Clinton, Obama, Jesse Jackson and the Jewish vote in Florida

There's a reason why Ted Kennedy got angry about Clinton's brandishing of a Jesse Jackson comparison to Obama: it was an attempt to tarnish Obama in the Jewish community. That may sound harsh but all last week, former Clinton adviser and somewhat psycho anti-Hillary pit bull Dick Morris was praising Clinton's genius in his use of the Jackson thing and that by paining Obama black in SC, the Clintons was guaranteeing victory everywhere else on Super Tuesday. The Clintons were doing this for "fun." (Hillary's description of negative campaigning). There is a dark side to the Jesse Jackson analogy and that was the extent to which Jesse Jackson became anathema to the Jewish community because of perceived anti-Semitism, aggravated by his infamous description of New York as "Hymie Town."

Would you really doubt that B. Clinton, the great triangulator, was unaware of this. And, by the way, do you doubt that Teddy Kennedy, whose been around for a few years in politics, isn’t aware of the unfortunate connotation attached to Jackson's name by some older Jews - particularly I can assume - the ones retired in Florida by the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions.

Having spent the last 38 years of life in the Bronx and seeing the "Scoop" Jackson" 1976 Democratic primary vote in Coop City, I can assure that the Jesse Jackson as enemy mentality was prevalent at the time. Coop City is largely Black and Latino now. The Jews who lived there have either died or moved – to Florida.

Given the enormous micro-polling that goes on in the Clinton campaign orchestrated by Mark Penn, I'll betcha a poll of Florida Democrats revealed (would have revealed) that among the Jewish emigres, Jesse Jackson had strong negatives. Ergo, link Obama to Jackson repeatedly and often. If you have ever taken, or answered a poll, you know how its done. A list of names is read and for each name you are asked: “If XX is endorsed by YY, would it make you more or less likely to vote for him?” Or simply: “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of YY.” In this case “YY” would be Jesse Jackson.

I had a dental appointment this morning. My Dentist is second or third generation Jewish and market-tested this theory on him and he agreed immediately that by linking Obama to Jackson, Clinton was playing to the Jewish vote, including his.

The fact that Bill Clinton and Hillary can express amazement that anyone could believe that it was deliberate ploy is testament to their acting ability and their low estimation of the intelligence of the American voters. They should win an Oscar, not the Presidency. I only hope that Jewish voters don't fall for it.

Of course, Obama has another Jewish issue going for him: The more he talks about his mother and father and his love and respect for them and his roots, although different from typical Jewish roots, he plays to the strong sense of family that underlies Jewish culture. That’s targeting with a heart. "He's such a nice boy."

It's all about him

There was a time when Americans valued "class" with a small "c." I'm not talking about economic "class" or social "class" but a genuine understanding that it's not all about me and the ability to congratulate a successful opponent with grace and dignity, understanding that there is a tomorrow and that in politics (and sports) today's adversary may be tomorrow’s ally or teammate. Among the classless moments of my memory are Nixon's "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more" and Roger Maris's comment after the Yankees lost to Pittsburg in the 1960 World Series: "Everyone knows we were best team. It's too bad we didn't win."

Right up there is Bill Clinton's Fred Thomasesque speech in Missouri Saturday night. It was all about Bill and not much about Hillary. The anchors at CNN and MSNBC didn't make that up. It was there on the screen.

There's empathy and there is pseudo-empathy. There is the empathy of one who truly feels your pain and the pseudo-empathy of a narcissist who adopts empathy as a mask for his or her self involvement. In Missouri, after Hillary's lost, Bill Clinton by talking about himself and his administration definitively defined himself. It was all about him. His empathy has all the sincerity of Mitt Romney's smile.

Maybe it's time that the Clintonistas started reviewing the great accomplishments of the Clinton administration. Was he better on the environment than Bush - by a million millions. Was he better on the economy: Clinton rode the Wall Street wave and left office just before the deluge. We also lost the Congress in 1992 and didn’t win it back until 14 years later in 2006.

NAFTA was his, remember? Not to denigrate his entire administration. To me, the most pressing issue for electing almost any Democrat will be, and remains, the reactionary packing of the Supreme Court. We lose this one and the Court may be gone for a generation.

In 2000 I played a minor role in helping Hillary get her the Sierra Club endorsement. I have no regrets. I wish her a long, long productive career in the United States Senate. I hope she will have one.

Will Hillary's barrage elect McCain?

The Democratic debate in South Carolina Tuesday night (1/21/2008) turned very ugly. One of the “issues” was Obama’s use of voting “present” in the Illinois State Senate when he was dissatisfied with certain aspects of otherwise good legislation.

However, Hillary Clinton has her own explaining to do on her claimed opposition to the 2005 bankruptcy amendments. She didn’t vote present. She was recorded as “not voting.” The only one of 100 Senators not to record a “yea” or nay.” The 2005 Bankruptcy amendments were a consumer disaster. In the House, even Barney Frank voted against them. I think that I heard Hillary say she opposed the Amendments. Am I wrong? Did she duck the vote?

Is that true? She alone among all the Senators, is the one who did not vote on the bankruptcy law that catered to the credit card companies in an attempt to make credit card debt non-dischargeable. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Is her convenient absence one reason why she has such superior fund raising ability? From long experience: a lobbyist WILL tell a legislator, if you can’t be with me, go to the bathroom when the vote comes-up. It happens.

If Obama wants a real issue, and the infighting persists, I suggest he check with the folks in Fayetteville Arkansas where the Clinton regime built a toxic waste incinerator. One of the edges Bill Clinton had in 1992 was his early fundraising from Wall Street. He delivered, they paid. The key to the incinerator binge was the money the Wall Street bond lawyers and underwriters made in the sale of bonds. As I wrote for City Sierran in 1992: “If it’s bondable, it’s buildable. Whether it’s workable is irrelevant.” See http://www.johnklotz.com/burn.htm

Incidentally, the Sierra Club and its allies defeated the mass burn incinerators, which were an initiative by Governor Mario Cuomo and Mayor David Dinkins, both of whom were defeated for reelection in heavily Democratic New York. I am not a Giuliani fan, but it was Republican Governor Pataki and Republican Mayor Giuliani that put a nail in the coffin of both the mass-burn plan and a hospital waste in incinerator in the South Bronx. Was that important. See http://www.johnklotz.com/andy.htm New York City's air quality is now among the best of major cities.

If the Clintons don't get a grip, the only winner in the Democratic debate will be McCain. Hillary’s shrill performance may cut Obama down to size, but it may set up ”nice guy” John McCain for a win, as I expect the polls will be showing. Although McCain has enormous liabilities issue wise, I don’t think they will be able to tag team him the way they are tag teaming Obama. We may notice that the “straight talker” speaks with a forked tongue but it will be a tough sell.

I am for Edwards but as that possibility fades, the only Democratic ticket that will make sense is Hillary-Obama. Hillary’s courting of the Latino power structure may make the need for a dramatic gesture to the most consistent overwhelming Democratic vote - the African-American vote. It’s not that they will they vote for McCain, it’s will they vote in sufficient numbers for a candidate who is destroying their best spokesperson since MLK and Jessie Jackson’s heyday.

Nice guy John McCain may dampen their ardor to vote for Hillary. Somewhere out there, I can also hear Michael Bloomberg licking his chops.

Is Clorox bleaching the green Sierra Club white?

For over a decade, I was fairly active in the Sierra Club, but for multiple reasons over the past two years, I have had to let Sierra Club stuff slide. But now, something has happened that requires some comment. Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club has announced an exciting new “partnership” with Clorox to develop green products. The question to many is Clorox bleaching the green Sierra Club white.

What we are watching is perhaps the final chapter of the conversion of the Sierra Club ‑ on a national level ‑ from an activists driven organization to a corporate driven organization where the interest of the Sierra Club as a corporation invariably trumps the interest of the Sierra Club as an activists’ organization. I struggled against that mentality for about three years and then, as pressures from my practice, and my son Mike's illness, moved front and center had to cede the struggle to others. I would bring to your attention several hall marks of this struggle which have ramifications not only of Sierra Club members but for the nation at large.

(1) the decision to pull all criticism of Bush from the Club's web site taken in haste without due deliberation in aftermath of 9/11. According to the President of the Club, the was a no-brainer because of concerns about corporate contributors.

(2) the refusal of the BOD of directors in February 2002 to seriously implement the report of the Global Environmental and Security Task Force which I happened to chair. We recommended that the Club “message to security” and demonstrate that our environmental goals are intrinsically related to national security. Robert Kennedy, Jr. had earlier made the same point a few weeks after 9/11.

When we reported to the Club Board of Directors (“BOD”) the Executive Director ostentatiously read the newspaper and then said that "We have passed this by focus groups and they don’t think that this is something the Club should get involved with.” I subsequently coined a phrase "focus group morality" to express my disdain for those who would substitute the opinions of focus groups for the dictates of conscience. Incidentally, a number of people have pointed out that it was reliance on focus groups to dictate strategy that was key element of Kerry’s 2004 loss.

(3) I believe it was the same year that saw the creation of the Sierra Club Mutual Fund which was supposed to open the door to unlimited wealth for the Club. I thought at the time that proposal would create a rather run-of-the-mill fund which would not really be truly extraordinary and arguably not all that green.

(4) Then there was the struggle in the fall of 2002 to get the Club to oppose the Iraq war and nip it at the bud. The Club had an existing anti-war policy on environmental grounds but the insiders led by Pope struggled ruthlessly and disingenuously to squelch opposition to the war in the Sierra Club.

The Club’s Council of Conservation Leaders, (CCL) passed a resolution in September of 2002, that the Club opposed the looming invasion of Iraq. The BOD sidetracked the resolution to the Conservation Governance Committee (CGC) and then in a private E-Mail (somehow I acquired a copy), the President of the Club lobbied the CGC to defeat the resolution. In October, with the Sierra Club's voice having been silenced, many Democrats voted for the war resolution and that vote has come back to haunt many of them particularly Clinton, Kerry and Edwards.

The great “what if” of American politics is “what if” we had vigorously opposed the war resolution? Could we have budged Kerry or Edwards. I don't think Hillary was budgeable. How different our political history would have been had either Kerry or Edwards voted "no" and at least in Edward's case we now know it was a very close call (thanks to the venomous memoir of perpetual loser and focus group freak Bob Shrum).

The low-point of the affair was when the National Conservation Director threatened to discipline the San Francisco Chapter for proposing to thank Nancy Pelosi for her vote against the 2002 resolution.

It was only after an E-Mail proposal by Pope to expel the members of the Glen Canyon Group in Utah for publicly opposing Club policy was published by the LA Times that the Club - too late - changed its position and publicly opposed the war.

And then there was the 2003 BOD election where independent voices were purged from the BOD under guise of protecting us from the anti-immigration faction. I am told that the husband of one candidate invested $125,000 dollars in that effort. The main problem was that among those purged in the immigration struggle were independent voices that opposed the efforts of the anti immigration faction.

Perhaps, the final blow was the closing of the CCL E-Mail list that allowed a free flow of ideas among members nationwide.

But Sierra Club members at the local level should not lose heart. They still have enough autonomy to deal with local issues and your voice n what happens in our communities is vitally important. You are doing God's work. Whatever the penzavotte at the national level do: "Keep the faith, baby."

During the Vietnam War, the Sierra Club took the courageous position that the use of Agent Orange was wrong. History has proven it right. Now the Club squashes dissent about war and makes deals with corporations whose environmental record – like Clorox – is atrocious.

When I objected to the purging of Bush from the Club web site in 2001, the Club President defended that act by saying that they had a telephone conference that afternoon and that the purge was a "no-brainer" because of the impact of 9/11 on the corporate donors.

She was right. It was a no brainer. It was also a no guts. The struggle for a habitable environment demands both brains and guts.

Is Clorox bleaching the green Sierra Club white? Perhaps I am being unfair, maybe the Club has just changed interest from green trees to green papers.

Who's afraid of John Edwards?

There was a spate of bogs and commentary this past week linking Mike Huckabee and John Edwards because of their similar populist rhetoric. To some "populist" is a term of derision, to others, not be, it's not. Now Obama is attacking the suddenly threatening Edwards and Hillary supporters are attacking Obama, masking their Clinton connection by invoking Edwards. Could it be that Edwards who has been lurking in third place in most polls is gaining traction?

The one candidate the elites really fear is Edwards. When you read the fine print in the Obama campaign, especially about heath care, you get the impression that he really doesn't understand that real problem dogging the country is greed and that while the middle class is plummeting to the ground, the "Greed is good" crowd is still soaring - with only a few notable, sacrificial exceptions. Wall Street bonuses set a record this year, again.

The concept that the solution for America's Health crisis is through the HMO's giving-up their greedy ways through reasoning is ludicrous.

Might I suggest one fractured biblical reference to Isaiah: "When the lion and the lamb lay down together, the lion does not awake hungry." [Not original by me. Might have been coined by Jesse Jackson]

Or maybe, as one in who still believes in the sanctity of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence: "My house is a house of prayer but you have made it a den of thieves." [Not a paraphrase]

Come to think of it, that's the kind of language Huckabee is using and if you want to read an insightful dissection of why liberals lose, I might suggest Gary Wills: "Under God: Religion and American Politics." [Please note: NOT George Will]

The debate moment that pushed Huckabee to the forefront, in my opinion, is when he stepped in, took Giuliani off the hook, and answered the question about "Do you believe in the Bible?" by responding in words paraphrasing the Golden Rule and the parable of the Last Judgment and then brushed-off nearly everything else as too complex to discuss. It was a brilliant moment and any Democrat ought to have been able to do the same. I think the only one who could do so honestly is John Edwards.

As for the other Democrats, too many of them are represented by Hillary supporter and consumer sell-out Barney Frank. See the November 6, post that follows. Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the Hillary campaign is her attempt to hook-up public officials with the lobbyist cartel and “share the wealth.”

There I go again, thinking like a populist.

Will the Real Democrats Please Stand-up?

The New York Times editorializes today (Tuesday, November 6, 2007) that the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank will introduce legislation that would preempt state consumer legislation across a broad category of fraudulent conduct that is even peripherally related to the mortgage foreclosure mess. The same issue reports on the front page (”Borrowers Face Dubious Charges in Foreclosures”) the extent to which the mortgage industry is defrauding the homeowners during the mortgage foreclosure process.

Some states grant consumers greater rights than others, however there are significant gaps in federal legislation that are corrected by state laws. For example, the federal Consumer Protection Act allows for only administrative remedies with limited damages while many states allow for civil law suits for unfair and deceptive practices which offer much greater chances for significant relief. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allows suit against the collection agencies but no suit against the creditors who instigate the unfair practices and no suits against collectors if they are an affiliate of the creditor. Similarly the Fair Credit Reporting Act, allows suit against the credit reporting agencies who don’t correct erroneous information but not against the creditors who make erroneous reports.

State regulation is decidedly a mixed bag, but preempting state regulations of mortgage fraud to protect the barons of Wall Street is not the solution to any problem except protecting the interests of those, who are ultimately most responsible for the crisis that is threatening to render 2 million middle class families homeless.

Some people, including Democrats with power, have no shame.

Reflections on Mourning: Coping with the Ultimate "Event Horizon."

On April 7, 2007, my son Michael Arthur Klotz, age 34, died in Milwaukee after a long, courageous battle with kidney disease. On Tuesday, October 23rd, he would have been 35. The process of mourning the death of a loved one involves reflection. These are my reflections on my mourning and I share them with you for what they are worth.

In a televised interview with Mike Wallace, nearly 50 years ago, Tennessee Williams said that the most important moments of life are those when we break out of our own selfish shell and really sense the presence of another person.

I believed then and, in the years that have passed since, continue to believe, that Williams had touched a profound truth. He had defined, as well as anyone can, the process we call love: moving from a sense of self (self love) to a sense of others (“neighborly love”). I also have reached a conclusion that the process of love affects the psyche of both the lover and loved so that in some corner of their own individual psyche, resides a joint part of their psyche that is a doorway to different dimension of existence beyond space and time.

I use the word Greek word psyche as a shorthand for personhood: the “me” that “is.” It encompasses the conscious, the subconscious and the X element or elements, that through the millennia philosophers and now science have added to the mix to define the personality apart from an individual’s mere physical presence. It is, or would include, what the religious would call the soul. To those who give credence to concepts such as the noosphere or the ”collective conscious” it would include those elements of the human personality that somehow connect, or interact, with those hypothetical constructions.

In physics, an “event horizon” is a barrier that prevents observation of the object it cloaks. Most easily understood is the phenomenon of the “black hole” ‑ a super dense collapsed star of such overwhelming gravity that even light can not escape its grasp. Objects that come within its influence are sucked into the hole and at a point disappear from view as their light yields to the inexorable force the black hole’s gravity. The point at which observation of the object ends, is called the “event horizon.”

Death is the ultimate “event horizon,” a point beyond (or within) which, we may not observe. It does not mean that there is nothing there; it means, that we can not observe what is there, if anything. While Mike has moved through his event horizon, the love he shared with so many has not been erased by his death. He, and his love, remain in our psyche.

As a child, Mike reveled in role playing games in which characters are created by the players who develop the characters’ personalities and thought processes. The winner is most often the one who best simulates the artificial reality of the character the player created. As a student and then as an adult, Mike was current on the numerous examinations of the impact of the computer on human development. One of his interests was “virtual reality” where the enormous power of the computer is used to create simulations of reality including individuals and complex social organizations. It is in one sense, grown-up role-playing games. He argued that the prevalence of role playing games in the United States gave us a leg-up in our competition with the outside world. Role-playing skills - a form of virtual reality - lay at the heart of modern science and commerce.

In 2006, Mike received a joint Master of Science Degree in Bioinformatics from the Wisconsin Medical College and Marquette University. His goal was to create computer simulations of biological processes and structures of the body which could, among other things, simulate the progress of disease and treatments in the body and/or be used as the first step in drug testing.

Is not the residuum of Mike’s love, which resides in psyche of those who shared love with him, a simulation of Mike himself, a “virtual reality” Mike? To the extent we have exchanged love with Mike, he resides within us as a virtual reality. That reality is as complex and detailed as the love we shared with him. The deeper the love, the more complex our simulation.

We all are familiar with the cliché of funerals and memorials: “He would have liked it that way.” (Or even the religious inquiry: “What would Jesus do?”) That is an attempt to emulate the conduct or ideas of a departed by searching our psyche to simulate the departed’s choice of action as if he were still alive.

Shortly before Mike’s final collapse, I talked with Mike on the telephone. He said to me: “You have to start a blog. You have said to me things, I have never heard or seen anywhere else.” It was the last conversation of any length that we had, for what followed in the next few weeks were a series of abbreviated ones. He was in continuous pain, and increasing sedation with the final onslaught of his disease. The family traveled to Milwaukee twice. The first time, he seemed to rally. We left, but returned the next week, after he relapsed. With him on the night he passed, were his wife Sara, his mother Rene and myself, his brother Dan and his wife Meg and their daughter C.J., his sister Lisa, a favorite aunt and uncle (Rene’s brother Ken and his wife Kay), his cousins Keri, Kathy & Kirby and his best friend Noah Ravitz, who had also flown in from New York.

I no longer talk to myself, but to the Mike that lies within. I can seek that Mike’s advice. The validity of that consultation is related directly to the detail and complexity of my relationship with Mike himself. As much as I long for the his physical presence, I do not feel abandoned. I can consult with the virtual Mike of my psyche and even draw him near. In “Play It Again Sam,” Woody Allen consulted with the ghost of Humphrey Bogart – sometimes accepting, other times rejecting, the advice he received. Mike understood that. He is no ghost, but he was a Casablanca fan.

But what of our mutual love that resided in Mike’s psyche as he crossed his event horizon? What lies beyond that horizon has challenged and puzzled humanity from the dawn of its reflective powers. That ability to reflect on, and challenge, that horizon, is among those things that marks the human psyche as exceptional. Is my virtual reality Mike merely a reflection of my thought processes? Is it simply an echo of the past? Or, is there something more?

Mike’s passing was not my first experience with mourning. I have lost three older brothers to cancer, and, in the natural course of things, both my parents and my wife Rene’s parents. My mother died in 1980 at age 80. The last forty years of her life had been filled with pain. She was overweight and suffered from arthritis, particularly in her back. Nonetheless, she had been an active member of the community, a fixture in local Onondaga County (Syracuse) Democratic Women’s Club and a Vice-Chair of the N.Y. State March of Dimes.

Standing by her casket at her wake, I was startled, not by grief, but by an overwhelming sense of transcendent peace and serenity. I had an impulse of guilt. How could I feel this way at my mother’s wake?

At the time, I had a client in Manhattan named Marilyn. Marilyn believed herself a psychic and was a professional astrologer. I had helped save her apartment after her husband's death. I shared with Marilyn my confusion about my feelings at my mother’s wake. She noted that I had been close to my mother and perhaps I was feeling what she was feeling.

In Mike’s journey to his event horizon, Mike was surrounded by, and immersed in, love. He, and the love that resided in him, are, for now, beyond our gaze. My solace is from the words of Paul to the Corinthians:

“Love never fails. …For now we see in a mirror, darkly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.”

The serenity returns.

Copyright 2007, John C. Klotz, New York, New York