Saturday Morning Reads: Our Future. Our Selves.

Leymah Gbowee

Good Morning!

I admit to a growing fascination with Leymah Gbowee since hearing several interviews with her after the announcement that she is one of three women sharing the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.  She is just one of those take charge and get it done women if there ever was one!  I am now itching to see “Pray the Devil Back to Hell”.  This is a documentary by  filmmaker Abigail Disney.  Here is a link to a 2009 report from Bill Moyers Journal on the 2008 film.  Yes, Abigail Disney comes from THAT family but the movie is a long ways away from animated princesses and singing animals.  You can watch the Moyers piece here to get a feel for Gbowee’s commitment to social justice in Liberia.

Women’s News Network updated their recent interview with Gbowee on her work to secure reproductive and sexual rights of African women as well as her efforts to assure peace in Liberia.  She also addresses the needs of American women in the interview.  Yes.  We can learn many things from the struggles of women in developing nations for basic rights as we see the daily erosion of our own.  Did you ever believe you would live a country where the whims of a druggist can dictate your access to prescribed medicine?

In Gbowee’s estimation, American women also have challenges that need to be addressed. This topic came up in response to our conversation about CEDAW, and the inability for the agreement to get national traction. She referenced the disadvantages that come from not signing the international treaty. Totally frank in her assessment questioning America’s ability to provide cogent leadership on women’s issues, Gbowee pointed to matters that leaders “don’t want to tackle.”

She said, “If a President or Secretary of State is standing up and making statements about the rapes in Congo, and that same country has not signed a document that is so important to the lives of their women —what other name do you give it but hypocrisy?”

Part of our exchange included how important it was for those working to help women under siege, to truly engage in an equal dialogue. “There is a need to speak to the women of these countries,” Gbowee said. She told me a story about a trip she had taken to Congo where she had spoken with women on the ground, and learned that for them “rape was at the bottom of the list.”

At the top — was “political participation.” For those women, “rape is a symptom of an actual issue.” She continued, “We want to help. But we need to step out of our donor driven issues and step into what it is that these communities actually want.”

Yes. Gbowee’s  got me thinking on how United States women are losing ground daily. She is right.  Our country has not signed on to CEDAW.  What does this say about a President that MS magazine labelled a feminist?  This link takes you to the Text of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.   Why is our country not a signatory? Why are our rights not a priority?

The Convention defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”

By accepting the Convention, States commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including:

  • to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;
  • to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and
  • to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.

 The Convention provides the basis for realizing equality between women and men through ensuring women’s equal access to, and equal opportunities in, political and public life — including the right to vote and to stand for election — as well as education, health and employment.  States parties agree to take all appropriate measures, including legislation and temporary special measures, so that women can enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

It seems that a country as advanced as ours would consider the rights of half of its citizens to be extremely important, wouldn’t it?  However, that doesn’t appear to be the priority of many folks in government outside of the US State Department.  Here is a youtube of SOS Clinton saying that the treaty is a priority of the Obama administration.  Why haven’t we signed it?

American women are experiencing an incredible set back in rights.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius spoke at an  abortion rights  fundraiser on Wednesday where she issued a strong warning against moves by Republicans to roll back women’s health gains by 50 years.  Women are being sent back to chattel status in state after state.

“We’ve come a long way in women’s health over the last few decades, but we are in a war,” Sebelius said at a NARAL Pro-Choice America luncheon attended by about 300 people, who gave some of their loudest applause at her mention of the Obama administration’s support for requiring insurance plans to cover birth control without copays.

Sebelius said women have suffered discrimination by insurance companies that considered “Viagra an essential medication and birth control a lifestyle choice.”

Her message resonated with some at the event who acknowledged doubts about Obama’s leadership on a variety of liberal issues.

“I’m a little disappointed with his force, his forcefulness, pretty much across the board,” Chicagoan Bamboo Solzman said of Obama. Sebelius’ remarks at Wednesday’s event solidified Solzman’s support of Obama’s re-election, she said. “He was forward enough to choose her, so that does help,” Solzman said.

We are clearly losing ground.  While women in the administration are being sent out to do heartfelt speeches, nothing is being done to protect our rights.  Speeches do not protect women and children from the brutalities of fundamentalist religions and the economic realities of sex-based discrimination.  Neoconfederate Ron Paul is just one among many Republican presidential contenders that wants to eliminate access to something as simple as basic birth control.  The fight is not just for our right to abortion.  It is for our right to birth control and self determination.

“I am deeply troubled by the flippancy with which President Obama recently discussed regulations that are alarming and troublesome for many Americans,” Paul said. “Not all Americans are comfortable with the Obama administration’s decision to mandate coverage of birth control and morning-after pills, and the considerations of these people, many of them Christian conservatives, are worthy of careful consideration – not mockery.”

“Many, like me, view this rigid regulatory overstep from which there is inadequate opportunity to self-exempt as payback to Planned Parenthood and big pharmaceutical companies for their support of Obamacare,” Paul added. “Many others oppose it out of strict moral conviction and their voices should be heard at least to the extent that an authentic opportunity to exempt be provided. That is, until Obamacare is repealed in its entirety.”

“As this mandate violates the conscience of millions of pro-life Americans, I have introduced in Congress H.R. 1099, the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act, which removes all federal funding for domestic and international family planning,” Paul continued. “As President, I plan to defund Obamacare and all federal programs that use tax money taken from the American people to promote abortion and provide abortion services domestically and globally. I pledge also to veto any bill with funding for Planned Parenthood or any other international family planning regimes.”

Any of us can have deeply felt beliefs against the death penalty, against invasions of nations, and against assassination without due process of American citizens, yet none of our concerns are met with similar angst and pearl clutching.  Only the fetus fetishists get to object to using their puny tax dollars for every one.  If they don’t want abortions or birth control, they just shouldn’t get them.  That should have nothing to do with our access  Their views preclude the findings of modern science and medicine and they are ruling the day.

Most Republican presidential wannabes spent their week pandering to so called “values voters” at a summit cum hatefest.   Clearly, this political movement is out to define every one’s personal choices to meet their maxims. They have declared an open war on women’s rights.  Rick Perry’s Endorser called Mitt Romney’s faith a “cult” and referred to Planned Parenthood as “a slaughterhouse for the unborn”.  This is nothing more than hate speech dressed up in a pastor’s robe.

It was no ordinary opener from the prominent Southern Baptist Convention leader, Pastor Robert Jeffress, who endorsed Perry on Friday. Jeffress praised Perry for defunding Planned Parenthood in Texas, calling the provider of women’s health and abortion services, “that slaughterhouse for the unborn.”

He also lauded Perry’s “strong commitment to biblical values.”

“Do we want a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric or one who is skilled in leadership? Do we want a candidate who is a conservative out of convenience or one who is a conservative out of deep conviction?” Jeffress said. “Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person — or one who is a born-again follower of the lord Jesus Christ?”

Jeffress called Perry a “genuine follower of Jesus Christ.” The pastor did not mention Perry’s rival Mitt Romney by name, but he told reporters after his remarks on Friday that Mormonism was a “cult.”

Jeffress’ comments and his endorsement of Perry threatened to inject some tension into what has been a relatively quiet year for religion on the campaign trail and the Perry campaign sought to quiet the uproar.

The campaign’s official comment on Jeffress evolved quickly on Friday afternoon. When initially asked by ABC News whether Gov. Perry agreed that Mormonism is a cult, Perry spokesman Mark Miner said: “The governor doesn’t judge what is in the heart and soul of others. He leaves that to God.”

My horrible governor Bobby Jindal joked about pedophilia at this same hub of hatred.  What an inappropriate topic for jokes! Since so many folks were herded out of New Orleans and Southern Louisiana after Katrina, we can no longer even find a decent field of candidates to run against a man that’s trying to bring back the plantation system of government and economics.  He has spent tremendous amounts of money courting chicken evisceration plants to our state for a few horrible paying jobs while decimating our already fragile public health and education systems.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) knows just how to crack up the audience at the Values Voter Summit: just make a joke about former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) being a pedophile.

After a long winded speech about all his accomplishments protecting children from sex offenders, Jindal brought it home.

“What I can do as governor is this: I can make Louisiana the last place that anyone who wants to in any way harm a child by exposing children to inappropriate material,” Jindal said. “I can make Louisiana a dangerous place for Congressman Weiner to relocate to.”

Louisiana is a dangerous place for teachers, nurses, and public employees right now because of this man and that clearly makes it a dangerous place for children.  After all, this is the same governor that foisted a creationist law on them.   He clearly doesn’t value children enough to educate them in science, protect their health, and provide them decent teachers and classrooms.  Our children need protection from our Governor.

The scientific community has long advocated that allowing anything but science in the teaching of evolution will be intellectually harmful. In an e-mail sent to the Associated Press, Harold Kroto, a Nobel Prize winner for chemistry in 1996, said voting against the repeal creates a situation that “should be likened to requiring Louisiana school texts to include the claim that the Sun goes round the Earth.”

While evolutionary biology is based in the work of Charles Darwin, which shows how humans evolved through natural selection, creationism is rooted in a fundamental reading of Biblical texts that say mankind is the product of a divine maker.

With the law intact, Louisiana is the state that has gone the furthest in approving legislation that opens the door to allowing alternatives to science taught in its schools.

American women are also not making much headway to influence corporate culture and business decisions through board appointments.  America’s top business women attended Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit in Laguna Niguel, California.  Board positions are key to efforts to break the glass ceiling because boards approve CEO pay and appointments.  One of the questions raised at the meeting was dealing with requests to become a board’s token woman. The topic was raised by Anne Mulcahy–former Xerox CEO and board member–who questioned if it was worth the effort to become the lone female on what has been an all boy board.

At the same time, female representation on boards is still a major issue. The percentage of female directors, which hovers around 20 percent, has been at a standstill over the past decade—Spencer Stuart finds that there has been no increase in that ratio since 2000. The research firm Catalyst reports an even lower number, 16 percent, putting the United States behind Finland, Sweden and Norway, which actually has a law requiring 40 percent of all board members at Norwegian companies to be women. Those low percentages persist despite the fact that study after study has shown that more diverse boards are associated with greater company performance.

I get what Mulcahy is saying. Why should women in positions of power join a club, as she puts it, that they may not want to be a part of? At that level, most women have multiple commitments, and joining a board where they’re treated like tokens rather than assets may not be the best use of their time. In addition, they may be able to have more of an impact on a board that is already forward thinking and receptive to diversity.

So, at a time when we are celebrating the progress made by women who have reached presidencies in countries in South America, Africa, Australia, and the East, we are seeing tremendous setbacks in women’s rights here in the United States.  Who are the Leymah Gbowee’s of North America?    Let us do more than just pray a few of our own devils back to hell.  Let’s be in their faces and all in their business just like Ms. Gbowee! (See youtube below.) Let’s be an entire population of women that won’t shut up!!!


Obama’s America: “Midnight in a Coal Mine”

Midnight shift at a Virginia coal mine

I’m sure this guy must be a conservative, but his column is the funniest thing I’ve read in ages! Steve Chapman at The Chicago Tribune on “Why Obama Should Withdraw”:

When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was “Morning in America.” For Barack Obama, it’s more like midnight in a coal mine….The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, “it’s going to be impossible for the president to win.” Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: “Panic.”

But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

That’s exactly what I’ve been recommending for awhile now: Obama needs to do an LBJ and step aside in favor of someone competent, someone who can win. Chapman even has a suggestion.

America's most popular political figure

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can’t be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president’s.

It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama’s reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she’s been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she’s never been accused of being a pushover.

Not only that, Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president. Oh, and a new Bloomberg poll finds her to be merely “the most popular national political figure in America today.”

Isn’t it amazing how many people are proposing the same solutions to America’s problems these days?


More from the “We could hadda Hillary” File

While the latest polls on the President aren’t so good, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s popularity is way up there. There’s a big case of buyer’s remorse floating around the country.

She lost the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, but over a third of Americans said the U.S. would be better off now if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were president, according to a new poll.

The Bloomberg survey released Friday showed 34 percent of those questioned said America would be superior under a Hillary Clinton administration, while 47 percent said it would be about the same and 13 percent said it would be worse.

A quarter of respondents held similar wishful thoughts in a July poll.

Clinton remains the most popular American political figure with nearly two-thirds of Americans holding a favorable view of the former first lady and New York senator. Half of the respondents felt the same way about President Barack Obama, who received the lowest job approval rating of his presidency, at 45 percent.

Moments like the one pictured to the left at the Asian Pacific Economic Community summit remind me why.

Women are the great untapped resource that can help the global economy recover and expand, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday as the U.S. and 20 other nations pledged to try to lower barriers to women in the workforce.

Clinton and diplomats from 20 Asia-Pacific nations pledged to try to improve women’s economic participation, a task Clinton said will take a generation and will mark one of the most profound transformations of the world economy. The agreement is a run-up to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Hawaii later this year, which President Barack Obama will attend.

“With economic models straining in every corner of the world, none of us can afford to perpetuate the barriers facing women in the workforce,” Clinton said.

Barriers of law and custom mean that women in developing economies may have no right to inherit land or businesses, or less access than men to land and good quality seed, Clinton said. In more developed economies women still earn less than men, and have fewer opportunities, she noted.

She cited private studies to show what could happen if women were afforded fuller economic participation.

Recent elections appear to be strong reactions to the Obama Presidency.  All of the President’s domestic policy polling is pretty dismal.  However, there’s a difference in the polling in foreign policy.  Little wonder why! 

Clinton’s international sphere of influence offers some of the only areas where Obama scores well in the poll. On Libya, 42 percent approve of his job performance, while 65 percent like his efforts on terrorism, which include the May capture and killing of al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.

Every day I read headlines that show these are very challenging times.  It appears that more and more people are realizing we need a real leader.  Unfortunately, there aren’t any leaders on the presidential horizon at the moment. There is only worse and more of the same.


Late Night: Hillary Fashion Bashing and Gossip

From ABC News Entertainment

Which of these two people is more tastefully dressed? The guy on the left, Tim Gunn of something called “Project Runway,” doesn’t care for the way the woman on the right dresses. Well, I think his outfit is horrid.

Things got a little “Mean Girls” on Tuesday’s “Lopez Tonight” when “Project Runway” guru Tim Gunn expressed his exasperation over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s sartorial choices.

“Why must she dress that way?” Gunn asked when Lopez brought up Hill’s outfits. But then came the kicker – a dig about Clinton’s dressing like a dude: “I think she’s confused about her gender [with] all these big, baggy menswear tailored pantsuits.”

This was followed by a discussion of “cankles.” Ugh! Why does this man feel entitled to judge the Secretary of State’s fashion sense?

One problem for Gunn. According to Lindsay Mannering at “The Stir,” Gunn was recycling material he had previously used on Conan O’Brien in 2008,

Listen, it’s one thing to make fun of our former first lady’s fashion, but it’s a whole ‘nother thing to use recycled material. Gunn said the same exact thing on Conan O’Brien’s show back in 2008. Come on, Gunn! If you’re going to insult Hillary, you better make sure you’re being a) original and b) accurate. I think Hill’s got some style.

She’s worn some beautiful, and stylish, outfits over the years, and I think she just gets better with time. Sure, some of her pantsuits aren’t putting her on the best-dressed lists, but this woman’s got a job and a professional air to maintain….And I don’t hear Gunn going after Timothy Geithner’s ties, or Obama’s shoes, or Chris Christie’s bulging buttons, so let’s put the claws away for a second and remember that sometimes fashion takes a back seat to a job well done.

Personally, I like Hillary’s outfits, and I think Tim Gunn–whoever he is–should STFU and find a real job.

Now for the gossip.

Former White House chief florist Nancy Clarke has a closet full of such insider tales from her 31 years with six first ladies from Rosalynn Carter (favored barbecue dinners) to Michelle Obama (prefers gala apples over flowers). And now, two years after leaving the White House, she’s written a rare behind-the-scenes book, My First Ladies, due out in September.

Clarke describes Hillary as

a mix of dignity and schoolgirl. When the Monica Lewinsky affair broke, Clinton didn’t show her feelings to staff and, Clarke says, never engaged in the kinds of fighting with her husband that was described in the media. Once, Clarke took the elevator to the presidential residence and saw Clinton dash naked from her bathroom to the bedroom. “We looked at each other and we both screamed,” Clarke writes. Clinton joked about it later. “She said it was like living in her sorority house again.”

What a great story. It just makes me like Hillary and her pants suits more than ever.


Late Night: We Told You So — Hillary in 2012!

Hillary in 2012! Yes, it’s still a pipe dream, but who else is there? Bernie Sanders came out and said it recently–it’s time to primary Obama or run a third party candidate. Again, I know it’s probably a fantasy, but what other choice do we really have?

For myself, I know I can never vote for Obama. At this point it’s really a moral issue for me. I couldn’t vote for him in 2008, and that was before I realize how truly horrible his presidency would be.

I knew he’d be bad, and I knew he was going to go after Social Security and Medicare. I didn’t know that he would completely ignore unemployment and refuse to use the power of government to create jobs.

I suspected he would carry on Bush’s wars. But I never suspected that he would defend torture and rendition or that he would claim the right to imprison or assassinate American citizens without probable cause or trial.

I don’t know how I can bring myself to vote for Romney either. He’s pretty much indistinguishable from Obama anyway. They are both cynical sellouts; neither has a real ideology or moral core.

Bernie Sanders said it straight out not too long ago:

…while appearing on Thom Hartmann’s radio show, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — who, while being an independent, caucuses with the Democrats — said that one way progressives can make sure Obama does not enact huge cuts to major social programs is to run a primary challenger against him. Sanders told a listener who called in to protest a debt ceiling deal that cuts Social Security that such a challenge would be a “good idea”:

SANDERS: Brian, believe me, I wish I had the answer to your question. Let me just suggest this. I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president; who believe that, with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president; who cannot believe how weak he has been, for whatever reason, in negotiating with Republicans and there’s deep disappointment. So my suggestion is, I think one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing. […] So I would say to Ryan [sic] discouragement is not an option. I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.

Am I crazy? Look at what has been going on in Washington for the past few weeks. This debt ceiling fight is utter nonsense, and this President has shown no leadership whatsoever. For a long time, he completely cut Democrats out of the process and “negotiated” with John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Mitch McConnell! He has put every treasured Democratic program on the table to be cut. Again and again, he has lied about the strength and solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Over at Naked Capitalism, liberal economist Michael Hudson documents Obama’s ugly lies:

You know that the debt kerfuffle is as staged as melodramatically as a World Wrestling Federation exhibition when Mr. Obama makes the blatantly empty threat that if Congress does not “tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform,” there won’t be money to pay Social Security checks next month. In his debt speech last night (July 25), he threatened that if “we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.”

This is not remotely true. But it has become the scare theme for over a week now, ever since the President used almost the same words in his interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley.

Of course the government will have enough money to pay the monthly Social Security checks. The Social Security administration has its own savings – in Treasury bills. I realize that lawyers (such as Mr. Obama and indeed most American presidents) rarely understand economics. But this is a legal issue. Mr. Obama certainly must know that Social Security is solvent, with liquid securities to pay for many decades to come. Yet Mr. Obama has put Social Security at the very top of his hit list!

The most reasonable explanation for his empty threat is that he is trying to panic the elderly into hoping that somehow the budget deal he seems to have up his sleeve can save them. The reality, of course, is that they are being led to economic slaughter. (And not a word of correction reminding the President of financial reality from Rubinomics Treasury Secretary Geithner, neoliberal Fed Chairman Bernanke or anyone else in the Wall Street Democrat administration, formerly known as the Democratic Leadership Council.)

It is a con. Mr. Obama has come to bury Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to save them.

Obama has destroyed the Democratic Party and he is in the process of destroying the U.S. economy and sending us into a prolonged depression. He has to go. Frankly, if we can’t replace him with a liberal Democrat, a Mitt Romney might actually be preferable for the same reason many of us reluctantly preferred McCain in 2008: it’s possible Democrats in Congress would put up a fight against a Republican who did the things Obama has done.

Recent polls show that Obama’s blatantly conservative policies are finally having and effect–his liberal base is falling apart. The latest Washington Post-ABC poll found that the President’s approval numbers on the economy are dropping fast.

More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among his base, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The dissatisfaction is fueled by the fact that many Americans continue to see little relief from the pain of a recession that technically ended two years ago. Ninety percent of those surveyed said the economy is not doing well, and four out of five report that jobs are difficult to find. In interviews, several people said that they feel abandoned by both parties, particularly as debates over the debt ceiling gridlock Washington.

To me the most striking finding in this poll is that African American voters are losing faith in Obama’s handling of the economy and jobs.

the number of liberal Democrats who strongly support Obama’s record on jobs plunged 22 points from 53 percent last year to 31 percent. The number of African Americans who believe the president’s actions have helped the economy has dropped from 77 percent in October to just over half of those surveyed.

If African Americans are starting to see through Obama, he’s in trouble. How can he possibly win enough Independents to make up for the loss of African American votes? Sure, plenty of AA’s will still vote for him, but how many will end up staying home?

At the Top of the Ticket blog, Andrew Malcolm argues that Obama is trying to reach out to the “center,” and that his ridiculous speech last night was filled with code words to appeal to “independents.”

Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn’t congressional Republicans — or Democrats, for that matter.

The nation’s top talker uttered 2,264* words in those remarks. He said “balanced approach” seven times, three times in a single paragraph.

That’s the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent’s strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. “Balanced approach” is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side.

Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples’ priority.

Maybe, except Obama isn’t running to the center, he’s running to the right. In the debt limit “negotiations,” he is the one who put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table. He has consistently pushed for even bigger cuts than the Republicans have. And Obama has done exactly nothing about jobs. He seems to have no interest in the issue at all. So how is he going to win “centrist” votes? Surely these centrists still care about Social Security and Medicare and surely they care about jobs. I just don’t buy that running further to the right is going to help Obama be reelected.

I’m probably going on too long in this post, so I’ll wrap it up. I’ll end with a bit of Glenn Greenwald’s piece in reaction to the recent polls:

approval ratings is only one of many barometers of a President’s standing with his base — and, at least in Obama’s case, almost certainly not the most important one. It’s completely unsurprising that the vast majority of Democrats and even “liberals” — when presented with the dichotomous approve/disapprove choice by a pollster regarding their own party’s President — will choose “approve”; that, in essence, is little more than a proxy for declaring one’s tribal identity (which of the two sides are you on?). But what propelled the Obama campaign in 2008 was not merely the number of people willing to vote for him but, rather, the intensity of his support.

It’s one thing to be willing to go vote for a candidate on Election Day (or, more accurately, against the other candidate); it’s another entirely to be willing to donate scarce money, canvass and evangelize, and infuse the campaign with passion and energy. That many liberals will still be willing to do the former notwithstanding their dissatisfaction does not mean they will do the latter. That level of progressive commitment to Obama’s candidacy was vital to his victory in 2008, and its absence could be crippling in 2012 (a dependency on Wall Street cash even greater than 2008 can only take one so far). Wasn’t that one obvious lesson of 2010: the central role base enthusiasm plays in election outcomes?

So what is to be done? I don’t know, but I do know that there isn’t another potential candidate with the stature of Hillary Clinton. Is it just a pipe dream? What do you think? Is there any chance at all that Hillary might step in as Ted Kennedy did (admittedly unsuccessfully) against Carter in 1980? Are there any other possible candidates that could pull it off?