Month: May 2008

One hallmark of wishful thinking (seems to be a lot of that going around in 2008) is believing that in the short-term when things aren’t immediately worst-case, that it’s okay to ignore all the long-term evidence and say that “the worst is over.”

Case in point:  This week in the housing depression.  With a 25 basis point cut in the Fed rate and employment numbers and first quarter numbers slightly better than expected, we’re seeing signs that people think it’s clear sailing ahead.

The worst-case scenarios just aren’t playing out.

Yes, companies cut jobs again, we learned today, for the fourth straight month. In April, 20,000 jobs were lost, but economists on average expected a loss of 75,000 – some feared more than 100,000 cuts.

What’s more, the unemployment rate dipped from 5.1% to 5%. Most thought it would tick higher.

We’ve had news like this all week. In short, the economy is in bad shape….but it’s simply not as bad as a lot of people are making it out to be.

On Wednesday, an initial reading of the economy in the first quarter showed that the economy grew – not by a lot, but at least it didn’t decline as many feared.

The Chicago PMI, a key gauge of the manufacturing sector, came in a bit higher than forecast, a possible sign that the worst may be over for that troubled industry. And the government reported today that factory orders for March rose 1.4%, much higher than expected.

Finally, the increase in personal spending for April was also a bit better than expected, showing that the consumer isn’t dead.

“We’ve been gradually coming to the conclusion that the economy is in a bottoming phase. The data has been weak but not bas bad as expected. That’s a good scenario and we’re feeling better,” said Joe Balestrino, fixed income market strategist with Federated Investors, a money management firm based in Pittsburgh.

Feeling better?  But why?

The reality behind the GDP numbers are pretty grim, that 0.6% growth rate is only positive overall because of counting all the unsold inventories in stores and in real estate.  Without those, GDP was actually negative.

With the employment numbers, again the only reason they aren’t as bad as they were projected is because of the models indicating 45k new construction jobs…something that’s a clearly faulty assumption.

Home prices are still plummeting, the best indicator yet that we still have a long wat to go before the worst is over.

The Fed is still injecting billions into the financials to keep them solvent.

The Federal Reserve, seeking to prevent a deeper economic slowdown, took another stab at coaxing banks into lending at lower rates.

The Fed boosted its biweekly Term Auction Facility sales of cash to banks by 50 percent to $75 billion and expanded the collateral it takes from bond dealers through loans of Treasury securities. It also raised the amount of dollars it makes available to the European Central Bank and Swiss National Bank through swap lines to a combined $62 billion from $36 billion.

Borrowing costs for banks have risen as much as 0.38 percentage point in the past six weeks, an increase that blunted the impact of the cash injections that began in December. The strains threatened to further impair mortgage markets, worsening an economy where growth has already stalled.

“The world is awash in liquidity, it just isn’t reaching the right financial borrowers,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. “Today’s action from the central banks is another strong dose of medicine that will help cure what ails the credit markets.”

Fed officials also expanded the collateral they accept under the Term Securities Lending Facility to include AAA rated asset-backed investments. About 95 percent of outstanding student-loan securities are AAA, according to the American Securitization Forum. Democrats in Congress had pushed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke to take student-loan bonds on the central bank’s balance sheet.

Again, all this is smoke and mirrors, doing nothing to stop the avalanche of trillions in derivatives melting down.

Americans are declaring bankruptcy in record numbers.

Bankruptcy filings by U.S. consumers jumped 47.7 percent in April from one year ago as families cope with fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis, the American Bankruptcy Institute said.

The 92,291 bankruptcy filings in April also marked an increase of 7 percent from March, the non-partisan institute said.

“The sharp spike in consumer bankruptcies reflects the growing financial stress faced by American families, saddled with household debt and mortgage woes,” said Samuel Gerdano, executive director of the institute.

“We expect consumer bankruptcies to top 1 million new cases this year.”

For all of 2007, there were 850,912 U.S. bankruptcy filings, up 38 percent from 2006.

The economy is driven by consumer spending.  If consumers are broke, there’s no spending.  Period. Gas prices continue to slow down spending and lower confidence.

Yes, the Dow is back above 13,000.  Which one do YOU honestly think it will hit next, 14,000, or 12,000?

At this point we’re looking for any signs that the worst is over so that we can imagine the problems away.  We’ve hit a lull in the carnage, the eye of the storm.  The worst is still to come.

The descent will just pick up again.

Be prepared.

I want to make it clear up front that I love Chris Bowers and really enjoy almost all of his analysis. I learn things from him all the time. But there are a couple of areas where I have been frustrated with his take on this election. One has been his position on post-partisanship and another (which is related) has been his consistent critiques of Obama’s choices of themes and phrasing. Booman Tribune readers know that I have consistently eschewed surface analysis of this contest in favor of looking at the underlying code. Six months ago I was writing about the challenge Obama faced because he is black. I talked about how appearing angry was not an option. I talked about how stressing class or populism (a la John Edwards) was not an option. I talked about why his position papers are not much different from Clinton’s (because she wants to appeal to the left, and he wants to ward off criticism from the right). I quickly recognized a concerted effort on the Clinton campaign’s part to engage in dog-whistle politics and make the contest as much about identity as possible. During all this time I have read with some frustration as Open Left has focused on total surface level messaging (often in a Lakoffian framework). But, today, Bowers seems to have finally noticed that there is a subtext to this contest.

…it is worth considering how Obama’s post-partisan claims are actually a coded appeal asking voters to move beyond identity in their voting patterns. Specifically, it might be code for “it’s OK to vote for me no matter who you are,” which certainly is an important message for an African-American presidential candidate to make. While we here at Open Left have repeatedly detailed the many ways that Obama’s claims of post-partisanship don’t make any sense on the surface, perhaps we should consider that there is an underlying code to the message.

Hell yes, there is an underlying code to the message. A cynical person would say that Barack Obama is not post-partisan at all, but merely pursuing the only realistic strategy for overcoming the obstacle his identity presents. Except, that would be to ignore that Obama has always used this kind of political messaging. His temperament and political instincts are in sync with the only available strategy for him. His politics aren’t cynical (at least, not by standard measures).

Provided that an electoral campaign is ethical and promotes decent policies, the only important standard is whether it is effective. By that measure, Obama’s campaign has been a stunning success. The odds of Obama pulling this off were not good, and he’s done it. And he hasn’t done it by making a bunch of phony promises or by demonizing the other side, or by making sure he ‘frames’ every comment in a progressively orthodox way. In fact, he would not have succeeded if he had put out an overtly progressive platform, or if he had engaged in class outrage (like Edwards), or if he had only had bad things to say about Republicans. That’s not to say that he has never reinforced some negative stereotype about Democrats. He isn’t perfect, and some of his efforts to appear reasonable have been somewhat self-defeating. I am not suggesting that all of Open Left’s criticisms have been without merit. But they have been startlingly lacking in sub-surface analysis.

I also think Open Left’s critique of post-partisanship is a backward looking critique that takes no account of the appropriate kind of politics for a new era where Democrats hold all the levers of power (outside the Supreme Court, of course). But I wrote about that here.

If you ask John McCain in a town hall meeting whether it is true or not that he once called his wife a c*nt in public, you get an half-hour interview from the Secret Service.

This is interesting local coverage from the Indianapolis Star:

It’s been a rough few days for Sen. Evan Bayh.

After years of holding a near death grip over so much of the state’s Democratic Party establishment, the junior senator from Shirkieville has taken a series of very public hits in recent days.

From Democrats, no less.

What I’ve been calling the Stick-It-To-Evan-Bayh tour began last week when Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel announced he would endorse Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary.

Bayh, as you know, is campaigning for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as hard as he’s ever campaigned for anyone other than, well, himself. So the Weinzapfel endorsement was notable for at least two reasons.

First, he is seen as one of the state’s rising Democratic stars. Second, there was a time when straying from Evan Bayh on such a crucial matter would have cast doubt over an Indiana Democrat’s political future.

Not anymore.

Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Baron Hill, D-Seymour, also endorsed Obama, giving the Illinois senator another superdelegate. To Bayh, Hill’s endorsement was a superdiss.

The Weinzapfel and Hill announcements were interesting. But former state and national Democratic Party Chairman Joe Andrew outdid them both. Standing in Obama’s Indiana headquarters Thursday, Andrew announced he was switching his support from Clinton to Obama.

It was another superdelegate for Obama. It was also another perceived knock against Bayh — by one of his own.

After all, Andrew became state party chair in 1995, when Bayh was governor and making the decisions for Indiana Democrats. With that history in mind, I asked Andrew about his move being perceived as a public slap at Indiana’s senator. He said that wasn’t the case and promised to encourage Obama to consider Bayh as a running mate.

That was great spin.

But Andrews is a political pro and no doubt understands how damaging his announcement is for Bayh. At a time when Clinton seems to have momentum in Indiana, the defection of three top Indiana Democrats has some wondering if Bayh’s power has weakened.

Of course, Bayh will gladly trade some temporary weakness for a Clinton victory next Tuesday. But unless Clinton somehow becomes the nominee, it looks like his grip on Indiana politics is a thing of the past.

Here’s a piece of a dismaying article from McClatchy:

WASHINGTON — John McCain dropped a little-noticed bombshell into his March foreign-policy address: Boot Russia from the G-8, the elite club of leading industrial democracies whose leaders try to coordinate economic policies.

One major problem: He can’t do it because the other G-8 nations won’t let him.

But the fact that he’s proposing to try, risking a return to Cold War tensions with the world’s second-largest nuclear power after 20 years of prickly partnership, raises questions about McCain’s judgment. It also underscores that many of his top foreign-policy advisers are of the same neo-conservative school that promoted the war in Iraq, argue for a tougher stance toward Iran and are skeptical of negotiating with North Korea over its nuclear program.

Since no single G-8 Nation can kick out another, and since a consensus on dismissing Russia is not likely, one wonders why McCain would even make such a ploy. Perhaps he is under the influence of the same NeoCons who got us into Iraq through seriously misleading means, or who want to do the same in Iran. If so, when the Democrats run on the Campaign tome that a McCain election would mean a third Bush term, it is not at all far-fetched.

Perhaps he thinks he would be sending Russia a message that would jolt Putin and friends into an enforced agreement with American Foreign Policy. Perhaps he just doesn’t like Putin (we know his buddy Holy Joe Lieberman doesn’t).

I can’t think of a better reason NOT to vote for McCain and to elect Obama, who is determined to begin with diplomacy before threatening force.

Under The LobsterScope

The 2012 Plan is a conspiracy theory that Clinton knows she cannot win the nomination this time around, so she needs to make sure that there is no Democratic incumbent in the White House in 2012. Therefore, the theory goes, her primary motivation right now is in weakening Obama and making it less likely that he can beat McCain in the fall. This entails not only negative campaigning, but a refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the process by which Obama won the nomination. Under the theory, Clinton will continue to talk about the unfairness of caucuses, the unfairness of the DNC rule on Florida and Michigan, and will never truly concede the race. When the primaries are over, she will pitch her case to the superdelegates despite being behind in both the popular vote and the pledged delegate count.

Personally, I am disinclined to embrace the 2012 theory. I think Clinton is just hoping something unexpected will happen and she wants to be in the strongest position possible to be a replacement nominee. I’ve written before about why negative campaigning against Obama actually makes it less likely that she would be selected as a replacement nominee (because Obama delegates would block her if they see her as responsible for the downfall of their candidate). So, even though I don’t buy the 2012 plan as a theory, I am beginning to wonder when I read things like this:

First, Mrs. Clinton must win the Indiana primary as a means of demonstrating to supporters and donors that she is building on momentum after Pennsylvania, they said, and she must run strongly enough in North Carolina to avoid the perception that she did no better than an even split. Then she must win in a state that catches people by surprise, like Oregon or Montana.

The Clinton campaign must also persuade the Democratic National Committee to seat at least some of the delegates she won in the disputed votes in Michigan and Florida. It must also persuade superdelegates to include the popular votes cast in Florida, and maybe in Michigan, in calculating the overall tally.

Without that latter success, it would be all but impossible for her to match Mr. Obama in the popular vote total. But that is a tough sell because since neither candidate campaigned in those states after they held their primaries earlier than allowed by the party. Mr. Obama’s name did not even appear on the Michigan ballot.

One of Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategists, Geoff Garin, said the campaign hoped to end the primary season on June 3 lifted by a series of victories, and by coming close in the pledged delegate totals and the popular vote — though he declined to say what close would be.

“We’ll know it when we see it,” Mr. Garin said.

This is just magical thinking. First of all, there is no official popular vote where you ‘convince’ people, the DNC, or anyone else to include numbers in the certified tally. Second, the delegates from Michigan and Florida can only be included if Obama agrees to include them. And that is something he will not do if they are going to swing the election to Clinton. Both of those options are as mythical as unicorns.

Third, no matter what happens, Clinton will not finish ‘close’ in the pledged delegate count. She currently trails by 156 pledged delegates. In a worst case scenario Obama might cough up 40-50 of those in the remaining contests. But something closer to 15-20 is more likely. If each state goes according to what the polls currently indicate, Obama will finish with an approximate lead of 140 pledged delegates. Obama also enjoys a popular vote lead of 611,000 votes. To catch up, Clinton would have to win all the remaining states except Montana and South Dakota.

Geoff Garin says they hope to win by ‘coming close in the pledged delegate totals and the popular vote.’ But enough people are on the record, including in Clinton’s own camp, as saying she must win at least the popular vote, that this moves the goalposts off the playing field and out of the stadium.

If I take Garin at his word, Clinton does not plan on conceding even if she finishes behind in both the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, and that is a key premise of the 2012 Plan theory.

Now, maybe this is just bluster, but if Clinton trails in the popular vote and pledged delegate count after the primaries are concluded and she doesn’t graciously concede, but instead argues that the process was somehow illegitimate or that Obama is a bad candidate, then it will be proof that Plan 2012 is in operation.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing

click to enlarge
The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named the specific states where it applied.

The Emancipation Proclamation was widely attacked at the time as freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power, but in practice, it committed the Union to ending slavery, which was controversial in the North. It was not a law passed by Congress, but a presidential order empowered, as Lincoln wrote, by his position as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy” under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.

The proclamation did not free any slaves of the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control. It first directly affected only those slaves that had already escaped to the Union side, but as the Union armies conquered the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census) were freed by July of 1865.

After the war there was concern that the proclamation, as a war measure, had not made the elimination of slavery permanent. Several former slave states had prohibited slavery; however, some slavery continued to exist until the entire institution was finally wiped out by the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865.

An application of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 would have required the return of fugitive slaves to their owners. Initially this did not occur because some Union generals declared slaves in re-occupied areas were contraband of war. This was controversial because it could imply some recognition of the Confederacy as a separate nation under international law, a notion that Lincoln steadfastly denied; as a result, he never promoted the contraband designation. Some generals also declared the slaves to be free and were replaced when they refused to rescind such declarations. On March 13, 1862, Lincoln forbade all Union Army officers from returning fugitive slaves. On April 10, 1862, Congress declared that the federal government would compensate slave owners who freed their slaves. All slaves in the District of Columbia were freed in this way on April 16, 1862. On June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in United States territories, thus opposing the 1857 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott Case that Congress was powerless to regulate slavery in U.S. territories.

In January 1862, Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House, called for total war against the rebellion, arguing that emancipation would ruin the rebel economy. In July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the “Second Confiscation Act.” It liberated the slaves held by “rebels”. It provided:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

…
SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such person found or being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves.

Abolitionists had long been urging Lincoln to free all slaves. A mass rally in Chicago on September 7, 1862, demanded an immediate and universal emancipation of slaves. A delegation headed by William W. Patton met the President at the White House on September 13. Lincoln had declared in peacetime that he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. Even used as a war power, emancipation was a risky political act. Public opinion as a whole was against it. There would be strong opposition among Copperhead Democrats and an uncertain reaction from loyal border states.

Lincoln first discussed the proclamation with his cabinet in July 1862, but he felt that he needed a Union victory on the battlefield so it would not look like an act of desperation. The Battle of Antietam, in which Union troops turned back a Confederate invasion of Maryland, gave him the opportunity to issue a preliminary proclamation on September 22, 1862. The final proclamation was then issued in January of the following year, 100 days later. Although implicitly granted authority by Congress, Lincoln used his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, “as a necessary war measure” as the basis of the proclamation, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress or a constitutional amendment.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free many slaves. Secretary of State William H. Seward commented, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” Had any seceding state rejoined the Union before January 1, 1863, it could have kept slavery, at least temporarily. The Proclamation only gave Lincoln the legal basis to free the slaves in the areas of the South that were still in rebellion. Thus, it initially freed only some slaves already behind Union lines. However, it also took effect as the Union armies advanced into the Confederacy.

The Emancipation Proclamation also allowed for the enrollment of freed slaves into the United States military. Nearly 200,000 blacks did join, most of them ex-slaves. This gave the North an additional manpower resource that the Confederacy would not emulate until the final months before its defeat.

Though the counties of Virginia that were soon to form West Virginia were specifically exempted from the Proclamation, a condition of its admittance to the Union was that the new state’s constitution at least gradually abolish slavery. Slaves in the border states of Maryland, Missouri were also emancipated by separate state action before the Civil War ended. In early 1865, Tennessee adopted an amendment to its constitution prohibiting slavery. Slaves in Kentucky and Delaware were not emancipated until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.

The Proclamation was issued in two parts. The first part, issued on September 22, 1862, was a preliminary announcement outlining the intent of the second part, which officially went into effect 100 days later on January 1, 1863, during the second year of the Civil War. It was Abraham Lincoln’s declaration that all slaves would be permanently freed in all areas of the Confederacy that had not already returned to federal control by January 1863.

The ten affected states were individually named in the second part. Not included were the Union slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. Also not named was the state of Tennessee, which Union armies already controlled. Specific exemptions were stated for areas also under Union control on January 1, 1863, namely 48 counties that would soon become West Virginia, seven other named counties of Virginia, New Orleans and 13 named parishes nearby.

Booker T. Washington, as a boy of 9, remembered the day in early 1865:

As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom…. Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper–the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.

The Emancipation took place without violence by masters or ex-slaves. The proclamation represented a shift in the war objectives of the North–reuniting the nation would no longer become the sole outcome. It represented a major step toward the ultimate abolition of slavery in the United States and a “new birth of freedom”.

Some slaves were freed immediately by the proclamation. Runaway slaves who had escaped to Union lines were being held by the Union Army as “contraband of war” in contraband camps; when the proclamation took effect, they were told at midnight that they were free to leave. The Sea Islands off the coast of Georgia had been occupied by the Union Navy earlier in the war. The whites had fled to the mainland while the blacks stayed, and an early program of Reconstruction was set up for them. Naval officers read the proclamation to them and told them they were free.

In the military, the reaction to this proclamation varied widely, with some units nearly ready to mutiny in protest, and desertions were attributed to it. Other units were inspired with the adoption of a cause that seemed to them to ennoble their efforts, such that at least one unit took up the motto “For Union and Liberty”.

Slaves had been part of the “engine of war” for the Confederacy. They produced and prepared food; sewed uniforms; repaired railways; worked on farms and in factories, shipping yards, and mines; built fortifications; and served as hospital workers and common laborers. News of the Proclamation spread rapidly by word of mouth, arousing hopes of freedom, creating general confusion, and encouraging many to escape.

The Proclamation was immediately denounced by Copperhead Democrats who opposed the war and tolerated both secession and slavery. It became a campaign issue in the 1862 elections, in which the Democrats gained 28 seats in the House as well as the governorship of New York. Many War Democrats who had supported Lincoln’s goal of saving the Union, balked at supporting emancipation. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in November of 1863 made indirect reference to the Proclamation and the ending of slavery as a war goal with the phrase “new birth of freedom”. The Proclamation solidified Lincoln’s support among the rapidly growing abolitionist element of the Republican Party, and ensured they would not block his re-nomination in 1864.

Abroad, as Lincoln hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union for its new commitment to end slavery. That shift ended any hope the Confederacy might have had of gaining official recognition, particularly from the United Kingdom. If Britain or France, both of which had abolished slavery, continued to consider supporting the Confederacy, it would seem as though they were supporting slavery. Prior to Lincoln’s decree, Britain’s actions had favored the Confederacy, especially in its construction of warships such as the CSS Alabama and CSS Florida. As Henry Adams noted, “The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy.” Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as “the heir of the aspirations of John Brown”. Alan Van Dyke, a representative for workers from Manchester, England, wrote to Lincoln saying, “We joyfully honor you for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: ‘All men are created free and equal.'” This eased tensions with Europe that had been caused by the North’s determination to defeat the South at all costs, even if it meant upsetting Europe, as in the Trent Affair.

Near the end of the war, abolitionists were concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation would be construed solely as a war act and thus no longer apply once fighting ended. They were also increasingly anxious to secure the freedom of all slaves, not just those freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Thus pressed, Lincoln staked a large part of his 1864 presidential campaign on a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery uniformly throughout the United States. Lincoln’s campaign was bolstered by separate votes in both Maryland and Missouri to abolish slavery in those states. Maryland’s new constitution abolishing slavery took effect in November 1864. Slavery in Missouri was ended by executive proclamation of its governor, Thomas C. Fletcher, on January 11, 1865.

Winning re-election, Lincoln pressed the lame duck 38th Congress to pass the proposed amendment immediately rather than wait for the incoming 39th Congress to convene. In January 1865, Congress sent to the state legislatures for ratification what became the Thirteenth Amendment, banning slavery in all U.S. states and territories. The amendment was ratified by the legislatures of enough states by December 6, 1865. There were about 40,000 slaves in Kentucky and 1,000 in Delaware who were then also liberated.

The proclamation was lauded in the years after Lincoln’s death. The anniversary of its issue was celebrated as a black holiday for more than 50 years; the holiday of Juneteenth was created to honor it. In 1913, the fiftieth anniversary of the Proclamation, there were particularly large celebrations. As the years went on and American life continued to be deeply unfair towards blacks, cynicism towards Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation increased.

Some 20th century black intellectuals, including W.E.B. Du Bois, James Baldwin and Julius Lester, have described the proclamation as essentially worthless. Perhaps the strongest attack was Lerone Bennett’s Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, which claimed that Lincoln was a white supremacist who issued the Emancipation Proclamation in lieu of the real racial reforms that radical abolitionists were pushing for.

In his Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Allen C. Guelzo notes the professional historians’ lack of substantial respect for the document, since it has been the subject of few major scholarly studies. He argues that Lincoln was America’s “last Enlightenment politician” and as such was dedicated to removing slavery strictly within the bounds of law.

The Emancipation Proclamation was on display at the William J. Clinton Presidential Center and Park in Little Rock, Arkansas, from September 22-25, 2007 as part of the Little Rock Central High School 50th anniversary of integration.

Birth Of A Notion Disclaimer

SPECIAL REQUEST FOR TCD FANS: The San Francisco Chronicle is pondering the addition of new cartoons for their paper – a process that seems to be initiated by Darren Bell, creator of Candorville (one of my daily reads – highly recommended). You can read the Chronicle article here and please add your thoughts to the comments if you wish. If anything, put in a good word for Darren and Candorville.

I am submitting Town Called Dobson to the paper for their consideration. They seem to have given great weight to receiving 200 messages considering Candorville. I am asking TCD fans to try to surpass that amount. (I get more than that many hate mails a day, surely fans can do better?)

This is not a race between Darren and I, it is a hope that more progressive strips can be represented in the printed press of America.

So if you read the San Francisco Chronicle or live in the Bay Area (Google Analytics tell me there are a lot of you), please send your kind comments (or naked, straining outrage) to David Wiegand at his published addresses below. If you are a subscriber, cut out your mailing label and staple it to a TCD strip and include it in your letter.

candorcomment@sfchronicle.com

or

David Wiegand
Executive Datebook Editor
The San Francisco Chronicle
901 Mission St.
San Francisco, CA 94103

After the Clinton’s meaningless PA win and a difficult week for Obama,  all eyes have focused on the uncommitted super-delegates. Open the gates, we have evidence they want this race to end. As BooMan reminds us the math is the math.

From IHT:

Clinton may be hopeful but Obama rolls on

INDIANAPOLIS: Have Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination improved as Senator Barack Obama has struggled through his toughest month of this campaign?

After weeks in which her candidacy was seen by many party leaders as a long shot at best, Clinton’s advisers argued strenuously on Thursday that the answer was most assuredly yes, that the outlook was turning in her favor in a way that gave her a real chance.

Still, despite a series of trials that have put Obama on the defensive and illustrated the burdens he might carry in a fall campaign, the Obama campaign is rolling along, leaving Clinton with dwindling options.

Obama continues to pick up the support of superdelegates — elected Democrats and party leaders — at a quicker pace than Clinton.

On Thursday, he got a boost from a high-profile defection: Joe Andrew, a former Democratic national chairman appointed by former President Bill Clinton, said he had changed his mind and would back Obama. Even after Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania, Obama has held on to a solid lead in pledged delegates, those selected by the voting in primaries and caucuses.

So yesterday we had Joe Andrew and today Mr. Paul Kirk, ex DNC Chair, (1985-1989) joins in:

ABCNews The Note Split Screams

Clinton Tries Party’s Patience, As Race Reaches Crossroads

[.]Speaking of math — the Obama campaign rolls out another former DNC chairman’s endorsement on Friday: Paul Kirk, a superdelegate who led the party from 1985-1989, is coming out for Obama — a day after Andrew’s switch, an Obama campaign official tells The Note. (And don’t count on that being it for the day, as the dribble continues.)

“Despite a series of trials that have put Mr. Obama on the defensive and illustrated the burdens he might carry in a fall campaign, the Obama campaign is rolling along, leaving Mrs. Clinton with dwindling options,” Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse write in The New York Times. “By and large, the group that matters most at this point — the uncommitted superdelegates, who are likely to hold the balance of power — still seem to view their decision the way the Obama campaign would like them to see it.”

Obama is clearly still leading — but Clinton has a bounce in her step to match her bounce in the polls.

“The Democratic nomination race is murkier than ever,” USA Today’s Jill Lawrence writes. “Hillary Rodham Clinton is rising in the polls while Barack Obama is gaining ground among superdelegates who will decide the winner.”

Says Charlie Cook: “The delegate math couldn’t look much worse for Clinton, but the current political dynamics are just horrific for Obama.”

The AP’s take:”Despite the momentum building behind Clinton after her win in Pennsylvania, it still appeared mathematically impossible for her to overcome Obama’s delegate lead for the party nomination. . . . Regardless, Clinton appeared to be gaining strength among voters, especially the white working-class which has reacted negatively Obama’s association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.”

Clinton brought a defiant tone to her answers Thursday, her rejection by Andrew and slippage among supers notwithstanding. “I think this has been good for the Democratic Party,” Clinton told Cynthia McFadden on ABC’s “Nightline” (offering what may be becoming a minority opinion). “I think that this is such a close election, why would any of us think that it shouldn’t go to the end?”

She also said that her husband won’t have a West Wing office in her administration, and flatly rejected any comparison between Obama ’08 and Clinton ’92. “No. No, not at all,” she said.

For those who missed it, here’s the link to full text of
Joe Andrew’s letter to super-delegates:

Excerpts

May 1, 2008

Dear Friends:

I have been inspired.

Today I am announcing my support for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. I am changing my support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, and calling for my fellow Democrats across my home State of Indiana, and my fellow super delegates across the nation, to heal the rift in our Party and unite behind Barack Obama.

The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today. We have an embarrassment of riches, but as much as we may love our candidates and revel in the political process that has brought Presidential politics to places that have not seen it in a generation, we cannot let our family affair hurt America by helping John McCain.

[.]

Let’s put things right.

Time to Act

Many will ask, why now? Why, with several primaries still remaining, with Senator Clinton just winning Pennsylvania, with my friend Evan Bayh working hard to make sure Senator Clinton wins Indiana, why switch now? Why call for super delegates to come together now to constructively pick a president?

The simple answer is that while the timing is hard for me personally, it is best for America. We simply cannot wait any longer, nor can we let this race fall any lower and still hope to win in November. June or July may be too late. The time to act is now.

I write this letter from my mom’s dining room table in Indianapolis, Indiana. Four generations of my family have argued and laughed around this table. But what I humbly believe today is that we, as Democrats and as Americans, face what Dr. King characterized and what Senator Obama reminds us is the fierce urgency of now. As a nation, we are at a critical moment and we need leaders with the character and vision to see us through the challenges at hand and those to come. I can’t guess what will happen tomorrow, so I can’t tell you what kind of experience our next President will need to have to deal with those challenges. But I can tell you what kind of character and vision they will need to have — and that is what inspires me about Barack Obama.

As Democrats, however, we risk letting this moment slip through our fingers. We risk ceding the field to the Republicans and allowing the morally bankrupt Bush Agenda to continue unabated if we do not unite behind a single candidate. Should this race continue after Indiana and North Carolina, it will inevitably become more negative. The polls already show the supporters for both candidates becoming more strident in their positions and more locked into their support. Continuing on this path would be a catastrophe, as we would inadvertently end up doing Republicans work for them. Already, instead of the audacity of hope, we suffer the audacity of one Democrat comparing John McCain favorably to another Democrat. When that happens, you know it is time for all of us to stop, take a deep breath and unite to change America.

We must act and we must act now.

[.]

Read the whole thing

Joe Andrew nails it. Nothing more to add. Andrew’s endorsement has received wide MSM coverage and that can only be to the good for Obama.

And wouldn’t you know it, Clintons’ supporters have been throwing hand grenades at Joe. The campaign’s response: – Joe Andrew is not from Indiana.  

Is Hillary from New York?

A Sunni mosque in Yemen was bombed today, with initial reports indicating at least 8 dead, and possibly more. The mosque is located in the Saada region, a predominately Shi’a section of this small Arab country on the southwestern Arabian peninsula which neighbors Saudi Arabia.

SANAA (AFP) — At least eight pople were killed and 45 wounded in Yemen on Friday when a blast went off at the entrance of a mosque in the Saada region, site of a Shiite rebellion, police and witnesses said. […]

Some witnesses said a minibus parked outside the mosque in the town of Saada exploded, while others said the blast was caused by a booby-trapped motorcycle.

The blast came as hundreds of Muslim faithful were leaving the Bin Salman mosque after Friday prayers, the witnesses said. […]

Witnesses earlier spoke of dozens of casualties as ambulances rushed to the scene of the attack. Some said the target may have been the mosque’s imam, or prayer leader, an army officer who adheres to the rigorous Salafi school of Sunni Islam. Witnesses said he was not hurt.

Yemen’s government has been fighting with Shi’ite rebels in Saada seeking to restore the last Zaidi imanate. The country is primarily Sunni, but the government is officially a secular republic. The current President of Yemen is a Zaidi shi’ite. Recent clashes have included bombings targeting the military and government offices, and more direct confrontations in which both sides allegedly using “heavy weapons” such as artillery in recent clashes. Tuesday, a number of government soldiers were killed by a rebel ambush in a conflict that reignited in 2004, and which has seen thousands killed by the violence.

On Tuesday night, seven soldiers were killed and 20 wounded when a convoy of three troop transports was ambushed by rebels in Saada, a mountainous province which has been shaken by the on-off Zaidi insurgency.

It seems Iraq is not the only place plagued by Sunni/Shi’a religious conflicts. This makes the Bush’s decision to invade Iraq seem all the more nonsensical, especially when you realize that many in his administration had little if any understanding of the religious tensions between Sunnis and Shi’ites.

The US really did kick at a hornet’s nest of religious and sectarian strife when it invaded. Wherever the official authorities are weak, such as in Lebanon, Yemen and, thanks to the Bush administration, Iraq, we see similar outbreaks of violence along religious, ethnic and tribal lines. Our military presence in the region has only exacerbated these tensions. It shouldn’t come as a great surprise that both Lebanon and Yemen have had major eruptions of violent strife since our invasion of Iraq.

Bush went into Iraq despite the nature of the underlying hostility between the two major sects of Islam, and the ethnic tensions between the Arabs, Kurds and other minorities, in the vain hope that a secular democracy or other regime friendly to the United States, could be easily established to replace the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein. A goal that any knowledgeable person with prior experience in the region could have told him was going be extremely difficult to accomplish, even if he made all the right moves in securing the country. The conflict in Yemen provides us with a good example of the precarious nature of any period of peace in the region. And that conflict has occurred without a major Western power invading and occupying its territory and pouring billions of dollars and countless numbers of weapons into the country.

How crazy was Bush to invade Iraq, and how deluded were so many Americans to accept his “reasons” for attacking it in 2003? The answer is one you already know. We allowed an incompetent madman and his ideological fellow travelers to hijack our government. As a result, not only is Iraq in turmoil, but so is much of the Middle East, and it is likely remain that way for years to come.

We knew, or should have known, of the powder keg in the basement. We were just foolish enough to allow a crazy person to walk in with a lit match because he thought he might find a pony down there.

Media censorship about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict protects most Americans from knowledge of the brutality and human rights injustices entailed in Israel’s military occupation/colonization of the West Bank and the Gaza siege. But there are also positive aspects of this conflict that are even further hidden from view. Fred Schlomka issued this report on the activities of the Israel Committee Against House Demolition and other peace activist organizations on April 14, 2008. It is about Israelis and Palestinians working together to achieve human rights and justice in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Israeli & Palestinian Activists Rebuild Demolished Homes

On 12th April over 40 Israeli activists from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv arrived in a West Bank village for a day of solidarity and work with Palestinians. Two homes destroyed by the Israeli government were in process of being rebuilt by ICAHD’s Constructing Peace Campaign as part of the organization’s resistance and civil disobedience activities. Also sponsoring the event were Bat Shalom and the Tel Aviv University Student Coalition whose members participated in the event.

The stories about the families (names withheld to avoid retaliation) involved are typical of the Israeli justice system in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It’s Orwellian and its intent is the slow ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Family `A’

Mr. A built his home in 2006, adjacent to his parent’s home on the family land. In 2007 the Civil Administration issued a demolition order and told the family that unless they destroyed the house themselves, then the authorities would demolish all the homes in the neighborhood. There was no reason to disbelieve the threat, so together with friends and relatives, Mr. A dismantled the home over the course of a week, saving what he could from the construction materials. This rendered the family homeless and they once again had to move in with Mr. A’s parents.

Despite their modest background, this is an educated family. Mr. A is the headmaster of a high school. His sister is a nurse and one of his brothers works for the Palestinian Authority Health Ministry. These are exactly the people whose careers need to be fostered and supported if the Palestinian people are to have any chance of self-reliance. However the Occupation is relentless, and its bureaucratic mechanisms do not discriminate between people. Peasant or businessman; laborer or schoolteacher; the repressive Israeli regime treats everyone the same.

Mr. A maintains a beautiful garden and greenhouse full of vegetables, fruit trees, grape vines, and flowers. His entire extended family is fed from these efforts. The garden is organic, using traditional methods, and seasonal plantings ensures a plentiful supply of produce throughout the year. Selected mature plants are always allowed to go to seed after each harvest, thus ensuring the next crop.

Family `B’

In 1986 the B family applied for a building permit on village land that the family had owned for generations. Despite giving provisional approval for the new home, the Israeli `Civil Administration’ denied the permit. Mr. B went ahead and built their home and lived in it for several years with his wife and ten children. In 1995, while Mr. B was in hospital and his family were visiting him, the Israeli army descended on the village, declared a curfew, and demolished the home. The family lived for one year in a tent, and then in two rooms provided by Mr. B’s brother. The family belongs to one of five Hamulas (family clans) in the village.

Mr. B is a gaunt man, his body racked by illness. The Palestinian Health Ministry has declared him a 95% invalid and the family receives aid from the ministry and an international agency.

Mrs. B commented’ ” What they are doing is a horrible thing in any religion in the world. To do this to a disabled person is a crime. “

House demolition, of course, is a staple tactic in Israel’s continuing project to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians off their lands. Israeli (and Palestinian) peace activists like these continue their nonviolent work to protest it.