absolutely alex’s adventures & times

If only President-elect Barack Obama had the magnanimity to give Princeton professor Paul Krugman a job in his cabinet.

Krugman, a leading light in international trade and economics who recently received a Nobel Prize in Economics, wrote a scathing and courageous column in today’s New York Times.

In taking on a topic no one on Capitol Hill seems to want to touch with a 10-foot pole, Krugman took the President-elect to task for implying that he will not investigate the corruption, deception and sleaze that have sprung up during the eight years of the Bush administration.

“I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” Obama responded in a question to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week”, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

Driving home the point that to be the President’s prime role is to protect the Constitution, Krugman states that:

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.”

Tough words, but so true. Krugman rightly insists that letting sleeping dogs lie would only imply that “this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.” You’ve said it, Krugman.

Unfortunately, the problem might not just be that of the Bush administration. The Democrats are also complicit in so many ways in the whole sorry saga and would prefer to sweep things under the carpet so that their own behinds are protected.

Others may think that with so much to deal with, especially the tanking economy, the country simply does not have the energy nor the resources to be bogged down by an investigation and drawn out drama of taking the assorted culprits to task.

But Obama was elected on the promise of enacting change in the political system. His vision is one of not having politics as usual. By looking the other way and crouching it as “not looking backwards”, it taints the claim that his administration will give the US people a clean break and a fresh start that they so badly want.

It’s already happened one time too many: new administrations promising to “clean-up” and make things right become only too happy to forgive and forget. If perpetrators are not taken to task, we should not be surprised when history repeats itself time and again.

Bill Clinton and the country was dragged through the mud for a personal peccadillo — sexual infidelity — but the Democrats are going to close their eyes on a war fought on fraudulent, even fabricated evidence, graft that’s gone way out of control and the erosion of Americans’ civil rights? No wonder it deserves to ridiculed as the party of weak-spined losers.

Sure, some people will say that Krugman’s on a warpath against the soon-to-be Obama administration because he is sore about not having been appointed to a top-notch Cabinet position. Krugman was firmly in Hillary Clinton’s corner during the Democratic primaries and wrote columns highlighting the weaknesses of Obama’s economic proposals. So perhaps nothing has been forgiven between the two sides.

Still, we need a voice of courage and clarity like Krugman. Let him continue to be a thorn on Obama’s side. We have had enough of the media being muzzled and comatose for the last eight years. Bravo for brilliant and brave minds like Krugman. Keep asking questions, Professor Krugman.

So much for the soon-to-be Obama administration’s so-called stringent vetting processes for hiring staffers.

Bill Richardson has already withdrawn from being considered as Commerce Secretary.

The choice for the next attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., continues to face much criticism and skepticism for his years in private practice and his dodgy recommendations for presidential pardons during the Clinton administration.

Now, yet another Obama selection is under scrutiny. This time, it’s Mary L. Schapiro, who’s slated to head the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Schapiro is named in two lawsuits for making misleading statements to expedite the merger of the New York Stock Exchange’s and the NASD’s regulatory units. As a result of the merger, her pay also rose 57 percent, to over $3.1 million, the New York Times reported.

The Obama transition team said they were aware of the lawsuit and played it down. It said it would not have nominated Schapiro had they felt it might be a problem down the line.

Given the present economic climate, the next SEC chairperson is expected to get tougher on wayward Wall Street institutions, enforcing financial regulations and sniffing out potential Bernard Madoffs before they take off with more investors’ cash. Schapiro is ultimately expected get through the confirmation hearings and get the SEC job, but this could cast a pall over the proceedings.

Add to that the scrutiny Schapiro could also receive for failing to sniff out the Madoff scandal in her capacity as the head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the watchdog that supervises nearly 5,000 U.S. brokerages.

Perhaps the Obama team needs an even tougher and more invasive vetting process than the one it already currently has. Or at the very least, they ought to read through every page of the applicants’ forms carefully, so that there won’t be unpleasant surprises later.

Is it really the end for Hillary Clinton?

Could it be that her campaign, which has been counted for dead so often but then miraculously resurrected so many times in the past, will truly stay dead this time?

Is it actually the case that her campaign is now history though Clinton had been expected to lose North Carolina and was running close to Barack Obama in Indiana after being vastly outspent by him in both states and yet she still managed to eke out a win in Indiana?

Have the Democrats really chosen to dump a candidate who, while flawed, remains feisty when she is down, keeps her head held high when countless shots were slung at her, wakes up everyday to campaign with renewed vigor and stays optimistic of seeing the tide turn when pundit after pundit have mercilessly written her off?

Have they abandoned a woman whose never-say-die attitude and perseverance in the face of adversity embodies the kind of toughness the President of the United States needs when disasters strike or foreign dictators test the nation?

Are the Democrats seriously going with a man who goes all sullen and conveys defeat when his campaign was plagued by the chickens that have come home to roost, such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bittergate?

Can they back a man who is only confident when things are going his way and teleprompters are set before him?

Are they certain they want a man who complains constantly of the toll of campaigning, that he has not slept well since last year, that he has not had enough time to spend with his daughters, and who seems to have much less energy than a woman 15 years his senior on the campaign trail?

If Obama is so spent from just plain campaigning over the past year, does he really have the stamina and will to handle the endless crises that come with the most demanding job in the world for the next four years?

Do Democrats want to send to the White House a man who has sat in the pew of Wright’s church for 20 years listening to his incendiary sermons, did not flinch as it served his political purpose of getting an in with the Chicago political establishment and community, and yet suddenly found Wright’s remarks “divisive”, “destructive” and “appalling” when those same messages went outside the confines of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ into the public consciousness?

Are the Democrats sure they can win the White House with a nominee who is willing to conveniently renounce ties with a man whose advice, guidance and inspiration helped him gain national consciousness in the first place and who really only seemed to be done with him after Wright brought Obama back down to mortal status as just another politician?

“And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing,” Obama told reporters in his I’m-done-with-Wright moment.

Well, we live in a democracy. And the people have spoken and exercised their choice. They will have to live with it, come what may, which could include John McCain winning in November.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

When the unfortunate people of Myanmar get through the catastrophe of the cyclone that is believed to have killed over 23,000 over the weekend and put 1.5 million at risk of starvation or disease, they will hopefully have the strength to come together and overthrow the nasty, corrupt and callous military regime that is prolonging their misery.

It is truly mind-boggling how callous the junta is towards its people.

After the massive cyclone that leveled homes, took lives and cut off supplies to the survivors and threatened their survival, the military junta’s first instinct was self-preservation.

Rather than focus on bringing relief and aid to those afflicted by the cyclone, the junta insisted on carrying on as scheduled this Saturday with a ridiculous referendum on the country’s new constitution, which is likely to be rigged anyway. After much international criticism, it only begrudgingly stated that the voting would be postponed in the worst affected areas.

While bodies pile up, people remain thirsty and hungry as water and electricity supply stayed cut-off, and the injured receive no medical aid, the Myanmar generals dawdle about letting international aid and supplies into the isolated and paranoid country.

It has been six days since the disaster and aid organizations and foreign governments had been lining up, waiting to be of help and service.

While the well-meaning foreigners are anxious to get into the country to help, the Myanmar government takes its time to issue visas for aid workers and puts off granting permission for flights ferrying supplies and aid to land in the worst hit areas. Aid is only just trickling in painfully.

The stalling has caused such international anguish and worry for the state of the injured and needy in Myanmar, that the United Nations is practically demanding that the intransigent generals allow aid workers and organizations in without further delay.

“The situation is profoundly worrying,” the United Nations official in charge of the relief effort, John Holmes, told the New York Times. “They have simply not facilitated access in the way we have a right to expect.”

Some countries such as Britain and France are so desperate to get help where it is most needed, they are actually contemplating invading Myanmar’s air space by flying in and air-dropping food and supplies.

Suffer the poor Myanmese people. Why is it that outsiders are more worried for them than their own government?

Under pressure, the regime said outsiders were free to help and donate supplies but made clear the presence of foreigners is not welcome.

“Currently Myanmar has prioritized receiving emergency relief provisions and is making strenuous efforts to transport those provisions without delay by its own labors to the affected areas,” the country’s Foreign Ministry said. “As such, Myanmar is not ready to receive search-and-rescue teams as well as media teams from foreign countries.”

It is a classic conundrum for aid organizations: put human lives that are at risk first by demanding to be let in to help, or respect the sovereignty of states.

Clearly, the regime feels threatened by the presence of aid groups and foreign help. If they were allowed in, it would only cement the resentment the people already feel against the junta, and contribute to the impression of its inability to handle the country’s affairs competently.

So while the junta worries about its image and remains suspicious of getting external help, foreign planes and personnel ready to help sit by helplessly, waiting for the green light; and the suffering people of Myanmar face a potentially disastrous health catastrophe as the threat of malaria, diarrhea and other related starts to spread.

This is a crime against humanity. If only the generals could be hauled off to face trial and punishment for this.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Well, it looks like the halo over Senator Barack Obama’s head is starting to lose its shine.

It took Obama’s former pastor, the incendiary Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to cause likely voters to take a longer, harder look at Obama. And they don’t seem to like what they see after the hullabaloo of the past week, going by new polls.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, only 30 per cent of those surveyed thought Obama broke with his pastor because he was truly angry with what he said.

58 per cent thought Rev. Wright’s words were prescient, that Obama was just another politician, and dumped Wright for his own political expedience.

People were not fooled by the hastily-called news conference the Obama campaign arranged on Tuesday for the candidate to denounce Wright and distance himself after a 20-year relationship between the two men.

52 per cent thought Obama was not surprised by Wright’s controversial views, as the candidate had claimed, while only 33 per cent thought Wright’s words at the recent National Press Club, which included his reiteration that the US government unleashed AIDS on minorities and brought terrorism upon the nation with its policies, took Obama by surprise.

Perhaps more damagingly, more than half of the respondents (56%), felt that Obama is at least “somewhat likely” to “share some of Pastor Wright’s controversial views about the United States.”

More bad news for the Obama camp on other fronts too.

The latest Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll saw the lead that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has over Obama in a hypothetical match-up open up, 48 per cent to 42 per cent. Before the Wright controversy, they were even at 46 per cent.

His remaining rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, improved in the fight against him in the race for the nomination. She now has a 46 per cent rating, compared to Obama’s 44 per cent. Close, but it is still a demonstration of the tide turning against Obama, who was eight points ahead of Clinton before the Wright saga blew up in his face.

Obama remains on track to win the North Carolina primary next week, but his lead over Clinton there has shrunk from double to single digits. Meanwhile, Clinton seems to have gained in Indiana, according to the Rasmussen poll, with a five-point lead.

Even if Obama eventually beats Clinton to clinch the Democratic Party nomination, it looks like the Wright controversy will continue to dog him in November. The superdelegates might have to ponder very carefully about which horse to back if they are keen on winning back the White House.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

“How are you going to stand up to the terrorists when you’re afraid of Fox News?” Jay Leno famously mocked the Democrats’ refusal to appear on Fox News-sponsored debates during his monologue on his nightly “Tonight Show”. 

But these days, it looks like the Democrats have toughened up and are bravely taking on the channel seen as the voice piece of right-wingers.

In the short span of this week, both Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have appeared on Fox News.

Obama finally put a stop to Fox News’ comical “Obama Watch” clock that counts down the days since he agreed to appear on Fox News but still hadn’t, when he sat down with Chris Wallace last Sunday.

Clinton went a step further, taking on liberals’ favorite bashing-boy Bill O’Reilly during a campaign stop in Indiana.

She was feisty, argumentative and relaxed despite O’Reilly’s in-your-face, you’re-wrong-and-i’m-right style of questioning. Clinton looked like she was actually having fun sparring with O’Reilly. She does her best when cornered, after all.

And this weekend, Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean himself will appear on Wallace’s show. The cable news network has trumpeted the interview, saying it’s the first time in 18 months that Dean has appeared on the channel.

Strategically, it was a brilliant move by both candidates to cavort with the enemy.

Fox News might have a reputation for being the bastion of conservative punditry but its audience is not just conservative, high income-earning white males ready to bash Democrats. 

Along with the largest reach among cable news channels (1.78 million viewers during prime time), Fox News has the added advantage of an audience of varied political hues.

The LA Times reports that consumer research firm Mediamark Research found in a survey of 10,000 people, that 39 per cent of Fox News’ viewers described themselves as being very or somewhat conservative, 47 per cent as middle-of-the-road or undecided, and 14 per cent as very or somewhat liberal. That’s not too far off from its biggest rival CNN, which has 33 per cent conservative, 47 per cent middle-of-the-road and 20 per cent liberal viewers.

Going into next Tuesday’s open primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, where independents and even Republicans are likely to weigh in and vote, Clinton and Obama’s appearances on Fox News are shrewd attempts to appeal to those people that could make a difference in the margin of victory or defeat. 

Looking at the longer term, these same people could help the eventual nominee during November’s general election.

While MSNBC could be described as the Obama campaign cheerleader, Fox News has surprisingly given Clinton a fairer treatment.

Maybe it’s a part of “Operation Chaos” propagated by right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh at work here — the Republicans want Clinton to be the Democratic nominee, as they think she would unite and energize the Republican base in November better than Obama. 

But for Clinton, her acceptance of O’Reilly’s interview is apparently also prompted by the better treatment that the Clinton campaign feels Fox News has accorded it. 

“Fox has given Hillary Clinton better coverage than all the other cables,” Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe said in a recent radio interview.

Strange as the detente between Democrats and Fox News would seem, there is no denying that both need each other. It would not be in the best interest of the Democrats to be silly and continue ignoring Fox News and pretend that it does not matter.    

Instead, the Democrats could be better off using Fox News to reach voters that aren’t in the choir yet. And Fox News sure would not begrudge the viewership boost from appearances by top Democrats. It would be a win-win situation for all if they just agreed to co-exist while agreeing to disagree.

 
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

With 44 percent of Americans telling a recent poll that rising gas prices is a serious economic concern, it is no wonder that the presidential candidates have weighed in on the issue.

But it would be a mistake to cave in to populism and enact a gas and diesel tax holiday, as proposed by both presumptive GOP nominee John McCain and Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton. Only Barack Obama has refrained from jumping on the bandwagon, arguing that the idea is too flawed.

Both Clinton and McCain want the federal government to suspend the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day, traditionally a peak travel period for American families. 

I myself will be doing a 2-week road trip this summer and should be enthusiastic about Clinton and McCain’s proposals, but it is a bad idea at the end of the day.

For one, the savings are small. Experts have calculated that the average driver would save about $2.35 at every trip to the pump, based on a 13-gallon full tank estimate.

But the fiscal hole caused by the gas tax holiday in the federal coffers would be considerable — to the tune of some $10 billion.

That means less investments in roads and infrastructure, at a time when heavier usage of roads and highways would presumably occur. Remember the deadly bridge collapse into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis last summer that took 13 lives and injured 100 others? There should be no compromise in the up-keep and repairs of infrastructure and we can ill-afford to gamble with chance as the nation’s roads and bridges get older.

The politicians have also forgotten to factor in another casualty should the gas tax suspension become reality: jobs. According to a US Transportation Department study, every $1 billion spent of federal highway investments helps support 34,779 jobs. Extrapolating from that, $10 billion in revenue lost to the federal government could mean 347,790 less jobs, if construction projects were halted or killed due to a lack of funding. While it might not ultimately hit that kind of numbers, it still looks like a substantial number of jobs could be lost due to the gas tax holiday. 

Finally, cutting the price of gas for the short-term would only make demand rise and gas prices to follow suit. If prices were artificially lowered this summer, consumers might drive more (not to mention the environmental consequences of that), causing demand to rise, which inevitably leads to higher prices. It would also fail to wean Americans off gas dependence, perpetuating the misery in the long term, making oil producers the only winners.

And after Labor Day, wouldn’t everybody get a rude shock at the 18.4 cent tax being put back in place?

It is election season and it might be clever politics to ease things like taxes. But pandering is short-term and myopic. McCain and Clinton would be better off thinking up more sensible policies that will take the US towards the long-term goal of energy independence rather than scoring small political points that has dire consequences in the long run. 

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a megalomaniac who cares more about himself and his image than his flock. That much is clear after his back-to-back-to-back media appearances since last Friday.

If it is true what they say about those closest to you knowing exactly how to hurt you the most, Wright’s words and actions must have been a stake through the heart of presidential hopeful Barack Obama and his campaign.

Wright was unapologetic for his outrageous and incendiary remarks, by turn claiming that he was misquoted, to openly confirming them. Lapping up the media attention, Wright’s antics these few days drew more negative spotlight on Obama at a time that he could ill afford to have more distractions and racial division to color his campaign.

What a stunning betrayal it must be for Obama, who considers Wright not just a pastor but an inspiration for many of his philosophies in life.

While Wright might have done much for the poor over the years in Chicago’s South Side, the man’s narcissism is amazing to behold.

Unrepentant about his ludicrous accusations, such as the US government’s deliberate introduction of the AIDS virus to the African-American population and 9/11 being a consequence of the US’ terrorism against others, Wright seemed to enjoy adding more wood to the pyre by reiterating those comments in the by now infamous session he had at the National Press Club. It was a performance so stunningly self-serving and simultaneously such perfect fodder for Obama’s enemies that one cannot help but feel that Wright must have had it in for Obama and wanted the Illinois senator to know that.

Perhaps Wright is still fuming from Obama’s distancing from his remarks in his speech on race relations in March.

Yesterday, Wright dealt Obama the deepest cut, by saying, “Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. They have a different person to whom they’re accountable.”

“What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They’ve said, ‘You’re a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.’”

No wonder Obama had to come out so strongly and unambiguously to denounce Wright today. Not only was it to condemn Wright’s hateful and division comments, something Obama needed to do anyway, but also to defend himself.

Obama and his campaign has tried hard to paint him not as just another politician, but as a uniter who transcends politics-as-usual. To have someone as close to him as Wright pull him back down to earth must have been the last straw for Obama. And Obama is a politician after all, despite what many of his supporters might believe and the hype that seemed to have gone to his head.

His timing is also significant. Having played down Wright’s rants for so long, Obama is now choosing to cut ties with him as a new poll shows him being the weaker Democratic candidate in a hypothetical match-up with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain than Hillary Clinton, the feisty New York Senator who refuses to roll over and give up her pursuit of the party’s nominations.

However, Obama will now have to live with the consequences of this example of bad judgment on his part. For a candidate who has stressed judgment as a calling card, his association with Wright and his extreme views smacks either of poor judgment or Obama must have been lying when he said he wasn’t previously aware of Wright’s comments.

Wright’s views might not be Obama’s views, but Obama had been in his congregation for 20 years, seeking Wright out to burnish his Christian credentials that made possible his presidential run and to obtain both spiritual and life guidance. Obama adopted Wright’s phrase “The Audacity of Hope”, not just for the best-selling book Obama wrote and used as its title, but also for the 2004 speech he gave at the Democratic National Convention, which vaulted Obama to national prominence. To deny that Obama has not been influenced in one way or another by Wright’s teachings would be disingenuous.

It now remains to be seen if Obama’s clear denunciation of Wright will kill the story, or if it could drag on further if Wright, in his egomania, feels the need to strike back with another pronouncement on Obama’s motivations.

Amidst all this drama of the fall-out between the two men, Clinton must be glad that she did not withdraw from the campaign despite the immense pressure for her to drop out. This makes the remaining contests much more significant and validates the argument that the nomination should not be wrapped up quickly just for expedience.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Don’t count her out just yet.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign might be short of cash, with around ten million dollars in debt, but her solid win last night in Pennsylvania injected a fresh bout of confidence in her campaign.

She has reportedly raised $2.5 million just a few hours after television networks declared her victory over Barack Obama in the Keystone State.

With the 10 percentage point victory over Obama now certain, it looks like Clinton could keep on raising more, to better face the tough times ahead.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

“Some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don’t quit, and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit either.”

These are fighting words on a great night for Senator Hillary Clinton, who is still struggling to win the Democratic Party’s nomination to run for president.

Reuters photo

More than just staying alive to fight another day, Clinton has pulled out another impressive showing in Pennsylvania, beating fellow Senate colleague Barack Obama by a 10-point margin.

Never mind that Obama out-spent her nearly 3-to-1 in an advertising blitz with the aim of burying her in the Keystone State, so that he could close the deal. Once again, he was unable to deliver the knockout punch, despite having strayed far from his themes of unity and hope, by running negative ads against her.

Pennsylvania offers perhaps one of the clearest gauges of how Democrats would choose a candidate for their party. The state’s contest is a closed primary, allowing only registered Democrats to vote and it does not permit same-day party registration either, with registration having closed about a month before the primary. These factors help to screen spoilers more effectively.

Clinton held, and strengthened her appeal among the coalition that has usually delivered for her — women, older voters, blue-collar voters and Catholics.

Clinton was fortunate that in Pennsylvania, she faced demographics more inclined towards her than Obama, such as more white, working class and older voters. The pleasant surprise was her better than usual showing among white male voters there.

Obama, on the other hand, held on to his base consisting black voters, the college-educated and younger voters.

Going forward, the Democratic Party will undoubtedly be increasingly worried about the widening divide along sex, class, educational and racial lines of the party’s different constituencies. These fault lines though, manifest the problems of a big-tent approach that has trouble keeping together groups that do not have much in common with each other.

But in the meantime, Clinton has new momentum in the races going forward, with Indiana and North Carolina looming on May 6.

Her win tonight is likely to give a new lease of life to fund-raising for her campaign, which is currently in debt. The road ahead will be tough but the Clinton campaign has a new spring in its step and seems eager to fight on, thanks to Pennsylvanians’ vote of confidence.

The calls for her to drop out will subside somewhat now. But why would party members want to ruin a good thing? Due to a protracted Democratic primaries season, voter registration has gone up in astonishing numbers all over the country, with Pennsylvania alone boasting a record four million registered Democrat voters this year.

For now, Obama is still ahead in delegate count and the popular vote but Clinton has a realistic chance of cutting into his lead in the popular vote, and even overtake it, if she does well in Indiana and other upcoming primaries.

That factor, along with the argument that Clinton has won all the big states save Illinois, and the pattern of late deciders breaking for Clinton, will add more doubts about Obama’s electability in November’s general election.

There is every reason for Clinton to ignore detractors and keep plowing on. She deserves to stay in the contest.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::