September 2009 Archives

Jonathan, bubbelah, "isolated" and "delusional" have been the code words for just about every politician since King Henry VIII. Mayor V. may not be isolated because he is a social butterfly, but he could be delusional. Otherwise, he would spend more time working on the problems in this city rather than traipsing off to safaris and junkets. Let's not forget Napoleon, Rasputin, and Neville Chamberlain. As England's WWII Prime Minister, Chamberlain thought that Hitler would make nice if he got part of Czechoslovakia, and everyone knows how that worked out. More recently we have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown and Councilwoman Maxine Waters.

Anyone would look good after them. But Meg Whitman's got the resume. When she first became the CEO of e-Bay in 2002, it was a fledgling operation with 170 employees. Seven years later, she turned it into a $700 million dollar one with 2,500 employees. And she did it by coming to work at 4:00 a.m. if need be and by listening to her customers. She has been so good about bringing people together that some of her customers have even bought gifts for each other on e-Bay. And she could do the same as governor.

About the only negative point that the media has dragged up about her is a spotty voting record. If that's the best they can do, then she may well be worth the gamble. After all, with a state credit rating that is the lowest in the nation, the only place to go is up.

The great question facing California is this: Do we want as our governor a political hack who has sold him or herself over a long political career, or do we want a self-financing egomaniac? I hope we choose wisely.

We've done the political hack thing with varying results from Pat and Jerry Brown to Deukmejian and Davis. We now have the opportunity to follow Arnold with Meg Whitman or, Steve Poizner--both Silicon Valley multimillionaires.

The theoretical case for self-financing is that they are not beholden to any special interests and therefore they cannot be bribed or bought. We get their real and true judgment and values unmediated by politics. Hmmm. Interesting theory. In real life, how does this work out? How do we like John Corzine's judgment? Are we all ready to dial back time and support Ross Perot? And who could forget the judgment of that incorruptible multimillionaire John Edwards?

The problem, of course, with people of great wealth is not only do their money and success isolate them from petty political interests, but they also isolate them from feedback, coaching and the wisdom of others.

Some, say Meg Whitman for example, may become so isolated and delusional that they think it a good and appropriate idea to run for the chief political position in California without having much bothered to register or vote. They may believe in divine election and that their wealth equals competency. This is the way to oligarchy, not democracy.
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com

I've been mostly absent from this site in recent weeks, while finishing up some outside writing projects. But I've bantered a bit with one of our regular commenters, Diane, here.

Diane wonders where she may have been "uncivil" in her own discourse, as she seeks to hold the feet of Friendly Fire writers to the proverbial fire. I believe it's usually a matter of perspective. When I criticize someone, I find my candor and bluntness to be refreshing, while others find me to be a jerk.

In that same sense, Diane probably thinks she's being bracingly candid when she responds to some FF writers and their arguments thusly:

you definitely need to take a Valium or something... calling you a "political analyst" is rather overstepping... you are practically foaming at the mouth.. Your mis-statements regarding government healthcare plans are mind-boggling... laughable... and pathetic.... racist ranting... stop being Enablers of Stupid... why don't you just stop your whining until you at least find something worthy to whine about.

If you watch TV "news", you see that it has degenerated into a Theater of Controversy, where boxing gloves are more mandatory than decency or intelligence. But we are a fame-based culture, and those who want to be on TV learn to adjust to politics-by-punching. For their trouble, they get money or at least notoriety.

But we don't get that here. We try to sound out our arguments, we think out loud, we test our ideas, and we occasionally get a response. But if we're told that our ideas are pathetic and laughable, or that we need Valium, please forgive us if we attempt to move on to the next issue without stopping to engage you.

When I was in elementary school, the teachers tried imparting history and the curriculum through song. So early in the freezing and sometimes cool Midwestern mornings we learned that there were fifty states and thirteen original colonies through a little number called "Fifty Nifty United States." Current technology (and other good graces) prevent me from singing it online, but it went something like:

"Fifty nifty United States and thirteen original colonies
Fifty nifty United States and thirteen original colonies

Each individual state contributes a quality that is great
Each individual state deserves a bow, so let's salute them now...
La di da di da

Fifty nifty United States..."

Not only was it catchy, but it imparted a necessary and important fact about US history.

Then there was one about the Pythagorean Theorem that went:

"The square of the hypotenuse of the right triangle
Is equal to the sum of the square of the two adjacent sides

You'll not tolerate having your participle dangle
So please effect the selfsame respect (sorry but I took liberties here)
With the two adjacent sides

The two Wright Brothers when they were in the air
Like those others, they were heard to declare
'Look, Wilbur!'

The square of the hypotenuse of the right triangle
Is equal to the sum of the square..."

It once helped me figure out a pretty tough math problem.

But I have never heard of an ode to a world leader or a titular figurehead. It could be because I have never lived in Russia when it was plunged deep into the throws of communism, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, China today or any of those other places, that is not until Obama came up with that theme song that all school children are supposed to learn as part of being indoctrinated as good and model citizens.

One went:

Mm mmm mmm
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mm mmm mmm
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To give everyone a chance
Mm mmm mmm
Barack Hussein Obama...

Yes
Mm mmm mmm
Barack Hussein Obama

Find the name that is mentioned most in the ode. That's indoctrination.
Then it gets better. The other one goes:

"Hello, Mr. President we honor you today
For all your accomplishments
We doth say, hooray!"

Hooray, Mr.President! You're number one
The first black American to lead this great nation

Hooray, Mr. President, we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again

Hooray, Mr. President, we're really proud of you
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White and Blue

So continue, Mr. President, we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty Hip Hooray

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

Say what you want about Richard Nixon or George W. Even they wouldn't have come up with something like this.

I don't think it will stop there, either. Eventually we will see his likeness on our currency where he will either be splitting logs with shirtsleeves rolled up, chopping down a cherry tree or posing in front of the Capitol Building trying to look all pensive and philosophical and all. This guy won't be happy until he is sitting inside the viewing box of some ornate royal palace and decked himself out in purple robes, a scepter and a crown while admiring crowds file by. Until he extends his operation to the outer reaches of our solar system.

The big news this week is that Iran has been lying about its nuclear program. This is, of course, no news at all. We have known they were lying. Shocking, I know, that nations would lie. We certainly wouldn't lie about withdrawing our plans to put anti-missile missiles in Eastern Europe not being part of a quid pro quo for Russian support against Iran.

So far Iran has been a bad actor on the world stage. But Iran has not been irrational. They have used surrogates to attack Israel. They have armed Hezbollah and Hamas. But they have not been militarily adventurous themselves. However, between their bellicose rhetoric and their nuclear program, they may be perceived as a threat to Israel's existence. This would be a tragic mistake that they could avert with transparency. Like Saddam, they have a choice. Transparency or rubble?
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com

Gavin Newsome, mayor of San Francisco and Democratic candidate for governor of California, might get me to vote Republican. Okay, that is unlikely, but Newsome is becoming increasingly irksome.

Of all the dangers of modern life in California--earthquakes, fires, floods, mudslides, civil insurrection, guns and gangs--fructose and sucrose don't seem to be high on the list. I'm okay with the sweet things. However, overreaching irksome politicians feel like poison to the body-politic.

©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com

Jonathan and Gail-Tzipporah are gracious in rebuking Jimmy Carter for indicating that racism is behind a certain amount of the feverish rage against Barack Obama. Too gracious. Behind the constant cries of "I want my country back" and demands that the president not "brainwash our children" is a subtle but real insinuation that teabaggers never imagined a black liberal could oversee this culture-war-ravaged landscape.

No, opposition to Obama need not be based on race or xenophobia. Opposition to Bush wasn't.

But it's telling that the South has consistently been at the forefront of opposition to Obama. A majority of Southerners have expressed doubt that Obama was born in this country, whereas only around 10% of Americans in other parts of the country share such doubt. Even Republicans as a group don't demonstrate such a high rate of birther views.

Carter knows this issue perhaps better than Jonathan or Gail-Tzipporah do, because he grew up in that still-divided region. I say we've given the South enough time to civilize itself: Now let it secede, so that it birthers can "have their country back." Let them be our crazy Southern neighbor rather than our brethren. Let their progressives and minorities apply easily for visas to this great, pluralistic nation if they are so inclined. But let the rest to their own sad devices.

President Obama continues to play too nice on the issue of racism. His latest racial duck and dodge was to soft shoe former President Jimmy Carter's blunt charge that racism is the high octane that fuels the GOP counterinsurgency against Obama. Of course, Carter was dead on the money. And my guess is that in private moments with only the White House walls to hear him Obama shouted, "right on Jimmy!"
I mean what else can you call the bunch at the so-called Taxpayers March in Washington DC who were 99.9 percent white, proudly brandished signs with crude racist slogans, and derogatory pictures of Obama, and who waved Confederate flags and the Texas Lone Star flag.
The avalanche of borderline and flat out racial digs, hits, and quips from packs of rightside bloggers, talk show hosts, and the Fox Network is aimed at one thing and one thing only mortally wounding Obama's agenda and him. Racism--sneaky, covert, and at times blatant--has been the MO of the GOP for four decades. And it's worked magnificently and it's doing the same with new target Obama. Carter knows that and he the guts to say it. The pity is Obama didn't publicly say "right on" to him when he did.

When I heard that former president Carter had said that some opposition to President Obama was race based, I thought would have to agree with him. I too believe that some of the passionate and over the top ad homonym attacks on Obama are only slightly coded racial attacks. Comparing him to a monkey or Michelle to an ape is racist. Portraying him as a monkey--as several mainstream newspaper cartoons have--is racist.

* According to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service

©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com

Former President Jimmy Carter must have inhaled one peanut too many during his days as a peanut farmer. Most people know that peanuts are fine in small doses, but all bets are off when they are eaten in large quantities. That's because they are minor cholesterol farms that can head straight for the brains and arteries.

Let's consider the Jimmy Carter timeline:

1978 Helped broker the Camp David Accord between Menachim Begun and Anwar Sadat, the late prime ministers of Israel and Egypt respectively. For a while, it worked because Egypt basically stuck to the treaty.

1979-2006 the Mellow Years

January, 2007 Carter writes, "Palestine - Peace, Not Apartheid," a book panning Israel and lauding the Palestinians. Carter gets panned for writing falsehoods and distortions.

September, 2009 Senator Joe Wilson blurts out "You Lie" during the president's healthcare speech. Carter pans Wilson and calls him a racist.

News alert to the former president: A white person who pans a black person is not always a wacko, racist, or a space cadet. More often than not, they are upstanding, normal people. So when Senator Wilson (or any other Caucasian) criticizes a Black or a biracial person, they are not criticizing every Black person or biracial person who ever roamed the planet.

And if Jimmy Carter doesn't understand that, then peanuts and most other things he has ingested over the last few years should come with a warning label.

I can't believe that from the bright hopes and high ideals of inauguration day, we have come to this dismal day. From the promise of real reform, the reigning in on insurance companies' high costs, rescissions and bans for pre-existing conditions, we are not appreciably closer to real reform than when we started--and at what costs to Obama's presidency, the Democratic Party and the nation.

Oh well, maybe in another 16 years we can try again.

©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com

I'm puzzled. President Obama had absolutely no reservation about name calling hip hip mega star Kanye West a "jackass." Make no mistake West's boorish, juvenile delinquent, antic at the MTV award show richly deserved a public reprimand. That is his act and his act alone. But West apologized quickly, vociferously and often for his grandstanding.
West is one of the few hip hop shot callers to actually talk about racism, and had the guts to call former President Bush's comatose response to the massive suffering of poor blacks during the Katrina debacle, racism. West has gone against the grain in the homophobic world of gangster rap and hip hop and denounced its rampant homophobia. West has donated thousands to charities and educational institutions.

But West is also black, and a pop artist. And his supposed crime was to insult a white video filmmaker. That instantly made him the softest of soft targets for Obama. He's a target that many conservatives eagerly back pat Obama for name calling, and that made him even more of a tantalizing figure to name call. Yet there's not a peep of a public call out from the White House of a congressman who shouts that "you lie" during Obama's seminal congressional speech, or the GOP congressman who walked out during Obama's speech, or the GOP congresspersons and senators who sit on their hands and glare at Obama in icy silence during his congressional speeches. There's not a peep of indignation from the White House at the legion of conservative web sites and bloggers that have virtually turned vilifying, pillorying and even making flat out death threats against Obama into a fun and game sport.

There's not a hint of an outburst from the White House at Glenn Beck and the legion of Glenn Beck types who totally dominate the talk radio airwaves. They have turned slurring Obama into a lucrative growth industry.

There's not a murmur of outrage from Obama at the throngs who carried the packs of borderline and openly racist hate placards, signs, Confederate flags, and Texas state flags at the Taxpayer protest march. Instead White House press secretary Robert Gibbs glibly told reporters that Obama did not see any racial motives in the taxpayer protests.
West was wrong, and should have been rapped on the knuckles. But this was hardly the sin of the ages. Not so for the droves of rightists who are waging a full blown counterinsurgency against Obama's political agenda and Obama. They are real, hateful, and dangerous. West is none of those things. Yet Obama calls him a jackass, and not the others. Go figure that one.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January, 2010.

Joe Wilson and Kanye West are two boors who prove that we are not yet in a post racial America. They are different sides of the same racist coin, that for too long has been the coin of the realm in America.
Some pundits held that the election of Barack Obama meant that America had entered a "post racial era." While I celebrated Obama's election as a real and important milestone, I'm afraid that color still counts.

That race, ethnicity, culture and religion play some role in our affections I can live with. But when they determine our anger and animus, they are misused and inappropriate. It sometimes takes jerks like Wilson and West to show us why.

©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com

A recent slew of weddings at the 99-Cent Only Store must have set a record for the ultimate budget wedding. Under the store's fluorescent lights, between loaves of white bread and the aluminum pans, nine couples were chosen to be married on Wednesday, 9/09/09 from the 2,999 who applied. (The number was probably more like 3,146, but they probably rounded it down to keep that nine theme going.)

Other than complimentary massages, bridal makeup, flowers and wedding license, most everything else came from the store. The brides' dresses were made from items found there and the catering was done in-house as well. The fruits probably came from aisle one, and place settings from aisle five. In addition to the flowers from an outside vendor, each bride could have also carried one of those little plants that are sometimes on display at the store's entrance.

It at least showed some foresight on the couples' part, which is always refreshing considering the divorce rate. Should it come to that, then no one will regret having spent a down payment on a house for their big day.

I like the idea so much that that's what I'm going to do when the big day comes, provided I am still lucid enough and the store's still in operation by then.

Forget censuring Congressman Joe "You lie" Wilson. The Democrats should give him a merit plaque. His two blasphemous words was a dream for the Democrats. Rivers of cash instantly flowed into the Democratic National Committee coffers. It quickly made his almost sure to be beaten re-election campaign Democratic opponent Rob Miller, a serious competitor.

"You lie" Wilson did as much as the nearly 45 minutes of Obama's reasoned and measured pitch for a compromised health care plan to help him win momentarily at least a big chunk of the public back to his side. His double digit overnight bump up in approval ratings was a bigger and faster reversal in political fortune than Truman's presidential upset shock of Dewey in 1948. Two days before his make or break health care speech, things looked gloomy for Obama. His approval ratings had taken the biggest and fastest nosedive of any president in recent memory.

"You lie" Wilson for the moment at least brought out a rally round the president war hoop from the bickering, rapidly fracturing, groping Democrats. "You lied" also again for the moment put the brakes on the fast accelerating GOP's counterinsurgency against Obama. In prior weeks, the insurgency had won hands down the public opinion and propaganda war against the administration. "You lied" Wilson even forced talk show anti-Obama ringmaster Rush Limbaugh to take momentary pause in his diesel speed Obama assault and attack Republicans for groveling to Obama. Limbaugh was apoplectic that congressional Republicans forced Wilson to apologize for his loose tongue.
"You lie's" outburst was manna from heaven for the Democrats. It came at the right time, in the right place, with the right audience (millions viewed nationally) and against the right target the President.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that "you lied" had a check in the back pocket from the DNC to loose his lips when he did. But that would be giving way too much credit to the DNC and too little to the GOP. The GOP's long history of shoot from the lip racist and homophobic slurs, gaffes, digs, and insults, always followed by the kind of wink and nod apology of the kind that Wilson gave to Obama was just the latest in the string of patented insults. The GOP has amply proved that it's more than capable of shooting itself in both its feet and torso at the same time.

"You lie" for the moment did one more thing for the Democrats that they seem utterly terrified to do and that's talk back to the GOP. The Democrats tottered on the verge of being widely written off in disgust as the party that badly squandered the political capital it banked from its trounce of the GOP in November. "You lied" instantly changed all that.
"You lie" even after the national firestorm is still doing yeoman service for the Democrats. Check his website joewilsonforcongress.com His apology notwithstanding, "You lied" doesn't miss a beat on it, " I am not sorry for fighting back against the dangerous policies of liberal Democrats. I will not back down. Will you stand with me today and help me fight back against liberal attacks by making a donation to my campaign?"
"You lie" is a Hollywood casting dream for the Democrats. Censure "You lied" Wilson. Heck no, the Dems if they're smart will polish up a shiny plaque for him.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obvama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January, 2010.

President Obama's Joe Wilson challenged Health care speech won't change one fact. He paid lip service to a public option, but he's going to when the final deal goes down dump it. This has much less to do with angry town hall loudmouths; the drumbeat of Fox News, Limbaugh, and the legion of right-wing, shrill blogger attacks; and GOP orchestrated senate attacks on the public option, than it has to do with Obama the politician. Obama desperately needs to bag a victory on health care reform. He's staked his administration's political fate on it.
There's already much speculation and debate about whether Obama will sign a bill without the public option. Let's put that to rest here. He will sign it, and he will declare it the greatest victory for health care reform since LBJ inked Medicare into law four decades ago. Politically, it will satisfy few. Conservatives will still scream that it's a step down the road to socialized medicine. Progressives will scream that it does too little to ensure that the 45 to 50 million uninsured have affordable, quality medical care, and provide any real watchdog check on Big Pharma to make sure they drop costs, and keep them dropped on prescription drugs. They're both right. But none of this matters, Obama needs the bill no matter the cost.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming bookHow Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January, 2010.

Barack Obama really deserves credit. His gift for oration could even make a Mafioso swoon.

But even that didn't make a dent on the general public after this week's speech. I rounded up the usual quorum of ten and interviewed them the next day. One understood the plan, though mainly after taking a public healthcare course. Another was watching the World Cup. A third was going to wait and see what happens, and a fourth understood it about as well as the behavior at a political convention, meaning it was all so unclear. And the fact that even some Democrats have jumped ship must mean that something has gone wrong somewhere.

Either way, even if it were the ideal and most fiscally sound plan, someone would still be there to shoot it down, especially the senators who accepted large campaign donations from special interest groups. To remedy this, there should be a law limiting campaign contributions to around a dollar per person.

The other questionable part of all this is the rush to pass changes that won't take hold until 2013, unless a certain Hawaiian-Kenyan is planning on running for president again meaning that a healthcare win could turn him into the Golden Boy of reform, at least until things start falling apart.

Because of all the tumult and Town Hall meetings, the most reasonable thing to do would be to roll out one provision at a time instead of trying to make too many changes at once.

President Obama tried to give a speech and a town hall meeting broke out. "A lie," cried Rep Joe Wilson, when Obama promised that his plan would not cover illegal aliens. Before that there was grumbling from the Republicans and general laughter from both sides when the president admitted that there were a lot of details to work out. Frankly, I was not offended. I thought I was watching question time at the British Parliament where shouting and heckling are the norm, and the Prime Minister is expected to respond in real time. My only disappointment is that Obama stuck to the script and didn't really take on the hecklers.

I'm not sure how the conservatives will find something wrong with Obama's trust in market forces, but they certainly will. No, the bickering will not stop, but Obama has committed to fight for reform and not simply be a piñata for fear mongers who make stuff up. He held out both an olive branch and a bludgeon. He claims to be ready to use either or both. We'll see.

©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com

Consider me relieved that some libertarians and conservatives are willing to call a kook a kook. If both parties dial down their kookiness, we can yet navigate this mess.

The loud clamor from progressives, some liberal Democrats, and even a few self-described moderates for President Obama to get down and dirty with the GOP on health care and other big ticket legislative issues will always fall on deaf White House ears. There are good reasons why. Obama never had anything resembling the big, and popular mandate that the press and Democrats believed he had to make sweeping change. He ran against an aging GOP candidate saddled with the colossal burden of a divided, corruption and scandal plagued GOP, a Saturday Night Live joke line vice presidential running mate, a tanking economy, an unpopular war, and a GOP president whose ocean bottom ratings made Hoover Hoover look like the second coming of Lincoln.

Yet Obama still got trounced among white voters. A good chunk of whites voted for him less because of his message of hope and change, than because of disgust and loath of Bush bumbles, fumbles, and miscues. Obama delivered carefully calibrated rhetorical toss away lines about ending the war, single payer health care, nailing Bush lawbreaking officials, cracking down on the Wall Street greed merchants, and jumpstarting a new war on poverty. Yet he is and always has been a solid team playing Beltway, centrist Democratic and these political positions are anathema to centrist Democrats. To play the centrist political game correctly requires compromise, conciliation, and bipartisanship. Illinois Republicans, and that included some of the most conservative down state Republicans, repeatedly gave Obama high marks as the one upstate Illinois black Democrat who would continually reach across party lines to build consensus to get legislation passed.

Obama learned early that this was the sure fire way to bag the big financial and corporate dollars, stay in good stead with the Democratic Party regulars, and garner favorable ink in the mainstream media. He gave a bigger hint that compromise and conciliation would be the watchwords of his administration in his coming of political age keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. The punch line that brought swoons and wows was that Americans shouldn't be pigeonholed into Red States and Blue States and that he would work hard to close the political and ideological rifts and divisions. This was a political template for a non-confrontational; don't ruffle the GOP's political feathers approach to policy matters.

Then there's the matter of race. The escalating GOP counterinsurgency against him is fueled by playing on the thinly veiled racial fears of a black liberal leaning president. A president that has allegedly suspect birth, religious ties, and patriotism, and who will subvert the liberties, and economic well-being of law abiding, patriotic hard working white Americans. This is pap and hogwash, but the scare tactic has worked.

Polls show a big fall off in his approval ratings. Democrats are now inching up on Republicans in getting the blame for the mess in Congress. This makes Obama even more gun shy about trying to ram health care reform, or any other part of his agenda through Congress with Democrats only. This would draw not only howls of dictatorship but stir massive political and public disruption and unrest. This would open the door wide for Republicans to rebound and actually win back a few seats in the 2010 mid term elections.

The specter of a rejuvenated, even more war like GOP is Obama's worst nightmare. The low intensity warfare against him would severely hamper his efforts to better shore up the economy; pass an immigration reform and campaign reform law and wind down the wars.

Imploring Obama to thumb his nose at the GOP and go it alone with Democrats shows pure ignorance or Kool Aid delusion of who and what Obama is and how he got where he got. It just ain't going to happen.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is How Obama Governed: the Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press, January 2010).

These guys are not our friends, but they are also not the main threat from Al Qaeda

We need to fight Al Qaeda. We need to win against Al Qaeda. They present the clearest and most present danger to our world. They are happy to kill, willing to die, trying to get nuclear weapons and they do not have a return address that can be held hostage either to preemptive war or retaliation. Almost all of us agree on this. But what is Al Qaeda and who are we fighting? Here is where the agreement breaks down.

Recess is over. We need to turn away from the ragged men on the monkey bars and go after leadership, the financial infrastructure and corrupting Imams. George W Bush was exactly wrong. This is not a set piece war for tanks, troops and jet fighters. This critical struggle will not be won by invading other nations. This is about intelligence, policing and international cooperation. This is about focusing on the enemy and not a far-away playground.

©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com

I don't pretend to be an objective journalist. I'm an opinionated commentator. Not a movement or party activist like some political commentators, but an unobjective, biased analyst nonetheless.

My biases have been pro-Obama, but I'm concerned about the arrogance that he's been exhibiting in recent months, a "l'etat, c'est moi" hubris that seems to keep him from grasping why his numbers are falling.

I saw John McCain having a very warm, civilized conversation with Conan O'Brien last night about the need for finding bipartisan approaches to healthcare and other issues. McCain also praised Ted Kennedy's ability to model an ability to reach across the table.

Frankly, that sort of conversation should be led by Obama, not by a comedian. Obama may be too full of himself to grasp that a large number of Americans can be predisposed to think of him as "not one of us," either as a foreign-born Muslim or a Marxist or a just plain elitist pointy-head Ivy Leaguer.

He promised to lead all of the US, not just the blue sections, and he needs to start leading. That includes less deference to the party's most liberal elements, who will only get the party exiled yet again if they move too far too fast.

As for his public image, he should take the time to engage publicly with those who respectfully disagree, in order to eclipse the images of the gun-toting wackos who disrespectfully disagree. Is his ego too large to live up to that campaign promise? I don't think so. Though his sense of self is grand, he still seems a pragmatist above all.

But if he keeps using televised addresses to convince the American people through solely his own charisma that the deficit won't be swollen by his programs, he'll continue to stagnate in coming months.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called Tedmund Hall and Arnaldo Quinones "great heroes." The two firefighters were killed when their truck was engulfed by flames. Moments before the pair had valiantly shepherded nearly 60 California inmate firefighters to safety. The praise of Hall and Quinones's for their heroism didn't stop with Schwarzenegger. Nearly every other local political figure paid public homage to the men. A slew of memorials and tributes were planned to honor them.

The bare mention in news accounts of Hall and Quinones's deaths that California prisoners were also battling hard against the fires was no oversight. For years California inmates have performed valued service fighting the ritual fires that plague Southern California every year. They get only bare mention and even barer recognition of their service even though they face the same risks of injury and death as regular fire crews. And the numbers of California prisoners that brave the fire dangers aren't small.

In 2007, more than 4,000 offenders participated in the firefighting program. They comprised 200 fire crews. In addition to their firefighting duties, the inmates also play a huge role in fighting floods, search and rescue operations and earthquakes. A large number also work year round on conservation projects on public land. There's another reason that the inmates get barely a ripple of attention and no public praise for their work. The firefighting inmates are non-violent, non-serious offenders, must be free of major prison rule infractions. That makes them potentially the poster inmates for the type of inmates who Schwarzenegger proposed, a three judge federal panel ordered, and prison reformers argue can and should be eligible for early release. Their release would not jeopardize public safety or ignite a crime wave. Yet, the fact that they perform unheralded but spotless service in safeguarding lives and personal property flies squarely in the face of the lurid picture that politicians routinely paint of inmates released early. The scare story is that they will prowl the streets and commit murder and mayhem. Law enforcement officials hector and badger California legislators and officials in other states at the faintest hint of an early release plan to scrap them. They claim that there's no such thing as a non-violent, no-risk offender; that all offenders have or will commit serious crimes. They relentlessly point to the shocking and media sensational case of Lily Burk, a Los Angeles teen, killed in June and whose alleged killer was released to a halfway house. They cite his release as proof of the great danger in the early release of inmates and to torpedo the wider use of alternative sentencing.

California is the textbook example of a state that should grab at alternative methods of punishment to ease to ease its exploding inmate population. The 170,000 inmates in California prisons top the number of inmates in several European nations combined. The overwhelming majority of these inmates are jailed for non-violent or drug related offenses. Despite the grotesque overcrowding and recent bloody riots in California's Chino prison due to the overcrowding, the state's politicians continue to engage in a rancorous, prolonged, battle to skirt a federal court order to release tens of thousands of prisoners ordered.

The early release battle threatened to derail an even more rancorous and prolonged fight over how to cut California's $30 billion budget deficit. The prisoner release plan hammered out was part of the deficit cutting deal. But panicky lawmakers backpedaled and opted for a drastically watered down plan that will do little to relieve the state's bulging prison cells, and even less to hack into the estimated $1.2 billion cost savings from the original plan to release 27,000 inmates.

The irony is that some politicians worry out loud that the early release of inmates poses a dire threat to the state's ability to protect lives and property from fire devastation and other natural catastrophes. In addition, the inmates are paid a pittance of a dollar an hour and that represents a huge cost savings for cash strapped California counties. "I think it's something that people aren't even contemplating, quite frankly," said Republican Assemblyman Ted Gaines. "I'm just very angry and frustrated that we're not focusing on this." In a final irony, Gaines cited the need for the inmate firefighters in yet another last ditch dodge to block the release of any low risk inmates.

Fallen firefighters Hall and Quinones deserve all the accolades that Schwarzenegger and state officials can bestow on them for acting quickly and resolutely to save the lives of the inmate firefighters. The pity is that the inmates who for years have risked their lives to fight fires and save lives don't get the same due when it comes to trusting them back on the streets.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles at 9:30 AM Fridays