Heidi Li's Potpourri

Money, knowing right from wrong, and Governor Rod Blagojevich

Desperate people do desperate things. Desperate measures may seem crazy to those whose backs are not against the wall. But I am tired of hints from various people that the best explanation for Governor Rod Blagojevich's alleged wrongdoing, which if proved represents corruption and venality at their zenith, is that he was nuts. No. As the Wall Street Journal points out, he was in dire financial straights, caught in a vicious circle of wrongdoing, escalating legal bills, wrongdoing to pay those bills as well as his everyday expenses. This vicious circle might have been driving him crazy colloquially speaking, but I am confident that the Governor knows the basic differences been moral rightness and moral wrongness; if the allegations in the complaint are true, he was soliciting bribes. Bribes are, by the their very nature, wrong to solicit or accept, and there is no reason at all to think that Governor Blagojevich did not understand that he was seeking bribes.

Meanwhile, Representative Charles Rangel seems increasingly unlikely to avoid further investigation into his conduct.

Corruption in politicians, Republicans and Democrats, is nothing new, and it has seemed of late like those who supposedly serve the public are too busy dabbling in the sewer of jobbery to actually provide service in good faith.

I continue to be agnostic as to whether President-elect Obama will be found to be directly involved in Governor Blagojevich's venality. I am more interested in whether Mr. Obama realizes that merely being uninvolved, even demonstrably uninvolved, is not going to be enough to quell fears about his commitment to integrity in government. He not only has to be forthcoming about his staff's dealings with the Governor, which he seems to be attempting, he has to show that he truly gets it.

So far, President-elect Obama seems to have trouble appreciating that what it may be acceptable for a pundit to shrug off with a guffaw and a leer, is not so acceptably ignored by the President of the United States. That's the problem with regard to the Obama administration's seeming inability to grasp that even if President-elect Obama and his staff cannot see or do not mind the misogyny exemplified by Jon Favreau's representational grope of Senator Clinton, they need to take heed of the thousands, possibly millions of people who DO see the misogyny.

President-elect Obama ran on an image of idealism, with promises of change. He allowed and encouraged his supporters to think he was different from all other politicians because somehow he was purer. He owes it to them now to make it clear that he can understand why some people might reasonably be bothered by his rather tepid reactions to wrongdoing by his associates.

The OTHER open Senate seat

Governor David Paterson, who I am gaining more respect for by the day, will be appointing somebody to fill Senator Clinton's Senate seat. Please sign this online petition (not composed by me, but by a long time New Yorker), urging the Governor to consider three people, any one of whom is well qualified. I have a slight personal preference for Kirsten Gillibrand's appointment but all three people mentioned (in addition to Gillibrand, the petition mentions Jerrold Nadler and Leecia Evez) are indeed examples of people who would be welcome additions to the Senate. For we DC residents, who are excluded from having Senators to represent us, it is particular important to take an interest in every State's Senators: without representation of our own, we are uniquely entitled to ask that each one of them take Washington, DC into account as they legislate.

Understanding Blagojevich - The New York Times covers the Illinois Governor's arrest well

For once, the New York Times comes through.  For good coverage of the Blagojevich arrest and its implications, read this. Also, see this graphic "Web of Influence". The transcript of the press conference held by Patrick Fitzgerald on December 9 is here.

Watch NARAL affiliate try to make up ground lost by NARAL's national office

After its parent organization endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate less committed to reproductive rights than Hillary Rodham Clinton, NARAL-NY is now pressuring Governor Paterson to appoint somebody to fill Secretary-of-State-Designate Clinton's Senate seat with a Democrat who is as strong on reproductive rights as Hillary Clinton has been during her tenure in the Senate. This item in the New York Daily News brought the matter to my attention. I have no idea whether Governor Patterson cares what NARAL-NY thinks; I actually lost what shreds of respect I had for the national group when they not only refused to endorse Senator Clinton but endorsed a candidate with no track record on reproductive rights. But there is a perverse irony that NARAL's New York chapter president wrote the following in an op-ed in the Albany Times-Union: (emphases added)

"[When we think about appointing her replacement, we must ask what it truly means to replace Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"It means replacing the woman who nearly single-handedly ended the Food and Drug Administration's foot-dragging on approving emergency contraception for over-the-counter access. Clinton's strategy of stalling a confirmation until the FDA made a decision ensured that women were more easily able to access this important method of back-up birth control.

"It means replacing the woman who joined her fellow New York Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer to oppose the administration's plan to reduce federal reimbursements to health clinics (including family planning clinics, substance abuse counseling and mental health clinics). The predicted loss of $350 million in funds to our state would be devastating to health care providers and the more than 400,000 New Yorkers, many of them low-income, who rely on them.

"It means replacing the woman who joined her colleague Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., to introduce the "Protecting Patients and Health Care Act," legislation that would that would block the Department of Health and Human Services from passing a bill limiting patients' access to basic reproductive health care service. Clinton and Murray have been leading the opposition to this misguided legislation since July, when rumors of the bill first began.

"It means replacing the woman who has not only been a staunch ally on health care issues, but also a sponsor of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation would've helped close the pay gap and end the inequities that have shortchanged women and families for far too long.

"It means replacing the woman who cosponsored legislation to repeal the global gag rule, to end funding for abstinence-only education and fund comprehensive sexuality education, to expand contraceptive access, and to codify the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade ruling in federal law.

Simply put, there is no other senator who has shown such commitment, dedication and leadership when it has come to standing up for women's health and rights.

...

"We hope that as Gov. David Paterson considers the appointment of Clinton's successor, he will choose someone who will commit to upholding this legacy. Though gender need not his only guide, the governor must keep in mind that Clinton is one of only 16 women currently serving in the Senate and that her advancement provides an opportunity for another woman to build upon her foundation."

It means replacing the woman who NARAL did not endorse for the Presidency.

So forgive me if I agree with the points being made but will not be hopping to support NARAL any time soon.

CAVEAT: NARAL-NY's President objected to the decision by the national office to endorse then-Senator Obama rather than Senator Clinton. From an article published in Medical News Today in May:

"NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who objected to the national office's endorsement, said the "real differential" between Clinton and Obama is Clinton's "tremendous work" in helping assure FDA approval of over-the-counter emergency contraception for women ages 18 and older. She added that the EC approval was the "most important advance for reproductive rights in a decade."

I admire Ms. Conlin for taking a stand against the national organization. But note that the national organization has lost all the credibility Ms. Conlin is trying to retain for her state-level chapter.

To achieve gender equality is to achieve human equality

This year’s 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence campaign, an annual event currently underway, has a theme of particular relevance to Americans who are becoming increasingly aware of the problems of misogyny and sexism in our own polity.

The theme: Human Rights for Women ‹—› Human Rights for All: UDHR60.

Note the dual arrow, < - > , indicating the equivalence between human rights for women and human rights for all. In one direction, the arrow can be read quite literally: without human rights for women there will not be human rights for all persons. The other direction is equally important, but rests on a different idea: by achieving human rights for women we achieve human rights for all persons. Since not everybody is a woman, why think this the case? That is, what is the justification for a claim that by achieving human rights for women one is achieving human rights for all, including men?

Many people more learned and expert in this area have addressed this question. So, my answer must be understood as that of nonspecialist.

 Women constitute half or slightly more than half the population worldwide (slide 34), and therefore they include people of every nationality, race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, economic status etc. In this sense women are a microcosm of the entire population, except in one respect: women are still subordinate and disempowered relative to men the world over.  Two very basic examples:

• The most common form of violence experienced by women globally is physical violence inflicted by an intimate partner. On average, at least one in three or otherwise abused by an intimate partner in the course of her lifetime.

• Women aged 15-44 are more at risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, motor accidents, war and malaria, according to World Bank data.

source: UNite To End Violence Against Women fact sheet, “How Widespread is Violence Against Women?” (can be downloaded here)

One simple way of appreciating that to achieve gender equality is to achieve human equality:

Because women crosscut all demographic groups (except men) empowering women works to empower all races, religions, creeds, sexual orientations, economic levels (especially the poor).  Thus, ensuring women’s full human rights - in all areas and respects - we go a long way to empowering all the demographic groups that disempowered men also belong to.

Under no circumstances are death threats acceptable

Whether one agrees with President-elect Obama's positions or not, whether one agrees with his political methods or not, nothing - absolutely nothing - justifies threats on his life. The same goes for any other person in a civilized society. Death threats are unequivocally evil.

These press reports - here, here, and here - must make us mindful that the horrid hatefulness directed against women and gays is the same sort of hatefulness that is being directed against the President-elect. Whatever else we as Americans agree or disagree about, we must categorically condemn and reject these threats.

A worthwhile analysis of some - but not all - of the variables involved in any decision Senator Clinton might make with regard to joining an Obama administration - assuming she's actually being asked to do so

Ultimately, there are numerous variables that go into a President's decision to offer somebody a post in her or his administration and there are numerous variables that go into a decision to accept or decline. Some are totally unknown to the public. Others are publicly available but not highlighted. For example, if any given senator accepts a position in the Obama administration that affects not only the who will be the next senator from the relevant state - something that depends, for the most part, on who the governor of that state would appoint, which in turn depends on any number of variables not generally analyzed in the national or international press. Furthermore, decisions about departing the senate affect who ends up chairing what committees there - as do decisions about when to resign one's senate seat if one is about to assume another elected office. For example, by resigning his senate seat effective today, Senator Obama opens the door for the Governor of Illinois to appoint a replacement before the six newly elected senators from November 4 are sworn in in January, thereby giving that appointee seniority over all of them. And because seniority plays an extremely prominent role in who gets what position in Senate committees this sort of fact matters.

When it comes to Senator Clinton remaining in the Senate or joining the Obama administration, it really does seem impossible for commentators to weigh up all the variables and offer anything other than educated guesses about what would be good for Senator Clinton's political power, what would be good for New Yorkers, and what would be good for the Senate. That said, this analysis, from the Financial Times, is the best I have seen in the mainstream media so far. It is not perfect, but it hits some new notes, including reporting the possibility that Obama is considering Clinton for "Pentagon chief" - by which the reporter means...I'm not sure...Secretary of Defense?

For some idea of the free for all that can be unleashed by a person's decision to leave the Congress to work for the administration, check out this story from Chicago.

The games go on...

The strangest thing about David Pflouffe's begging for the DNC is that he writes as though there is some sort of difference between President-elect Obama and his campaign and the DNC. Note that Plouffe is actually writing from the DNC (David Plouffe, BarackObama.com <[email protected]>) but speaking as though Senator-Elect Obama is appealing for help for the DNC.

Way back in June, before the Democratic Party had a nominee, the DNC turned itself over to the Obama campaign. So if the DNC is now in debt, that is both the Obama campaign's responsibility and the responsibility of  those in the DNC who thought it was a good idea to merge the Obama campaign with the Party even before Senator Obama was the Party's nominee.

But wait, this gets more comical:

From Yahoo News, some excerpts (emphases mine)

DNC chair faces $15M debt...
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 12, 6:06 pm ET

CHICAGO – The Democratic Party faces a smooth transition as President-elect Barack Obama essentially chooses the next national chairman whose initial task will be retiring a $15 million debt.

Current Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean plans to step down when his four-year term expires in January; he had long vowed to serve only one term. ...

Traditionally, the president selects the national chairman of his own party, and Obama is expected to do so by picking from among his most loyal supporters.

Mentioned as possible candidates are Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, but they also may be under consideration for Obama administration positions. Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said Wednesday he's not interested in the DNC job.

It's also possible Obama could select one of his closest political operatives as President Bush did after his 2004 re-election when he installed his former campaign manager Ken Mehlman as chairman.

Obama's team sent a fundraising appeal to backers on Wednesday seeking help in retiring the DNC's debt. The DNC debt includes a $10 million line of credit that the DNC took out in October to help the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as more House and Senate races became competitive.

The last time the DNC showed a postelection debt was 2002, when it reported being $1.3 million in the red. If Obama, who raised more than $640 million, emerges with money in the bank, he could transfer any sum from his campaign account to the DNC.

....

With Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the new DNC chairman will be responsible for reinforcing the White House message, preparing for the 2010 midterm elections and raising money.

So, let's see here. Even before President-elect Obama knows whether he has the a surplus from the $640 million his campaign raised - a surplus that could be used to pay down some or all of the DNC's debt - his senior adviser is writing to us from the DNC asking us to pony up $15 million.

This really is a case of Peter begging others to pay Peter so that Peter will never even have to think about paying for expenses that benefited him.

I am the first to admit that from the perspective of the Democratic Presidential candidate who believes she or he will win, that she or he would prefer a Democratic majority in Congress. Thus, I certainly understand why the Obama-DNC team ran up the debt, since as races tightened apparently Senator Obama was unable to assist candidates directly by making campaign appearances with them or if he did apparently those appearances did not translate into sufficient contributions to those races. Well, the alternative strategy worked, although it drove the DNC into 11 times the debt it was in the last time it was in post-election debt. I even understand why Senator Obama isn't dipping into his campaign coffers to pay the DNC debt - that would mean a dent in those coffers should he choose to run for reelection and since he cannnot know now whether he will be as successful at raising money for himself later, he would rather not risk his own money.

But all this boils down to is that it is better for Barack Obama if Barack Obama can pass off the DNC's debt to willing T-shirt buyers.

Meanwhile I wonder: what about the wonderful, highly touted fundraising talents of Howard Dean? He's stepping down ...and leaving the DNC 15 million dollars in the red. One can only hope that his reward for this fine job will not be an important post in the new administration.

Blogging the 2008 Election - Updated Event Information

BLOGGING THE 2008 ELECTION - SPONSORED BY BARUCH COLLEGE, CUNY

On Tuesday, Oct. 28, the Department of Journalism will host a panel discussion about how political blogs have shaped the 2008 presidential election. Panelists include Morra Aarons, political blogger for The Huffington Post and her HerBlog.com; Brandon Brice, a blogger with HipHopRepublicans.com and a former policy assistant to Congressman J. Dennis Hastert; Heidi Li Feldman, a pro-Clinton blogger, founder of the Denver Group and professor of law and philosophy at Georgetown University; Kate Phillips, the online politics editor for The New York Times, writing for and editing The Caucus, the newspaper’s politics news blog; and James Taranto, the editor of The Wall Street Journal's Opinionjournal.com, and a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board. The moderator will be Michael Cornfield, a political scientist and author who specializes in American politics and the Internet.

This event directly follows a panel discussion on polling and the election sponsored by Baruch’s School of Public Affairs. Prof. Douglas Muzzio moderates the polling discussion, which will feature Democratic strategist Harold Ickes and Republican consultant Ed Rollins.

Admission to both panels is free. Light refreshments will be served at 7 p.m. following the polling panel. The blogging panel begins at 7:15.

Here are the details on the blogging panel:

DATE: Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008

TIME: 7:00 - 9:00 p.m.

WHERE: Baruch College, Library Building

7th Floor, Newman Conference Center

151 East 25th St., Manhattan

ADMISSION: Free

NOTE: The polling discussion is being held at the same location and begins at 5 p.m.

For more information, please contact Glenda Hydler at 646-312-3974 or [email protected]

Free speech, JayZ, is definitely what is called for - will you please let Senator Obama know?

In my previous post, I pointed out that Senator Obama, who wants to be the chief executive of a country the majority of whose citizens are women, has yet to stand up and demonstrate that he appreciates the evil of misogyny and will speak out against it.

I just had a chance to read this, from an  October 23 blog entry from ABC News Senior Correspondent Jake Tapper (emphases added):

The Obama campaign announced today that Jay-Z and NBA star LeBron James will hold a "Last Chance for Change" concert in Cleveland next Wednesday.

The announcement about Jay-Z comes a few days after he dedicated his 2003 song "99 Problems" to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The lyrics to "99 Problems" include the famous line:

"If you're havin' girl problems I feel bad for you son
I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one."

According to MTV News Jay recently dedicated the song to McCain and a "homegirl," whom he described as "the one who says 'You betcha.' "

"I'm gonna get in trouble for this," Jay said, laughing, "but f--- it, this is freedom of speech."

Message to Senator Obama: Next Wednesday visit the concert with JayZ,  and please,  exercise your right to free speech - and even if it gets you trouble with some folks. Use your famed powers of oratory to explain misogyny, why the lyrics to "99 cents" smack of it, why JayZ's comments smack of it, and why you as somebody who claims to be a progressive who wants to lead a majority-female country will not tolerate it. Then, take a bow and leave.

*********

I am serious. Tell Senator Obama that you expect him to take this opportunity to show us that realizes what misogyny is or is trying to learn to, and that he will dedicate himself to fighting it in all its forms.

You can contact the Obama campaign online or at (866) 675-2008 or by mail:

Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680

Obama for America will only accept #10 envelopes. All other mail will be returned to sender.