The National Scold

Analysis: Dennis is at it again

woodyear72@gmail.com — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:00:00 +0000

He's at it again. Dennis Kucinich (D-iminutive) has once more introduced an article of impeachment against the president. Back in June, Kucinich claimed 35 counts of impeachable offenses against George W. Bush. They soon died in the House Judiciary Committee. This past Thursday however, The Littlest Congressman simplified and introduced one article, entitled "Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq."

The Left's desire for righteous payback is understandable. Bush came to power in 2000 illegitimately and held on to power in 2004 through vile means. During his tenure, Bush has endangered national security, executed a poorly planed, unneeded war and squandered America's world standing. Yes, this is the worst presidency in over a hundred years. Still, it is a strategic error to pursue impeachment, even symbolically. The Cleveland Elf is hurting the Democrats and their chances of undoing Bush's catastrophic legacy.

First and foremost -- it won't work. There is no chance the president is going to be impeached, let alone convicted in the Senate. If Liberals ever wonder why they, or figures like Kucinich are not taken seriously, this is it. They are not acting seriously; tilting at the impeachment windmill is inherently not serious. As Bismark, among others said, "politics is the art of the possible."

This sort of do-nothing showmanship and deadlock is exactly what people don't like about Congress. Bear in mind, Congress is doing about as poorly in approval polls as President Bush. Kucinich is doing nothing to improve this image of not doing anything, but he does help tie it to the Democrats. Indeed, the only reason why this is not hurting the Democrats more is that not enough people take people like him seriously.

The Democrats were given Congress in 2006 because the country had enough of Republican incompetence. The American people are generally not political savvy, but they are forward looking. "Attempted a snowball's-chance-in-hell to impeach Bush" is not a winning answer to "What have you done for me lately?"

The effort is especially futile when the president has only six months left in office. It would be a little like expelling a student on the last day of school. The electorate is far more interested in who will replace Bush than how to prosecute him. This is true even abroad; remarkably low numbers of protesters took to the streets during the lame duck's farewell tour of Europe.

Recriminations, even well-deserved ones, are looking to the past, not the future. The future -- that's where the votes are.

Speaking of the past, take a look at the last time a president was impeached. The Republicans gained very little from their attempt to unseat Bill Clinton. While Clinton was not actually impeached until early 1999, it was clear that was where Congress was headed during the November 1998 midterm elections. It was a major issue in the elections.

The threat of impeachment and the focus on "getting" the president, rather than actually doing something, cost the Republicans. Instead of posting the expected gains in both houses, the Republicans lost. Yes, it resulted in a total backlash against the Republicans.

The smartest move Nancy Pelosi made as Speaker of the House was before she actually took the office -- it was to take impeachment off the table. It neutralized it as a Republican campaign issue. Justified or not, it would have let the Republicans paint Democrats as crazy Communists who want to arrest the president. If the Democrats truly believed there is enough popular support to impeach Bush, they would do it. The support simply is not there. Outside of chatter on the Internet, that is.

John McCain would love to talk about impeachment instead of the economy. He would also love for Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to talk about impeachment instead of the conservative issues they differ from McCain on. He would also love for Barack Obama to talk about impeachment, where his lack of support would enrage the petulant Left and not convince the Right.

You want to undo the last eight years? Let the subject of debate be what Obama wants to talk about.

Daily Scold: I want to cut his tenders off!

woodyear72@gmail.com — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:50:00 +0000

I'm sure you've all heard this by now, but those intrepid journalistic sneaksters at Fox News caught a snippet of conversation between the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Reid Tuckson, a black executive with the United Health Group. The two men were preparing to go on air for an episode of The O'Reilly Factor. Jackson, who whispers the entire inflammatory comment, apparently thought his microphone was off. He whispers to Tuckson, "Barack ... he's been talking down to black people. I wanna cut his nuts off."

The good Reverend was evidently referring to remarks Obama made around Father's Day, remarks stating that fathers (implying black fathers) need to take more personal responsibility in their children's development. After all, Obama's black father went AWOL on his white mother after he was born.

Anyway, the Rev. Jackson seems to believe this is somehow not being fair to black fathers, or black people in general. Well, I call B.S. on that. Amusingly enough, so does the Rev. Jackson's son, who issued a statement soon after Fox released the tape: "I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric." Ouch.

Upon watching this play out on the evening news, my own father remarked, "This just shows Jesse Jackson is obsolete."

Well, it surely does. What's really surprising is that this flap is arguably a good thing for Obama's campaign, an argument that MSNBC's First Read blog makes this morning. The logic goes as thus -- this just shows Obama isn't one of those crazy radical black people, you know, the kind of black person that's secretly a Manchurian candidate for the Black Panthers!

I suppose this does show there's no particular love lost between the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton type of black leaders and Barack Obama, which I suppose is good for Obama when it comes to convincing white people that he's not out to advance the notorious "black agenda."

Why I am doing all this supposing, you ask? Well, I would venture to suppose I'm feeling a little disappointed all this is necessary to convince some white people that Obama isn't a radical. I mean, at worst or best he's just a conventional liberal Democrat with a unique bio and good charisma. It makes you think about how easily people allow their stereotypes to overrun their logical faculties. Let's just remember and scold some other amusing logical jumps that some white people have made about Obama:

1.) OMG WTF THIS GUY HAD HIS BACK TURNED DURING THE PLEDGE!1!11! NON-PATRIOT!
He's a politician. Do you have any idea how many times he has to say the pledge? More to the point, if similar footage of John McCain emerged, showing McCain turning his back on the flag, say to discreetly pick his nose or itch his testicles, would there be the same screams that he's not a patriot?

2.) OMG WTF THIS GUY DOESN'T WEAR FLAG LAPEL PINS!!!111! NON-PATRIOT!
Sigh. Maybe we should look at all the times where Republicans don't wear flag pins. Obama got himself into this with a remark he made in 2007 about how the lapel pin has taken the place of true patriotism, which he suggested might be better measured by how a politician treats American veterans (Obama voted for a stronger GI Bill, but McCain inexplicably did not). For more on the lapel pin, get a load of previous Scold coverage.

3.) OMG WTF THIS GUY WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE ON THE QU'RAN NOT THE BIBLE! HE'S A SECRET MUSLIM! HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN OMG!!@11!1!
This shrill refrain has often been fanned by conservative bloggers, but it's so blatantly false that even such august right-wing institutions such as The Weekly Standard and Fox News have distanced themselves from it or repudiated it. In any case the facts are simple, Obama received some education as little boy in a secular school in Indonesia. He's been a Christian for 20 years at his controversial Chicago church, for better or worse depending on how Jeremiah Wright's role will shape up in the fall. In any case, if you believe this, you were probably one of those people who was OK with Arabs, Muslims (and even some Hindus, which aren't at all like Muslims) and other foreign-looking people being harrassed in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks.

If you honestly believe this, you are a person who is acting on fear. As one prominent Nazi (Hermann Goring) said: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

It's people who are afraid, ironically enough, that pose the greatest danger to the compromise of American values.

Analysis: What elitism?

woodyear72@gmail.com — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:54:00 +0000

Of course Barack Obama is part of an elite class. He's wealthy, educated and famous. Having gone to a prestigious college and Harvard Law school in the 1980s, his superiority is clear. While losers like us were doing low-quality blow off of moderately attractive hookers, he was getting complimentary pure Columbian from the same co-ed doctoral candidates he snorted it off of. It is through this charge of "elitism" that the GOP hopes to undermine Obama's support with moderates and independents. Karl Rove's comments about Obama form the attack machine's blueprints: "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by." First of all, that guy is cool. The irony is that it was Rove who trained a dull socialite in Texas and took him to the White House.

But the charge against Obama just isn't sticking. It's not that the ploy won't work; it sank John Kerry in 2004. It's also not that people don't think Obama is part of the elite. But they are not so concerned about elitism in and of itself -- after all, they are used to rich and powerful politicians. "Elite" is meant to be code for "out of touch." An example of "bad" elitism was on Feb. 28, when President Bush had no idea that gas was expected to rise above $4 a gallon later in the summer.

The attempts to make hay off Obama's elitism have either failed or backfired. The RNC have lost several special elections in which they linked the (eventually) victorious Democrat to Senator Obama. These were in deep-red districts that Bush won in 2004 by double digits, yet the link between the candidate and Obama may have actually helped the Democrats. And now, as a further insult, Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon is promoting his own ties to Obama in his bid for reelection. That's right, a Republican senator is touting his ties with Obama to get reelected.

In a televised ad, Sen. Smith included praise he received from Obama, earned when the two reached across party lines to cooperate. "Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment?" the add asks. The female narrator answers simply "Barack Obama." The ad then cuts to a picture of the Illinois senator's face.

The move is smart for Smith, who represents a state far more moderate than his party's leadership. He fears getting caught up in the tide of anger at Republicans, and his opponents are dedicated to painting him as a typical Republican. Even many of Oregon's actual Republican voters are fed-up with Bush, the war and the economy. They are tired of the Far Right's perceived stranglehold on their party; independents are frustrated as well. This is how Smith hopes to convince these moderate and independent voters to vote for him, even if a good number of them will not be voting for John McCain.

If Obama can can help Democratic candidates in the Deep South, and if some Republicans are looking to ride his coattails, is there any hope of painting Obama as lacking the common touch? Johnathan Weisman reports in The Washington Post that a "senior Republican strategist involved in House races said that strategy is now largely dead." The source added, "except in rare instances and I'm not sure it was a good idea in the first place."

It's not that Obama has played a perfect game. He's made mistakes. When he commiserated with Midwestern voters about the cost of "arugula at the Whole Foods," there was concern that Jerry Bown and George McGovern had possessed Obama's body. The Bittergate comments -- which, by the way, are absolutely true-- were really stupid things to say out loud. Yet, perhaps because of Obama's personality, the elite smear just isn't translating into real damage.

This is no doubt a big disappointment to the Republican National Committee, which thought they could use the same playbook against Kerry all over again. Grover Norquist, showing his customary wit, took this belief far too literally when he called Obama "Kerry with a tan." Maybe this was a test balloon to see how much coded racism could be injected into the campaign. But still, given how close 2004 was and the immediate disaster of Bush's second term, it is a stupid thing to say. When the President's poll numbers are around 25%, does Norquist really think there are still a lot of swing voters out there saying "Phew, at least we're still safe from that Kerry guy!"

In one way, the Republicans have done a great service to Obama. The GOP really did succeed into painting John Kerry as an effete, wish-washy liberal. He was "haughty," "French-looking," and above all, an elitist. He was not the guy you invited to a BBQ, but Bush, the rich kid, the cowboy from Connecticut, was the one you invited. And so, Kerry was defeated for his elitism while Bush desperately twang-ed away from his. A year later, Bush found his poll numbers so low that the country clearly regretted its decision to pick a president on superficial issues. Talk about buyer's remorse.

Maybe through such incompetent governance since that election, the Republicans have actually taught voters to care more about ideas than labels, more about competence than congeniality. Maybe voters this year will see if the accused is actually out of touch with their values on real issues like the war, healthcare and the economy.

And if you believe that, I've got one hell of a bridge to sell you.

Counter Scold: Public financing overblown

woodyear72@gmail.com — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:00:00 +0000

No one cares about public financing. Let me repeat: no one cares about public financing. The GOP may think they can score points off Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public financing, but hardly anyone outside the beltway is listening. True, the Scold's own Horace Johnson was so peeved he blasted Obama in a Daily Scold, but it is also true that public campaign funding is one of the un-sexiest issues to holler about. Try to make the case to someone who does not sleep and breathe politics-- the story is not a barn burner. Really, try: "Obama said he would take federal matching funds, but instead he is opting out and using just his own donations. Plus he said he would sit down with John McCain and work out and deal but instead..." Too late, they fell asleep. Even if the merits of the case were truly damning of Obama (and they certainly are not) no one is going to pay attention. Is this the best they can do? If the Right wants any juice in this race, they might as well return to screaming about Obama's "terrorist fist jab".

On Sunday's Meet the Press, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the American public will not soon forget Obama's reversal. Well, of course not, they do not know what the hell he is talking about. Campaign financing has never really resonated with the public. As recently as 2006, California voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposition aimed at near total transparency in fundraising. People just do not care that much.

Except, of course, when they sense wrongdoing. Sure, things like the Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay scandals pissed off Americans-- because there was a real sense that corruption had stained the very way our leaders did business. There was subversion of the law; it was a clear-cut case of right and wrong to ordinary Americans. This is why, in the end, the Republicans will not be able to paint Obama with his decision. They can huff and puff "Obama broke his word!" all they want, but there is no sense of underlying corruption. The public will not be shocked by the revelation that a politician reversed himself to make a winning play. Without a tangible "wrong" to hit Obama on, the charges will not stick. His money is coming from small donors and working Americans, the issue makes Obama look good.

The statement Obama signed stated that he would either take federal money or work out an arrangement with John McCain. Sure, he did not do either one. But the document also said something else: he was doing this to limit the influence of special interests. Obama is doing that without public financing; he cannot find himself beholden to the hidden agendas of so many people without special political influence.

Senator Graham made another comment on that Meet the Press. Essentially, he said that this reversal proved Obama was ruthless. Obama, according to the South Carolina senator "wants to win; will do anything to win". Good! This is why Obama could be president to begin with.

Obama is not the messiah of Starbucks baristas that the Left wants him to be. He is a smart, centrist, hard-nosed politician that knows how to make people love him. Yes, he is less willing to compromise his standards than the Clintons, but he can count to 270 just as good as the Republicans. He is too good of a politician to turn down a nearly endless supply of money on his mission to save this country from John McCain.

Oh, one last thing: Forgoing public financing means Obama is not costing the taxpayers money. How is that for spin?

My last post

woodyear72@gmail.com — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:31:00 +0000

It's all gone by far too quickly. While I've enjoyed posting on this blog about the multi-faceted nature of current events, my duties require me to step aside. I am about to go active-duty in the United States Army for a time (to answer anyone's question, no I am not deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, I'll be finishing my officer training in Oklahoma and then Georgia). Here's a few final thoughts before I go.

1.) Despite the promise that is Barack Obama, I believe that McCain offers better solutions to the pressing issues of the day.
- On Iraq: Before anyone was in favor of the highly-successful surge, McCain was advocating it. This shows a clarity in thought which is so desperately needed and one in which Senator Obama is unwilling to show.
- On the proper role of the Federal Government in the economy: McCain favors making the tax cuts permanent which would continue to allow citizens to keep more of their paycheck. Obama favors repealing the tax cuts and raising taxes on the investor class. Meanwhile, McCain has consistently argued for elimination of earmarks and unnecessary government spending, Obama has proposed billions of dollars more in government spending
- On the judiciary: McCain wants judges who will interpret the law to the Constitution, not allow the tyranny of the judiciary to make new laws from the bench.

2.) The United States is center-right nation despite the Bush administration

3.) Partisanship should continue and serve people through the exchange of different ideas and ideologies

4.) As the United States moves to post-racial society, it should reverse race-centered laws and focus on merit as the basis of promotion at the workplace, acceptance into college and contractual agreements

5.) the United States should be determined to project its power militarily when its people interests are threatened by foreign powers, groups and individuals. We should not wait for an attack to respond, we should have the right to preemption.

6.) The government that governs least governs best. The role of the Federal Government is limited and should be restrained.

It has been a real pleasure writing for this blog and reading the posts of others. Keep up the good work and I shall try when able to read this blog. Godspeed to you all.

-- Jeff Hartline

Analysis: The right way to attack McCain

woodyear72@gmail.com — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:00:00 +0000

It may be early, but the Democrats are making a crucial mistake: they are allowing John McCain to define himself. If McCain is given breathing space, he will be able to write a story that can drown out the transparent rightward pander-plunge he took to win the nomination. Obama's camp was right to avoid all-out war in the primary, but it is a possibly fatal error to allow McCain to get a general election footing. How can the Dems keep the Old Man off-kilter? It's simple -- paint him as a partisan, flip-flopping terrorist enabler.

Don't think those charges could stick to the principled maverick war hero? Think again- why accept your opponent's autobiography? The GOP does not give that luxury to Democrats. Indeed, Team Obama needs to employ the Karl Rove philosophy- attack your opponent's strengths. The strategy worked in 2004 against John Kerry. He earned a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, Kerry was a war hero, but Bush won reelection by calling him a pussy. The Republicans simply did not accept the premise that Kerry was a physically brave man with proven leadership. In the same way, Obama should not simply concede the strengths McCain has claimed for himself.

McCain is making his national security cred the centerpiece of his candidacy. He will continue to paint Obama as weak and make our safety the issue. It is imperative that Obama reverse this dynamic. Hitting McCain on Iraq, while a winning issue, does not fundamentally alter said dynamic. It still places McCain as a hawk and Obama as a dove, and leaves Obama open to the argument that he is unwilling to protect the country.

The key is to change the story. This saves you from having to argue shades and subtleties. Rather than 90s-style triangulation, which sacrificed policy for polls, Obama simply needs to find moderate and conservative arguments for his policies. This will allow him to speak boldly on new rhetorical ground and resonate with larger slices of the electorate.

Go for the throat of GOP strength: 9/11. Obama can make a Republican argument for a Democratic idea and win the issue. Take what he's good at talking about and apply it to national security. For example: When Democrats talk about ending our addiction to foreign oil, they typically stress that our oil money goes to dictators. This comes across as humanitarian; most Americans would agree in principle but would not actually care.

Instead, say "John McCain does not understand that America has to change the way we do business in the wake of 9/11. His gas tax fiasco will send more dollars to the Middle East. On September 11, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. McCain and the Republicans want to keep giving oil money to people who give money to terrorists. That is a September 10th mindset." Then pivot to alternative energy.

Obama has made some smart moves on national security; he has emphasized Afghanistan and the need to transfer troops there from Iraq. This breaks the standard dynamic. It is still vital, however, to make your issues reinforce a centerpiece of two or three themes. Energy independence as a national security issue immunizes Obama against cries of "tree-hugger." Make McCain waste time explaining that he is not a terrorist enabler.

"But," you argue, "McCain has a record of conservation and openness to alternative energy." So? Let McCain waste his time clarifying his position, let him spend energy climbing back up to where he was. Just by making McCain play defense here, you have changed the dynamics of the debate; now it would be about who is really for new energy sources. Obama and the Democrats can always win that argument. Inconveniently for the GOP, they have Al Gore on their side.

McCain is also getting a nearly free ride on his "man of principle" persona. Blow this out of the water. Saying he is a Bush clone is not enough. As I have argued before, it is imperative that McCain's persona is exposed as a fraud. McCain is running on his record not from the Senate, but from his 2000 primary race. Show how the two contradict. Say that McCain flip-flopped (and yes, it is important to use that word) on torture, tax cuts for the wealthy, immigration and coastal drilling.

Point out the flip-flops and then lay in with both barrels: "Somewhere on the road to the nomination, John McCain lost his way." The Obama camp has very cautiously gone down this road, but they have a habit of being a notch too subtle for the press and the voters. Obama can afford to be blunt.

One could call it "bait and switch." McCain is promising post-partisan, common-sense solutions, yet this is merely obscuring his Senate votes. Again, borrow established Republican phrases; McCain's rhetoric does not match his record. When one candidate is explaining himself, and one is explaining his ideas, the latter wins.

The Democrats play catch up every year. In politics, the best defense is a good offense; this means not giving McCain room to breathe. The more Obama makes McCain pay for his primary campaign, the less he can focus on the general or attacking Obama. Political mistakes are usually made while playing defense. Do not be fooled by the vaunted "Straight Talk Express"; McCain is very capable of being flustered. Obama needs to give McCain many opportunities to lose the election for himself. Just ask John Kerry.

Daily Scold: Obama's public financing fiasco

woodyear72@gmail.com — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Back in the day, say about 8 months ago, before his campaign became a "movement" and his candidacy became inevitable, Barack Obama said he would accept public financing if his opponent did.

He didn't count on his opponent, John McCain, to do the same. Nor did Obama expect his Internet fundraising operation to be as wildly successful as it was. He's got millions of supporters who can each donate up to $2,300 for the primary, followed by another $2,300 for the general election. By his own campaign's estimates, the number of donors shot skyward and has held steady at around 1.5 million. You can do the math yourself and see how easily Obama snagged the $265 million or so he has chilling in the bank right now. Public financing would offer him a much smaller sum of around $84 million.

Not only will Obama become the first presidential candidate to turn down public financing since the system became available, he has clearly gone back on his word. I'd love to see the Obamamites try and rationalize their way out of this one. In fact, I can anticipate the excuses that are homing in, even now, on this post. But I've got a few rebuttals ready...

When asked by the late, great Tim Russert, Obama said he would personally sit down with John McCain to try and work out a fair system to finance their general election campaigns. Only if this effort failed, Obama said, would he opt out of public financing.

Well, by all accounts, not only was there no personal meeting, there wasn't even the "aggressive" effort to work this out that was promised by the Obama campaign. In fact, there was hardly any effort at all, according to McCain's campaign staffers. I certainly wouldn't put it past John McCain or any Republican to twist the facts a little, especially given how juicy the opportunity was here -- to paint Obama as a common politician who went back on his word. But it seems very clear that Obama has been planning to opt out long before the Democratic primary was settled. Just read what he said here, in April.

Anyway, the Obamamites are already rushing to their messiah's defense. The leftists of the liberal blogosphere are stumbling over themselves to deflect attention from Obama's treachery with a torrential downpour of excuses.

Poor, helpless underdog Obama NEEDS this massive stash of cash purely for self-defense, and never mind that his $265 million far eclipses any presidential war chest ever seen in American history. After all, they say, a ton of money will be required to defend Obama against any scurrilous Swiftboat-style attacks, particularly the outrageous ones that accuse him of being a Muslim Manchurian candidate that was sworn in on a copy of the Qu'ran and turned his back on the flag during the pledge of allegiance.

Of course, this neglects the fact that while rabid liberal 527 groups like MoveOn.org have been dumping hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars on the airwaves to lionize Obama and attack McCain, virtually NO right-wing 527 of any prominence (or with any large amount of cash) has stepped it up on behalf of McCain.

Well, sputter the Obamamites, what their savior is doing isn't unethical, because he's getting his money from millions of ordinary Americans. I mean, even if a lot of these Obama supporters gave $500 or $1,000, they are hardly going to expect personal favors from a President Obama, right? After all, public financing was created so that massive corporations wouldn't be able to give millions to a candidate and expect their money's worth of favors once that candidate was elected. Obama won't have to repay any favors for his $265 million, his supporters say.

This is true. But it also sidesteps the real problem: Obama BROKE HIS WORD. He said he would take public financing or he would push for it aggressively and he did neither. I thought this was the guy who would bring transparency back to government and restore the public's trust in their president. Right?

If there is anything I have a problem with, it's dishonest politicians who get caught being dishonest, redhanded. It was stupid, anyway. Everyone knows Obama has an absolute load of cash, it would've been an awfully gutsy and meaningful gesture for him to nobly return the money to the donors and then face McCain on equal terms.

But no, Obama has chosen the most ruthless, Machievellian political maneuver possible -- forcing John McCain to either scramble for large amounts of corporate, big-donor cash, or face being outspent 3 to 1 by Obama. Talk about change. Chump change, that is.

Analysis: Drilling presents stark choices

woodyear72@gmail.com — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:46:00 +0000

We're running low on cheap oil. In fact, it looks like we're OUT of cheap oil. Oil, and all petroleum products that come of it (computer chips, agricultural fertilizer, insecticides, plastics, car fuel, truck diesel, jet fuel, etc.), will probably go up and not down in the future.

And so the offshore drilling debate arrives at a unique time. It presents us with two choices that symbolize dramatically different philosophies on how humans should relate to the environment. The first choice is to go ahead with offshore drilling. In this view of the world, we should exploit all the oil there is, and the hell with any environmental concerns. We'll keep moving toward green alternatives, we'll keep pushing conservation, but we've got oil on U.S. soil and it ain't doing anyone any good sitting at the bottom of the ocean.

The second choice is to continue abiding by the moratorium on offshore drilling. This will preserve local economies (as I will later argue, industrializing miles and miles of coastline will definitely kill off tourism), preserve local wildlife and most importantly, KEEP GAS PRICES HIGH.

It is absolutely crucial to keep gas prices high, as there exists no better tool to modify our behavior. Just look at the sweep of history. It's taken $4 gas to get a majority of Americans to take alternative energy seriously, to push lawmakers from talk to action. I'm prepared to be flamed by everyone on this, but just hear me out.

The first choice is pretty much a continuation of the reckless behavior that brought us to this precipice. It's not that Americans have been unique in their recklessness; after all the Indians and Chinese are rapidly following suit. But evidence shows that high gas prices change societal norms about energy consumption and lead to far greater efficiency in terms of transportation infrastructure and even lifestyle.

Just look at Europe. At the risk of gross generalization, or perhaps to encourage it, I will say this: great big fat people in massive SUVs are a rarity over there. Instead everyone is used to walking, bicycling, taking buses, trams and trains.

Gas is about $7 a gallon over there, with some prices even higher. Cars tend to be smaller and fuel efficiency standards make American cars look like dinosaurs. Are Europeans somehow inherently smarter and more visionary or environmentally sensitive than Americans? Hell no. Not inherently, anyway. It's the result of supply and demand taking its course.

Americans have always chosen the latter option, symbolized here by killing the moratorium and sending out ships to build offshore platforms. As a result our energy consumption patterns have remained largely unchecked until recently.

In any case there's a more tangible argument than this one, which really focuses on the big picture. Sure, sure, John McCain is right when he says oil drilling technology has advanced since major oil disasters of the 70s and 80s. But let's just weigh the pros and cons here.

Most experts estimate it'll be a minimum of 10 years before any oil platform can be built and begin production. Remember the whole business is highly complicated, extremely expensive and very time-consuming. After a decade,

Rest of story. Nothing after this tag.

Reaction: Russert made politics contagious

woodyear72@gmail.com — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:50:00 +0000

Tim Russert died this afternoon, the victim of a sudden heart attack that seized him as he was doing what he loved: covering politics. There is probably no more heroic a place for a journalist to die than in the newsroom. Americans will miss this pugnacious reporter, and he truly deserves the title, for as H.L. Mencken famously said, "a journalist is just a dead reporter." Russert's charm was a subtle one, as he had neither the dashing leading-man presence of a Brian Williams or Anderson Cooper, nor the colorful antics of a Chris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly. Instead he was an even-handed commentator and a dogged interviewer whose questions made top politicians almost as nervous as the knowledge that they couldn't hope to pass muster with voters without stopping on "Meet the Press." The one thing all Americans will take away from this man is his incredible passion for politics; it is humanly impossible to watch that smile sneak up on Russert's face when some huge political news event is breaking, without feeling excited yourself.

While journalists, politicians and MSNBC viewers will miss Russert's fairness and contagious passion for the wild, rollicking game that is American politics, most Americans will miss Russert for his humble on-screen personality. He never forgot his blue-collar beginnings, nor the tireless spirit of his father, a World War II veteran who came home and worked two jobs to feed his family.

The American public will remember Russert the same way, as a devoted family man. Russert's first autobiography, Big Russ and Me, painted a moving portrait of his love for his father and it changed the way I looked at my relationship with my own father, who bought me the book for Christmas 2006. Your father will always be a part of you. Learning about him teaches you about yourself, I realized.

It seems both tragic and fitting that Russert should die a mere two days before Father's Day, 2008.

I will end this tribute by quoting Russert himself, from Big Russ and Me: "When somebody near us loses a loved one, we have a duty to show up, to be there, and to help them remember; to offer a hand and a shoulder, and yes, to celebrate a life."

Today, all of America showed up to celebrate the life of a man who kept the rainy windshield of politics clear enough for all to glimpse truth.

Analysis: Barack Obama and the end of racism

woodyear72@gmail.com — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:34:00 +0000

I do not support Barack Obama in the 2008 Election, but this shouldn't come as a surprise to any folks who take a gander at reading this blog. However, I can't help but feel bit of pride in a country that can overcome its history of race discrimination and nominate a black man for the Presidency of the United States. Think about it - 150 years ago, half of the country permitted slavery and 50 years ago, permitted the segregation of races. Today, the issues that dominate the Presidential race are not race-based, but rather policy based (Iraq, Health Care, the Economy). Americans aren't talking about whether we should elect a black man to the Presidency but issues which have dominated the American political landscape. Despite my pride, I do feel that Americans have to confront the last few issues that divide us in terms of race. These include:

1. Race-based admissions in job and college applications

2. Racial disparities found in income, education and crime levels

3. Social unrest due to illegitimacy and single-parent familes

Speaking as a white male and a conservative might be uncomfortable to some, but this does not diminish the importance or relevance that these issues have to true racial reconciliation that this country both craves and needs if it is to advance into the annals of history as a nation of merit, not one of bitter racial acrimony.

Affirmative action had its foundation in the Kennedy administration when President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 with the stated intention of ending, "discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the United States." While the stated intentions were good, the program evolved over time to reverse its earlier non-discriminatory goals and embrace racial preferences. Presidents Johnson and Nixon greatly expanded the program, creating a system which created an environment for quotas and other fun government programs.

The ugly truth behind affirmative action is that beyond it being an active arm of racial discrimination, it disenfranchises the very people who are supposed to benefit from such a program. Thomas Sowell writes, "Affirmative action is great for black millionaires but it has done little or nothing for most people in the ghetto." Sowell's point is that even if you accept that affirmative action is a good program, its benefits are not reaching those who would need them the most. Furthermore, is there any liberality within a program that confronts a past history of racial discrimination with a more subtle reverse-discrimination?

Moreover, inflating the standing of minority students in colleges has had a negative effect upon their graduation rates. So a program which embraces racial discrimination, does not benefit the vast majority of lower-income minorities and worsens graduation rates is a highly ineffective way to combat racism.

Obama, to his credit, seems to agree with this. When asked whether his daughters should receive affirmative action benefits, he responded that they (and I'll quote in detail), "should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged” and there is nothing wrong with that. “I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and been brought up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed,” he added. “There are a lot of African-American kids who are still struggling.”

Obama said that “if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids who are qualified to go to college can afford it, that affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to achieve racial equality in this society.” To offset and replace affirmative action, I propose either a meritocratic-based system whereby all preferences regarding race or alumni should be dropped or a socio-economic system whereby lower-income applicants, irregardless of race, would be given a slight advantage in application.

Of these two proposals, I favor a class-based system. Jonathan Chait, a writer for the New Republic concurs by saying, "It's good substantive policy--it's clear that the transmission of poverty or wealth across generations, through school quality and parental values, is a serious problem and one that effects whites as well as blacks."

When folks normally talk about racial disparities in income, education and crime levels, they are either about to launch into a racist diatribe or a sociological discussion that emphasizes why capitalism and a racist judiciary system have failed inner-city blacks. Both of these are wrong, but the second proposition should incur more wrath than the first one due to the traction that it has on our politicians and the general electorate. Capitalism is seen in some quarters as the primary reason why we have minorities in urban settings have consistently lived under the poverty line.

David Simon, creator of The Wire said, "You are looking at somebody who doesn’t believe that Capitalism [can work] absent a social framework that accepts that it is relatively easy to marginalize more and more people in this economy."

Forgive me for saying so Mr. Simon, but capitalism isn't working in the vast majority of our cities, because it hasn't even been applied. Most cities, including our beloved Baltimore, are crippled due to the crime problem and the changing nature of the economy. Baltimore specifically has yet to fully transition from a labor-economy to a service-based economy. This has had a highly negative impact on minority communities in Baltimore. Moreover, cities run primarily by Democrats have turned to big government solutions which have run their course and run it badly. A solution proposed which has a lot of merit is known as the Urban Enterprise Zone. An Urban Enterprise Zone is a part of a major city in which businesses are encouraged to move back into the city. The encouragement comes primarily through the reduction of regulations and taxes in a certain zone.

The Cato Institute noted, "The basic concept behind enterprise zones is to create an open, free-market environment in the nation’s depressed inner cities and rural towns through the removal of taxes, regulations, and other government burdens on economic activity."

Crime and the ensuing sociological counterparts remain a vital problem for blacks in cities across the United States. The Department of Justice has shown that blacks are more disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. Another study has shown that blacks are the victim of much higher rates of violent crime than any other race. Much of the violent crime has swirled around the drug trade and its impact on urban centers. Indeed, the drug war has seen its fruition in the misery and illiberality is has caused.

Drug use should be decriminalized without exception. One of the reasons why drug violence is so high is because the drug trade goes unprotected by the police. In the book Cop in the Hood by Peter Moskos, he makes the point that drug traffickers are not protected by law and resort to violence to settle disputes which would be settled by the legal process. Moskos states in his blog, "Drugs shouldn’t be in the hands of the North Avenue Boys, or any other group of criminals. As with alcohol, tobacco or prescription medication, selling drugs should be the combined responsibility of doctors, the government and the legal free market." He's right. The government's efforts to fight the drug war have failed and have perpetuated endemic violence on minority communities in the inner city.

The lack of good education and illegitimacy rates found in urban poor communities are worthy subjects for future blog posts. In brief, the public education system has failed to bring any meaningful change. While teachers do labor hard, they are not subjected to the very thing that keeps our economy on the cutting edge: namely competition. Private and charter schools do a better job at educating children than the public education system, because they are in competition with each other and public schools for students. However, the public school system does not need to compete for the urban poor as many of them are unable to afford private or charter education. Vouchers are an answer which I think can truly change the course for many students. People worry about how vouchers will affect the public education system or whether this violates the First Amendment (it doesn't). The bigger question should be whether this has a positive impact on the lives of children and teens who will be stuck in failing government schools.

Perhaps you were wondering how all this would relate back to Senator Obama. Here's how it relates; Senator Obama says he is a different politician who transcends racial issues. I applaud him for at least the sentiment, but the way to truly become a transformer is to embrace the last few notions of racial transformation. So far, the record has been a bit mixed. Many Americans now see Barack Obama through the lenses of his regrettable church and even more regrettable pastor. I honestly doubt that Obama will adopt too many of these positions as they represent conservative to libertarian viewpoints regarding these issues, but if he did, it would make many Americans who are now disinclined to vote for Obama to give him a second look. If not, then the racial issues which will continue to polarize and cause America further headache as Americans will be forced to embrace not the state-sponsored segregation of earlier eras, but rather the "soft-bigotry of low-expectations."

Analysis: Mama Drama

woodyear72@gmail.com — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:10:00 +0000

Will Barack Obama have difficulty earning the support of Hillary Clinton voters? There are certainly a lot of disappointed, even angry women out there. While Clinton had broader appeal than simply her own gender, her most dedicated backers were white women. Especially those who were middle class, middle-aged and mothers- women just like her. John McCain seems to think Obama will have trouble with this bloc; he has begun a charm offensive by praising Clinton, her effort, and women in general. McCain hopes to steal a few of these votes, but mostly, he hopes he can make a large number of Democrats stay home this November.

No doubt, some will stay home or defect. Take a look at the rabidly pro-Hillary site HillaryIs44.com, which has called Obama "a lead gang-banger in the misogyny parade". The site even asks readers to take this pledge: "I will not vote for Obama nor any person who endorsed Obama before June 3... in NOvember. Obama is NOt qualified to be president. I reject... the Obama race-baiting, gay-bashing, woman-hating campaign". Surely, most Clinton voters are not unhinged, but many think she lost because of sexism. That is not why she lost, but it hardly matters if a substantial number of Democrats believe it to be so.

Obama can shore up his support with women with one important issue however. That issue, of course, is abortion.

How many feminists, the old joke goes, does it take to change a light bulb? You probably know the answer: That's not funny. Clinton's most hardcore supporters take perceived sexism very seriously. They also take their issues very seriously, and abortion is one of feminism's defining issues.

One area where McCain is, and always has been, in lockstep with the right is abortion. Unlike Mitt Romney this year, or George H.W. Bush in 1980, McCain was against abortion rights long before he was seeking to win the GOP nomination. Think about it: McCain is diametrically opposed to the bulk of Clinton's base on possibly the issue most important to them. Despite the threats of many of the HillaryIs44 posters, most of Clinton's people are not going to back John McCain in the fall.

Obama can even use the abortion issue to motivate otherwise disaffected Clinton supporters to the polls. He can get them to the voting booth by letting them know how at risk abortion rights will be with another Republican president. John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, Stephen Breyer is 69 and David Souter is 68. These are the Supreme Court's liberal judges, the ones who would uphold Roe v. Wade and possibly two or more of them will be replaced in the next 4 years. Either McCain or Obama will nominate those new justices.

This line of attack has few drawbacks. Independents and moderates are broadly, if conditionally, pro-choice. Indeed, around 60% of all Americans support the abortion status quo.

If Obama makes women understand the stakes- McCain will appoint justices who will overturn that ruling given the chance- Hillary's women will quickly sour on the so-called "maverick".

This, and being respectful towards Clinton, is about all he can do. While the pundits will argue it to death, there is no use trying to convince Clinton supporters she did not lose because of sexism. This is of course true, but the truth of an argument is not always connected to its acceptance.

This is not to say that there has not been sexism; there certainly has been. The sexism, however, probably was not any worse than the Clintons' race baiting. More importantly, Hillary Clinton's gender was more helpful than harmful. It gave her an instant base, it allowed "First Lady" to, amazingly, actually count as experience, and it gave her an excuse for almost any failure.

Chuck Todd, NBC's political director said on Sunday's Meet the Press that Clinton lost both the outside and inside game. The outside game was the actual votes and fundraising. To the suprise of most pundits, however, Clinton also lost the inside game. She lost on process, she lost in campaign planning and direction, and she lost with the superdelegates. Frankly, institutional support is all Hillary Clinton really brought to the table, but it did not materialize. This is why she lost.

Geraldine Ferraro was crucified for saying that Obama was only where he was because of his race. She was rightfully taken to task for this shameful race-baiting, but there was also an element of truth. Obama's race was part of his story, part of his generational appeal, and made him viable in the South. The flipside of that argument, however, is the equally true observation that Clinton only got to this point because of her sex. This is why the complaints of people like HillaryIs44 posters are so eye-roll inducing.

Nonetheless, this argument is a losing proposition on the stump. Change the subject by talking about abortion, fair pay and Hillary's pet subject, health care. They will come around.

And, if that does not work, remind them how badly McCain treated his first wife.

Site update: A few good reporters wanted

woodyear72@gmail.com — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:07:00 +0000

Reporters -- and I use the term generously to mean any blogger -- are wanted to write for The National Scold. In keeping with our mission, you would be required to be honest and accurate only occasionally, and to be humorous and outrageous on all other occasions. Of course, no experience is required. It would be to your advantage to have some knowledge of politics, philosophy, geography, economics, journalism and foreign relations -- but only to avoid making yourself look like a fool here and be subject to lampooning. You would be required to write one post a week, at a minimum, on really any political subject of your choosing. You're free to be as partisan as you want. Preference will be given to conservatives, which are sorely underrepresented here. That said, please send a note to me, Grant Huang, by clicking here.

In-depth report: If Hillary had her druthers...

woodyear72@gmail.com — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:00:00 +0000

Hillary Clinton is adamant; in her eyes, she is a far better candidate than Barack Obama to take on John McCain. Monday, the campaign made this argument once more: "There is no question that she is the strongest Democrat to go toe-to-toe with John McCain in a general election". If Obama loses, she will insist she could have won, if Obama wins, she will say she could have won better. However, we can never know. Or can we?

The National Scold has obtained a working prototype of a top-secret device invented by Al Gore. The machine, which is powered by global warming, allows the user to briefly peer into the Mirror Universe. Gore's creation was a product of his desire to see what would have happened had he prevailed in the 2000 recount dispute. Today, however, we will harness this amazing vice-presidential technology for something else. We will discover what is happening in the dimension where Clinton has gotten exactly what she now asks for: the superdelegates are convinced she is the stronger candidate in the general and they have handed her the nomination.

Behold the world of Hillary Clinton: Democratic Nominee.

May 6, 2008: Despite Obama's impressive wins, the superdelegates have reliably broken for Clinton. The Rev. Wright scandal and Obama's loss of Pennsylvania have caused several Obama supporters to reluctantly defect. To prove he is still viable, Obama must beat expectations in today's contests. Despite an (expected) big win in North Carolina, Obama loses in Indiana. It is believed the movement of the superdelegates sent the race from a near tie to a 7-point Clinton win. Some major talking heads declare the race over. Within a week, several major papers will say the race is over and a few Obama aides will step down. The perception is that Clinton has won.

May 13, 2008: The Democratic contender in a special election for a Mississippi congressional race narrowly loses to his Republican opponent. The Dems were hoping to make this their third pickup in a special election, but generally the spin is that they came very close in a very red district. A few note that the in the election, black turnout was less than expected. It may have made the difference.

The same day, Obama is crushed in the West Virginia primary. Clinton picks up 10 more superdelegates a few hours after the polls close. Obama camp insiders are privately saying that the senator is now "looking to go out on a high note".

May 25, 2008: A few days after being smashed in the Kentucky primary, Obama takes to the airwaves. Though deeply resentful of the superdelegates torpedoing his (in his view) winning candidacy, Obama concedes defeat. In his concession speech, he praises Clinton and says he is dropping out so the party can focus on November. Privately, Obama admits that he fears appearing a sore loser. Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

May 31, 2008: The Rules Committee agrees to seat the entire Michigan and Florida delegations. Clinton remarks that the full enfranchisement of those voters is "not unlike the end of Jim Crow, or the poll tax". After several African-American leaders balk, Clinton clarifies her comment.

June 1, 2008: Clinton has canceled her events in Puerto Rico and waved off a few questions about her position on the island's status. She instead goes on the attack, and in an unscripted remark, she accuses McCain of saberrattling with Iran. McCain, in response, quotes a threat to "obliterate" Iran Clinton made during a Democratic debate. Within two weeks, the RNC is running "flip-flop" ads based on the exchange in swing states.

June 9, 2008: Speaking to a veteran's group function, McCain gets laughs by peering into the crowd and asking if anyone has seen "Hillary's sniper". "I guess", McCain adds sarcastically, "both of us have taken enemy fire. What to do you think, is she one of us?"

McCain remarks privately that he was only willing to exploit Rev. Wright subtly as to not appear too negative. The "sniper thing however, Hillary brought on herself", McCain explains.

June 11, 2008: When Clinton complains that the "one of us?" line was too far, McCain retorts "Maybe it's not her fault. Maybe that pharmacuetical convention up in Woodstock has caused some vivid fantasies". McCain later apologizes for this remark.

June 17, 2008:Noting that their support among the African-American community is alarmingly shallow for a Democrat, the Clinton campaign dispatches Bill Clinton to reach out towards blacks. He meets with classic black leaders, plays the sax and even has an impromptu rap session with Sister Souljah.

June 23, 2008: In response to Clinton's repeated accusations that McCain's election would be a third term for Bush, McCain begins a media blitz. They contrast her votes for the Iraq war with her current positions. The final segment features black and white photos of Clinton and Kerry on either side of the screen. The photos begin to spin while text appears: "Hillary and the liberals, Flip-flopping again".

July 7, 2008:Clinton announces that Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, will be her running mate. It soon leaks, however, that both Clintons had been trying to get Obama to join the ticket for a month. Bill Clinton privately labels Obama's unwillingness to join "a betrayal".

July 25, 2008: Dick Morris, the former Clinton adviser who is now highly critical of both Clintons, becomes a secret strategist for the McCain campaign. Though he is to never meet with McCain or any of the senior staff, he passes damaging stories from the Clinton White House to them. These anecdotes and accusations tend to dominate slow news days.

August 1, 2008: A poll puts Clinton tied in Pennsylvania and leading in Maryland by only 5 points. In 2004, John Kerry won Maryland by 13 points.

August 3, 2008: An independent 527 group, Bosnians For Truth, begin to run ads that blast Clinton's sniper story. One person, who claims to have been on scene during Clinton's visit, nearly cries with rage during an ad. The rather attractive woman notes that she actually lost her father to a sniper during the war, and Clinton's lie deeply offends her. Few notice that her accent seems to be Polish rather than Bosnian.

August 27, 2008: On the second to last night of the Democratic Convention, Obama gives an impassioned speech that heavily praises both Clintons. At one point, Obama notes that tomorrow, when the nominee will speak, will be 40 years to the day since MLK's "I have a dream" speech. Obama declares that he still has a dream, and we can make it a reality in November. During his address, the news cameras often pan to black delegates, many who are moved to tears.

August 29, 2008: Polls reveal the impact of the convention. Clinton's well-received, but unsurprising speech put her within 4 points of McCain. Her approval ratings increased by 5 points. Obama's, however, went up by 11.

September 4, 2008: Following a perfectly scripted convention in Minneapolis, McCain is up by 8 points.

September 6, 2008: Pushed by Morris, stories appear about seance-like meetings Clinton held in the White House. The meetings, which were first reported in Bob Woodward's The Choice , were lead by a guru who encouraged Hillary to talk to Eleanor Roosevelt, Gandhi and Jesus. Clinton was then encouraged to respond as those figures. Morris tells interviewers that Clinton made decisions with what she learned in those sessions.

September 7, 2008: Responding to the "seance" reports, an obviously flustered Clinton muses that it has "something to do with women and spirituality". Sensing danger, she quickly changes tack, and says that they were mere "thought exercises" and that she "really identifies with Eleanor Roosevelt".

That night, McCain gets laughs with a self-deprecating joke: "I knew Eleanor Roosevelt, and Senator Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt".

September 12, 2008: A former female intern claims that she was sexually harassed by Clinton- Hillary Clinton.

That afternoon, during an interview with the Chicago Herald, Michelle Obama is asked what she thought about the accusation. A deeply resentful Mrs. Obama responds that "Hillary isn't a lesbian- as far as I know".

September 16, 2008: An independent group runs ads that feature photos of Rev. Wright meeting both Clintons during Bill's term. One ad has a voice-over that questions: "Rev. Wright, invited to the White House?" The spot ends with the damning "Hillary-Wright. Too close for comfort".

September 19, 2008: A body is found in an Arkansas swamp. It it later revealed to be the late Dick Morris, who committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head three times.

September 26, 2008: The first debate is seen as a tie. Commentators note that Clinton probably won on points, but that she is too unlikable.

October 1, 2008: Get-out-the-vote workers for Clinton note that there is not a lot of enthusiasm in the inner cities of Philadelphia, Cleveland and elsewhere. Some believe that black turnout will actually drop from 2004, even 2000, numbers.

October 7, 2008: In the second debate, Clinton complains about the debate format. McCain responds "Gee, I'm just happy to be here".

November 4, 2008: [Ed. Image courtesy www.270towin.com] McCain wins the election with a 4-point margin of victory. Despite the popular vote loss, Hillary Clinton vows to fight on in the electoral college meeting in December "when the President is actually elected." She notes that "electors are a lot like superdelegates, and it is their job to pick the best person for January..."

Analysis: Clinton fans, please stop whining

woodyear72@gmail.com — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:00:00 +0000

No matter what happens in the three tiny remaining primaries, Hillary Clinton is not going to win. If you think she is, you need to drink some reality juice, stat.

That being said, it now seems clear that Clinton herself is only as hellbent on winning as her most frenzied group of supporters -- women (mainly white) who believe it's more important to break the gender barrier rather than the race barrier, who believe that should their Hillary lose the nomination, sexism will have been the culprit.

This is absurdity itself. Clinton lost because, buoyed by arrogance and a sense of entitlement, she ran a crappy campaign and failed to take Barack Obama seriously until it was far too late. Besides, if sexism was why Clinton lost the Democratic nomination, what possible chance would she have in a general election, where she must also face Republican voters who are statistically far less progressive?

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek made this same exact point last week. I've lost count of the magazines, newspapers and online blogs that have already weighed in on why Clinton lost. From John Judis' Clinton campaign "Autopsy Report" in The New Republic to Time magazine's succinct "The Five Reasons Hillary Lost," the story behind Clinton's imminent defeat is one of soaring arrogance, incredible imbecility and a heroic personal effort by Hillary that will soon prove to have been too little, far too late.

I'll tick off a few of the major points in case you're too lazy to click on the stories I referenced above: Clinton put loyalists and not experts in charge of running the show. She was so confident she would clinch the nomination that her campaign had no plan for everything that happened after Super Tuesday (which was on February 5, if you can believe it -- it seems like years ago). She was totally clueless about how the Internet can be used to raise huge funds from a sea of small-sum donors.

These aren't random, tiny minutiae we're talking about here. These are bigass problems that a candidate as "experienced" as Hillary should never have made. They're problems that should've been anticipated by any serious politician, to say nothing of a politician that's hellbent on victory at any cost ("in it to win it," to quote Hillary herself).

She only got this far because the mainstream media loves to spin the race as being tighter than it is. Imagine a rope with two knots tied in it, with Obama being the first knot and Clinton being the second knot, just a few inches behind. Whichever knot passes the finish line first wins. Well, we all know which knot will end up on top, because two knots on the same f*cking rope don't move.

But rather than point this out, the press instead explored and highlighted every possible, outrageous "path" to victory that Clinton's campaign spin doctors tossed out.

And then Clinton turns on the press! Trust me, the press holds one bias above all others -- the good story. A close race is a GREAT story. Most reporters would love it if Clinton took the race to convention, imagine the breathless coverage!

Clinton should be thanking the press that the Democratic race has been portrayed as a nail-biter the entire time. Even when it became clear that her chances were pretty much nil, the mainstream media continued to use hedging phrases like "Clinton's increasingly slippery path to the nomination" or "Obama's seemingly insurmountable lead" or "Clinton's hard delegate math."

As for Clinton's hardcore female supporters, it's time to get over it. You should support a candidate based on his or her beliefs and stances on the issues. You shouldn't support someone just because she's a woman, or a man, or man-eater, for that matter. If you believed in what Hillary stands for, it's time to get behind Obama, because I assure you, the difference between Clinton and Obama is like a little stream compared to the gaping canyon between Obama and John McCain.

Daily Scold: On patriotism after Memorial Day

woodyear72@gmail.com — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:10:00 +0000

With the smell of patriotic Memorial Day burgers still fresh, let's consider a little thing called "patriotism." There's a number of things that piss me off and are worth scolding when it comes to this word, which too many on the left consider synonymous with words like "jingoism" and "nationalism." Too many on the right have forgotten what the word means, and seize on it to attack their opponents. Take the absurdity over Barack Obama not wearing the flag lapel pin that became particularly popular among our politicians after 9/11. A woman named Nash McCabe asked Obama if he "believes in the American flag" during the Democratic debate in Philadelphia. "I'm not questioning your patriotism," McCabe said. Just Obama's taste in the latest decorative lapel fashions, I'm sure. As anyone can see, questioning Obama's patriotism was precisely what this disingenuous woman did. If patriotism was not at issue, what the hell was her question about? Anyway, this is an old pet peeve of mine and besides, Obama eventually caved and now regularly wears a flag pin on his lapel. And that's really the problem: patriotism has become a song and dance.

The flag pin "issue" is indeed a manufactured issue, as Obama says. I know, I know, I've swallowed the Obama Kool-aid, blah blah. If you really believe the lapel pin thing is a legitimate point that should affect who you vote for, consider these statements:

1.) Wearing a flag pin means you love your country.
2.) Not wearing a flag pin means you don't love your country, and are less worthy of being president than someone who DOES consistently wear a flag pin.

On the face of it, these statements are absurd, so much so that one dares hope even Sean Hannity would laugh at them. I choose Hannity to impale with my lambasting spear because of his massive, laughable reaction when Obama first stopped wearing the flag pin in 2007. Upon hearing this news, Hannity was moved to exclaim, "Why do we wear pins?" His answer, which was "because our country is under attack!", should be obvious to any baseball-loving, apple pie-eating, Commie-hating, red-white-and-blue-wearing American, Hannity seemed to say.

Obama offered an alternative way to demonstrate patriotism, tying patriotism to the way we treat veterans who return from Iraq, many with mental or physical problems (or both).

Specifically, he's been busy touting his support for the revised G.I. Bill legislation proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia and a Vietnam veteran. The bill, which passed the Senate recently, would expand educational benefits for veterans. John McCain, whose patriotism is generally considered above reproach, opposed the bill, saying that it will reduce Army retention rates. After all, if you can serve four years without getting blown up by roadside bombs, you would probably want that honorable discharge and up to $80,000 of money for college you're owed, right?

Of course. And if the money was made even better (the current GI Bill actually pays closer to $33,000; the larger $80K figure is possible only if you receive money from the Army College Fund, which is a separate deal that isn't guaranteed), you would have even more incentive to just do your time and get out. McCain's argument -- "don't make benefits for veterans too good, otherwise people will want to leave the Army as soon as they can so they can get an EDUCATION, of all things" -- makes sense to me. It just doesn't seem very -- whaddya call it? Oh yeah. Patriotic.

[Ed.In the interests of full disclosure, Mr. Herrera wears six different American flag pins, three on each of his lapels. He also wears red, white and blue socks as well as boxers that have dozens of stars and stripes imprinted on them. Lastly, prior to authoring this post, he had the words "You're either with us or against us," which were said by our president, tattooed in red, white and blue across the pale expanse of his buttocks. He is what I like to call, a "patriot."]

Analysis: Pastors say the darndest things

woodyear72@gmail.com — Fri, 23 May 2008 18:40:00 +0000

Pastors haven't been too good for presidential candidates this year. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright has proven to be Barack Obama's worst nightmare on the campaign trail. John McCain went and SOUGHT the endorsement of the Rev. John Hagee, a total crazy religious NUTCASE who thinks we should initiate a "holy war" with Iran and said Hurricane Katrina was an act of God to punish homosexuals in New Orleans. In more recent news, an audio clip surfaced in which Hagee says the Holocaust was part of God's plan to shepherd the Jews into Palestine.

But wait -- as they say in infomercials, there's more. No sooner did McCain denounce Hagee's comments (made in the 1990s), than he was forced to spin around and denounce remarks from ANOTHER pastor that had endorsed his candidacy -- the good Rev. Rod Parsley, who called Islam an "anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world" and asserts that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed." McCain, anticipating the fire coming his way, said his pastors are of no concern, for they didn't baptize his kids or preach to him personally for 20 years, like Wright did for Obama. Is that enough of a defense?

I'm inclined to say it's not really much of a defense. McCain went to both of these religious nutjobs and ASKED them for their endorsement. It's not hard to see why, at least from a purely political perspective: McCain needed to be certified by right-wing religious figures because many conservatives and evangelicals simply don't believe he's a true conservative Republican.

But if McCain truly believes that the remarks by Hagee and Parsley are "deeply offensive and indefensible" (as he told reporters when he denounced Hagee's remarks), why did he actively ask for their support? Sounds to me like he needs a better vetting process.

More importantly, the remarks made by Hagee (and Parsley, to a slightly lesser extent) are significantly more worrisome than those made by Jeremiah Wright. Sure, Wright's remarks are offensive, outrageous, paranoid and untrue. But how do they compare to Hagee and Parsley's?

To paraphrase Wright, America does evil things against black people and deserves acts of terrorism. To paraphrase Hagee, America needs to start a "holy war" with Iran that will involve apocalyptic nuclear conflict and will result in the Rapture and the second coming of Jesus Christ on earth.

Please imagine placing Wright's comments in the palm of your left hand. Then please place Hagee's comments in your right. Which bothers you more? On the one hand you have specious claims that the U.S. government, despite its frequent demonstrations of incompetence, successfully designed AIDS to target black people and that we all deserved 9/11 because, among other things, we nuked the Japanese in World War II. Man, that's some crazy shit. OK, let's weigh that against the other hand, in which is held... THE END OF THE WORLD!!!

All I can say is, I hope John McCain is nothing like Ronald Reagan. When the Gipper ran the show, he was so sure the Apocalypse was at hand that he had the late-but-not-great-unless-you-mean-fat Jerry Falwell sit in on national security briefings. The good Rev. Falwell, lest you have forgotten, was the militant Christian televangelist who founded Liberty University and had an incredibly tumescent belly.

On the day after 9/11, in his pompous, bombastic way, the good Rev. Falwell said that pagans, gays, lesbians, abortionists and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "helped make" the attacks possible. He later said that Muslims should be "blown away, in the name of the Lord."

His, together with Messrs. Hagee and Parsley, are surely not the sober hands one would wish to have hovering above the proverbial nuclear red button. Let's hope John McCain just wanted Hagee and Parsley's endorsements only, and that he wasn't being his usual, straight-talking self when he said that while it was a mistake to ask for Hagee's support, he was "still glad to have it."

Daily Scold: Appeasing the security dilemma

woodyear72@gmail.com — Tue, 20 May 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Speaking before the Israeli parliament, George W. Bush denounced appeasement and compared current supporters of appeasement (he named no names, of course) to the likes of Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to avert World War II by giving Hitler whatever he wanted (Google "Munich agreement" for extra credit). Bush said an unconditional offer for direct talks to leaders such as Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would amount to the same thing, or at least the same path. Now the Democrats had a field day, throwing what the The Weekly Standard called "the left's latest hissy fit," with Barack Obama leading the charge, blasting Bush for playing domestic politics overseas and for being plain wrong. John McCain shot right back, using Obama's name (Bush spokesmen repeatedly claimed that Bush did not aim his remarks at Obama or anyone in particular) directly, saying Obama "does not understand the world we live in."

But here's the problem: negotiation isn't appeasement. Appeasement is the part where you give the other guy the better deal, after you negotiate.

The Atlantic Monthly has characterized Obama's foreign-policy stance as being somewhat "accidental" -- that is to say, Obama blurted out his willingness to meet unconditionally with people like Iran's Ahmadinejad. There was no prior discussion.

Since then, Obama has put forth a forceful foreign policy statement that represents a significant departure from establishment Democratic thinking, which is basically, "talk as tough as the GOP or else you'll get owned by right-wing attacks saying you're too weak."

Obama rejects negotiations as a sign of weakness, quoting John F. Kennedy: "we should not negotiate out of fear, but we should also not fear to negotiate."

The conservatives say it's dangerous to talk to Ahmadinejad, or at the very least, meaningless. Iranian officials will proclaim a public relations victory and use the negotiations for domestic propaganda purposes, they say.

No, the better idea is to keep up the hardline approach. Prepare for the worst, don't engage directly, and make sure your demands are so high that the other side cannot possibly meet them without appearing to contradict their long-held position.

This is what I like to call the wrong answer to the security dilemma. The security dilemma is a concept in international relations that's relatively simple to understand: a bunch of nations want to be safe and secure. They don't want war. But they want to be protected, just in case. So they build up armies and weapons, invest large sums of money and effort into having the best military. After all, whoever's got the best military will be the best-prepared in case of enemy attack.

Simple, right? The problem is, the other nations feel the same way, and have reached the same conclusion. So what transpires is a three-way arms race between three nations that have no genuine desire for conflict. You can see how this situation might get out of hand. Angry statements are made by all sides as they accuse one another of warmongering by aggressively building up their military might.

The hardliners on each side say: "prepare for the worst, and don't trust anyone. Make sure your stick's the biggest." This continues the trap, forever fueling an escalating arms race AND fueling the cultural forces of fear, nationalism and hostility towards other nations. These cultural feelings are politically convenient, as they provide public will and support for continuing the military buildup.

Finally, there actually IS a desire on the part of one party to attack. Say preemptively, because one of the other nations has boosted its hostile rhetoric and now has a nuclear arsenal so powerful that, while there is no evidence it intends to attack, the only "smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud," to paraphrase George W. Bush.

This is merely a nightmarish hypothetical, of course -- Iran is years away from a working nuclear weapon that can strike U.S. soil. But adopting the sort of "don't talk, be tough, make them break first" attitude is exactly how you fall into the trap.

It's an easy trap to fall into, as it's easy to win public support for something that will "best prepare" the country in case of enemy attack. But I'd rather take my chances with the guy who's willing to bypass the trap entirely. Let's not forget that without last-minute dialogue and diplomacy, the Cuban Missile Crisis would've resulted in a nuclear conflagration whose radioactive embers would still glow brightly on the streets of Washington D.C. today.

Daily Scold: Political messianism

woodyear72@gmail.com — Mon, 19 May 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington are presidents which are not often compared except in one key way: the devotion that certain groups and constituencies give these leaders is worthy of messianism. The problem with this should be apparent immediately. These men are not messiahs. They are mere mortals, and while their ideas and ideals are consequential, they themselves are fallible men, and their ideas and ideals can and often are fallible. Perhaps this post was inspired by the recent crowds gathered to hear Barack Obama speak or that ridiculous "Yes We Can" anthem sung by some of the Hollywood crowd. Or perhaps it was the plethora of books dedicated to past presidents such as Reagan and Roosevelt. Or maybe it's the fury directed towards Presidents Bush and Clinton because they failed to achieve the same greatness as past presidents that is guiding this post. Take a deep breath folks, we aren't voting for Jesus, we're voting for the same kind of folks who would wash their hands of his blood.

I attribute this religious fervor to a view of government and the presidency which is not only wrong-headed but also unconstitutional and an affront to a limited government which the Framers intended. James Madison writes in Federalist No. 48 that "the executive magistracy is carefully limited, both in the extent and the duration of its powers." According to Article 2 of the Constitution, the president can ask Congress to declare war, appoint his cabinet and the judiciary, and ratify treaties (if two-thirds of the Senate approves). This is a very limited position. The true power lies in Congress for passing laws and the Supreme Court for verifying their constitutionality.

However, in the era of an ever-encroaching government, we have seen the presidency elevated from a limited position to one of expansive powers. The legislative branch has seen a marked decline its ability to check the power of the executive and in many cases simply rubber-stamps the dictates of the presidency. This was not how the Framers of the Constitution intended the federal government to function.

The rise of progressivism and the need for the government to do something to combat the evils of our time made way for what some have termed the "imperial presidency." President Teddy Roosevelt may be the instigator of this. Reason magazine noted, "given the American public’s congenital resistance to centralized rule, a sustained atmosphere of crisis would be necessary to sell the expansion of White House power. Two world wars and one Great Depression did the trick nicely. T.R.’s activist, celebrity presidency heralded the coming of a new sort of chief executive, one who would evermore be the center of national attention, the motive force behind American government." Moreover, Teddy's cousin Franklin continued this unconstitutional exploitation of the presidency by trying to pack the Supreme Court, seizing the banks and issuing executive orders which exceeded the constitutional limitations placed on his office.

This has had a deeply psychological affect on the American electorate. A fair number of people would rather cut out the middle man (Congress) and go directly to the president. This molds much of our collective thinking towards viewing the man as messiah. Think of the terms that Obama and his supporters use as a rallying cry: faith, unity, hope, change. These aren't political terms, they are spiritual ones which have been supercharged to fit a view of the presidency as a euphoric religious experience. One cringes when Michelle Obama, wife of the aforementioned messiah, says, "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed." This is a view of a presidential candidate which is deeply unsettling.

The danger lies most prominently in the inability of the electorate to take their political messiah to task for the abuse of power. The unity which is most prized by those seeking to turn the office of the presidency into a religious position is the most dangerous aspect of all. Simply put, unity is not a virtue as much as a vice to limited government. Much crime has been committed in the name of unity. Jonah Goldberg writes, "The only value of unity is strength, strength in numbers — and, again, that is a fascist value. That’s the symbolism of the fasces, the bundle of sticks that in combination are invincible. Rape gangs and lynch mobs? Unified. The mafia? Unified. The SS [Ed. the Schutzstaffel, a Nazi paramilitary force]? They had unity coming out the yinyang. Meanwhile, Socrates, Jesus, Thomas More, and an endless line of nameless souls were dispatched from this earth in the name of "unity."

I think that the role model for the president should be none other than Calvin Coolidge. Yes, I am referring to that president. The one who said, "After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world," and who said, "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business."

We need more presidents who mind their own business and don't expand their own powers at the expense of the Constitution. We need leaders who don't rise out of the masses promising them their elevation along with theirs. We need not presidents who reflect the post-modern will of the masses. We need presidents to reflect the principles of America's founding document. Coolidge rejected the idea of a political messiah when he said, "We draw our presidents from the people. It is a wholesome thing for them to return to the people. I came from them. I wish to be one of them again."

Analysis: Hillary's curtain call

woodyear72@gmail.com — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Hillary Clinton won wild, wonderful West Virginia Tuesday night, but it was really nothing more than an opportunity for her to preview her exit strategy: she'll go quietly, despite the fears of left-wing pundits who say she's "sowing the seeds of destruction." Such melodramatic opinions at this stage in the game are overblown. The damage to Democratic party unity has already been done. In her W.V. "victory" speech, Clinton expanded on a series of conciliatory talking points she first brought up after narrowly eking out a win in Indiana last week. "I want to commend Senator Obama and his supporters," Clinton began. And then, refusing to stop the political spin that comes with decades of politicking, she went on to describe her relentless battle with Obama with these words: "Yes, we've had a few dust-ups along the way." And then, the clincher -- her next sentence all but but blared her intention to ride out the remaining primaries to a surrender with head held high.

What was that sentence? "Our commitment to bring America new leadership that will renew America's promise means that we have always stood together on what is most important," Clinton said of herself and Obama.

Pundits are likely to dissect this a dozen ways. Why, it could mean that Clinton's shopping for a vice presidential spot on an Obama ticket, using her solid base of support and close primary finish as leverage. Or mayhaps it means she's finally ready to help unify the party and salvage what's left of her reputation so she can return to the Senate as a major player.

If you ask me, given how intensely Clinton has run her campaign, I think the carrots in this speech were designed to ratchet down the steaming piles of er, rhetoric, that she's hurled at Obama over the last five months.

It just wouldn't seem believable for her to roll over and proclaim her undying support and confidence in Obama as president. She has to do it in steps, just because of the wide-ranging perception that this intra-party conflict has been so damaging to the Democrats.

That's an argument I barely buy, by the way. Sure, there's some division, but look at the cold, hard facts: Democrat turnout skyrocketed in every state, while every state has gotten its day in the limelight, a far cry from most primaries, in which only the first handful of states matter. I bet Florida and Michigan are kicking themselves in the balls for breaking party rules to move up their primaries, when it turns out they could've decided the game if only they chose to play by the rules.

In addition, both Clinton and Obama have become better candidates as a result of their dueling. Embarrassing debacles like Snipergate, Pastorgate and Bittergate were all aired long before November. Imagine how the Republicans could've made these things linger if they had a target early on. I'm not the only one who believes that long is good for the Democrats, by the way. Numerous others have said so as well.

A tribute to Hillary
As a conservative, I've got to hand it to Hillary Clinton for running one hell of a campaign. Though her campaign organization was dreadful and she picked deeply flawed people to run it, she's also survived, and I mean survived setback after setback.

Barack Obama may have a monopoly on his so-called "new politics," but when it comes to the old-fashioned, tried-and-true, slash-and-burn, pander-and-attack OLD politics, Hillary is up there with the best of 'em. And I'm only being partly sarcastic -- these tactics have been winning elections for decades. And really, what is Obama's so-called "new" politics beyond a thinly-veiled and highly cynical version of the dirty stuff?

He claims the high road until he's attacked, then boom, he's hitting back and saying you started it.

Besides, it's Hillary that's given us the most memorable remarks of the primary season, with zingers like "the Republican idea of cracking down on illegal immigration would make every good Samaritan a criminal, including Jesus Christ himself!" And of course, "Dick Cheney is the fourth branch of government," and my personal favorite, "After the last eight years, the Republicans should just be handing over the White House to us. But of course they won't."

So I'll just take it, is Hillary's unsaid conclusion. Now that's some steel. Farewell, dear Hillary, and may your time behind the curtain be brief. We all know you'll be peeking behind, biding your time and waiting to strike like the political tigress you are.

In-depth report: SNL tries to be nonpartisan

woodyear72@gmail.com — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:18:00 +0000

It's amusing to think how much impact Saturday Night Live has had on the Democratic primary this year. Already, the pundits have concluded that SNL's previous depiction of the media fawning over Obama resulted in the real media stiffening their backbones and nicking a little of that paint off their golden boy. While both Clinton and Obama have taken time to appear on the show, Clinton was widely seen as having benefitted more from SNL's parodies. With that in mind, the show launched a decimating sketch against Clinton, laughing at her doggedness even as she continues to campaign like there's no tomorrow in West Virginia.

You can expect a report later on from Scold senior political correspondent RJ Carroll, who will be on the scene in Fairmont, W.V. for Clinton's rally tonight.

It's worth noting that this most recent SNL sketch is particularly, almost brutally unkind to the junior senator from New York. Sure, sure, actress/comedian Amy Pohler is funny enough given lines like "I'm Hillary Clinton ... and I'm a sore loser!" But the particularly nasty dagger in Clinton's back comes in the form of the "all my supporters are white racists who won't vote for a black man" line.

Now that is pretty damned pointed for a comedy sketch, if you ask me. There's a dash of truth to it, and it's also taken from Clinton's own unfortunate choice of words. By using the term "white voters," she incurred the wrath of numerous well-known black pundits. A pretty amusing condemnation comes from The New York Times' Bob Herbert, who says Clinton's words essentially scream the message "He can't win! Don't you understand? He's black! He's blaaaaaaaaaaack!"

More likely Clinton's supporters say they won't vote for Obama because 1.) it ain't over yet, 2.) it's been a very passionate and intense campaign, and 3.) Obama has done things to piss off Clintonites ("You're likable enough, Hillary"), and Clinton has shown no hesitation to play the gender card.

But hey, why explain when you can generalize? In any case, Hillary has long won my vote, and not just because she's one bulletproof bitch -- where George W. Bush was content to stare into Vladimir Putin's soul, Hillary would probably strangle Putin with his own black jujitsu belt -- she's taken a strong stand where it counts. The obliteration of Iran if Iran nukes Israel, for instance. How's THAT for a security umbrella, Tehran?

Analysis: And then there were two

woodyear72@gmail.com — Mon, 12 May 2008 04:00:00 +0000

The general election campaign has begun in earnest. With Sen. Clinton gone, the GOP must now quickly re-brand Sen. Obama as the boogieman they hoped Clinton would provide. So Sen. McCain went for the jugular, linking Obama with terrorists and playing on the myth that he's a Muslim. Obama has hit back with a subtle but deniable jab; a style that may become his trademark. This indicates that both candidates have entered general election mode. McCain is offering standard fare for a Republican, tying his opponent to "the enemy." Obama seems to be regaining the ability to attack while appearing above the fray. Nonetheless, the negativity has arrived. Finally, we can move on from destroying the Democratic party to destroying the country.

McCain, who this week said he was "ready" for the general, went on the attack against Obama. The terrorist group Hamas, McCain said, supports Obama for president. Was this merely a suggestion that Obama would be weak on terror, or was it a nod to the Muslim smear?

On The Daily Show, McCain refused to retract or apologize for the comment. He went on to explain that you would never see Hamas endorse him (maybe they don't like him on healthcare?) McCain then went further, saying Hamas knows he is their worst nightmare.

To be fair to McCain, Hamas did gush about Obama. "Actually we like Mr. Obama," said Ahmed Yousef, a political aviser to Hamas. "We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance." Looks like someone just secured the Hamas superdelegates.

Obama responded during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing... John McCain always says 'I am not going to run that kind of politics', and to engage in that kind of smear is unfortunate, particularly because my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his." If Obama seems a little crabby here, bear in mind how unsettling Wolf Blitzer can be.

Obama continued by explaining his position on Hamas, calling it a terrorist organization that should not be negotiated with unless they change their ways. Then, Obama attacked: "So for [McCain] to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don’t need name calling in this debate.”

The McCain camp was a bit peeved at the "losing his bearings" remark. McCain staffer Mark Salter responded in a memo: "First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue."

Actually, it was pretty clever. The remark was just subtle enough that some people did not catch it; others thought it was more of a reference to McCain's service in the Navy. Losing his "bearings" may be a suggestion that McCain is no longer the maverick war hero of 2000 and is now a Bush clone. This is the line of attack Democrats need to press in this race; simply linking McCain to unpopular policies is not enough. The Obama team must convincingly argue that McCain's persona is a fraud.

Many did take it as an age reference, which would be a bit weak. To be fair to Obama, however, McCain is old. Salter's response just keep that out in the open, but worse, it comes across as rather whiny.

Salter continued that "this is typical of the Obama style of campaigning. We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him."

Well Mr. Salter, it certainly takes balls to claim the high road after calling your opponent the candidate of terrorists.

Obama's subtle style of attack always gives him a way to back out. He will not have to apologize for an age crack because he'll insist he did not make one. The shot he took here is reminiscent of his response to the Rev. Wright ad the North Carolina Republican Party ran.

McCain said he did not like the commercial but could not force it to be taken off the air. Obama's response was, even according to Bill O'Reily, was clever. Obama simply said that if McCain really wants the ad down, he will be able to force the N.C. GOP to comply since McCain is the leader of the Republican Party.

Obama insinuated that McCain is either a liar or not respected as the leader of the GOP. This reminds people that McCain is still less than loved in many quarters of the Right. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter were actively gunning for him. Obama's suggestion could lead the chattering classes to talk more about McCain's inability to bring unity to his party. All the while, Obama cannot be called out on it, because he was so indirect.

Obama arguably won both cases of back and forth. For both sides, however, these skirmishes may be a preview of what we can expect this year. It is important for both sides to not only attack the other's weaknesses, but their strengths as well.

The Democrats will want more talk of McCain's perceived inability to mollify the base. They also need to attack his strengths, which is his maverick profile and crossover appeal. Cracks about his age imply he is too establishment, and "losing his way" is code for saying this is not the McCain of 2000.

The two-pronged attack for Republicans will focus on Obama's alleged lack of patriotism. Hence, we get the Hamas comment. The arrow aimed at Obama's strength are the overblown, hysterical reactions to his every jab. Between the lines of Salter's feigned indignation were charges that Obama is no different than any other politician. They tried to make Obama's attack seem so much dirtier than it was because Obama's strength is that he appears to transcend traditional politics and focuses on hope. The best way to sling mud at Obama is to call him the mudslinger.

Get ready, it is going to be a long summer.

Analysis: Is Clinton preparing for 2012?

woodyear72@gmail.com — Fri, 09 May 2008 04:04:00 +0000

Hillary Clinton is no fool. There's calculation in her every move. She's got nerves of steel and the testicular fortitude of Zangief. To quote a Chicago Tribune columnist, "Send her into a dark alley alone with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, slip a paring knife into her hand, and Hillary is the one who comes out five minutes later, smiling." That's not all she's got. Somewhere in the background lurks the legendary political instincts of the one and only Bill Clinton, an unmatched political showman who could probably sell fur coats in a desert. After all, he managed to hang on to the presidency and his wife after getting a blowjob in the Oval Office, then lying about it. When he got done sweet-talking this country, he left office with a 65% approval rating, the highest of any president since the last great war.

He's rumored to be one of the strongest voices urging Hillary to stay in the game. Why? If you ask me, the best explanation is the one I like to call "Operation Thunderpants," which is just a nonsensical codename for Hillary 2012.

No, seriously. Think about it. What other reason could Hillary possibly have to stay in the race and bash Obama for his character while screaming that he's unelectable and can't pass the same "commander-in-chief" test that she and John McCain can?

This is certainly old ground, well-tread more than a month ago by The Huffington Post.

But more than a month ago, Clinton still had Pennsylvania to claim, plus Indiana. It was a narrow ray of hope. If Operation Thunderpants seemed like a silly conspiracy theory back then, how about now, when the media has actually come out and said "Hillary, your presidential campaign is deader than yesterday's fish." I mean, Tim Russert said it, The Washington Post said it in an editorial piece, hell even The Weekly Standard said it.

So, because her campaign is effectively dead, Hillary must be in it for some other reason. She's too smart and Bill's gut instincts are too good for them to believe there's a victory to be had by pressing onward.

But there's certainly a way she can weaken Obama without drawing too much fire herself. She can justify her continued presence in the race by winning West Virginia next Tuesday, a state she's expected to take easily. She can use the win to buy more time while offering token "campaigning" in the remaining primary states -- Oregon, Kentucky, and so forth. Finally, on May 31, she can go to a special meeting of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws committee to press for the seating of delegates from Michigan and Florida.

It's unfair to exclude these two law-breaking states, both of which moved their primary dates up in defiance of DNC regulation. While any neutral observer would probably conclude that Michigan and Florida should sit down and shut the f*ck up, it's not politically expedient to tell all these voters they have no say in the primary. People want a say in the primary, because most feel strongly about Hillary and Obama. Pissed off voters are less likely to go Democratic in the fall. So the political rationale goes.

Anyway, Hillary will use these two states to draw fire while she underlines with a $6.4 million permanent marker the fact that Obama can't win over blue-collar voters, a crucial Democratic voting bloc and one that could very well go to McCain in November.

She'll tone down the negative attacks too, dispensing with character and experience arguments in favor of pounding home the argument that she can deliver more states and is therefore more likely to garner a win in November.

This won't work of course, but it will have achieved an incredibly devious political objective: weakening Obama against McCain while minimizing the criticism and blame aimed at Hillary.

"Is anyone that politically craven?" ponders The Huffington Post's Cenk Uygur in his March story on Hillary 2012. "Is she that cynical? Does she care that little about her own party or her own principles?"

I wouldn't put it past a woman who could slit Vladimir Putin's throat in a dark alley with paring knife, then come out with a smile and a gin and tonic.

Reaction: Obama regains aura of inevitability

woodyear72@gmail.com — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:20:00 +0000

It's been a brutal spring for Barack Obama, but he's regained his footing with a 14-point win in North Carolina and a near-miss of barely 2 points in Indiana. The one thing that stands out the most to this reporter is that Obama has taken a huge amount of punishment, and he hasn't collapsed.

Sure, he's weak with blue-collar voters, and they prefer Clinton over him, but given how sensitive this game is, it's entirely possible for Obama to win them over by arguing John McCain is the greater of two evils. Even worse for Clinton, the media is now all over a story that she loaned her campaign another $6.4 million of her personal wealth. Ouch.

Anyway, the unexpected size of Obama's North Carolina victory erases any gains Clinton made in Pennsylvania. The math is showing Clinton's chances to be impossible, and Obama's aura of inevitability is hanging over her head once again like a guillotine. Obama would have to be client number 10, right behind Eliot Spitzer, to lose the nomination now.

If you want a detailed breakdown on the math, check out MSNBC's First Read blog. The summary is this: Obama has regained his lead in the popular vote and even if Clinton managed to get Florida and Michigan to count, she would still be behind to the tune of about 91,000 votes. That's because Obama's ahead by a whopping 700,000 votes.

And that's not even taking into account the pledged delegate lead Obama has. Again, using First Read's numbers, the addition of Florida and Michigan's delegates (giving Clinton the percentage of Florida and Michigan she won, while Obama gets only the uncommitted delegates) will still result in an Obama lead of about 110 pledged delegates. This is a crucial figure, and one that hasn't changed significantly for Clinton all spring, despite the fact that she's only had to deal with one gaffe (Snipergate) while Obama's had a ton of bad press.

It's a situation that led Tim Russert to conclude that Obama is indeed the Democratic nominee. There's just not much point in pretending anymore. The only question that remains to be answered is how Clinton will choose to go out.

Reports from the campaign trail early this morning indicate Clinton is already off to campaign in West Virginia, with a badly-needed fundraising event set for Washington, D.C. later today. Remember, according to this morning's breaking story, she's more than doubled the amount of money she has personally invested into her campaign.

Stay tuned for a more detailed analysis story of Hillary Clinton's curtain call.

Primary Predictions: Indiana, North Carolina

woodyear72@gmail.com — Tue, 06 May 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Tuesday marks the two last major primaries of the year, because Indiana and North Carolina together are worth nearly 50% of all remaining delegates (in Oregon, West Virginia, etc.).

Obama was heavily favored to win North Carolina, but Clinton has narrowed his 20-point lead there to something like 6 or 7 points. Indiana, once a virtual tie, is now Clinton territory by about 5 or 6 points. These figures are based on averages of many independent polls posted on Real Clear Politics. But despite these rough and uncertain waters, The Scold's fearless political correspondents will put their best guesses on the table for all to see.

· Grant: CLINTON wins Indiana by 5 points, OBAMA wins North Carolina by 7 points.

· Gustavo: CLINTON wins Indiana by 3-4 points, OBAMA wins North Carolina by 8 points.

· Jeremy: CLINTON wins Indiana by 8 points, OBAMA wins North Carolina by 5 points.

· Horace: CLINTON wins Indiana by 7 points, OBAMA wins North Carolina by 7 points.

For details on why we picked these numbers, read on.

· Grant: It's demographics once again that's deciding this race. Indiana is pretty close to Pennsylvania, and the one thing Obama has going for him in the Hoosier state is this sort half-argument that some Indiania residents are familiar with him due to an overlapping TV media market between Illinois and western Indiana. Blue-collar working class voters were never Obama's strong point, and his image to them has worsened considerably thanks to Pastorgate, Bittergate (small-town, blue-collar folk "cling" to guns, God, and antipathy to foreigners, Obama said), and most recently, Pastorgate Deux -- when Jeremiah Wright embarked on a crusade to "clear" his good name. Meanwhile, North Carolina will go to Obama as no number of pissed off blue-collar voters will likely be sufficient to overcome Obama's massive edge in black voters. That's not to say Clinton hasn't closed the gap thanks largely to Wright's recent publicity tour.

· Gustavo: Obama was supposed to take North Carolina by double digits and squeak out a win in Indiana, but his poll numbers across the board have been depressed. As Jeremiah Wright's vengeful media blitz is the biggest spectacle for last-minute swing voters to gawk at, it makes sense that Obama is hurting at this point in the game. Now the polls show he's solidly behind Clinton in the Hoosier state while she's closed the gap in North Carolina. Not a blowout for Obama there, but enough to staunch the bleeding. Meanwhile, Clinton will ride her probable Indiana win for all its worth, and will likely push on with an eye towards West Virginia and Kentucky, two other states with lots of blue collars.

· Jeremy: Indiana is superficially like Pennsylvania and Ohio giving Clinton the advantage. Obama's shot here was ruined by Wright. Expect more "Obama can't connect with rural, blue collar whites" stories. In North Carolina, the demographics mean that Obama will win, but also that he should win. The expectations game means he will get little credit for his victory. However, there is something big to win here: John Edwards' endorsement. That could make the story into a solid Obama win, rather than another grueling draw win the zombie candidate.

· Horace: My, how the tables have turned. Hillary, with a doggedness that's won her admirers from the right, has essentially managed to pin Obama against the ropes. She's gotten a huge amount of help from Jeremiah Wright, a raving maniac whom Obama is probably wishing had been in front of an 18-wheeler at the wrong time with two broken legs. Now Obama faces uncertainty in North Carolina (he'll probably take it thanks to the black vote, as most blacks are probably still staring in Wright's direction with shock or anger) and almost certain defeat in Indiana. My God, it's deliciously entertaining to see how Obama the hopemonger and uniter has become an arugula-buying Harvard elitist with what Newsweek calls a massive "Bubba gap."

Counter Scold: Stop hating on conservatives

woodyear72@gmail.com — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:34:00 +0000

So I'm genuinely confused, Gustavo. You spent the better middle of your article accusing right-leaning publications of guilt by association, then paint conservatives with a broad brush saying, "They're never around to practice this type of logical fallacy when the conservative cause is screwing up (say, anytime in the last eight years)." Then you go onto agree with these right-wing publications to say, [Ed. paraphrasing here] "Well, yeah, The National Review and The Weekly Standard are basically right, but God do I hate conservatives." I think your thesis has its good points especially with regards to Wright's ridiculous assertions regarding his "NATO defense" of himself, but it misses and distorts some very important themes.

Guilt by association is practiced by both parties. Guilt by association as a logical fallacy is not what you think it is. Conservatives are not saying that "Wright is a believer in black liberation theology. Wright is Obama's pastor. Therefore, Obama believes in black liberation theology." Conservatives are questioning Obama's judgment and honesty in staying in a church for so long and in denying ever hearing any racist remarks.

Republicans in the past such as Trent Lott and others have learned the hard way that associating with racist folks can in turn lead to accusations of racism. Hypothetically if President Bush were to be associated with a pastor who said similar things, his judgment would be questioned and rightfully so. As John Podhoretz wrote, "What if John McCain had visited the Unabomber’s cabin? Or had been photographed with Terry Nichols? Or had stopped off at David Duke’s house at some point because he was gathering support and donors? How big a story would that be?" The question I have for Obama is, "How could you have been so blind or ignorant of your pastor and your church when it was explicitly Afrocentric and moreover embraced Marxism and other ideologies that are unsuitable for a presidential candidate?"

If we are going to talk about more association, perhaps Obama's relationship with William Ayers -- one of the founders of the terrorist group The Weather Underground -- should be viewed with some scrutiny. And let's not forget Tony Rezko and the letters which Barack Obama wrote on his behalf or the sweetheart deal which Rezko gave to Obama.

The same folks who hold Bush responsible for the failings of his underlings are the same folks who are now saying that Obama cannot be held responsible for something that his "close confidant" said. Truman said, "The buck stops here." Here is right. If you want to be president, you need to take responsibility for your actions and you have to have good judgment regarding the people you place in power. If Barack Obama does not even have this judgment with his pastor, I'm questioning whether he will have it if and when he becomes the president.