One of the tried and true (and tragic) behaviors of hardline dictatorships is to reaction to internal disasters as if either they didn’t happen (something that is increasingly difficult to do these days) or to downplay the need for help from the outside (if not to reject it outright). It has to do with control (of information as well as what the population might learn) as well, I suspect, with embarrassment over the state of the country. No doubt there is a healthy dose of xenophobia thrown in for good measure.
The case of the military junta in Burma is a remarkably sad case in point.
Burma’s military junta says the country is not ready to accept foreign aid workers, amid mounting criticism of its response to the devastating cyclone.
The foreign ministry said Burma was happy to accept aid, but insisted it would control the distribution itself.
The statement follows pressure from the United Nations to speed up the issuing of visas to foreign relief experts.
All of this despite the fact that
Hundreds of thousands of people have no food, water or shelter. International aid agencies on the ground say they have reached only 10% of those that need help.
[...]
Although reports suggest troops have begun to distribute significantly more aid, experts agree that the military regime lacks the resources to co-ordinate an effective relief effort.
The whole thing is tragic on a number of levels, but clearly the situation is being made worse by the government’s recalcitrance.
Yes, Virginia, regime type does matter.
Note: previous entries in the Dictatorship for Dummies files include: here, here and here
Still waiting for the book to come out. If I am ever to take over my own small country I need accurate information if I am to be effectively oppressive.
Indeed, his trackbacks have been busted for years and the comments haven’t worked for weeks. Time to ditch the Moveable Type blog, Dan–it’s sooo early 2000s! [↩]
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
I am pretty sure that the most important pattern emerging is that Obama has more pledged delegates, and that it is unlikely to change. Ultimately, the pattern at hand is simply one in which there is a very competitive race between two well-matched candidates. Oh, and the most salient characteristic of the pattern at this moment, is that Clinton is going to lose.
So, let’s find a new metric, shall we? The “big state” argument didn’t work, nor did the “primary states are better than caucus states” argument work either. As the previous post noted, the “popular vote” metric has sunk, so what we have now is “my coalition of voters is better than your coalition of voters.”
While Clinton’s attempt here is to play on the behavior of superdelegates, but I think that the real target for her argument is herself: she needs to convince herself that has a really good reason to keep running.
As I have noted before, the notion that the behavior of voters in the candidate selection process has some sort of direct correlation to how they will behave in the general election makes no sense. These are different contests, held under different rules with different purposes. While a lot of Hillary supporters may currently feel very strongly about their candidate, I am guessing that given a little time to get over the loss, they will look at McCain and Obama, and choose Obama. The notion that only Clinton can deliver lower-class white voters is ridiculous.
However, let’s deal with the pattern that Clinton is most interested in, which is that she thinks she attracts voters who are more important (or useful) in terms of the November elections.
Indeed, the new shift to a focus on the nature of the electoral coalition, made me think of this (noted on Balloon Juice):
“The notion that only Clinton can deliver lower-class white voters is ridiculous.”
While I agree completely with the broader premise (as stated in the first sentence of the paragraph I extracted the above quote from), I do not think it follows that this claim is ridiculous.
Various “swing state” polls have suggested (rather consistently, I believe) that Clinton runs better than Obama in some of the states in question (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and more clearly in Arkansas and Tennessee). I agree (and said so almost two months ago) that in the end, the state-by-state maps for either candidate would be more similar to one another than they appear months out. Still, states where the Dems would have to rely heavily on “lower-class white voters” are somewhat less fertile territory for Obama than for Clinton.
I still think that the net gains Obama brings (including likely winning states in November that Clinton would never put in play–in the plains and intermountain west and border south other than AR and TN) means that Obama is the better candidate.
But, as much as it pains me to say it, I do not think this version of the pro-Clinton narrative is ridiculous on its face.
”I am running to be the president of all of America — north, south, east and west, and everywhere in between. That’s why it is so important that we count the votes of Florida and Michigan,” she said in Indiana, as the crowd chanted, “Count the votes!”
”It would be a little strange to have a nominee chosen by 48 states,” added Clinton, though she, like Obama, agreed to boycott Florida and Michigan before their January primaries.
However:
even her campaign acknowledges that the state can’t deliver her the Democratic nomination.
Squeezing all of the votes out of Florida’s Jan. 29 primary still leaves her trailing Barack Obama — and Florida Democrats are willing to settle for half as many.
[...]
The national party is slated to reconsider counting the delegates from Florida and Michigan on May 31. But Clinton campaign officials acknowledged that the best possible outcome wouldn’t close her 150-plus delegate gap with Obama.
Clinton would net 38 delegates if Florida got back its entire slate of 188 pledged delegates to the convention; the appeal to the national party asks for half, or 94.
Plus, Florida no longer helps Clinton in the the vaunted (yet meaningless) “popular vote” metric, as adding Florida to the current popular totals still gives Obama an edge of 417,285 votes (click here and scroll down to see a table with te various permutations of the popular vote totals).
The popular vote would be meaningful if the bionic delegates chose to make it so, no? It seems to me that her bigger problem is not that the popular vote might be “meaningless,” but that the proportional allocation of delegates makes it unlikely (though possible) that the candidates’ final rank in elected delegates could be the reverse of their rank in aggregate popular votes.
Then there is the fact that her claim on the popular vote is somewhat at odds with her claims that some states matter more than others. In fact, they are completely contradictory arguments. But evidently contradictions are meaningless in the Clinton narrative.
I can understand Hillary being a stickler about the Florida and Michigan votes, but she is being very selective in her plea for “justice” by failing to acknowledge that those votes weren’t won fair and square. Obama had removed his name from the Michigan ballot, given the violation of primary rules and didn’t even campaign in Florida for the same reason. Had there been a fair contest between them and Hillary had honestly received those votes, which she seems to make the case out to be, than she would be justified, I feel, in making a call for the votes to count.
But they weren’t fair contests and all her hollering about the votes counting without being upfront and honest about the legitimacy of the actual contests in the states is just another example of the double standards she employs according to what benefits her. She isn’t even willing to accept the generous offer of 69 to 59 delegates, Clinton to Obama, respectively, that is being made for Michigan.
I have admired the woman for her tenacity and even have been inspired by some of the things she has said, but her ethics are questionable at best. She does not have the kind of impeccable character that the highest office in this country calls for.
Perhaps we’ve gotten used to settling for second best in this country, sometimes out of lack of quality choices, sometimes out of sheer ignorance of the American public and the majority’s ability to be duped by the political hype, but we can’t afford to any longer.
Obama is quality. His family is quality. This country needs the kind of heart and soul, the kind of integrity, and the kind of inspired leadership that this man brings in his bid for the White House.
And it needs the kind of wife Mrs. Obama is: a woman of honest dignity, true compassion, and a tempered conscience–one that doesn’t act out of self-interest, but out of the good of the whole, for the whole and will keep her man in check.
For it hasn’t only been the men over the past few decades that have let the American public down time and time again, but the wives have been pitiful examples of real women that serve as a healthy conscience for their husbands, miserably failing to lead by his side in their crucial role as an example of honor, wise guidance and discerning insight that is the tempered woman’s unique heritage.
Not only is Hillary Clinton not qualified to serve as president, even more so, she’s not qualified to serve as his wife.
Comment by Teri Foss — Friday, May 9, 2008 @ 4:00 am
MSS:
I was speaking in terms of any formal role in the process, especially since in the caucus states, one can’t always even know the numbers in question.
I guess, technically, the color of Hillary’s pantsuits could be meaningful if they somehow persuaded the superdelegates to vote for her. Maybe she’ll suggest that metric next!
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, May 9, 2008 @ 6:43 am
U.S. border authorities no longer apprehend illegal immigrants only as they enter the country. Now they’re catching them on the way out.
At random times near the Tijuana-San Diego border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have been setting up checkpoints, boarding buses destined for Mexico and pulling off people who don’t have proper documentation.
[...]
“If our officers come upon people who are here illegally . . . regardless of whether they’re leaving the country, we detain them, make a record of the fact they were here illegally and return them to Mexico,” Bond said.
This strikes me as nonsensical from a policy perspective. It is clear that we do not have the resources to stop persons from illegally entering the country, so we are going to divert what limited resources we do have so as stop people who are in the process of leaving so that we can, well, make them leave?
In other words, such individuals are mere minutes from deporting themselves, but the U.S. government wants to spend tons of money to do it instead.
More from the article:
Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center of Comparative Immigration Studies at UC San Diego, said he was not aware of similar crackdowns in the past. The checkpoints make sense for intercepting contraband, but targeting illegal immigrants voluntarily leaving the country is a “bizarre” way of handling the illegal immigration question, he said.
Bizarre, indeed.
Again: as a deployment of scarce resources, this is a clear waste. Further, if part of the overall policy is to get those in the country illegally to leave of their own accord, surely the possibility of being arrested on the way out will dissuade them from trying to go home in the first place, yes? Can we therefore say “counterproductive”?
All I can figure, aside from simple stupidity, is that this a sop to those who say that the government isn’t doing enough in terms of enforcement. Indeed, it is classic politics: if one cannot actually accomplish the main policy goal, do something visible within that overall policy area, even if it doesn’t make much sense. At least people will see that one is doing something.
I, as you know, have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and Im very loyal to her, Feinstein said. Having said that, Id like to talk with her and [get] her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is.
File that under “meetings and discussions one doesn’t have with a candidate one thinks still has a real chance of winning.”
Indeed, more one can add to that file:
“I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party,” Feinstein said. “I think we need to prevent that as much as we can.”
Bill’s glum puss, standing there right behind her, competing for the eyes of every television viewer everywhere, throughout the candidate’s remarks visibly contradicted virtually every hopeful, positive word she said.
The post has a pic, and here are two others:
None of them are as good as the video itself (an excerpt of which can be viewed here). The very beginning isn’t there, unfortunately. But one can see that he isn’t too pleased especially when she is talking about going all the way to the White House (around :36).
I have a journalism degree from SMU, and my husband, the lawyer from Loyola New Orleans, has about ten times the ability to get information out of people, even those not under duress. Some affability in him gets a better response.
She’ll always look weak beside her husband. And she has a crummy speaking style.
For those who wish to see the truth of Hillary’s speech and reactions of Chelsa and Bill may go to Hillary Victory Speech Part 1 and 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfSjbNQ7Dik
Former Sen. George McGovern, who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton, is urging her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race.
McGovern said Wednesday he has decided to endorse Barack Obama.
After watching the returns from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries Tuesday night, McGovern says it’s virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination.
It would seem that a consensus is building that the race is over. The question becomes: how long until the Clintons recognize that fact?
I agree with your general assessment, but I would not take McGovern’s jumping from the Clinton boat as a real sign of anything.
I had heard an interview with him a month or so ago where he was already basically endorsing Obama without explicitly saying so. The interviewer asked him about his support for Clinton and he chalked it up to an early endorsement out of loyalty and that he was not man to change his commitments lightly.
She will be in more dire trouble if/when folks like Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Cantwell, Murray, Gov. Kulongoski jumped ship.
She would also be in serious trouble if some of the uncommitteds jump to Barack. Esp: Govs. Manchin and Beshear or some of the high profile senators (Salazar, Baucus, Wyden, etc…)
Yes, Clinton is drowning–but McGovern’s jumping ship isn’t necessarily surprising.
Comment by Ratoe — Wednesday, May 7, 2008 @ 11:26 am
I agree. It is just one of a hundred tiny nails for her coffin.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, May 7, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Seems as though Ratoe and I heard/saw the same interview (or two very similar). And I got the same impression: it sounded like “I’d endorse Obama if not for my history with the Clintons.”
Actually, Evan Bayh’s recent “endorsement” of Clinton sounded about the same.
Matthew- Yeah, I tracked it down. The interview was on Democracy Now, 11 March:
Here’s the key quote:
Well, I endorsed Hillary last October. And I have to say that friendship had a lot to do with it. She and her then-boyfriend, a guy by the name of Bill Clinton, were the coordinators of the McGovern campaign in Texas in 1972. That was a brave undertaking. As Jim Hightower can testify, trying to sell George McGovern in Texas in 1972 was a daunting task. They worked their fannies off for me in ’72 all across that state. And so, when she decided to run for president, in a sense, it was kind of a “It’s my turn now.”
I have to tell you this, Jim, that I have ten grandchildren. All ten of them are working for Barack Obama. That’s an indication of the influence I have in my own family. I’ve got three daughters and one son. They’re all working for Barack. So I’m the old fogey in the McGovern family this year, unlike ’72, when I was way out in front.
But I agree with everything Jim Hightower said here, that Barack Obama has touched on a theme and a style and a content to his program that has brought millions of new people into the fold. That’s precisely what I did in 1972.
Amy Goodman followed up with “Who would you endorse now”?
GEORGE McGOVERN: I would stay with Hillary. I don’t change my mind on things like this in the middle of the battle. I made the decision to back her, and I’ll stay with her. I don’t want to be jumping around from one candidate to another. And as I said, we’ve got two excellent candidates here, both well qualified. And I’ll be out campaigning for whichever one wins. Am I ducking your question? Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Why?
GEORGE McGOVERN: Because I want to stay with the person I chose six months ago.
On the Byah thing, the only time I heard him, he was vocally defending her on the gas tax insanity. I couldn’t imagine McGovern hurting his credibility by doing something like that. That’s probably why he jumped ship–an honorable guy like McGovern could only hold his nose so long in the face of Hillary’s mendacity.
Comment by Ratoe — Wednesday, May 7, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Still waiting for the book to come out. If I am ever to take over my own small country I need accurate information if I am to be effectively oppressive.
Comment by Tim — Friday, May 9, 2008 @ 8:44 am