, pro-Western secular liberal. (We like secular liberals when they run Muslim countries).

This is where things begin to get (even more) murky. Many sources believe Bhutto had cut a deal with Washington and London to continue their War on Terra' and economic neoliberalism policies in exchange for a Western-negotiated power-sharing deal with Musharraf. We hoped this would simultaneously pacify the pro-democracy uprising among the middle classes and keep the right-wing Islamic forces at bay while still maintaining a Western puppet on the throne. The question here, of course, is why Bhutto would accept such a deal when the recent outcome was always uncomfortably high.

The other natural question is: Who did the deed, then? The best guess seems to be Islamist sympathizers within the lower ranks of the Pakistani security apparatus, which Musharraf doesn't really control, and perhaps doesn't want to. It doesn't seem likely he would jeopardize his already tenuous position by ordering outright the assassination of his main rival. Why not let other elements take their course instead? (He's learned much from Bush and Blair in that regard).

So, what did I miss?

Other readings:

Juan Cole here and at Salon

Tariq Ali on Bhutto from the London Review of Books and The Guardian.

More background from the Socialist Worker (UK)

Song of the year

I have a "country mouse" relationship to this entire record, which is indelibly about city life (thought it opens with a pastoral image, curiously). It conjures up the glimmering glass palace images of the urban world for me, which I don't think is its intention. I was quite taken with it, though, in spite of this, or perhaps because of it.

I especially like this rendering of the song with the extended coda.