Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Friday, November 10, 2006

Stabroek News

Stabroek News:
Crouch argues in relation to Obama that Americans have a simple-minded conception of black and white

Dear Editor,

The only thing that I found more interesting than G.H.K. Lall's letter on Wednesday November 1 about Barack Obama possibly being the candidate the Democrats need was the article in the New York Daily News the very next day by conservative columnist Stanley Crouch. Almost as if in direct response to Lall's letter, Crouch's article was entitled "What Obama isn't: black like me".

Crouch's main point in the article was that Obama is not so much a black American as he is an African-American. As he put it, "Obama's mother is of white U.S. stock. His father is a black Kenyan." He goes on to say, "Other than color, Obama did not - does not - share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves".

While he acknowledges that "the idea that one would be a better or a worse representative of black Americans depending upon his or her culture or ethnic group is clearly absurd", he recognizes that Americans still have "a simple-minded conception of black and white" and he questions how it colors the way we see Obama.

He points out that the "confusion" stems from "the naïve ideas coming out of Pan-Africanism" which he describes as the set of ideas that began to take shape in the 19th century when "all black people, regardless of where in the world they lived, suffered and shared a common body of injustice". This as a result of the widespread colonization Europe had imposed on "much of the black world" resulting in the 250 years of slavery in the U.S.

Overall, Crouch questions black Americans referring to Obama as "one of us". When he hears this, "I do not know what they are talking about" he writes. He cites Obama himself in Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" where Obama makes clear that although he has experienced "some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American".

Noting that "Obama is being greeted with the same kind of affection that Colin Powell had when he seemed ready to knock Bill Clinton out of the Oval Office" but for many reasons (most of them personal) did not become the first serious black American presidential contender, he thinks that if Obama does run he will have to do so "as the son of a white woman and an African immigrant", and if he does become the first black American president he will have entered the White House "through a side door".

Yours faithfully,

Stafford Wills

NPR : Roundtable: Saddam Verdict, Crouch on Obama

NPR : Roundtable: Saddam Verdict, Crouch on Obama: "Analysis
Roundtable: Saddam Verdict, Crouch on Obama

Listen to this story...

News & Notes, November 6, 2006 · Guests: Callie Crossley, social/cultural commentator on the Boston television show Beat the Press, Marcelo Su�rez-Orozco, professor of globalization and education at New York University; and Robert George, editorial writer for The New York Post.' Topics: Saddam Hussein is found guilty and sentence to death: Will voters care? Also, a discussion of why columnist Stanley Crouch can't relate to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
"

Jenice Armstrong | Playing racial games

Jenice Armstrong | Playing racial games:
Posted on Wed, Nov. 08, 2006
Jenice Armstrong | Playing racial games

THE "BLACKER-THAN-

THOU" game. Sometimes

it's all about skin color: Who's darker and therefore supposedly closer to his African ancestral roots.

Other times it comes down to a round of the dozens in terms of how "down" someone is. In other words, has he lived an authentically black experience? As a kid growing up, were your relatives more like those on "Good Times" or "The Cosby Show"? If your answer is "Good Times," give yourself 10 points.

When you're playing the blacker-than-thou game, being from the projects gives you extra street cred. Admit to living in the suburbs or being Republican and, depending on the circle you run in, you can be accused of being elitist, or simply not black enough.

I got it just the other day from a male reader who accused me of being "uppity" after I wrote a column saying Flavor Flav's car wreck of a reality show, "Flavor of Love," is racially stereotypical.

Racial one-upmanship goes on all the time. Ask any black suburban middle-schooler. At any rate, I'm recalling this disturbing practice in light of a piece I recently read by New York Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch.

Now, I'm a fan of Crouch's work. He's progressive, level-headed and has a way with words. But in a recent column he brought up a topic that I really wish he hadn't. It was about Sen. Barack Obama's racially mixed heritage. Obama's mother is white and his late father is African.

Crouch wrote, "So when black Americans refer to Barack Obama as 'one of us,' I do not know what they are talking about."

Crouch went on to discuss the senator's book "The Audacity of Hope." Crouch wrote that Obama "experienced some light versions of the many negative assumptions based on his color, but he cannot claim those problems as his own, nor has he lived the life of a black American."

Crouch's observation is that by virtue of Obama's racial makeup, his experiences haven't been that of the average African-American whose ancestors were slaves. Maybe so, but so what? Who really cares if Obama's experiences more closely resemble that of some West Indian, Africans, Latin Americans or others?

When it comes to governing, what difference would that make in terms of what Obama's Middle Eastern policies might be if he managed to make it to the White House? How would his racial makeup address the way that he selects members of his Cabinet?

When people go into a voting booth as they did yesterday, they want to know, "who's going to help my situation? Who's going to represent my interests, maybe lower my taxes and improve my chances of getting healthcare?"

And as we've seen with the way blacks lined up behind Gov. Rendell instead of the GOP's Lynn Swann, voters can't be counted on to vote for those whose skin color most closely resembles their own. A national Associated Press/AOL Black Voices poll released last week bore this out. In a phone poll of 900 black adults, more than 80 percent said a candidate's race doesn't matter.

Nor should it matter how they fare in the blacker-than-thou game.


The Associated Press contributed to this report. Have you peeped a hot trend that hasn't been reported? E-mail heyjen@phillynews.com and let me know what you know.



THOU' game. Sometimes

it's all about skin color: Who's darker and therefore supposedly closer to his African ancestral roots.

Other times it comes down to a round of the dozens in terms of how 'down' someone is. In other words, has he lived an authentically black experience? As a kid growing up, were your relatives more like those on 'Good Times' or 'The Cosby Show'? If your answer is 'Good Times,' give yourself 10 points.

When you're playing the blacker-than-thou game, being from the projects gives you extra street cred. Admit to living in the suburbs or being Republican and, depending on the circle you run in, you can be accused of being elitist, or simply not black enough.

I got it just the other day from a male reader who accused me of being 'uppity' after I wrote a column saying Flavor Flav's car wreck of a reality show, 'Flavor of Love,' is racially stereotypical.

Racial one-upmanship goes on all the time. Ask any black suburban middle-schooler. At any rate, I'm recalling this disturbing practice in light of a piece I recently read by New York Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch.

Now, I'm a fan of"

China: Scapegoat or Sputnik - New York Times

China: Scapegoat or Sputnik - New York Times: "November 10,
November 10, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

China: Scapegoat or Sputnik

Shanghai

As I was saying, Mr. Rove, Americans aren’t as stupid as you think.

Now that we’ve settled that, and now that we’ve had an election that clarified which country is most important in shaping U.S. politics in 2006 — Iraq — I’ve come to visit the country that’s most likely to shape U.S. politics in 2008: China.

The civil war in the Republican Party, which you are about to see, will be all about Iraq — whom to blame and how to withdraw before the issue wipes out more Republican candidates in 2008. But the coming civil war among the Democrats will be all about China.

I still believe that when the history of this era is written, the trend that historians will cite as the most significant will not be 9/11 and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It will be the rise of China and India. How the world accommodates itself to these rising powers, and how America manages the economic opportunities and challenges they pose, is still the most important global trend to watch.

It really hits you when you see the supersize buildings sprouting in Shanghai, or when you look at the world through non-American eyes. Kishore Mahbubani, the dean of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, told me the other day that Asia right now “is the most optimistic place in the world.” More people have come out of poverty faster there — particularly in India and China — than at any time in the history of the world, and as a result, he notes, more people in Asia than anywhere else in the world today “wake up every morning sure that tomorrow is going to be better than yesterday.”

But one person’s optimism can be another person’s flat wages. And that is why the Democrats and China are almost certain to butt heads. The Bush team’s focus on Iraq and terrorism, coupled with the Democrats’ lack of control over either house of Congress, has kept China-U.S. relations largely out of the headlines and on a relatively even keel during the Bush II years.

But two things will change that. One is the Democrats’ return to control of both the House and Senate — powered by politicians like Nancy Pelosi, who has long taken a hard line vis-à-vis China on both economics and human rights, and Sherrod Brown, the newly elected senator from Ohio, who comes to D.C. with strong protectionist leanings from a state that has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs to Asia.

The other is the mood reflected in a Nov. 2 analysis in The Financial Times, headlined: “Anxious Middle: Why Ordinary Americans Have Missed Out on the Benefits of Growth.”

Technology and globalization are flattening the global economic playing field today, enabling many more developing nations to compete for white-collar and blue-collar jobs once reserved for the developed world. This is one reason why growth in wages for the average U.S. worker has not been keeping pace with our growth in productivity and G.D.P.

“Economists call this phenomenon median wage stagnation,” noted The Financial Times. “Median measures give the best picture of what is happening to the middle class because, unlike mean or average wages, median wages are not pulled upwards by rapid gains at the top. As the joke goes: Bill Gates walks into a bar and, on average, everyone there becomes a millionaire. But the median does not change.”

Many Americans lately have started to get that joke, and it is one reason that with this new Democrat-led Congress we are likely to see a surge in protectionist legislation, more Wal-Mart bashing, a slowdown in free-trade expansion and increased calls for punitive actions if China doesn’t reduce its trade surplus — which surged to a record in October.

China, in other words, is inevitably going to move back to the center of U.S. politics, because it crystallizes the economic challenges faced by U.S. workers in the 21st century. The big question for me is, how will President Bush and the Democratic Congress use China: as a scapegoat or a Sputnik?

Will they use it as an excuse to avoid doing the hard things, because it’s all just China’s fault, or as an excuse to rally the country — as we did after the Soviets leapt ahead of us in the space race and launched Sputnik — to make the kind of comprehensive changes in health care, portability of pensions, entitlements and lifelong learning to give America’s middle class the best tools possible to thrive? A lot of history is going to turn on that answer, because if people don’t feel they have the tools or skills to thrive in a world without walls, the pressure to put up walls, especially against China, will steadily mount.



Thursday, November 09, 2006

BBC NEWS | Americas | Rumsfeld exit shakes Bush administration

BBC NEWS | Americas | Rumsfeld exit shakes Bush administration

Rumsfeld exit shakes Bush administration
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website


President and defence secretary: parting company
Rumsfeld's career

The resignation of the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shows how much the Bush administration is in disarray about Iraq.

The president made it quite clear at a news conference after the election that he had decided beforehand that a "fresh perspective" was needed at the Pentagon.

This means that, win or lose the election, Mr Bush had decided that things were going badly enough to remove one of the architects of the war.

In fact, when Mr Bush told reporters last week that Mr Rumsfeld would be staying on, he had already spoken to Mr Rumsfeld about leaving.

On Wednesday, Mr Bush told reporters he had decided ahead of the elections that "win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee".

Whether Robert Gates, a former CIA director, is the kind of man to provide much of a fresh perspective remains to be seen. Until now he has always been an establishment figure. But he seems to be about to become one of the pegs on which new hopes will be hung.

Significant moment

The departure of Donald Rumsfeld is a major moment in the history of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.


Donald Rumsfeld felt himself to be the right man, in the right place, at the right time

His resignation is a sign and an admission that the policy in Iraq has not worked, so far.

Apart from Vice-President Dick Cheney and President Bush himself, there was nobody who more clearly symbolised the administration's determination to wage the war on terror and to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

"We know they have weapons of mass destruction," he announced of the Iraqis at one stage. "We don't need any debate about it." His confidence and brusque dismissal of dissent was typical. For some, it amounted to arrogance.

Ambitions

Rumsfeld brought to the Pentagon years of ambition to stir up a department he had run as a much younger man under President Ford.

The recent book about the administration at war by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, State of Denial, tells of the blizzard of handwritten memos known as "snowflakes" with which he bombarded his officials.

He was determined to break what he saw as the old guard and to get control of policy himself, which he felt was too much in the hands of the generals and admirals.

He wanted a slimmer, more mobile military, one more capable of waging war on international terrorists and governments that supported them and less concentrated on the massive weapons systems that were being developed as if the Cold War had not ended.

Donald Rumsfeld felt himself to be the right man, in the right place, at the right time.

His direct, irascible, sometimes even folksy style appealed to many when things were going well. His famous dictum about there being "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns", made pre-Iraq, was seen as quirky and "Rummy" at his most idiosyncratic.

In a resignation appearance with President Bush and his own successor in the Oval Office, Mr Rumsfeld referred, almost as if he had not been appreciated, to "this little understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st century... It is not well known, it was not well understood, it is complex for people to comprehend."

Downfall

However, the very confidence that allowed him to make his mark on the Pentagon also led to his downfall - it became overconfidence.

He ignored warnings that his reliance on hard-hitting, relatively small units would win the ground war in Iraq but would not win a guerrilla war.

Like most US policymakers, he simply did not believe that Iraqis would not welcome the invaders and take care of events for themselves from then on.

He was not a man of patience and did not in the end have the necessary patience for a long, drawn out counter insurgency war. Nor did he show the flexibility of tactics needed to demonstrate to his commander-in-chief that he was going to deliver the victory the president believes is so necessary.

He had to go, whatever the results of the elections.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6130514.stm

Published: 2006/11/08 21:05:17 GMT

Tolerable or Awful: The Roads Left in Iraq - New York Times

Tolerable or Awful: The Roads Left in Iraq - New York Times:
November 8, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Tolerable or Awful: The Roads Left in Iraq

I had to submit this column before knowing the results of yesterday’s election, but here is one thing I know already: this needs to be our last election about Iraq.

The Iraq war has turned into a sucking chest wound for our country — infecting its unity at home and its standing abroad. No one can predict what Iraq will look like 10 years from now. I wish it well. But in the near term, it is clear, nothing that we’ll feel particularly proud of, nothing that we’ll feel justifies the vast expenditure of lives and treasure, is going to come out of Iraq.

Our only two options left today in Iraq are “tolerable” and “awful.” “Good” is no longer on the menu. When you read stories from Iraq saying that all we need to do is get rid of all the police there, get one-third of the soldiers in the Iraqi Army to actually report to duty regularly, and replace all the ministers who are corrupt, you know why “good” is not on the menu anymore.

It’s time to make a final push for the tolerable, and if that fails, quit Iraq and insulate ourselves and our allies from the awful. This can’t go on.

That’s sad. Iraq was always a struggle of hope against history. After 9/11, and the Arab Human Development Report detailing the increasingly dysfunctional Arab-Muslim world — which produces way too many terrorists — we had a real interest in collaborating with Iraqis to try to build one decent, progressive, democratizing society in the heart of the Arab East.

But to succeed we needed to establish a secure order in Iraq and prevent the murderous Sunni/Baathist attacks on Shiites. The Bush team, arriving in Iraq with too few troops and no plans, failed to do either. And therefore the natural tribalism of Iraqis surfaced and the minimal trust between citizens needed to forge a real democracy never emerged. Now we have a tit-for-tat civil war.

The “tolerable” outcome that might be self-sustaining and stable would require reshaping Iraq as a loose federation of predominantly Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni zones. To make even that work, though, would probably require cutting a new deal with Iran and its Iraqi Shiite clients, and Syria and its Sunni Baathist allies, and the Kurds. Iraq would retain a central government in Baghdad, but power and oil income would be more radically decentralized among the different sects. Democracy would be subordinated to stability.

A small U.S. or U.N. force could remain in Iraq to police the boundaries between the three communities and make sure the ongoing violence is contained. To produce even this, though, the U.S. will probably need to set a date and threaten to leave. Otherwise, the parties won’t negotiate seriously.

“Awful” would be carrying out that threat to leave Iraq by a fixed date because Iraqis prove too angry and atomized to reach any deal. The fires of madness now raging in Iraq — people beheading each other, blowing up each other’s mosques — would all intensify.

A U.S. withdrawal under such conditions would be messy and shameful. But when people are that intent on killing each other there’s not much we can do. As bad as we’ve performed in Iraq, what Iraqis have done to each other, and the little that other Muslims have done to stop them, is an even bigger travesty.

Still, we’d need to give visas to Iraqis who wanted to flee the madness; we’d need to give a security umbrella to the Kurds, so that Syria, Turkey or Iran did not invade them if we left; and we’d need to protect Jordan from the spillover.

But there would be some strategic benefits. Syria would have to support the Sunnis in Iraq, and Iran would have to back the Shiites, so these two “allies” would be on opposite sides of the civil war. Iran would also have to manage the chaos in southern Iraq, particularly the Shiite militias, and this would be a permanent migraine for Tehran. U.S. troops would no longer be in range of Iranian retaliation, and therefore would be much freer to confront Iran’s nuclear challenge. The U.S. would also be able to extract itself from the Abu Ghraib/occupation syndrome and could start combating Islamist radicalism by being the best America rather than the worst.

Finally, Iraqi instability would push oil to $80 a barrel. That would mean more people buying hybrid cars and investing in alternative energy, so that we end our dependence on this region sooner.

These are our real choices in Iraq now: tolerable and awful. It’s time we choose. No more expending lives and treasure for nothing good. The only way we can pursue good in the world again is by either shrinking our presence in Iraq, if Iraqis will step up, or leaving entirely, if they won’t.

Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence - New York Times

Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence - New York Times:
November 3, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.

Every time you hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney lash out against Mr. Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, “They must think I’m stupid.” Because they surely do.

They think that they can get you to overlook all of the Bush team’s real and deadly insults to the U.S. military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Mr. Kerry’s mangled gibe at the president.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the U.S. military than to send it into combat in Iraq without enough men — to launch an invasion of a foreign country not by the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, but by the Rumsfeld Doctrine of just enough troops to lose? What could be a bigger insult than that?

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than sending them off to war without the proper equipment, so that some soldiers in the field were left to buy their own body armor and to retrofit their own jeeps with scrap metal so that roadside bombs in Iraq would only maim them for life and not kill them? And what could be more injurious and insulting than Don Rumsfeld’s response to criticism that he sent our troops off in haste and unprepared: Hey, you go to war with the army you’ve got — get over it.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than to send them off to war in Iraq without any coherent postwar plan for political reconstruction there, so that the U.S. military has had to assume not only security responsibilities for all of Iraq but the political rebuilding as well? The Bush team has created a veritable library of military histories — from “Cobra II” to “Fiasco” to “State of Denial” — all of which contain the same damning conclusion offered by the very soldiers and officers who fought this war: This administration never had a plan for the morning after, and we’ve been making it up — and paying the price — ever since.

And what could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in Iraq than to send them off to war and then go out and finance the very people they’re fighting against with our gluttonous consumption of oil? Sure, George Bush told us we’re addicted to oil, but he has not done one single significant thing — demanded higher mileage standards from Detroit, imposed a gasoline tax or even used the bully pulpit of the White House to drive conservation — to end that addiction. So we continue to finance the U.S. military with our tax dollars, while we finance Iran, Syria, Wahhabi mosques and Al Qaeda madrassas with our energy purchases.

Everyone says that Karl Rove is a genius. Yeah, right. So are cigarette companies. They get you to buy cigarettes even though we know they cause cancer. That is the kind of genius Karl Rove is. He is not a man who has designed a strategy to reunite our country around an agenda of renewal for the 21st century — to bring out the best in us. His “genius” is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country.

And Karl Rove has succeeded at that in the past because he was sure that he could sell just enough Bush cigarettes, even though people knew they caused cancer. Please, please, for our country’s health, prove him wrong this time.

Let Karl know that you’re not stupid. Let him know that you know that the most patriotic thing to do in this election is to vote against an administration that has — through sheer incompetence — brought us to a point in Iraq that was not inevitable but is now unwinnable.

Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq — and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate — it means our country has become a banana republic. It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account.

It means we’re as stupid as Karl thinks we are.

I, for one, don’t think we’re that stupid. Next Tuesday we’ll see.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

A Well of Smiths and Xias - New York Times

A Well of Smiths and Xias - New York TimesJune 7, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
A Well of Smiths and Xias
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Muhammad Waqar, Avi Wolfman-Arent, Yiran Xia, Victoria Sandoval, Jacqueline Orellana-Flores, Elizabeth Packer, Ramona Singh, Anuja Shah, Mayra Ramos, Emily-Kate Hannapel, Natasha Perez, Samir Paul, Ekta Taneja, Linden Vongsathorn, Michael Tsai, Nardos Teklebrahan, Matiwos Wondwosen ...

I went to a high school graduation Monday and a United Nations meeting broke out.

The commencement was my daughter Natalie's, the high school was Montgomery Blair in Silver Spring, Md. There were some 700 kids receiving their diplomas, and as I sat there for two hours listening to each one's name pronounced, I became both fascinated and touched by the stunning diversity — race, religion, ethnicity — of the graduating class. I knew my daughter's school was diverse, but I had no idea it was this diverse.

The names above, which I just pulled from the graduation book, were typical of her entire class, which included exactly five people named "Smith." In my high school in Minnesota it seemed like there were only five people not named "Smith."

My daughter told me that the names in her class can be so difficult to pronounce that for graduation the school had all the students write their names phonetically on a card so the announcer would not mangle them in front of family and friends.

There is a lot to be worried about in America today: a war in Iraq that is getting worse not better, an administration whose fiscal irresponsibility we will be paying for for a long time, an education system that is not producing enough young Americans skilled in math and science, and inner cities where way too many black males are failing. We must work harder and get smarter if we want to maintain our standard of living.

But if there is one reason to still be optimistic about America it is represented by the stunning diversity of the Montgomery Blair class of 2006. America is still the world's greatest human magnet. We are not the only country that embraces diversity, but there is something about our free society and free market that still attracts people like no other. Our greatest asset is our ability to still cream off not only the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world but the low-skilled-high-aspiring ones as well, and that is the main reason that I am not yet ready to cede the 21st century to China. Our Chinese will still beat their Chinese.

This influx of brainy and brawny immigrants is our oil well — one that never runs dry. It is an endless source of renewable human energy and creativity. Congress ought to stop debating gay marriage and finally give us a framework to maintain a free flow of legal immigration.

What is so striking about Blair is that it is just a neighborhood public high school. It was not designed to be diverse. Yes, it has some magnet programs, but for the most part it just reflects its surroundings — about one-third black, one-third Hispanic and one-third Noah's Ark of everyone else.

As I mingled with the other parents afterward, waiting for our kids to emerge from the ceremony, I found myself at one point surrounded by families in which no one was speaking English.

The only familiar voice that came through the din was one that made me laugh — an African-American mom, gripping her child's diploma, saying: "This diploma is mine! I'm keeping this!" She said she had worked as hard as her kid for this day. Bless her heart, as I am sure she spoke for many parents.

It is hard to watch a graduation like this and not think about our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan — the Taliban, Islamo-totalitarians like bin Laden and Zarqawi, and the retrograde regimes that support them. Their whole mind-set is about how to purify their world from "the other," from diversity, from "infidels." With enough brutality, they may win in Iraq. I still hope not.

But they will never win the future — because as soon as their oil wells run dry, their societies will be as barren, bland and unproductive as their deserts.

Our oil wells, by contrast, will still be pumping. They're right there, hiding in plain sight, in the Blair commencement book:

Yueyang Li, Kenia Lopez-Reyes, Lucy Fromyer, Raya Steinberg, Zahra Gordon, Sreva Ghosh, Juan-Jesus Louis, Yendil Furcal, Yenusa Eke, Sofonias Frezghi, Yohanes Dejen, Edra Comegys-Brisbane, Yoel Castillio-Ortiz, Elijah Zuares, Placido Zelaya, Mimi Zou. And Jessica Smith.

Wounds Salved, Clinton Returns to Health Care - New York Times

Wounds Salved, Clinton Returns to Health Care - New York TimesJune 10, 2006
Wounds Salved, Clinton Returns to Health Care
By ROBIN TONER and ANNE E. KORNBLUT

WASHINGTON, June 9 — No policy issue has bedeviled Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton more than health care. Ever since the collapse of her proposal for universal coverage in 1994, critics have used the issue as prime evidence in their case that she is, at heart, a big-government liberal with a zeal for social engineering.

But now, as Mrs. Clinton heads into her re-election campaign and a possible bid for the presidency, she is trying to recast the political disaster of 1994 as something else: as a badge of honor, as a symbol of lessons learned and, perhaps most significant, as invaluable preparation for dealing with the problems in the health care system today.

"A lot of people know that I was involved in health care back in '93 and '94, and I still have the scars to show for it," Mrs. Clinton says in a new biographical film that she is showing on the campaign trail. After raising the topic in a recent speech, she added, "But it's worth wading into again — and we're going to have to."

Mrs. Clinton's approach to health care is strikingly different this time around, a measure of her evolution from an impatient agent of change to a cautious senator — and potential presidential contender — keenly attuned to the political center.

In 1994, she and President Bill Clinton insisted that anything short of universal coverage was unacceptable and proposed a vast overhaul of the health care system to provide it: a 1,342-page plan that drew withering fire from an array of interest groups and died in a Democratic Congress.

Today, her plans to expand coverage are tempered and incremental. Her first major goal appears to be universal health coverage for children, which she hopes to advance by expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or Schip, an existing federal program up for review in 2007.

"I have to do what the political reality permits me to do," Mrs. Clinton said in a recent interview. She said that covering everyone remained her ultimate goal, but that Democrats would be fighting "a lot of rear-guard actions" as long as Republicans controlled Congress.

Mrs. Clinton has not pushed a comprehensive coverage plan in her first term in the Senate. As part of the Democratic minority, she says she has primarily focused on defending existing programs from cuts by conservatives.

She also continues to shy from the ultimate challenge: describing what a comprehensive Democratic health care plan would look like. When pressed, for example, on how to control costs, usually the thorniest issue, she replied: "It depends on what kind of system you're devising. And that's still not at all clear to me, what the body politic will bear."

Mrs. Clinton's supporters say voters have forgotten the gory details of the last Clinton health plan, which proposed huge new bureaucracies and new mandates on employers, and assumed that one-seventh of the American economy could be reinvented over the objections of powerful groups like the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Rather, her allies say, voters remember her for having tried to change the system.

Mrs. Clinton is quick to admit errors and thereby distance herself from the old plan. "I think that both the process and the plan were flawed," she said in the interview. "We were trying to do something that was very hard to do, and we made a lot of mistakes."

But some analysts say the old vulnerability — the memory of what conservatives scornfully called "Hillarycare" — remains, and could be revived in the heat of a presidential campaign. Moreover, the history puts Mrs. Clinton in a peculiar box.

"On the Democratic side, people will hunger for a major proposal," said Robert J. Blendon, a Harvard professor and expert on public opinion and health. "But she's extremely vulnerable to Republicans saying, the minute she articulates something, 'Here we go again, a major expansion of government plans and plans that hurt business.' "

The woman who was sharply criticized a decade ago for a lack of political realism is now steeped in it. If her cardinal sin in 1993-94 was overestimating the public's appetite for change, as many analysts contend, she seems intent on not repeating the error. When employers complain to her about the need for federal action on health care, she said, "I say back to them, 'Fine, what are you going to do to help us create the consensus that has to develop in order to move the political system?' "

In her own search for consensus, Mrs. Clinton hired as her domestic policy adviser Laurie Rubiner, a health policy expert who for many years worked for Senator John H. Chafee, the moderate Rhode Island Republican, until his death in 1999. That has fueled suspicions on the left that Mrs. Clinton is growing too cautious and moving to the center on health care.

She encounters that perception on many issues these days; on health care it has been reinforced by her work alongside prominent Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Senator Bill Frist on goals like upgrading medical information technology.

Still, that cautious and occasionally bipartisan approach could help lighten the ideological baggage of 1993-94, when she ended up in a ferocious battle with small businesses, the insurance industry and the drug companies.

Mrs. Clinton often frames the problem today as one of economics as much as social justice. She asserts that soaring health costs are weighing down American corporations and hindering their ability to compete in a global marketplace, against countries with government-financed health benefits or no expectation of health coverage at all.

In a speech at the Economic Club of Chicago in April, the first of several policy addresses she is giving this year, Mrs. Clinton cited the domestic auto industry. "Profits are up, but so are the costs of health care and energy, adding more than $1,000 to the cost of every car built by the Big Three and driving up family health insurance premiums five times faster than incomes," she told a group of business leaders.

In a March speech to the American Medical Association, her first appearance before the group since the battles of 1993-94, Mrs. Clinton struck a decidedly pragmatic tone.

"No quick fixes. No Band-Aids," she told the group. "No partisanship or ideology. Let's retire the old debates. They haven't served our country well."

Mrs. Clinton talked about health care during her 2000 campaign, running an ad that hailed her perseverance in the face of defeat. The problems of cost and coverage have persisted, giving her even more ammunition — and a clear sense of vindication — as she returns to the subject.

There are now, in the most recent estimates, about 45.8 million uninsured Americans (8.3 million of them children), up from 39.8 million in 1994. Premiums for family coverage in employer-sponsored insurance — the way most Americans under 65 get their coverage — have risen by 73 percent in the past five years, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

On policy and political grounds, Democrats view the return of the health care debate as inevitable in the midterm and presidential campaigns. For the moment, Mrs. Clinton says, Democrats need to fight to protect the existing government health programs.

"If we could get back into control of one or both houses of Congress," she said, "we could stop the assault on the pieces of the health care system that have provided coverage for people over the last several decades: Medicare, Medicaid, Schip, the Veterans Administration. All of these, because of the budget deficit and the ideology of the Republican majority in the House, are under attack."

Mrs. Clinton is also looking ahead to what may be the next major legislative struggle in health care: the review and renewal, in 2007, of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Mrs. Clinton says it should be "funded to the most we can get."

She added: "I think you should cover all children who don't have other access to coverage. We shouldn't have any uninsured children. But we have to take that step by step."

Mrs. Clinton said she was also closely watching the bipartisan health plan recently approved in Massachusetts. "If you've got an executive and a legislature who are willing to work together," she said, "you can actually make progress."

In a sense, though, the heart of Mrs. Clinton's message seems to be that she is back in the debate. "It's one of my passions, it's what I care deeply about," she said. "It would not be possible for me not to talk about it and try to help change it."