A Second Hand Conjecture

Well, with any luck our voter ID law will weed out anyone not legitimately registered to vote.

No Comments »

Someone here made a good choice back on June 30th.

Me? I think Sarah Palin would make a great choice

No Comments »

It’s almost as if the Dems can’t help but to resort to misogynistic antagonism in dealing with Gov. Sarah Palin. This comes courtesy of Alan Colmes, citing Rogers Cadenhead who questions Palin’s maternal abilities:

One bit of weirdness associated with Palin concerns the birth of her youngest child. As the Alaskan media reported, Palin was attending an energy conference in Texas on April 18 when her water broke four weeks before her due date. After this happened, Palin didn’t head to a hospital or even leave the conference, even though the premature rupture of fetal membrances is normally a cause for an immediate examination by an obstetrician, who will observe the fetus on a monitor to guard against infection and other life-threatening complications. Two other reasons for heightened concern were Palin’s age, 43, and the fact that prenatal testing indicated the child had Down syndrome.

Palin stayed at the conference and delivered a 30-minute speech, then boarded a 12-hour Alaska Airlines flight from Dallas to Anchorage, neglecting to tell the airline her water had broken — most airlines won’t fly a woman in labor. The motivation for all of this appears to be the Palins’ desire that the child be born in Alaska. Her husband Todd told the Anchorage Daily News, “You can’t have a fish picker from Texas.”

When she arrived home, Palin was hospitalized immediately and the baby was born prematurely after labor was induced in the middle of the night.

Aside from baby Trig suffering from Down Syndrome, the child was quite healthy at delivery and has been doing fine ever since. It is true that when amino leaks occur, the general advice of doctors is to get to the hospital immediately, but that is not always the case. In fact, when delivery proceeds within 24 hours of an amino leak (a.k.a. water breaking), the risks of any complications to the baby are quite low. Indeed, some women experience minor leakages, as Palin did, well before they are due without any complications whatsoever.

In Palin’s case, she delivered Trig well within the 24 hour window recognized as “safe,” and actually had to be induced because she wasn’t in labor. Moreover, she was in touch with her physician throughout the event, and he did not advise her to act otherwise.

As an aside, the accusation that Trig was born prematurely does not seem to hold water (no pun intended … well, maybe a little) since Palin was past her 36th week, and the definition of “premature birth” is a baby born prior to the 37th week of gestation.

In any case, these are just facts that undermine the credibility of anyone asserting such ridiculous accusations. That Obama supporters are seriously challenging Palin’s credibility and competence as a mother is just stunning on a political level. Not just in the brashness, but also in the sheer stupidity of leveling such charges. I mean, how do idiots like Colmes and Cadenhead think women are going to react to their second-guessing of Palin’s birthing decisions?

I can hear my wife’s retort now: “You try carrying a bowling ball in your belly for 40 weeks, and then shooting it out your pee-hole with the entire hospital staff staring at your nether region. And that’s not even mentioning having to pee every 20 minutes, feeling like a fat cow, persistent fatigue, and constantly worrying about how your caring for unborn child. Plus you have to do your job just as competently and efficiently as you always did before you were pregnant (including dealing with any previously born children), only to be confronted with some a$$wipe having the nerve to tell you ‘You’re doing it wrong’.”

I imagine that a lot of women would feel the same way.

2 Comments »

Because the blogosphere and all its scions have much more prominence, and arguably more influence, with respect to this year’s election, I’ve been lazily paying more attention to how new media is tackling the subject at hand. I think the following presentation is a prime example of what new media can offer, and foreshadows the power of the medium to come:

Disregarding the substance of the video for now, I have to say that the exchange between these three women is extraordinary. Not only is their banter free-flowing and natural, it’s exactly the sort of conversation that I would expect of reasonably well informed patrons of a local bar. Again, it’s not the substance of the arguments presented, but the way in which they’re presented.

Personally, I tend to think of the interchange of ideas on any blog (particularly in the comments section) as a virtual reality version of barroom conversation. With my buddies, it’s referred to as “defending the ridge” where “the ridge” is that omnipresent elbow on the bar where three, four or even more people can hang on to this strategically important territory by maintaining an engaging, yet suitably sociable conversation. Being in the DC area, it’s inevitable that such discourse will turn to politics. So, the more natural and inviting the banter is, the easier it is to “defend the ridge.”

One can always just park themselves at the elbow, but sooner or later breaches in the defense appear only to be exploited, typically by buxom, yet willowy, young women brandishing credit cards of dubious provenance (i.e. suspect boyfriends) and flirtatious camaraderie with the bartenders. Such is life.

The point is, when the conversation is heady yet light-hearted enough, the ridge is better defended and the night progresses in a much more enjoyable fashion than otherwise.

The clip above reminds me exactly of those exchanges. The three women are obviously comfortable with one another, and the camera, which lends them a professional air. But they speak with a clarity that’s natural to “the ridge” in any bar, where opinions fly fast and loose, and a premium is placed on brevity and wit.

If more political coverage was of the same caliber, I think the electorate would be more engaged. As it stands now, the MSM and its affiliate cable progeny, basically offer the same PhD and old-hat, insider baseball as the be-all-end-all of political analysis. Don’t get me wrong. I love hearing from the likes of Larry Sabato, Michael Barone and Frank Luntz, and I think they have a lot to add to the conversation. But let’s be honest. The people who read QandO and other political blogs are already in the realm of “political junky.” You all know exactly who each of these people are. The vast majority of the electorate doesn’t, nor do they much care. But I’d bet they’d watch the video clip above.

The fact is anybody can be drawn into a political conversation when it’s conducted on terms that the average person can relate to. While I may find Larry Sabato’s election prognostications fascinating, sometimes I don’t want to ruminate on the exact scientific designation of the tree’s sap, nor upon what the American Indians used to do with it. Sometimes, all I want to talk about is the health and wealth of the forest. The clip above offers that kind of analysis. My personal opinion is that more of the same would be a boon to the voting populace. And down that road is a better informed electorate.

So hats off to you, Ana Marie Cox, Glynnis MacNicol, and Rachel Sklar. Well done and I look forward to more.

Crossposted at QandO

No Comments »

No Comments »

My guess is that if I were a liberal, I would find Obama to be an attractive candidate.  Surely the man is well spoken, charismatic – and whatever else you may believe negative about him, Obama is nobody’s fool.  Even if I were liberal, I might be a bit concerned about his inexperience.  But – I imagine he would get my vote anyway.

Thus, I find this bit of news/gossip almost difficult to take seriously.  Some people think that Obama is going to select John Kerry as his running mate?  The same guy who couldn’t beat George W. Bush when his ratings were on the downslide?  The fellow who lost an election you would think that 74% of Democrats could have scooped up with relative ease?

Obama seems to smart to me for this.  Then again – we have all seen much stranger happenings in politics.

No Comments »

No Comments »

via Instapundit, we find Tigerhawk making the complaint that the new O salute is discriminatory against those differently-abled people who have lost an arm or hand. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with those who have lost both arms or hands though.

But the solution is simple. Show him your “O face.”

Show him your O face

No Comments »

EJ Dionne thinks McCain is blowing it:

By running an attack campaign that is almost a parody of George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 exertions, McCain is chucking away his greatest opportunity, which is to show that he could reform Republicanism and offer voters an alternative way of breaking with a past they have come to loathe.

One would think that if voters loathed McCain’s campaign he wouldn’t be running neck and neck at a time when Democrats are almost always well ahead, with the economy struggling and a war that has gone on too long in the electorates eye. I keep hearing Democrats and liberals talk as if Obama were way ahead. Reality based indeed. Still, McCain is more than capable of blowing it.

No Comments »

I don’t think McCain is being particularly nasty to Obama (nor Obama particularly nice) but I think Daniel Larson hits the nail on the head here:

Indeed, to the extent that his agreement with the administration on many major policies is acknowledged, it is usually framed as part of a story of how the “real” McCain lost his way in trying to satisfy his party, but these accounts often hold out the hope that the “real” McCain might still make a comeback before the end.  People will talk about McCain’s poor relations with conservatives and the party leadership as if he had nothing to do with causing them, and as if he had never launched an unfair or disreputable attack on an opponent or another person in his life, when the creation of his “maverick” image has been founded on portraying members of his party and the conservative movement according to the worst stereotypes and exploiting his opposition to these strawman positions as proof of his political courage.  That he now approves of taking the so-called “low road” against Obama is nothing new.  Indeed, by comparison with the treatment of some of McCain’s other opponents in policy debates, Obama is still being treated pretty easily.

Daniel points out that journalists never identified McCain’s attacks as the nasty pieces of work they were because they suited their prejudices. I have always felt that was true of Democrats and liberals as well, who could make the most scurrilous of attacks and have them unquestioned. McCain has always been pretty vicious. What is funny, is that Daniel doesn’t recognize that Obama is benefitting from the same prejudices now as McCain did then.

No Comments »

ABC’s Jake Tapper thinks it’s primarily being leveled by Democrats.

There’s a lot of racist xenophobic crap out there. But not only has McCain not peddled any of it, he’s condemned it.

What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.

Back in February, McCain apologized for some questionable comments made by a local radio host. In April, he condemned the North Carolina Republican Party’s ad featuring images of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

With one possible exception, I’ve never seen McCain or those under his control playing the race card or making fun of Obama’s name — or even mentioning Obama’s full name, for that matter!

While I have no doubt there will be a bunch more racist, xenophobic, and other ignorant drek coming our way courtesy of the Internet and perhaps the occasional cable news network, it’s important to determine where it’s coming from. Is it from a specific campaign or party? A third-party group? A third-party group with direct ties to establishment figures? This all matters.

I’ve seen racism in campaigns before — I’ve seen it against Obama in this campaign (more from Democrats than Republicans, at this point, I might add) and I’ve seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.

No Comments »

Go here for some other pithy slogans…

No Comments »

Over at QandO, Bruce, Dale,and I discuss Sen. Obama’s hubris, his fawning press coverage, and his inability to admit his error in opposing the surge.

1 Comment »

From The Huffington Post, where this kind of BS is applauded:

“Quit talking about, ‘Did the surge work or not work,’ or, ‘Did you vote for this or support this,’” Hagel said Thursday on a conference call with reporters.

“Get out of that. We’re done with that. How are we going to project forward?” the Nebraska senator said. “What are we going to do for the next four years to protect the interest of America and our allies and restructure a new order in the world. … That’s what America needs to hear from these two candidates. And that’s where I am.”

How cute. Take a nice piece of advice, concentrate on what comes next, and rob that discussion of all context. How are we supposed to judge who is best fit to move on to the next steps without some understanding of how people have judged things in the past? Especially something so recent and directly on point.

It isn’t that Hagel and Obama don’t have a legitimate, if wrongheaded in my view, defense. Stupid policy choices work out all the time. That doesn’t make them wise. If you jump off a bridge and a truck full of hay just happens to come by and break the fall, it hardly confirms ones good judgment. (more…)

1 Comment »

Robert Ariail / The State (Columbia, S.C.) (July 23, 2008

No Comments »

No Comments »

Not the same thing as a Harry Reid Timetable (HT: McQ):

A deadline should be set for the withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces from Iraq, and the pullout could be done by 2011, an Iraqi government spokesman said Tuesday.

Ali al-Dabbagh said any timetable would depend on “conditions and the circumstances that the country would be undergoing.” But he said a pullout within “three, four or five” years was possible.

“It can be 2011 or 2012,” al-Dabbagh said. “We don’t have a specific date in mind, but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline.”

I think there are several things to take from this. First and foremost this is a sign that “winning” in Iraq is at hand. The primary goal was an independent Iraq, capable of defending itself and being an ally in the War on Terror. That the Iraq government is declaring it’s ready to take over the reins of defending and policing its own country is a fantastic sign of confidence in its ability to do so. Considering the fact that the Iraqi Army has increasingly taken the lead throughout the country, including most recently the formerly “lost” province of Anbar, a phased withdrawal of American and coalition forces seems like the natural next step. While there are still problems to be dealt with, such as the ever-present threat of more ethnic and sectarian violence, Iraq in general appears to be in a much better position to deal with them on their own than just a year ago. They also seem to more willing to do so, judging by the Basra and related campaigns. Under these sorts of conditions, the job of our forces would seem to be coming to an end, and talk of bringing them home is welcome news indeed.

Of course, the conditions meriting talk of a withdrawal timetable are being ignored by some in favor of scoring political points:

“President Bush refuses to listen to Congress or the American people, but he cannot support Iraqi political reconciliation and security and ignore Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s call for a timetable for the withdrawal,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

“I agree with Maliki,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added. “Let’s take off the training wheels and let Iraq handle their own affairs. We have spent enough of our blood and treasure in Iraq.”

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rham Emanuel wondered at the administration’s response to the Iraqi position.

“When Democrats called for a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, they were attacked by President Bush,” the Chicago Democrat said. “When Prime Minister Maliki suggested a timeline for withdrawal, the White House said he was ‘reflecting a shared goal.’ Apparently, in the Bush White House, the messenger matters more than message.”

The other day McQ explained why previous calls for withdrawal were treated differently:

2 years ago, timetables for withdrawal were a bad idea because there were viable enemies still operating in Iraq.

Today? Not so much. Today we’re talking about withdrawal timetables in the wake of victory. Then we were talking about timetables in the face of possible defeat. If you can’t get you head around the difference, then I’d suggest you haven’t much worthwhile to add to any discussion of the matter.

Ironically, the one’s who should be using the latest news to score political points are the current Presidential candidates, who have been somewhat muted thus far. Obama referred to Maliki’s announcement as “encouraging” and McCain rather clumsily noted that Maliki’s comments were being misunderstood as a rigid time table for withdrawal of U.S. Troops instead of a “conditions based” plan:

McCain said he was confident the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would ask American troops to leave only if the military situation there warranted such a move.

“I know for a fact that it will be dictated by the situation on the ground, as it always has been,” McCain said.

“Since we are succeeding” in Iraq, he said, “then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And I’m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for the many meetings we have had.”

He’s not wrong, but McCain’s not exactly grabbing the bull by the horns here either. Especially when he seemingly demeans Maliki’s call as a mere political move:

Of Maliki, McCain said, “Look, he’s a politician. He is a leader of a country that’s finally coming together.

“The fact is that we and the Iraqis will deal in what is in the national security interests of both countries. And there is no reason to assume that the Iraqis aren’t going to act in what they perceive as their national interest. I believe we’ll act in ours, and I believe we’ll come home, we’ll withdraw.

Again, it’s not that McCain is wrong so much as he hasn’t seized a real opportunity to the gain the upper hand. Obama has so far missed the opportunity as well, but his minimalist reaction is probably the better of the two at this point. What one them needs to do is to tout Mailiki’s call for a withdrawal timetable as a sign of victory in Iraq, and to applaud the fledgling nation for taking one of its most important steps towards full sovereignty. While I’m sure that both candidates will declare that we will happily withdraw our forces at the request of the Iraqi government, what neither of them have done so far is to highlight the request as a clear sign that our job in Iraq may be almost done. Pointing to the light at the end of the tunnel where our troops will emerge on the way home is exactly the sort of hope and change that Americans desire and can feel good about. I predict that the first candidate to figure that out will be our next President.

*Editing Note: I revised “timeline” to read “timetable” throughout because it makes more sense.

No Comments »

Due to popular demand, I’ve thrown my hat into the race.

(HT: My Best Man)

1 Comment »

From an interview by Stephen Moore (HT: GR):

So what if a President Barack Obama were to impose 50% or 60% tax rates on these CEOs and other big earners? Mr. Gramm pounces: “When you help a company raise capital, to put its idea to work, and you create jobs, those jobs are the best housing program, education program, nutrition program, health program ever created. Look, if a man in one lifetime is responsible for creating 100 real jobs, permanent jobs, then he’s done more than most do-gooders have ever achieved.”

And this:

“Why is America the richest country in the world?” he asks. “It’s not because our people are more brilliant; it’s because we have a better free-market system. Why has Texas created 1.6 million jobs in the last 10 years whereas Michigan has lost 300,000 jobs and Ohio has lost 100,000 jobs? Because governance matters, taxes matter, regulation matters. Our opponents in this campaign are so dogmatic in their goal of having more government because they love the power it brings to them that they’re willing to let it impose costs on the working people that they say they want to help. I am not.”

Gramm is apparently advising John McCain’s campaign. It could use the help.

No Comments »

Over the weekend I read with fascination William Saletan’s review of the new offering from George Lakoff, “The Political Mind,” and was struck by the remarkable similarities between it and the revolutionary syndicalism espoused during the prior fin de siècle.

In particular, Saletan summarizes Lakoff’s principal idea as the need for progressives to recapture the and reformulate the social myth that drives the political decisions of the masses:

Lakoff blames “neoliberals” and their “Old Enlightenment” mentality for the Democratic Party’s weakness. They think they can win elections by citing facts and offering programs that serve voters’ interests. When they lose, they conclude that they need to move farther to the right, where the voters are.

This is all wrong, Lakoff explains. Neuroscience shows that pure facts are a myth and that self-interest is a conservative idea. In a “New Enlightenment,” progressives will exploit these discoveries. They’ll present frames instead of raw facts. They’ll train the public to think less about self-interest and more about serving others. It’s not the platform that needs to be changed. It’s the voters.

Lakoff’s concept is not new, although his explanation as to why myth-making is important may be. (more…)

5 Comments »

First they came for the Press,
and I didn’t speak out,
because the press didn’t speak for me.
Then they came for television,
and I didn’t speak out,
I was tired of watching their bias anyway.
Then they came for talk radio,
and I failed to act,
so now the right is muzzled.
Then they came for my blog…

Could it happen, I don’t put it outside the realm of what is possible.

Why are the Democrats against free speech? Why do they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Why are the stalling on an up or down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act?

And the big question, why aren’t conservatives, republicans, and libertarians up in arms over this and pressuring Congress to act.

Heard about this issue again, the other day when Mike Pence was on Hannity’s radio show. Why is it that the Democrats aren’t even discussing this issue? I can think of two reasons, they’re stalling in the hopes that they’ll have Obama to rubberstamp any old thing they pass in Congress. And they’re not talking about it so they don’t anger their base, or rile up the right. Last thing they’d want to do is get the right active again this close to an important election.

Free speech isn’t always fair, that’s why the market provides choices. If a station is forced to provide a “balanced” view of every issue, we will quickly find less and less views on the air. Assuming the stations can survive the legal battle the left brings to them to try and get those “opposing” views on the air. And, should Obama be elected President, what’s to prevent the Democrats from also going after blogs, and other websites, and making sure their version of “balance” reigns supreme.

Congressman Pence’s statement announcing this effort:

“Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is dangerous to suggest that the government should be in the business of rationing free speech. During my years in radio and television, I developed a great respect for a free and independent press. Since being in Congress, I have been the recipient of praise and criticism from broadcast media, but it has not changed my fundamental belief that a free and independent press must be vigorously defended by those who love liberty.

“Sadly, some of the most powerful elected officials in America have said that Congress should bring back this outright regulation of the American political debate. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator John Kerry have openly advocated for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Meanwhile, the top Democratic leadership of the House united last summer during consideration of the Financial Services Appropriations bill to oppose my amendment enacting a one-year moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine. But that amendment passed.

“When 309 Members voted in support of the Pence Amendment to ban the Fairness Doctrine for just one year, they demonstrated the broad, bipartisan support that exists in the House for ending the specter of the Fairness Doctrine once and for all.”

23 more signatures are needed to get this on the docket to even be discussed. I think one thing every conservative, republican and libertarian blog should be doing right now is promoting this, and hounding people on this list. Contact your states representatives, and let them know your views on this.

Surely this is something everyone can get behind.

We’ve posted about this issue before, and it’s time to act.

Cross posted at The Next Right

Previous Posts:

01/16/07 Free Speech/Grassroots Lobbying Under Threat

04/30/07 The Return of “Fairness” to the Media

05/15/07 The “Fairness Doctrine” looms: Updated with a statement from Senator McConnell

10/05/07 Left Wing Attacks on Right Wing Punditry

10/08/07 Muzzling the Right

No Comments »

Perhaps the most interesting thing to come out of this (unbearably) long campaign season is the rare opportunity to witness deification in process. From Mark Morford, a San Francisco Gate columnist:

Is Obama an enlightened being?
Spiritual wise ones say: This sure ain’t no ordinary politician. You buying it?

I find I’m having this discussion, this weird little debate, more and more, with colleagues, with readers, with liberals and moderates and miserable, deeply depressed Republicans and spiritually amped persons of all shapes and stripes and I’m having it in particular with those who seem confused, angry, unsure, thoroughly nonplussed, as they all ask me the same thing: What the hell’s the big deal about Obama?

I, of course, have an answer. Sort of.

[...]

Barack Obama isn’t really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

This is what I find myself offering up more and more in response to the whiners and the frowners and to those with broken or sadly dysfunctional karmic antennae – or no antennae at all – to all those who just don’t understand and maybe even actively recoil against all this chatter about Obama’s aura and feel and MLK/JFK-like vibe.

Morford apparently thinks that his explanation of Obama’s appeal is comforting to such people. I am one of those that recoil at the inane chatter, and yet somehow I still don’t feel comforted.

To them I say, all right, you want to know what it is? The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world, that keeps opening up and firing into new channels of the culture normally completely unaffected by politics?

No, it’s not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn’t have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.

Oh, I get it. He’s like a glow-in-the-dark alarm clock!

Dismiss it all you like [Ed. - Will do!], but I’ve heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who’ve been intuitively blown away by Obama’s presence – not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence – to say it’s just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.

I can understand why “enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people” would not be blown away by Obama’s policies, but that’s setting the bar a little low for his presence isn’t it? As to why these people would be “intuitively” blown away by that presence, so much so that they simply cannot fathom Obama behaving like just another politician after obtaining office, is difficult to discern. Maybe he’s a Jedi knight? Obama-wan Kenobe?

Here’s where it gets gooey.

Got that? NOW it’s going to get “gooey.”

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) [Ed. - Right. 'Cus Obama knows those people don't know what their talking about] identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.

What Morford doesn’t tell you is that you too can be a Lightworker, and it’s free! In fact, hold that thought for a minute …

…

…

Ha! There! Now I’m a Lightworker too! My Lightworker name is “ObiMike Wadobe.” Me and Obama, saving the world.

Are you rolling your eyes and scoffing? Fine by me.

Cha, as if you had a choice, Darkloafer.

Now, Obama. The next step [after Kennedy]. Another try. And perhaps, as Bush laid waste to the land and embarrassed the country and pummeled our national spirit into disenchanted pulp and yet ironically, in so doing has helped set the stage for an even larger and more fascinating evolutionary burp, we are finally truly ready for another Lightworker to step up.

He means Obama, of course, not ObiMike.

Let me be completely clear: I’m not arguing some sort of utopian revolution, a big global group hug with Obama as some sort of happy hippie camp counselor. I’m not saying the man’s going to swoop in like a superhero messiah and stop all wars and make the flowers grow and birds sing and solve world hunger and bring puppies to schoolchildren. Because that’s silly; puppies don’t belong in school.

I may have added that last sentence. It’s Lightworker humor. You may not understand (unless you sign up. It’s free!!!!).

Please. I’m also certainly not saying he’s perfect, that his presidency will be free of compromise, or slimy insiders, or great heaps of politics-as-usual.

No, of course not. That was the “enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people” saying all that. Unless Morford was lying about that whole “intuitively blown away” thing, which Darkloafers tend to do.

While Obama’s certainly an entire universe away from George W. Bush in terms of quality, integrity, intelligence and overall inspirational energy, well, so is your dog. Hell, it isn’t hard to stand far above and beyond the worst president in American history.

But there simply is no denying that extra kick. As one reader put it to me, in a way, it’s not even about Obama, per se.

I think this is one of the “gooey” parts.

There’s a vast amount of positive energy swirling about that’s been held back by the armies of BushCo darkness, and this energy has now found a conduit, a lightning rod, is now effortlessly self-organizing around Obama’s candidacy. People and emotions and ideas of high and positive vibration are automatically draw to him. It’s exactly like how Bush was a magnet for the low vibrational energies of fear and war and oppression and aggression, but, you know, completely reversed. And different. And far, far better.

[/gooey]

{#!/bin/sh

if [ -d /gooey ]; then
rm -rf /gooey

fi}

That’s Geekworker humor … different universe.

Don’t buy any of it?

Hell, I won’t take it for free.

Think that’s all a bunch of tofu-sucking New Agey bulls– and Obama is really a dangerously elitist political salesman whose inexperience will lead us further into darkness because, when you’re talking national politics, nothing, really, ever changes? I understand. I get it. I often believe it myself.

Not this time.

Because I know some of you unenlightened beings won’t pick up on my subtle Lightworker humor here (which indicates a problem with your right parahippocampal gyrus), nor on the actual point of this post, let me make it explicitly clear to you ground dwellers: THIS IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA. IT IS ABOUT THE MORONIC DEIFICATION OF OBAMA BY HIS GLASSY-EYED SUPPORTERS LIKE MARK MORFORD, A PAID JOURNALIST.

HT: Charles Johnson, who had the most concise summary: “Oh, good grief.”

Further HT: James Joyner, who tipped me off as to the Lightworker thing, and closed with the Quip Of The Day:

Interestingly, charges that Fred Thompson was a light worker were harmful to his campaign. Go figure.

Everything found via Memeorandum.

6 Comments »

After speculating upon Hillary Clinton’s strategic thinking with respect to the Democratic nomination, James Taranto concludes (emphasis added):

To summarize, Mrs. Clinton maximizes her chances of becoming president if she (1) does enough damage to Obama to snatch the nomination away from him, (2) failing that, does enough damage to him to bring about his defeat in November, and (3) gets herself on the ticket, whether he wins in November or not.

Some will say Mrs. Clinton is being disloyal to her party if she undermines Obama’s chances of winning in November. But maybe she just practices a different kind of party loyalty. After all, if you can be a patriot while hoping your country loses a war, why can’t you be a loyal Democrat while hoping your party loses an election?

It is an interesting question.

1 Comment »

Luckily there’s a picture.

Is this man really going to be our next President? The only people who will be more disappointed than non-Obama supporters after election day in November will be the idiots who believe in Obamessiah’s changey changitude. And “yes” that is a unicorn in Obama’s frothy wake. God help us.

[HT: Glenn Reynolds]

16 Comments »

The leftosphere is up in arms over John McCain “lying” about Barack Obama’s stated intentions vis-a-vis Iran. The latest source of righteous outrage comes courtesy of a Joel Klein interview with McCain:

At a press conference here, I just asked John McCain about why he keeps talking about Obama’s alleged willingness to talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has no power over Iranian foreign policy, rather than Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who does. He said that Ahmadinejad is the guy who represents Iran in international forums like the United Nations, which is a fair point. When I followed with the observation that the Supreme Leader is, uh, the Supreme Leader, McCain responded that the “average American” thinks Ahmadinejad is the boss. Didn’t get a chance to follow up to that, but I would have asked, “But isn’t it your job to correct those sorts of mistaken impressions on the part of the American public?” Oh well.

That prompted such scintillating analysis as this from Matthew Yglesias:

It’s increasingly clear that John McCain intends to use his special relationship with the press to run a campaign based on relentlessly lying about his opponent

And this from “BJ” at Newshoggers:

The Iranian power structure is a byzantine beast at best, but the tthe guy at the top is Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, rather than the eminently (mis)quotable Ahmadinejad. Given how “serious” a threat McCain and his supporters all tell us Iran is, you would think such a fact might be an important one to learn.

The rest of the lefty commentary basically play off of these two themes of (a) Obama never said “Ahmadinejad” and (b) McCain’s so stupid he doesn’t know who really runs Iran.

Starting with theme (b) first, why does it matter which leader McCain names when the charge is that Obama wants to negotiate without precondition with Iran? Whether he talks to Ahmadinejad or Khamenei is pretty irrelevant to that charge, and focusing one’s attack on something so ridiculously semantic and capillary simply underscores how much the Obama campaign really does not want to deal with this issue. And that’s not even to mention that meeting with Khamenei without precondition does not make Obama out to be a foreign policy genius either (he’s “slightly less anti-semitic”? Seriously? That’s a defense?).

Secondly, those accusing McCain are piling up the crow to eat:

September 24, 2007, 2:05 PM

Obama: I Would Still Meet With Ahmadinejad
Posted by Brian Montopoli

Despite the controversy that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York City has triggered, Senator Barack Obama still vows to meet with rogue leaders if he is elected, reports CBS News’ Maria Gavrilovic.

“Nothing has changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries,” Obama told reporters at a press conference ….

Obama said he would not have invited Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University, but he believes in academic freedom. “They have the right to invite people to speak. As I said, it’s not a choice that I would have made but we don’t need to be fearful of the rantings of somebody like Ahmadinejad.” Obama says the United Nations provides an adequate forum for Ahmadinejad to speak.

Obama was asked if his statements about Ahmadinejad were contradictory – why would he meet with the Iranian leader as U.S. president but not invite to speak if he were the Columbia University president? “There are two different functions, as president of the United States, my job is to look out for the national security interests of this country,” Obama said.

Michael Goldfarb dug up the video and adds:

I can’t say I’m surprised that Time magazine and the Obama campaign managed to miss this clip which completely undermines their shared narrative. But now we have a new narrative: Obama intends to meet with Ali Khamenei, the man with the real power in Tehran, because even though Obama pledged to meet with Ahmadinejad, and said it was a “disgrace” that Bush had not, he never had any intention of meeting with Ahmadinejad, and McCain is a liar for saying different.

See also here for more confirmation that Obama did in fact say he would meet with Ahmadinejad.

As for the new Obama meme, that he’ll meet with Khamenei (but not that nutjob Ahmadinejad!), Goldfarb provides the relevant transcript of advisor Susan Rice speaking to Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: “How does Senator Obama defend that decision to meet without preconditions with a leader like Ahmadinejad?”

RICE: “Well, first of all, he said he’d meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn’t named who that leader will be. It may, in fact be that by the middle of next of year, Ahmadinejad is long gone.”

BLITZER: “Let’s be precise because when they criticize Barack Obama, not only John McCain but others, for suggesting that he would meet without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, who only last week on Israel’s 60th anniversary called Israel a ‘stinking corpse.’ The question that they ask is what is Barack Obama going to talk with him about?”

RICE: “Well, first of all as I said, it would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time – not necessarily Ahmadinejad.”

As his nomination becomes more likely, Obama’s supporters have twisted themselves into rhetorical knots attempted to explain away their candidate’s everchanging positions. In this case they have chose the stupidest of all tacts in declaring that it is McCain who is lying and doesn’t know what he’s talking about when, in fact, Obama has clearly stated what McCain said he did, and the attempted defense actually indelibly implants the fact that OBAMA WILL MEET WITH IRAN WITHOUT PRECONDITION! in the minds of the voters.

Quite possibly this could be one of the dumbest political moves ever made, and certainly some of the dumbest retorts I’ve ever seen. And yet, somehow Obama will still end up being president.

22 Comments »

That’s what I took from Michelle Obama’s stump speech anyway (HT: Jim Lindgren):

She tells the story of a ten-year-old girl she met in Newberry, S.C., before that state’s primary. “It was in a little beauty shop, and we were having a rally — it was me and a bunch of women and a couple of brothers,” she recalls. After the rally, the girl came up to her and said, with great seriousness, “Do you realize when your husband becomes the next president of the United States, it will be historical?”

Everybody laughs; what a cute thing for a child to say. But then Obama asked the little girl what that would mean for her. “It means that I can imagine anything for myself,” the girl said.

The crowd begins to applaud; they think they’re hearing a happy, inspiring story. But that’s not where Mrs. Obama is going.

“And then that little girl started to break down in tears,” she continues. “She sobbed so hard. She was crying big, huge tears. And I had to think, why is this little girl crying so hard? And I thought, you know what’s going on? This little old girl gets it.”

There’s some stuff about how frustrated we all are and bar raising as well (although I think she meant “goal post shifting”). Oh, and there’s a little girl in all of us — who will allegedly cry if Barack Obama isn’t elected. That may explain Barack’s bowling scores.

5 Comments »

I haven’t had much time to grace the pages of ASHC lately, but I was skimming through Memeorandum and just couldn’t resist saying something about this little screed:

Wright issue will haunt conservative media elite

By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor

Now that Sen. Barack Obama has denounced his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, many of his critics, especially those who call themselves conservative, are happy he has put the dashiki-wearing, American-criticizing former Marine in his place.

See, these same voices, many that are allegedly Christian, have reacted with glee by calling Wright a prophet of hate and a race baiter.

They hold themselves up to be so concerned about their fellow brother and sister, yet if you looked at their personal lives, I doubt you’d find many with African-American friends and associates (and I doubt their staffs are the most diverse in the world, but that’s another story).

But be careful what you ask for.

Martin goes on in this vein for the entire spleen-spewing piece, and basically warns conservatives that because they “gleefully” targeted Obama’s association with his (now former) pastor, they should expect the exact same treatment from liberals.

Because the article is so target-rich with fiskable material it’s difficult to say just which bit is more absurd than another, but Martin’s good-for-the-gander warning is no doubt top five. Particularly since it completely ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton pushed this issue as much as any “conservative,” that Obama’s mercurial explanations for his choice of pastor created much fodder for the press (and wasn’t well received by the voters), and that Wright himself kept the problem front and center. It also ignores the fact that liberals have been caterwauling about people like Hagee since McCain accepted his endorsement. In fact, Martin’s attempt to head his critics off at the pass completely undermines his point by tacitly acknowledging that liberals have already tried to tie the Hagee albatross around McCain’s neck:

Now that Wright has set the so-called standard for what isn’t acceptable for religious leaders, let’s see these same critics take their own kind to task for making absolutely outlandish comments.

But don’t stop there. Demand that candidates don’t seek counsel from them. Demand that Republican candidates not go to their churches and sit in their pews and accept their contributions. And if elected, make sure those same candidates don’t allow them access to the White House or halls of Congress. Turnabout is fair play, and that means guys like the Revs. Pat Robertson and John Hagee should not be sought out for their endorsements, and should be removed from any committees associated with a candidate or a political party.

Oh, I can’t wait to get the e-mails from folks who will say, “Yeah, but Obama was a member of the church.”

True, very true.

But if the marker is now saying anything unacceptable to the masses, then that should be the standard for any pastor: white, black, male, female, conservative or liberal. And any candidate, member or not.

I’ve read many of the columns and listened to the shows of these so-called conservative patriots, and few, if any, have said a word about conservative white pastors who have called for the overthrow of the government for not following Christian values (the late Francis Schaeffer, a little “g” God on the Religious Right), or who have called for the destruction of the Islamic religion of a number of Americans (Pastor Rod Parsley) and folks worldwide.

Martin’s analogy makes no sense, of course, which is why he simply waves his hand at the fact that Wright was Obama’s pastor for twenty-some years. That’s an inconvenient fact for his rant, so it’s mentioned without being addressed, and instead he tries to turn it into a racial issue. Martin is trying to set up the meme that Rev. Wright became an issue not because of his racist and anti-American utterings, but because he’s black. The problem, however, is that picking up an endorsement from a crazy, anti-Catholic preacher is just not the same as sitting in the church of a crazy, anti-American, white-hating, marxist-loving, Farrakhan-embracing preacher for over twenty years, not to mention personally choosing him as your spiritual mentor. The former says something about the state of politics for sure in that a candidate is essentially required to pick up such an endorsement in order to get the job. The latter says something about the candidate’s judgment and choice of company and nothing about the state of politics in general (although, I believe it does say something about being in politics in Chicago).

What’s really laughable about Martin’s, however, is his closing warning:

But to every politician, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican: Beware. The die has been cast. The repeated denunciations of Wright will now lead each and every single one of you to have your pastors’ oral and written words examined. If even one thing is said that can be construed as criticizing America or deemed hateful, then expect to see it on YouTube and replayed for millions to see. I suggest you go to your pastor now and say, “Please, watch what you say. I don’t want to have to denounce you on national television.”

To my media pals who are part of the conservative media elite, we’ll be watching. And listening. Let’s just see if you’re as willing to tear apart one of your own.

That’s like warning the seals that the sharks are out to get them. But Martin is a journalist so I guess something that’s been happening all along seems like news to him.

UPDATE: QandO links (thanks, McQ!) and in addition to displaying the many spelling errors in my post (now fixed) adds this admonition:

Watch for variations on this [racial] theme to continue to emerge from the left as the right continues to hammer the Wright/Obama connection.

McQ’s right that Obama backers will push this meme when convenient simply because of the general fear that people hold of being called a racist. On the one hand, it’s good that it has become so socially unacceptable to be a bigot, but on the other it is a shame how some people broadly employ the epithet, without regard for the consequences, simply to score cheap political points. In any case, expect the cry of racism to emerge whenever Wright is mentioned in the context of Obama’s lack of judgment.

6 Comments »

Hmmm, oil states controlling production to just barely meet 35.6% of supply so they can keep prices high. That’s bad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_OPEC_can_no_longer_be_a_cartel.html

“We’re going to go right at OPEC,” she said. “They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at,” she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.

“That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly,” she said, saying she’d use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.

But, wait till you see her plan for health care.

No Comments »

I agree with one of the commenters over on HotAir…

How DARE they call us Indianans. We are called Hoosiers for some gawd damn reason, so call us that when you’re insulting us.

I dare him to come here and say that. It would be a tossup if he were beaten or laughed at. Mostly we’d probably laugh at him, and maybe tar-n-feather him. That’s what he deserves.

UPDATE:

Alright, seems to have been either a hoax, or a dirty campaign trick.

But I will stand by my tar-n-feathering for anyone who got Bill Clinton elected… or nearly any career politician.

One has to ask though, who ultimately benefits from an anti-Clinton attack based on doctored footage?

Maybe this is actually a reverse attack. Now that the ad has been shown to be faked (and quickly,) Hillary will gain some sympathy, because obviously Obama and his crew are using dirty tricks to attack Hillary. So, maybe Clinton operatives put out such an attack, simply because it could be easily defused.

Or, most likely, an army of one decided that this was a good ploy. Occams razor and all…

No Comments »

Joe Tobacco is now a registered Democrat. Reading this I am thinking he is having some second thoughts.

No Comments »

John McCain gets my vote.

What exactly is the problem with the American health-care system?

The problem is not that Americans don’t have fine doctors, medical technology, and treatments. American medicine is the envy of the world. The problem is not that most Americans lack adequate health insurance. The vast majority of Americans have private insurance, and our government spends many billions each year to provide even more.

The biggest problem with the American health-care system is one of cost and access, and as a result tens of millions of individuals have no insurance. For example, we currently spend for about 2.4 trillion dollars a year on health care. A decade from now that number, under current projections, will double to over four trillion dollars.

The Obama and Clinton response to these problems is to promise universal coverage, whatever its cost, and the massive tax increases, mandates, and government regulation that it imposes. But in the end this will accomplish one thing only. We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly. We’ll have all the problems, and more, of private health care — rigid rules, long waits, and lack of choices, and risk degrading its great strengths and advantages including the innovation and life-saving technology that make American medicine the most advanced in the world.

I have a different approach. I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves. To that end, my reforms are built on the pursuit of three goals: paying only for quality medical care, having insurance choices that are diverse and responsive to individual needs, and restoring our sense of personal responsibility.

1 Comment »

In searching today about the post I put up last week, about Clinton’s ad about defense jobs lost to China, I found these juicy bits…

Bayh blasted federal policies that allowed the sale of the plant to the Chinese, saying that now the United States has to buy the magnets used in its smart bombs from China. The Pentagon bureaucrat who approved the sale ought to have lost his job, Bayh said, not the 225 people who worked at Magnaquench. “We ought to put a stop to it, and President Clinton will,” he said.

Trout said Indiana used to be the magnet capital of the United States, but that all magnet manufacturing plants have since been sold to foreign interests.

“If we had someone in the White House who was paying attention, maybe this wouldn’t have happened,” he said.

Clinton said America is losing its military advantage. To allow the sale of a company that makes magnets for use in smart bombs to the Chinese is “anything but smart,” she said.

Eee gads, the irony is just to good to be true.

Coverage of the issue…

Glad to see I wasn’t the only one to figure it out.

UPDATE:

OH, and it really does keep on rolling:

We might just want to ask ourselves, who was governor of Indiana at the time of the sale to China?

I know, I know, but they promised not to move the company out of the country, so that makes it OK to sell them the technology.

More coverage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/clinton-criticizing-closu_b_98972.html

http://thetmexperience.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/clinton-misremembers-again/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/24/193716/354/588/502845

And I got a letter in the local paper…

No Comments »

John McCain was one politician I admired greatly. While I still believe that the man is a true hero, and while I still do applaud some of what he does, the veil has been lifted from my eyes for one major reason: McCain-Feingold.

Although I, like so many others, wish that we lived in some la-la land where candidates never had to solicit campaign funds from anyone, and that we could miraculously learn about the candidates’ beliefs, abilities, character, experience, etc. for free, such is not the case. We live in the real world, and in the real world, we need money to accomplish this.

McCain-Feingold restricts our speech and the ability of candidates to communicate with the public. I have always found it to be straight out unconstitutional; perhaps one day the Supreme Court will strike it down.

Until that happens, however, all of us will have to labor under its inequities and burdens. Right now, McCain is finding himself ensnared in a web of his own making.

The McCain camp is teaming up with the Republican National Committee to tap into big, big donations from big, big donors – hoping to close the big, big money gap with Democrats.

Their effort to do so will involve some creative abuse of the campaign finance restrictions Mr. McCain authored a few years back. Whatever. The Arizonan may not yet fully understand that money is speech. At least he has come around to the view that more of the stuff is better when it comes to winning the presidency.

Whether this will ease Mr. McCain’s financial woes is yet unclear, but it’s arguably his smartest move, given the hand he’s dealt himself. Just imagine what might have happened if Mr. McCain had fought instead for simple transparency – and trusted Americans to decide how much to give and to whom. Free speech, via money, can be a liberating thing.

Part of me feels like saying, “Serves you right!” to Senator McCain. But, as I believe he would be a better choice for president than Obama or Clinton, I’ll simply hope that he and others learn from this ironic lesson.

1 Comment »

Finally, someone else is bringing up the same point I’ve been making about Obama’s remarks at that SanFran fundraiser…

For a man who clings to a racist black preacher as tightly as Obama has clung to Reverend Wright, it’s odd that he would speak of clinging to religion as a small-town phenomenon that grew out of bitterness. Someone might think that he’s projecting his own reason for clinging to religion onto white people, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here.

…

Likewise, I don’t know anybody who “clings to” religion out of bitterness. In fact, the people I know who are truly bitter invariably become atheists. It’s the people with faith and hope who cling to religion. Surely Obama knows this from his own experience and from the religious people in his life. Does he really think white people cling to religion for reasons so radically different from black people?

Or is he actually admitting that while he attends Rev. Wright’s church, Obama himself doesn’t actually believe in religion — he just knows that going to church is something a politician has to do? And Rev. Wright was his friend, so it might as well be his church? To explain away religious faith as, in effect, the “opiate of the people” — something you cling to because your life is so awful — is a position, not of a believer, but of the atheistic intellectual Left.

Read the rest as sci fi author Orson Scott Card deconstructs what Obama said, and what it implies. At least in his view.

2 Comments »

Here’s an ad some of you may not have seen. But now (wonder of wonders) since Indiana is a battleground state in the Democratic primary, it’s been getting plenty of air play during the local news programs.

Hillary Clinton:
Right here over 200 Hoosiers built parts that guided our military’s smart bombs to their targets.
They were good jobs, but now, they’re gone to China.
And now America’s defense relies on Chinese spare parts.
George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.
As your president, I will fight to keep good jobs here, and to turn this economy around.
I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message because American workers should build America’s defense.

Seems like a simple enough case, doesn’t it. Bush and the Republicans failing to do what she would do.

But wait till you here the kicker about this.
(more…)

10 Comments »

2 Comments »

Cross-posted to Registan.net.

The Air Force Times reports on a rather surprising gaffe from the foreign policy Commander-in-Chief-to-be:

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona may not have been paying the closest of attention last week during hearings on the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.

Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

“I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq.

Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said.

“I’ve been sort of focused on another task,” Petraeus said when pressed about whether more troops should be diverted to Afghanistan rather than Iraq.

McCain did not stay for the full Petraeus appearance before the armed services committee, so he might have missed that explanation.

I have another idea: how about, like President Bush, McCain has decided to punt any hard decisions to his future generals. While I dislike the politicized nature of General Petraeus, I also recognize that in a real way he was forced into that when President Bush made him the lynch pin of his Iraq gambit: everything would rely on “Davie” or whatever he was called in press conferences. And, unfortunately, should my fears be confirmed and Iraq slides off the precipice, it is Petraeus who will suffer the consequences for it now that politicians of the Right are ditching their responsibilities in the war they started.

At the hearings, Petraeus reiterated his stance that the larger strategic considerations of the GWOT are actually the President’s responsibility, and not his, as the military is controlled by civilians. As a politician who has based his entire career and now presidential bid on his foreign policy and military expertise, McCain really shouldn’t fumble such a topic. In fact, for him to say such a thing is deeply troubling: Petraeus is responsible for Iraq, not Afghanistan. An expert who spent his many years after Vietnam working with the military should know that. Petraeus hasn’t been read into the command-level briefings on Afghanistan, he doesn’t have the relationship with commanders within NATO and ISAF, and he doesn’t have the staff at ARCENT to know any more than we do what the situation is like in Afghanistan. How could Petraeus know that the needs of Afghanistan either do or do not outweigh the needs of Iraq?

As the man said: he’s been “sort of focused on another task.” That is, doing his job in Iraq.

Much like McCain’s curious inability to distinguish between Sunnis and Shiites 6.5 years into a cataclysmic battle as much about internal divisions within Islam as Islam’s relations with everyone else, this speaks to a much greater problem with the man who can’t talk domestic issues to save his life: even with the Armed services, the man is an empty suit. Unlike Clinton and Obama, he hasn’t yet come up with an idea, even a silly Obama-style one of unicorns and candy canes, of how to address the “Pashtun problem.” While the Democrats prominently feature plans of variously appalling quality for Afghanistan on their web pages, McCain cannot even be bothered to mention it apart from his vague rah-rah plans for Iraq—which doesn’t quite distinguish him from neophytes like Obama (and why does he note that we’re fighting a war in Afghanistan while not even offering a token “I want to win” about it?). When he does bother to mention the place in speeches, he makes obvious, galling errors. Any real look at his excuse for a strategy has to be gleaned from paragraphs here and there in speeches and articles.

So I guess it really is no wonder he’s punt his Afghanistan strategy to a theater one-star.

Argh. Does anyone else not feel like voting this year? (more…)

No Comments »

Lot’s of stuff to like here…

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for a repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) on Tuesday as part of his “pro-growth, pro-jobs tax agenda.”

…

If elected president, McCain said he would make it harder to raise taxes. “It should require a three-fifth-majority vote in Congress to raise taxes,” he said.

McCain also called for a “permanent and immediate reform of the estate tax.” He said he wants to exempt estates valued up to $10 million from taxation and cut the tax rate to 15 percent.

He also called for the enactment of “a new and simpler tax system that would give the American people a choice.”

“As president, I will propose an alternative tax system,” he said. If enacted, McCain’s plan potentially would increase the federal income tax exemptions for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000.

McCain said he wants “a simpler, a flatter, and a fair tax code” with the options of either paying under the current system or choosing from “a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction.”

…

The presidential candidate also proposed the enactment of a law that would lower the business income tax from 35 percent to 25 percent, although he was critical of “the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs.”

No Comments »

Given the discussion at this post about Obama’s condescension, I suggest Tom Maguire’s roundup of the coverage of Obama making the mistake of speaking his mind about the rubes who he needs to vote for him:

I can’t believe that in all those Harvard classes they never emphasize that you can’t tell the rubes what you really think of them. Surely they aren’t relying on the common sense of the elitist snobs passing through to figure that out themselves? Didn’t work!

For those not in the know, here is what he thinks, or at least wanted this audience to believe he thinks:

At issue are comments he made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last Sunday. He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

I really don’t have a problem with the guy, or, as McQ points out, that Obama’s claims of being some kind of “new” politician are a load of horse hockey. Marketing is the stuff of campaigning. I do have a problem with supporters who actually believe that load of BS.

Hmm, I do like this quote from Tom as well:

Bayh skips past the odd tension between Obama’s own opposition to free trade and his apparent belief that free trade opponents are embittered economic losers; maybe Barack opposes free trade on behalf of Michelle, who is struggling to get by on only $400,000 per year.

Heh, well so much for talking straight and holding a position from principle. Given his employment of Austan Goolsbee I think Obama is a free trader, he just doesn’t want us to know. Whether that should make one more likely to vote for him or not I have no idea. What is better? Wrong or insincere?

Update: McQ picks this theme up and goes a little deeper.

No Comments »

I have no idea who’s going to win the election this year, but as I attempt to handicap the race I’m drawn to the old saw that the person with whom most people would rather sit down at a local watering hole and knock back a few tall cold ones with will be the eventual winner.

Going back through the elections that I can remember, this bit of conventional wisdom rings true:

(1) Reagan vs. Carter — A movie star versus a moralistic, beta male. Not even a close call on this one.

(2) Reagan vs. Mondale — Ditto.

(3) Bush vs. Dukakis — Clearly, the guy who seemed like he’d look better in a tank was going to be the one you’d want to take Jaeger shots with. Dukakis made the mistake of proving who that was.

(4) Bush vs. Clinton — The guy who plays saxophone and has a reputation for womanizing is pretty much a lock here. And really, who wants to drink with their grandfather?

(5) Clinton vs. Dole — The grandfather rule applies again, even though Bob Dole’s wit would come close to making up for it.

(6) Gore vs. Bush — Even though Bush doesn’t drink anymore, I would rather hang out in a bar with him than Gore any day. Even so, Gore does have a good sense of humor, so he wouldn’t be all that bad. The American electorate seemed to agree that this was pretty much a push.

(7) Bush vs. Kerry — I can’t think of anything that would be fun to do with John Kerry. Enough said.

So, if the old saw is true, then who amongst the current class is the person who you’d most like to have a beer with? In my mind, that’s got to be Obama.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure that Clinton and McCain would be interesting to talk to over a few beers, but Obama just strikes me as the one who would be easiest to get along with in such a situation. He seems much more comfortable in his own skin than either of the others, he’s much younger, and he smokes. That’s bar material if you ask me.

John McCain would thrill you with stories, I’m sure. The guy really is a legend as far as I’m concerned, and there’s not a doubt in my mind that it would be a fascinating evening. But, the grandfather rule applies here as well. War stories can be riveting, but that’s not necessarily how I want to fill my evening out. Plus, McCain’s known to have a temper, and angry drunks are just no fun.

Hillary seems like she would be a total bore. The only way things would get interesting with her, is if she got tipsy enough to start dishing dirt. But she’s entirely too controlled and controlling to let that happen, so I’d expect it would be a pretty boring outing.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that, if the old saw really does work , and Obama can survive the primary season, then he will be our next president.

Agree? Disagree?

18 Comments »

Some people are hoping to hoist John McCain on his own campaign finance petard. As satisfying as it would be to see the Senator receive a healthy dose of his bitter medicine, however, the complaints filed against him with the FEC will almost assuredly fail.

In the blogosphere it is the most recent complaint filed by Jane Hamsher, et al. that is getting the most attention.

Yesterday, on behalf of a large number of progressive bloggers and activists, Jane went to the FEC and filed an official complaint against John McCain’s alleged campaign finance violations. We’ve been asking a lot of questions about this, and the answers have been less than forthcoming. So, instead of just sitting here and stewing about yet another GOP ethical problem, we decided to put our action where our concerns were.

[...]

As Markos of DailyKos pointed out in joining the complaint, “John McCain has officially blown past campaign spending limits mandated by his original acceptance of public campaign funding. While he has signaled his intent to withdraw from such financing, that has been hindered by the fact that he used the promise of public funding to secure a campaign loan.” Guess the campaign finance laws only apply when they aren’t inconvenient for McCain’s ambitions.

In truth, Hamsher’s complaint is a just piggy-backing off of the DNC’s complaint filed on February 25, 2008. Unsurprisingly, the DNC complaint is much more substantive:

In order to receive matching funds, John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC to accept spending limits and to abide by the conditions of receiving those funds. The FEC makes clear that any request to withdraw from the agreement must be granted by the FEC. In other words, McCain can’t just unilaterally withdraw. FEC Chairman David Mason made this clear in a letter to McCain advising him that the law requires the FEC to approve his request to withdraw from his contract.

According to past Commission rulings, the McCain campaign would not be allowed to withdraw from matching funds because it has already violated a key condition for being let out of the program – pledging matching funds as collateral for a private loan. McCain obtained a $4 million line of credit — drew $2,971,697 from it – and documents make clear that the promise of public financing was used to secure his loan.

The gravamen of both complaints is that McCain’s attempt to withdraw from the matching funds program, and thus to spend more than allowed thereunder, is a dead letter because he pledged the certification for federal matching funds as security for private financing. According to the FEC, withdrawal from the program will normally be automatically granted “prior to the payment date for any such funds to such candidate or his or her committee upon receipt of a written request signed by the candidate, provided that the certification of funds has not been pledged as security for private financing.” However, the loan documents tell a different story.

In November of 2007, McCain took out a $3 Million line of credit with Fidelity & Trust Bank of Maryland (see DNC Comp., Ex. 4, pdf p.18). As a part of that loan, McCain also executed a Security Agreement pledging all of his assets to the Bank as collateral, with the explicit exception of:

any certifications of matching fund eligibility currently possessed by [McCain] or obtained before January 1, 2008 and the right of John McCain 2008, Inc. and John McCain to receive payment under these certifications [which] are not collateral under the Commercial Security Agreement for this Loan.

(see pdf p.21). Such disclaiming language appears throughout the loan documents, making it abundantly clear that the Bank had no security interest in or to the certifications or any matching funds.

The entire loan was later modified, on December 17, 2007, raising the limit on the amount that could be borrowed to $4 Million. The modification also altered the language concerning the matching fund certifications. In particular, the parties had anticipated all along that McCain may withdraw from the program, and the documents addressed the scenario of McCain then losing the New Hampshire primary afterwards. In that case, McCain would then reapply (i.e. re-certify) for federal matching funds, and then pledge a security interest therein to the Bank. The Loan modification, changed the re-certification promise to include the next primary McCain ran in after withdrawal. (see pdf p.35).

In addition, the modification revised the “STATUS OF CURRENTLY HELD CERTIFICATIONS OF MATCHING FUNDS” to read:

[McCain] and Lender agree that any certifications of matching funds eligibility now held by [McCain], and the right of [McCain] to receive payment under such certifications, are not (and shall not be) collateral for the Loan.

At this point it should be painfully clear that neither McCain nor the Bank think that there is a security interest in the certification.

The DNC attempts to argue that despite the clear and unambiguous language to the contrary, McCain did in fact pledge a security interest in the certification … with respect to future matching funds! The DNC basically makes three arguments in order to prove its case:

(1) McCain’s promise to re-certify for matching funds in the event that he loses a primary after withdrawing from the program, and to grant a security interest in such certification and matching funds to the Bank, creates “a present encumbrance, however conditional, of the Campaign’s future interest in and entitlement to matching funds ….”

This argument is fallacious on its face. The FEC policy of automatically granting a request to withdraw from the program provided that the currently held certification has not been pledged does not have anything to do with future certifications. It only deals with a certification presently held by a candidate. That McCain promised to grant a security interest to future certifications, upon certain other conditions being met, is not material to the current certifications. Indeed, both the Bank and McCain understood that a security interest in the certification would prevent McCain from withdrawing, which is why they drafted the documents the way that they did.

Furthermore, even accepting the DNC’s argument as valid, it is self-defeating. If the Bank’s has a present security interest in future certifications, and that security interest prevents McCain’s withdrawal from the program, then the conditions precedent to the Bank perfecting it’s security interest (i.e. withdrawal and re-certification) cannot be met. Ergo, it has no security interest.

(2) McCain agreed to abide by, and to stay within, “overall or state spending limits set forth in the Federal Matching Funds Program,” regardless of whether the campaign was still participating in the program or not. The DNC reasons that these provisions are for the sole purpose of ensuring that McCain can receive future matching funds, and that the Bank can take a security interest therein.

The DNC is probably right about that, but so what? It still doesn’t create any security interest since not only was any such interest specifically and repeatedly disclaimed, the only possible interest the Bank could have would be in funds received after McCain withdrew from the program and then re-certified. At the time McCain attempted to withdraw from the program, the certification his campaign held was not encumbered. End of story.

(3) While the description of collateral excludes current certifications held by McCain, it implicitly includes “rights to receive matching funds, i.e., that come into existence, after January 1, 2008, based on matchable contributions received and presentations in good order made after that date … The modification makes clear again that, although the initial amount certified in December 2007 may not be part of the Collateral, the Collateral will include future amounts of matching funds paid, based on future submissions, even though based on the initial certification of eligibility.”

Although this argument is also wrong, it is certainly clever. If we assume that the specific exclusions of McCain’s certification found throughout the documents are simply ineffective, and that the limits on the Bank’s interest in such certification and the rights to any matching funds is only the good up to date of the modification, then the DNC’s argument that any certified funds after that date are in fact part of the Collateral might actually make some sense. However, there are a couple of problems with it.

First of all, there is only one certification, and that is the initial one made by McCain in August of 2007. When McCain withdrew from the program on February 7, 2008, it is implied that the initial amount certified had not been amended, and that no further funds had been certified for matching. Accordingly, once again there has not been a present security interest created, nor is it even clear that a future interest was anticipated by the Bank prior to McCain’s withdrawal and re-certification.

Secondly, looking at Exhibit 2 of the DNC Complaint we see that as of December 20, 2007 John McCain had certified $5,812,197.35 (also found here). However, when we look at the FEC data for 2008 Presidential Matching Fund Submissions, there are no new funds submitted for certification since the December 20 press release. If we accept the DNC’s argument as correct, and McCain has not in fact submitted any new funds for certification since December 20, 2007, then the Bank still does not have any security interest in the certification or matching funds.

Accordingly, the DNC’s Complaint will most likely be denied since the Bank quite clearly excluded McCain’s certification and any matching funds from becoming security for the loan. If McCain actually did submit funds after December 20, 2007 for certification, there is a colorable argument that such certified funds are pledged as collateral, but given the totality of the documents that’s not a very winnable position.

Regarding Hamsher’s Complaint, it tries to make the case that because the FEC has not yet granted McCain’s request that he withdraw from the program, that he is still bound by the spending caps, and that he has violated those caps. Even if she is right about McCain’s campaign exceeding the spending limits, McCain would certainly have a reasonable expectation to believe that he will eventually be released from the program, given that he complies with the provisos for an automatic grant of his request. Moreover, it would not be reasonable to expect to him to await the FEC’s decision on the matter when the commission doesn’t even have enough members to do so:

The only trouble is, the commission hasn’t got a quorum… and it won’t, until the Senate breaks a deadlock on approving nominees.

The FEC can’t deliver any decision yet, and prior opinions indicate clearly that McCain will be released. Why should he be restricted to the spending caps?

Furthermore, and this goes to all the arguments above, it’s not even clear that the FEC has the power to prevent McCain from withdrawing in the first place. The FEC thinks that the certification process creates a binding contract between the candidate and the commission, but it doesn’t look like any enforceable contract I’ve ever seen. There is no consideration, and there is no mutuality of obligation. A candidate can apply for the funds, but he can’t be required to actually take them, can he? If he were to take the funds, then there is probably an enforceable contract, but prior to that time the candidate is merely trying to establish eligibility. Imagine going to a bank and applying for a loan, and then having the bank sue you because your credit score does not allow you to qualify for a loan. That’s pretty much the argument being made.

So that’s the DNC and Hamsher case against McCain in a nut shell. He accepted a loan from a bank, specifically excluding as collateral any certification for matching federal funds, except that he secretly really did! Oh, and because the FEC hasn’t granted McCain permission to not accept federal matching funds, then he is still bound by the spending caps, and he’s violated those with reckless abandon. Needless to say, I don’t think either complaint will be successful.

6 Comments »

The inestimable Oliver Kamm provides a glimpse at the value our British friends find in a potential John McCain presidency:

Two points about McCain stand out. He’s not a conservative and he’s been right all along about Iraq. These are the reasons I favoured him from the outset for the Republican nomination. Indeed McCain has been more right than anyone on Iraq. He’s stuck to that position despite his conviction, (expressed in Seattle just over a year ago) that, like Tony Blair, he might have sacrificed his political career for Iraq. In The Sunday Times today, Sarah Baxter reports a gracious remark of McCain that “I do miss Tony Blair”.

Oliver quotes this exchange as being particularly noteworthy (my emphasis):

[INTERVIEWER]: In all of the polls, the majority of the American people say it’s time to begin withdrawing the troops. The House is on record saying it’s time to begin withdrawing. The Senate now on the record. You say more troops are the answer. Why?

MCCAIN: Well, I think the surge is a new strategy. It’s not just more troops. It’s a new strategy. The second thing is, polls are interesting. If you ask the American people, “If we can show you a path to success, a way that you can have a government that’s functioning and the military situation under control,” of course they’ll support it. They’re frustrated, and understandably, by the lack of progress in Iraq. And that’s because of the terrible mismanagement of this war that went on for nearly four years.

In addition to opining that McCain should opt for Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate over Mike Huckabee, Oliver concludes:

When I had a rather less elevated exchange last week with Tony Benn, he kept on about the anti-war views of the British people. But the British electorate, like the American electorate, is not opposed to war: it’s opposed to defeat.

Even as I agree that both the Brits and Americans would be more supportive of the war if a clear path to “victory” were established, I have to wonder if the Brits’ would be as enamored of McCain if he was more of a true conservative. McCain’s more Continental views with respect to social issues and the government’s role in them, and his unwavering stance on the proper manner for prosecuting the war in Iraq, combine to present to the Brits a politician they apparently feel comfortable with. However, if McCain did hold more conservative positions on topics such as immigration, global warming, and stem cell research, would the Brits be as sanguine about his prescription for Iraq? Somehow I doubt it.

Indeed, the comments at Oliver’s place suggest as much:

I have to disagree with you, Oliver, when you say that McCain is “not a conservative.” He’s definitely a conservative, just not a bigot (usually the two are interchangeable in American politics); McCain is to the right on every issue you cite: immigration, environment, science (he recently promoted the teaching of creation alongside evolution in Arizona schools), and same-sex rights. He also leans to the right on taxation, direct corporate intervention in legislation, and the place of religion in public life. Moreover on each of these issues McCain has compromised or entirely sold out his “maverick” positions in order to attain the nomination, and it is unlikely that once in office he would be able to renege on the promises he has made to far-right groups during the campaign, and definitely not if he wanted to seek a second term. Certainly he is not a far-right figure, but considering that even the Democrats are closer to the British Conservative party than to Labor, that makes McCain rather further right than you suggest. McCain may well be correct (or more correct) than Clinton or Obama on Iraq, but he would be a disaster for America’s domestic politics, which might well be more important in the long term for the fight against terrorism and al-Qaeda.

In other words, McCain’s domestic policy positions are much more important than his stance on Iraq. Brits who find him less than stellar in that regard, aren’t going to be very persuaded that (a) the war in Iraq is susceptible to any positive outcome, or (b) that John McCain has the proper policy for it, or (c) that his Iraq war policy is at all beneficial. And I think that holds true on this side of the pond as well. Many on the American left would agree, I think, that however left of the GOP base McCain may be, he’s still the wrong choice on domestic issues. There is almost no position he can take on such issues that will change their mind on the war.

To be sure, Roland Dodds (also found in the comments) argued back in January that the left should support McCain precisely because he stuck to his guns on the “surge”:

I have made it clear on this blog and in conversations with friends and family that my vote will go to the candidate that supports the fight for democracy in Iraq, and will not abandon the Kurds to be slaughtered yet again. I can forgive some of McCain’s decisions throughout his career and the way he has pandered to religious conservatives in recent months, and I can effortlessly when I consider what democracy promotion will look like if someone like Obama or Edwards is elected.

The War on Terror and the fight for liberal democracy may be nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan to some on the left, but it means something to me. If we surrender freedom to the forces of theocracy and totalitarianism overseas, we do not deserve to call ourselves democrats at home. If our concept of democracy ends at our borders, like Ron Paul supporters would have us believe, then we have sacrificed our comrades overseas for juvenile self assuredness and sciolism.

Both Oliver and Roland make a case for the left to get behind McCain’s campaign based his plan for victory in Iraq, which they see as the correct one. However, the presumption that victory is important to the left is misplaced. Achieving a stable democratic regime in the heart of the Middle East is never going to be acceptable to a good deal of the left who, even if they begrudgingly granted that such an accomplishment would count as a “victory”, tend to consider it to be little more than encouragement for future foreign excursions. Even more troubling for them is the fact that America will have avoided its much deserved comeuppance for its domineering ways. A victory in Iraq translates in to ever more unchecked American imperialism, which the left simply cannot abide.

In my humble opinion, until voices akin to those of Roland and Oliver (and Hitchens) find more purchase amongst the left, anybody and anything that trips up America will be applauded, and any person who speaks up against America will be feted as a hero. John McCain, therefore, may stand out to some on the left as one who can fulfill the role of spreading democracy (and through democracy, peace), and thus as someone whom they can get behind. But I would not expect the left as a whole (or even a large part) to embrace the Senator for these views, regardless of how liberal he may be on social issues. At least not until a majority of them can also embrace American virtues such as free enterprise, self-determination and individualism, which virtues are antithetical to governance for the “common good.” For so long as the needs of government are placed above the needs of the governed, victory for America in foreign lands will be viewed through the prism of the “common good.”

10 Comments »

Ever since John McCain effectively wrapped up his party’s nomination, I’ve been thinking that it might not be such a great thing for the Republican ticket. Because Obama and Hillary are still battling it out for the Democrat nomination, and will continue to do so all the way to the convention in August, they are maintaining extremely high profiles. McCain, on the other hand, has made little news for a couple of weeks now (at least, none that was positive), and it’s hard to see how that will change any time soon. In addition, the rather lopsided voter turnout in favor of Democrats during this primary season, is an ominous sign for Republicans. From now until the respective conventions, it seems pretty likely that McCain will be taking a back seat to the Obama & Hillary show, something that will greatly affect his campaign’s momentum, and may hurt his chances in the Fall.

On the Democrat side, there may be some mixed blessings as well. Hillary has been pushing Michigan and Florida to redo their primaries so that their delegates will be counted in Denver. Currently discussions are being held to decide how such do-overs might be accomplished (HT: HuffPo):

The media is abuzz with stories on how to resolve the impasse over how — or even whether — to give the Michigan and Florida delegations seats and votes at the summer nominating convention, after the national party banned them for moving up their state primaries. And there seem to be as many possible solutions as there are interested parties.

“But though the states, the party and the candidates have all suggested that they have no choice but to find a solution and that they are open to another round of voting, much remains to be settled,” wrote John Broder in Friday’s New York Times. “Among the issues are what kind of contests to hold, when to hold them, how to allocate the delegates and, critically, who picks up the multimillion-dollar tab in each state.”

Some solutions to the money problems are being proposed by Hillary supporters:

The Michigan Democratic Party says it is happy to hear that Govs. Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania have pledged to help raise millions of dollars to stage new primaries in Michigan and Florida.

The governors, both supporters of Hillary Clinton, said Sunday that they would be willing to raise half of the $30 million it would take to give voters in the two states a chance to choose between Clinton and her rival Barack Obama.

Michigan’s Governor proposed holding “firehouse primaries”:

Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Thursday she envisions a do-over Democratic presidential contest in Michigan on a Saturday in June, with somebody other than the state’s taxpayers picking up the tab.

The governor, in an interview with The Detroit News, referred to the contest as a “firehouse primary” — more expansive than a party caucus but not a full-blown affair like a traditional, state-financed primary. People would have to declare themselves Democrats in order to participate, and the contest would be run by the Democratic Party, not the state.

And Florida Senator Bill Nelson is pushing for a mail-in vote:

Democratic Party officials here are close to completing a draft plan for a new mail-in primary that would take place by early June, a proposal that seeks to give Florida delegates a role in the party’s presidential contest, several people involved in the discussions said Tuesday.

A spokesman for Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat who has been pushing for a mail-in contest, said Mr. Nelson expected the Florida Democratic Party to finalize details of the complex plan as soon as Wednesday.

Whatever the method, a re-vote appears to be inevitable at this point. But is that really a good thing for Hillary? First of all, because of the proportional system used by Democrats to divvy up delegates, the eventual outcome of these do-overs probably won’t make any real difference to the relative standings of the candidates. Obama will probably continue to hold a lead in the overall count, although Hillary could narrow that gap. Either way, neither can win enough delegates to seal up the nomination, and it will be the superdelegates who will be the deciding factor at the convention.

But what will Hillary do if she loses this time around? Obama didn’t campaign in either state, and wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. He also didn’t have the momentum that he has now. If his position as the (statistical) front-runner causes voters to switch their allegiances, Hillary could find herself even farther behind, and with even less of a claim to being the “national candidate.”

And consider the fact that, despite not running, Obama still picked up 33% of the votes in Florida (Clinton 50%; Edwards 14%), and in Michigan, where Obama wasn’t even a choice, Hillary only managed to pick up 55% of the vote with Undecided coming in a strong second at 40%. IN a one-on-one race between just Hillary and Obama, it’s not at all certain that Hillary can pull of the wins, which she desperately needs if she wants to make a serious case for her candidacy come August.

So it’s mixed blessings all around, and the only clear winner appears to be Obama. Not only his getting the benefit of the national spotlight, he may be in a position to steal one or two states from Hillary, and even if he fails in that endeavor it doesn’t hurt him.

UPDATE: For another take on the effects of the long, drawn-out Democratic Primary, see McQ:

As the two contenders for the nomination batter and bruise each other in the coming weeks, it appears that more and more supporters of one candidate will find the other candidate an unacceptable alternative if their’s loses. And that is a huge boon for John McCain, who a surprising number on the left find to be an acceptable Republican.

2 Comments »

The inscrutable and vainglorious Boi from Brazil weighs in to explain why Republicans find Obama’s candidacy “scary”:

Conservatives love to claim that Obama supporters have excess reverence for their candidate and see him as some sort of transcendent messiah figure. There is a small minority of Obama supporters — as is true for most candidates and political movements — who probably expect more from Obama than it is healthy to expect from political leaders generally.

But listening to this objection from the right-wing movement is the ultimate irony. There has not been a political figure in a long, long time who was revered, worshiped and transformed into a grotesque Icon of Transcendent Greatness the way the Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush, has been. For years and years, the Right sustained itself as little more than a glorified Cult of Personality around the Great, Conquering War Hero.

Greenwald goes on to detail what he supposes is evidence of George Bush’s cult of personality, consisting entirely of hagiographies written about the President by conservatives, and remarks from politicians. That there are Bush’ophiles in the Republican Party is no big surprise, nor particularly indicative of anything other than party loyalty to a beleaguered President. That Greenwald thinks that is commensurate with a video supporting Obama’s candidacy by having celebrities chant the man’s name is more than silly. Indeed, the Puppet-master’s analysis has all the depth and weight of a ratty old sock, worn thin at the heel and sporting massive holes. Rick Moran makes this abundantly clear:

For one so hysterically inclined to exaggerate, to denigrate, to posit the most outrageously ignorant motivations for conservative actions, our man Mr. Ellison simply lacks the ability to evaluate anything in an adult manner. Instead, he reminds me of a teenage girl in the way he dramatizes the most insignificant events and statements from conservatives as sinister and evil. A true drama queen of the left, he is incapable of the kind of balanced, nuanced judgement ascribed to most grown ups who write about politics and politicians.

Lambchop cannot tell the difference between political hyperbole as given by politicians above and the raw, emotional, slavish, worshipful, and fervent idolatry that millions of Obama supporters demonstrate on a regular basis. They can’t tell you why they are for him. They can’t tell you why they faint and weep in his presence. They can’t tell you why they believe he can “change the world” when he can’t even change the politics of Chicago.

Rick cites a Political Punch entry quoting an Obama supporter:

Obama supporter Kathleen Geier writes that she’s “getting increasingly weirded out by some of Obama’s supporters. On listservs I’m on, some people who should know better – hard-bitten, not-so-young cynics, even – are gushing about Barack…

Describing various encounters with Obama supporters, she writes, “Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of ‘coming to Obama’ in the same way born-again Christians talk about ‘coming to Jesus.’…So I say, we should all get a grip, stop all this unseemly mooning over Barack, see him and the political landscape he is a part of in a cooler, clearer, and more realistic light, and get to work.”

Joe Klein, no Republican hack, is also quoted in the Political Punch piece:

Joe Klein, writing at Time, notes “something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism” he sees in Obama’s Super Tuesday speech.

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” Obama said. “This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It’s different not because of me. It’s different because of you.”

Says Klein: “That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is. “

I actually disagree with Klein that Obama has not put any substance on the table, but he is correct that the fervency of the Illinois Senator’s support is not derived from his policies, but from a visceral reaction to his candidacy.

Rick succinctly differentiates between Obama supporters and Bush-bots:

No one has ever accused George Bush of being a rock star. No one has ever said that Bush causes the hearts of women to palpitate uncontrollably thus causing them to pass out.

And yet Lambchop, in what can only be described as one of his more desperate leaps of illogic, tries to assign equal value to the Obama phenomena and the small number of Bush-bots who I’ll bet never thought any impure thoughts about George.

No Comments »

Two Messiahs. One Religion. McQ considers how this might become a problem for the Democratic Party:

There is indeed a faction on the left who want a Gore presidency badly. And for a variety of reasons, one of which, of course, has to do with global warming and their belief that we’re on an irreversible road to ruin unless we do something expensive and do it now. Al Gore would facilitate that. He’d also rescue the Democratic party from itself.

The only problem is you can’t have two messiahs in the same religion.

Heh.

I’d be all for Al Gore to show up at the Democrat Convention, provided that there was real, three-way Highlander meets South Park showdown (complete with Obama singing “Blame Canada“). Heck, I’d GO to the convention to see that.

No Comments »

The press has begun to train its fire on Obama. Howard Kurtz takes notice.

No Comments »

“Why are the letters ‘NIG’ on the child’s pajamas?”

Asks a commenter — “Tom” — on my post about the new Hillary Clinton commercial, the one that shows several children sleeping and then Clinton taking a national security phone call in the middle of the night. You can see the commercial at the link, and the pajamas in question are on display during seconds 11 and 12. On pausing, staring, and thinking, I believe these are pajamas that say “good night” all over them, but the letters “NIG” are set apart by a fold in the fabric.

Althouse is right to draw comparisons to the infamous “RATS” commercial featured in the the Bush v. Gore election (as she does later in the post), and it is interesting that the MSM does not seem to treat the two scandals with any parity. But I think that where the “RATS” was pretty obviously intentional, the “NIG” is no more than conspiracy theory fodder.

Frankly, I think that Jimmie has the best answer:

My first observation is that Hillary Clinton isn’t just racist, she’s predjudiced against Neanderthals, too. In the same frames where the alleged “NIG” appears, you can clearly see the word “OG” upsidedown above it. It’s reinforced by another “O” before the upsidedown “G”. What does that tell you?

Well, obviously Hillary Clinton thinks Barak Obama is a primitive cavedweller, too. How else could you possibly construe the careful placement of those three letters? Sure, they could have dressed the kid in Captain Caveman pajamas, but that wouldn’t have been subtle enough.

Ah, but there’s more! At the 20-second mark, the lines that converge on the sleeping child’s head clearly form the letter “V”. And on the blanket you can plainly count four dark stripes. Hmmm….V four…AHA! “V for….Vendetta!” Is Hillary Clinton saying that the black man would bring us to the brink of a police state with his black and primitive ways? And that he would focus his cruelty on the heads of our children? Well, of course she is. What other explanation could there be.

For the irony-impaired, Jimmie is being very, very (very) facetious.

Patterico finds little ado here as well:

This is, of course, exceedingly silly. The only interesting question is whether Big Media will run with it or not. The answer: possibly. Since it hurts Hillary and helps the Messiah, why not?

Once the subliminal craziness starts, my friends, it never stops. I am now receiving e-mails detailing alleged Jewish references as well:

Opening shot: light allegedly resembles Star of David.

:04 — six-pointed stars on the girl’s pajamas.

:19 — design of sheets resembles a tallit or an Israel flag.

A blue and white tinge to the opening scenes supposedly references the blue and white flag of Israel.

Once you go looking for subliminal messages, you’ll see them everywhere. But it’s fun to discuss.

As per usual, Tom Maguire finds gold where others have failed to look:

I can’t wait to see the nuanced responses from the media and the Clinton and Obama sides if/when they tackle this. However, there is no Republican involved and the topic is racially charged, so I predict a Move On moment.

Let’s just be grateful this didn’t happen in an ad run by McCain, or sidewalks would be unsafe as libs leapt from tall buildings and psychologists lined up to explain that media professionals don’t make mistakes like this.

Unfortunately, it’s only March 1st. We have nearly seven months before the Republican and Democratic tickets are set. If it’s this looney now, how bad will it be this summer when we’re mired in the familiar “slow news” doldrums? On the bright side, the media may wear itself out before the Fall, and have nothing left to offer for their late October surprise.

Ugh …

Longest. Campaign. Season. Ever.

No Comments »

While scanning across Instapundit today I came across this (my emphasis)

“When Hillary tells you that she has lots of experience, she doesn’t really tell you what the experience is, but you’re supposed to imagine what it must have been. She must have been sitting in the Situation Room when the Joint Chiefs of Staff were making their judgments about how to proceed in Iraq and elsewhere. . . . she’s talking about sleeping with the president for eight years as if that’s prepared her to run the country.”

I hate to be catty, but from what I understand, she doesn’t even have that.

No Comments »

All that Pejman has to say is correct. Ignore at your own peril.

And the fat lady is already belting out her arias.

No Comments »

Multiple times I have lauded the exceptional blog Booker Rising, masterfully managed by my friend Shay Riley. If you are looking for a wealth of information about the black community, a wide variety of viewpoints, articles and comments on related issues, then Booker Rising is a must-stop for you.

Shay has a feature called “Quote of the Day.” National leaders, celebrities, politicians and more are quoted here.

Today, however, Shay has a very special guest. Anyone doubt that this lady has wisdom beyond her years?

“I think the next president should lower taxes so people have more money to buy food and stuff, know what they’re doing, and give me liberty or give me death! Mommy likes John McCain, and voted for him [in the Illinois primary earlier this month] so I guess I would vote for McCain. I think Barack Obama looks fine. That woman [Sen. Hillary Clinton] gets on my nerves because she is always crying.”

No Comments »