There has been a lively discussion on TPM about the "purity myth," a white, middle class notion of female virginhood that excludes poor women and women of color for whom it is (allegedly) unattainable.  I have to question the premises of the discussion.  That double standards continue to exist in terms of expectations of men and women's sexuality is a given.  I think that goes without saying.  The schema of virgin/whore remains pervasive in American society.  However, I do not see the point of impugning the intelligence or agency of young men and women who choose not to have sex, suggesting that they have fallen prey to an oppressive, bourgeois ideology if they value the idea of chastity.  Some young people, especially girls, undoubtedly feel the pressure to conform to an ideal of virginity, despite their own desires and conflicting social messages that encourage sexual activity.  At the same time, though, we need to keep in mind that some young people choose not to have sex -- not because they are being coerced by bourgeois hegemony, but because they have religious convictions that value chastity before marriage.  Or simply because they choose not to be sexually active.  

Is this so hard to acknowledge?  I feel like much of the debate on TPM has implied that women are either repressed virgins, captive to an unjust bourgeois ideal of sexuality, or they have a healthy, liberal attitude toward sexuality.  At worst, this dichotomy seems to substitue a new orthodoxy of sexual liberalism in place of the old straightjacket of conservative sexual moralism.  At best, it seems to miss the fact that there are other cultural impulses and social factors -- other than class and gender -- in play when people contemplate their own sexuality.

I only entered this debate because the basic premise that a "purity myth" was "middle class."  This surprised me.  When I was in high school, in a small southern town during the 1990s, the "True Love Waits" movement was quite popular.  Both boys and girls got the rings and pledged that they would "wait until marriage."  Undoubtedly, many of those people ended up breaking their pledges, sexual desire being what it is.  In any case, many of my classmates who believed in this idea of chastity were not what I would call "well-off" or "middle class."  They were of many races and income levels, and sincere in their Christian faith; many believed that their sexual experience would be more valuable if they postponed exploring it.  That's an individual call to make, and most people will not come to the same conclusion, but I don't think that those who do are necessarily subscribing to an oppressive image of their self-worth as sexual beings.  Let's keep this discussion of purity and virginity and sexuality going, so that the harmful and unjust aspects of our cultural expectations of sex can be addressed.  But let's also respect people in the choices they make, when they are motivated in ways we might not always immediately understand or appreciate. 

I did some canvassing in Raleigh today, in some areas around I-540 and Six Forks Rd.  The main goal was to remind Democratic households to vote and inform them of their polling place.  The only really pro-McCain people I encountered were those who had moved into houses where the people on our lists had formerly lived.  I guess that means that most of the people we had down as supportive had, at least, not changed their minds.  The neighborhoods were very affluent and mostly pro-McCain, although there were a couple of Obama signs and one guy told me that several of his neighbors had their Obama/Biden signs stolen.  One lady was so nice that she invited me in for a glass of lemonade and cookies -- Southeast Asian, a middle aged realtor who had always been a Republican but ardently supported Obama.  This being North Carolina, the McCain supporters were reasonably pleasant, if clipped, in turning me away, and none of the people were of the "fucking n*****" variety.   The area was totally white save for a few Asian families (almost entirely pro-Obama), and one African American household.

All I can say is that Raleigh is supposed to be one of the most liberal parts of the state, and it doesn't seem to be as thumpingly pro-Obama as one might hope.  I'm not sure if there's enough support here to offset the large margins McCain is likely to achieve in many rural areas.  Maybe there is.  There has been much talk about the incredible Obama ground game, and the organizers I met were pretty confident that no virtually no McCain organization existed on the ground.  (Reports say that Mac has pulled his limited funds out of paid organizing at the last minute to focus on ads, leaving the get-out-the-vote work to the local parties and, presumably, the churches.) Though I've seen several Obama canvassers out and about (Saira's parent's place has been hit twice in as many days), I did see one Jeep with McCain and Dole stickers making stops around the same neighborhood where I was working. 


There weren't too terribly many people hanging around the Strickland Ave office when I started this afternoon, but when I returned later on in the evening many more people, largely but not entirely young, were coming in to canvass, phonebank, and enter data.  It's hard to gauge the intensity of the campaign from the bustle in an office like this, since Obama has so opened many different locations throughout Raleigh, some even out of people's houses.  I'm coming away with the impression that Obama has dramatically more support in NC than Kerry or Gore ever did, but that it's still going to be a steeper climb here than in Virginia (if the polls are any indication).  Ultimately, northern VA may just have more of the educated, mid-level professional class of people than NC has concentrated in Charlotte and the Research Triangle - this white-collar workforce presumably includes many potential Obama voters, although the depth of pro-McCain feeling among the upper-middle-class suburbanites of North Raleigh shows how income and education levels certainly do not equate to Democratic support in this area.

I don't want to be too discouraging about Obama's prospects here.  He has been in up in most recent NC polls, and his ground organization may be enough to counterbalance the inevitable turnout of scared and/or bigoted voters.  If nothing else, his excellent campaign may provide enough of a boost in Democratic turnout to help State Sen. Kay Hagan get across the finish line in the race against Elizabeth Dole; some traditional Democrats who can't vote for Obama may find themselves in the booth and vote for Hagan for Senate and Bev Perdue for Gov.  Many people seem to be discounting her chances lately, but I still have a gut feeling that Perdue will eke out a victory in the end.  For some reason, North Carolinians have a thing for Democratic governors, whether they have much to offer or not, and Republican Pat McCrory has to overcome general resentment in the state toward the city of Charlotte, where he is mayor.  This goes along with my belief that comedian Al Franken will pull out a win in the Minnesota Senate race against skeezball opportunist Norm Coleman, despite the fluctuating polls.  I think the Minnesotans will visit a punishing vengeance for the spirit of the great Paul Wellstone.

What my gut still can't be sure about is the presidential election.  NC may be very, very close, and I can't help but thinking VA is closer than people think it is.  Our energy might be put to better use in VA, which might be more of a "tipping point," in my opnion, but it's a lot easier to help out where while we're hanging with my wife's fam and our nephew Bilal.  If NC did somehow fall into the Dem column, it would be a very sweet prize indeed, even though Obama could probably win the election without NC's electoral votes.

I'm married to Saira the Researcher.  My mom is Sandy the Truck Part Maker, and my grandpa is Darrell the Carpenter.  Where is Susan Powter the Insanity Stopper when you need her?

I've always thought the phrase "Joe Six Pack" was a condescending label created by media elites to describe the ordinary man.  It has a touch of the same sneer that went into the term "hard hats," which was used to describe traditionally-minded working class folks who hated hippies back in the days of Richard Nixon.  So it is extremely puzzling to me when vicious dunces like Sarah Palin use "Joe Six Pack" to describe their supporters, blithely unaware of how out-of-touch and belittling it sounds.

They've brought the same sort of rhetorical tone deafness to the "Joe the Plumber" campaign.  Never mind the factual details that the guy is neither Joe nor a plumber, as Linda Richman might say.  The whole idea of Joe the Plumber stinks.  It's like saying Jimmy the Shoeshine Boy.  I mean, give me a break, people.  Palin has now introduced us to Ed the Dairyman and Tito the Builder - the <i>builder</i> - in an attempt to franchise this unbelievably stupid concept.  I'm not kidding.  Is Clifford the Big Red Dog going to come out for McCain/Palin next?

Thus we get the pathetic spectacle of well-heeled rich kids from the College Republicans dressing up in overalls and ballcaps, waving plungers and signs that say "I AM JOE."  The conservative blogs have tried to push a movement in which McCain supporters post  "This I Believe"-style statements about their lives and their hatred of Obama, under the heading, "I Am Joe."  

This is what you'd expect from a country where a guy with 12 houses can describe anyone making up to $5 million a year as "middle class," and he can speak up for the little guy by choosing a flirty dingbat with no qualifications except her folksy flair as a running mate.  This is the logical course of action for a party that decries "class warfare" when its entire campaign is based on class warfare -- riling up its supporters' resentment of media elites while proposing to pick the pockets of regular taxpayers and transfer the funds to the wealthiest among us.   Of course they want to talk about every Ed, Joe, and Tito they can find, because it allows them to feign concern for people they view as ignorant pawns in their game.

Their disdain for the working class is revealed by the fact that they talk about them like they were children's toys.  Bob the Builder, anyone?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/joeplumber.jpg

What a difference two weeks can make.  Now numerous polls have Obama up in North Carolina, the land of gas lines and the amazing imploding Wachovia... and he is improbably romping in Florida and Ohio, the two evillest of all swing states.  Gunshy liberals find themselves unable to stop salivating over the prospect of a sweep from Colorado to Virginia to Iowa to Nevada.  Yet we can't help but tell ourselves that this moment will be the one we look back on wistfully, years from now, as the day we foolishly thought our candidate will win.

Well, I've been saying it just about forever, but an apocalyptic, scorched-earth campaign is coming our way, courtesy of desperate conservatives.  It has to.  They have no credibility left to lose and the election is slipping away.  We will be seeing a lot of "Goddamn America" in the coming weeks.  What baffles me is that these unregulated outside groups have not yet gone up with many vicious ads yet -- the sort of stuff McCain will nobly disavow but obviously profit from. 

At the moment, however, it is very dark for the Mac.  Though he did well, the debate did not really change anything and may have reinforced Obama's lead.  His campaign suspension gimmick went down like  a lead balloon.  The long, long years of conservative malfeasance and governmental malpractice have finally caught up with these people, and I whole-heartedly agree with Kos on this:

"Many people will warn against 'getting complacent.' I like to approach this potential problem differently -- we have a chance to rip out the GOP's jugular. We can throw them an anvil. We can kick them while they're down. No matter the metaphor, the underlying meaning remains -- we can destroy the Republicans. Now's not the time to slack, it's the time to pick things up. We've got them in a near rout. Let's destroy them."

Exactly.  Our team is on track to pick up Senate seats in Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire  and Alaska.  Yet the economic meltdown seems to have put Republican incumbents in danger in the most improbable places - North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and even Kentucky.  We are literally on the verge of creating a Congressional majority that could pass Obama's agenda over Republican resistance.  And that son of a bitch in Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, who shamefully demonized the three-limb amputee veteran Max Cleland as an unpatriotic coddler of terrorists -- he's also facing a strong challenge from Democrat Jim Martin.

They say payback is a bitch.  Let's make sure it is.

The latest meme to roll off the conveyor belt at the Fox News hate factory is that community organizations such as Acorn are responsible for the subprime debacle.  Of course, Barack Obama has "ties" with these "radical allies."  The Fox News ticker was reporting only on this topic for like ten minutes.  This aspect of the crisis literally does not exist in the world of MSNBC.

Acorn and other groups supported laws that would make it easier for the poor to buy homes.  So they are the real culprits in this mess, not the banks or the loansharks or the real estate boosters.  Ann Coulter agrees, of course.  I got this message in my inbox the other day: THEY GAVE YOUR MORTGAGE TO A LESS QUALIFIED MINORITY

And the hawk-eyed conservatives have also noted that unqualified Hispanic employees were responsible for the collapse of Washington Mutual.  I guess they must be the reason why WaMu ran all those ridiculous ads in which their plucky young employee - a black man - torments the stuffy, aristocratic old white male bankers for the sake of the common people.  Poor bankers!  If only they had been able to run their companies without the interference of incompetent minorities, maybe this whole mess would never have happened.

Reading up on the extreme hostility of the business press and right-wing blogs toward Acorn and other community groups is truly eye-opening.  It puts Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin's jeering of "community organizers" at the RNC in a whole new light.   The foolish speculation among liberals that denouncing community organizers was mere code language for racism completely missed the point -- something that I sort of vaguely, instinctively sensed while watching Palin's RNC speech.  They don't hate Obama-the-community-organizer because he's black or urban, per se.  They revile the idea of these organizers as mini bureaucrats, proxies of the liberal nanny state who want to come in and tell you what to do.  Obama the busybody.  "It's a community, and it doesn't need to be organized!" Palin said, to uproarious applause. 

As you can tell from reading the articles below, conservatives basically see liberal community organizations as the bastard lovechildren of the Community Party and the mafia, training cadres to tamper with the system and bilk taxpayers.  They are "corrupt."

Check it out:

The Investor's Business Daily: Democrats want to use profits from the bailout as a slush fund for liberal activist groups, even those involved in vote fraud to help elect Barack Obama...

Renew America: B. Hussein Obabma was at the center of ACORN. As a community organizer he was right there with the corruption. He trained ACORN workers and they in turn worked on his campaign in Illinois...

They've been nationalizing stuff like Fidel Castro on a Don Quixote kick... As far as my non-economist pea-brain can comprehend, the difference is something like this: under socialism the state takes over companies that are profitable, while under capitalism we get to take over firms that are failing. Lucky us. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091602174_pf.html

This is sterner stuff than Obama and his team seem willing to do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRpIfTDHG2U If we could get this on the air, maybe the awful consequences of giving the GOP yet another pass would become clearer to people? This is an ad originally crafted by a blogger on DailyKos, and slightly retooled to go on the air now in Ohio and Michigan. They have another ad that is also persuasive but not quite as powerful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4eiE_ijB6E Do you think it's worth it to make an organized effort to get the first ad on the air? If we're unsatisfied with the tenor and message of Obama's ads, then maybe we ought to get together to put out our own messages. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/14/203255/447/106/598917

The thought has occurred to me from time to time.  From the collapse of Blair Hull's primary campaign to the lurid adventures of Republican contender Jack Ryan; from the absurdity of Alan Keyes to scoring the keynote speaking slot at the DNC; from Hillary Clinton's fratricidal campaign operation to Mark Penn's catastrophic miscalculation on the caucuses, Barack Obama has again and again benefited from the randomness of events and the fortuitous misfortunes of others. 

The Republican field happened to fracture along ideological lines in a way it hasn't in years, with the evangelical true-believers and the party's secular urban wing and whatever-Romney-represented dividing the vote, causing the nomination to default to "moderate maverick" McCain, who couldn't really satisfy the wingers no matter how hard he tried to ape Bush.  The GOP settled on the ancient mariner himself in a year people were hungry for change.  Then Mac picked a creationist, secessionist (?), gun-toting small town mayor in go-go boots for VP, a woman who looks like his daughter standing next to him, in a bid to simultaneously (and implausibly) woo right-wing extremists and Hillary Clinton voters -- a move that looked both desperate and reactive.  A woman he had only met once.  Who improbably had a baby without anyone noticing she was pregnant, and whose daughter is said to be five months pregnant -- also, without anyone noticing.  Whether the wild stories going around the Internet are true, the whole scenario makes the campaign seem wobblier than ever.

Obama and his team have clearly shown the good judgment to make the most of every turn in the road -- reacting wisely to the unexpected is the measure of a great campaign.  And being prepared for turbulence doesn't hurt either -- as their masterful response to the inevitable Wright flap showed.  Whatever people blather on about executive experience, Obama has built up one of the world's most successful startup companies in a matter of two years. 

Regardless, I find it truly remarkable how time and again events have converged in just the way to allow him to make great gains politically.  If Hull and Ryan hadn't had their domestic problems, or Kerry had picked someone else to speak in 2004, or Clinton's staff had actually planned ahead, or a true maverick, a vigorous young star had emerged from the Republican pack, we might not be where we are today.  With the country in such bad condition, and Obama riding such a wave of good fortune, the mind boggles at the fact that we could still lose this election.

You should be getting your text message any day now.  As such, many people have been making their last, best guesses as to who will be Barack Obama's running mate -- trying to figure out exactly what the campaign's strategy will be, since the VP pick gives an idea of what they think their own strengths and weaknesses are.  The betting markets say Bayh, Biden and Kaine are the likeliest.  Here are my guesses:

1. Gen. Wesley Clark -- a southern guy and Clinton ally, he has more military cred than McCain, and he was against the war from the beginning.

2. Sen. Joe Biden -- he's smart, knows foreign policy, would make a good "attack dog" veep; there seems to be a growing consensus that he's the likeliest pick.

3. Gov. Brian Schweitzer -- he has been my favorite dark horse for the last few months.  I have this nagging suspicion that Obama might pull him out of the hat.  He's affable, avuncular, articulate, progressive; hails from a new, albeit small, swing state (Montana); and he gels with this whole "new politics" vibe of Obama.  You can see that rhetoric in full display in this video.  I would love to see this guy get it, but the foreign policy expertise is lacking.

4. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- people seem to think she would make a great candidate, although I'm not sure why.  Sebelius has done good work as the progressive governor of a very conservative state (Kansas), but she seems a bit stiff and does not seem to help on the variables of foreign policy, winning a swing state, etc.  If Kos and Nate Silver think she would be a good pick, though, there must be something to it.  (That being said, my friend Antonio noted that Obama-Sebelius sounds like a character from Star Wars.)  

5. Sen. Hillary Clinton -- as hard as it would be to do this now, picking her might completely nuke McCain out of consideration by rallying the discontented in Ohio, Florida, etc.

When Gene Rutherford, 65, tries to make sense of the meteoric rise of Barack Obama, and the rampant enthusiasm for him among younger Americans, he thinks of the local mall, where as director of operations he often deals with teenagers.

"Kids today have been given everything they want, and don't have to work for it. They have no respect for authority," said Rutherford, standing at the bar at the Elks lodge here. "They'll make remarks right to the face of the [mall] cops. I get to the point where I want to do something," he said, cocking a fist as if to threaten a punch. "But the police say we can't, that we just have to stand there." It makes him worry for the country. "I see it going the Roman way."

If the senator from Illinois is going to achieve his goal of bridging the nation's divides, he is going to have to overcome a generation gap with older voters unlike any such split a Democratic presidential nominee has faced in years.

In other words, Obama is responsible for the insolence of all those cocky young whippersnappers who smart off the geriatric security guards at the mall.  

Old folks resenting ungrateful youngsters?  This is a unique feature of the 2008 election, never before seen in the history of humankind.  Wow.

In 1935, some of Roosevelt’s advisers were fretting over the rising power of Louisiana Senator Huey Long and California doctor Charles Townsend; they wanted him to come out swinging against his potential challengers.  They particularly hoped he would take the political implications of Townsend seriously, even though many laughed at the his plan for old age insurance. 

As usual, though, Roosevelt was unalarmed.  He sensed that the protest movements were off in their timing, at least as far as elections were concerned.  He viewed Townsend, Coughlin and Long as a “free side-show” that would run its course, having flared up in 1935. 

“Public psychology, he said, ‘cannot, because of human weakness, be attuned for long periods of time to a constant repetition of the highest note in the scale… There is another thought which is involved in continuous leadership,’ the President went on. 

People ‘tire of seeing the same name day after day in the important headlines of the papers, and the same voice night after night over the radio.  For example, if since last November I had tried to keep up the pace of 1933 and 1934, the inevitable histrionics of the new actors, Long and Coughlin and Johnson, would have turned the eyes of the audience away from the main drama itself!’  But Roosevelt agreed that the time would come for a ‘new stimulation of united American action,’ and he would be ready."

About that "Obama fatigue"... it's about time the man went on a vacation, right?

As MJ Rosenberg said the other day, McCain is faring well in the polls precisely because he couldn't get any media attention.  If he had, people would have noticed his colossal flubs and doubted his competence.  Let's let Mac have some acreage on the magazine covers, and give people a breather from nonstop Obama.  That seems to be Barack's strategy, and FDR would approve.

(Source: James M. Burns, Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox, 214)

<center><img src="http://media.sustainableindustries.com/images/Schweitzer_Brian_large.jpg"></center>

For as long as Obama has had the nomination, I've felt like his VP choice would be a genuine surprise -- someone who is not on the official list of possibilities.  Sen. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_biden">Joe Biden</a> is witty and would make a good attack dog, Gov. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkQ04Tk7dTk">Tim Kaine</a> might help in Virginia, and Gen. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kag0bBJVkIw">Wesley Clark</a> could provide the perfect trifecta of military credentials, antiwar positions, and outsider status.  (He's still probably my preferred choice.)  However, I still get this feeling Obama decided who he wanted to run with a long time ago, and it would be someone who plausibly fit with this whole theme of change and reform.  Who knows?  Maybe it's Feingold, Sebelius, Zinni, Gephardt, etc. etc.  Over the last few weeks, the various flare-ups of press attention about Kaine and then Sen. Bayh definitely look like a clever bait-and-switch on the part of the campaign.

I have no idea who he will pick, and I think he probably has a clever plan in place for whoever his choice is.  For some reason, though, I keep thinking Montana governor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer">Brian Schweitzer</a> would be an interesting choice.  He'd be no help in a big swing state like Ohio or Missouri (though, improbably enough, MT is actually a swing state for the first time in 28 years), and I assume he has no experience on the national security issues.  But seeing lean, mean Obama next to a jovial, tubby guy from Montana seems like a nice tableaux to set for the election.  It would say, "NEW, NEW, NEW" -- here is a Democratic Party that represents a new generation and looks to the West.  Clark offers the substantive elements, in my opinion, but I'd like to see a totally fresh face with an untold storyline like Kaine or Schweitzer come to the fore.  Thoughts?

Virtually every email I get from the RNC, Human Events and the American Family Association includes some reference to the "Global Poverty Act," which they describe as a massive "global tax" that Obama wants to impose on the ever-suffering American taxpayer.  I've never heard a peep about this from the TPM or DailyKos crowd, yet it's reaching the level of an idée fixe on the Right. 

What's up with that?  Does anyone know the real deal on this? 

It is usually portrayed as a big step toward world government and a global redistribution of wealth out of American pockets.  I assume it is probably a run-of-the-mill UN-related bill that is being completely misrepresented, but it's important that we be aware that this is the sort of stuff the Right is peddling to its loyal followers.

The RNC declares:

"While stumping for the support of his party’s leftist base, Obama proclaimed, 'we can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.'

And now he’s putting your money where his mouth is.
A bill he has sponsored in the U.S. Senate, the so-called Global Poverty Act (S. 2433), would raise the amount of American tax dollars allocated to United Nations’ redistribution efforts to $845 billion.  That’s $2,500 from every American taxpayer, when many in our country already are struggling to make ends meet."

And the Center for Individual Freedom says:

"Tell them that is unacceptable and demand they kill the Global Poverty Act once and for all. Make it clear that patriotic Americans will not tolerate the funneling of $845 BILLION into the pockets of corrupt third-world dictators or hate-America bureaucrats at the United Nations."

"The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the [United Nation's] Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans."

My wife and I recently returned to Gastonia, NC, due to a medical emergency.  We hadn't been back since Christmas, and in the meantime we had  implored every single soul we knew through countless emails and phone calls to register to vote, change parties, and vote for Barack Obama.  For our trouble, we got a wonderful victory from what is in my opinion the finest state in the Union.

Since coming back, we have been struck by the unanimous view that Obama must pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate.  Everyone seems to consider this the only way that he can win, putting his supporters with hers and reassuring workaday white voters.   It seems to be taken for granted that this is the best strategy.  Now, my family is made up of real salt of the earth, Harley-driving, factory-working type people, and many of them supported Obama in large part because they despise Bill and Hillary.  So to hear such resounding support  for an Obama-Clinton ticket coming from them was a real shock.

My stepsister, for instance, lists her political views as "Democratic Party" on Facebook.  That was a grand surprise for me, because I had always figured her politics were straight Christian conservative and had never really tried to pry into the issue to find out.  I guess being a working-class single mom of two in Gastonia teaches you not to put too much stock in the status quo.  She hates Bush, likes Obama, and thinks Clinton as veep would be the best way to go.  It makes me wonder how all these rank-and-file Democrats will feel if Obama passes over Clinton to pick some truly unknown quantity, like Zinni, Clark, Webb, Sebelius and so on.  Maybe they will go along with the media narrative and forget about Hillary.  In any case, I have not understood until now what a strong pull the Clinton brand name has on folks, just because of the built-in strength of its familiarity. 

After talking to friends and family in Gastonia, I find myself wishing that Bill and Hillary wouldn't bring so much destructive baggage to the ticket.  I wish she hadn't said all those things about Obama.  I wish more than ever that Bill wasn't an uncontrollable lech, and that he didn't have all these shady business dealings on the side.  I honestly can't see Obama picking her as VP, unless he really feels like he's in trouble and needs to shore up the base.  And that's a shame, because there is a segment of voters out there who view Obama-Clinton as an unstoppable force.

"Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth --that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible. But to do that a man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else men will not be able to attain even that which is possible today. Only he has the calling for politics who is sure that he shall not crumble when the world from his point of view is too stupid or too base for what he wants to offer. Only he who in the face of all this can say 'In spite of all!' has the calling for politics."

These are words for everyone who cares about politics and policy.  They would have helped us get through the day following John Kerry's ignoble defeat in 2004, when Bush's insanity seemed to be embraced and bolstered by the American people.  They would probably provide some perspective to a Clinton supporter who cannot believe their favored candidate failed to win the nomination, and to the Obama supporters who will watch their hero face the onslaught of vitriol, calumny and hatred that is coming his way -- not to mention those same supporters who might see him fumble and fail if he does get into office.  

Max Weber spoke these words when Germany was in disarray following its defeat in World War I.  He seemed to sense that very bad things were coming for his countrymen, though I wonder if he could have even conceived of the horrors that would follow in the 1930s and 1940s.  "Not summer's bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness, no matter which group may triumph externally now," Weber said. "Where there is nothing, not only the Kaiser but also the proletarian has lost his rights."  

But he wasn't trying to depress everyone.  As a sociologist, he was providing his insight into how modern, professional party politics worked, and he was encouraging people to strive for the best while accepting that the results might be mediocre or, more likely, worse.  He wanted to show that pragmatic politics did not just mean accepting the current definition of what is possible, but struggling to readjust people's idea of what is possible -- even if you have to settle, ultimately, for practical compromises.  This approach prevents one from getting lost and compromising over and over again, until the original purpose is lost, all in the spirit of being "realistic" and "practical."  I think this is why people have warmed to Barack Obama's message of "hope."  While many view it as a lot of empty platitudes, I think it represents an important rhetorical, strategic, and ideological posture.  His pragmatism is very different from the kind practiced by Bill and Hillary Clinton, who supported NAFTA, cut welfare and endorsed the Iraq War in their pursuit of the middle ground.  It says we can compromise while reaching for bigger goals, which is how I view his plan for healthcare, which many have legitimately criticized for not requiring coverage for all.  I think it is the best way to approach a single, public system by stealth, expanding Medicaid and offering people the alternative to buy into a cheaper, more efficient government plan.  People will say that it's just a feeble, pro-business compromise, but I respectfully suggest that this is a misreading of the policy.

There are many other examples we could look at, but I just wanted to share Weber's words as we try to confront the very real question of how you work for compromise and coalition without losing your ethical bearings in the process.

You can read Weber's whole fascinating speech here

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html