Rick Perlstein, in Nixonland:

It was not as if American leaders hadn't been warned.  It was "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy," the World War II hero Omar Bradley had first observed in 1951.  Such sage warnings tended to be ignored.  When Undersecretary of State George Ball began criticizing the commitment to South Vietnam in the early 1960's, he was shut out of meetings.  He managed to buttonhole the president nonetheless.  "Within five years," he said, "we'll have three hundred thousand men in the paddies and jungles and never will find them again.  That was the French experience."  JFK came back, "George, you're just crazier than hell."  Ball indeed misjudged:  the actual number of troops at the end of 1966 was 385,300.

The parallels between Vietnam in the early 60's and Afghanistan today are striking.  We have a young, idealistic president just taking office, in the face of some doubts over his toughness in matters military.  We are propping up a puppet regime that is unpopular with the native population.  We are facing an insurgency which has the freedom to cross the border of a neighboring nation for safe harbor.  The terrain is ideally suited for our enemy's strengths while neutralizing our technological advantages.  And another imperial power has only recently tasted defeat at the hands of the same insurgents.

 

The American people are, at best, ambivalent towards our presence there.  Most of the attention in this country has been focused on Iraq, until just recently.  President-elect Obama ran on a pledge to draw down troops in Iraq while escalating the force count in Afghanistan.  We've just spent the past five years paying the price in blood and treasure for having a war jammed down our throats through the use of fear-mongering, exaggeration and outright lies.  

We, as a nation, deserve a fair and open debate on the proper course for the Afghan conflict going forward.  Obama has won the election.  He did so partly because the American people preferred his judgement and temperament to John McCain's.  It always struck me as discordant when he spoke hawkishly about Afghanistan and Pakistan, coming down somewhere to the right of McCain.  Perhaps it was campaign rhetoric designed to offset the stereotype of Democrats being soft on defense.  I hope so.

Obama has promised he will listen to his generals when they advise him on a final Iraq withdrawal timetable.  If sixteen months works, fine.  If it takes longer to get out in a responsible fashion, so be it.  One of the main reasons he was elected was because the voters trusted him to bring the Iraq War to an end, rationally and decisively.  The same standard must be applied to the war in Afghanistan.  If a roadmap for victory can be designed (however victory is defined -- another point of debate) and it necessitates more troops, then, by all means, send more troops.  If it's realistic that bin Laden can be captured or killed by our troops venturing into the mountains of northwest Pakistan, let's get it done.  But let's also consider that the finest military in the world, along with our intelligence communities, have dedicated the past seven years to the task with no success.  They're no closer to cornering him now than they were in 2001 the day after they lost him in Tora Bora, despite the standing offer of a $25 million dollar reward for information leading to his capture or death.  

I'm not saying that bringing down bin Laden wouldn't be a huge victory, symbolic as well as tactical.  I'm just asking, at what cost?  How many more lives is his worth?  All we should ask of Obama is that he approaches Afghanistan with the same pragmatism he seems to be applying to Iraq.  In other words, he should be as careful going into Afghanistan as he is promising to be careful getting out of Iraq.

If Obama wants to use the Kennedy and Johnson administrations as his models for changing America in big ways, he would do well to remember how Johnson's presidency -- he of the Great Society -- was ultimately undermined by Vietnam.

Much is being made of President-Elect Obama's admiration for Abraham Lincoln's Team of Rivals approach towards piecing together an administration.  And, judging by his early actions, with good reason.  He's moving deliberately, so most names are speculative at this point, but here's a look at the current playing field:

Chief of Staff -- Rep. Rahm Emanuel, from Illinois.  While an extremely close friend of Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, make no mistake about it, he is a Clinton man from way back.  His first taste of politics at the national level was working for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and he served as a senior advisor in the Clinton White House from 1993-98.  An interesting choice, he challenges the bipartisan meme of Obama's White House due to his cutthroat Democratic bona fides.  Conservatives are howling and the netroots are grumbling as well.

Secretary of Defense -- the consensus seems to be that he will keep Bush's current SOS, Robert Gates, on for at least a year, both as a reward for a job generally accepted as well done in Iraq and as a bipartisan aide to a transition to more of an emphasis on the mess in Afghanistan.  There has been some buzz, slightly abated now, that Sam Nunn, last spotted heading back to Georgia in 1997 as he retired from his senate seat citing a "lack of zest and enthusiasm," was a dark horse possibility.

Secretary of State -- less predictable than a game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey and more fun than a pinata party.  Chief party rival Hillary Clinton is the nom de jour.  Other than her very public differences of opinion over foreign policy with Obama, she faces the same difficulties being confirmed in the face of Bill Clinton's aversion to vetting as she did when being considered as a potential vice-president.  (I wonder if she ever sits up at night, over a Crown Royal nightcap, while Bill is jetting to some Arab Emirate on Ron Burkle's Boeing 757 known as "Air F*#k One," for staggeringly obvious reasons, and considers just how much being married to the Big Dog complicates her life.)  Republicans Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar's names are bandied about also as candidates (for both State and Defense) to trip across the Obama Footbridge of Peace being constructed over the center aisle of the U.S. Senate.  

Secretary of Treasury -- former SOT Lawrence Summers is on the shortest of lists, as is former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.  While Summers has practically made a career out of insulting various core Democratic constituencies since leaving public office, it's hard to deny that he is a brilliant economist and comfortable thinking outside the box, a talent obviously in demand these days.  As for Volcker, gimme a break.  Jimmy Carter appointed him Fed Chair.  He's eighty-one years old!  He actually remembers the last time the economy was this bad.  All due respect (and he has certainly earned it), but I'm not sure the focus and energy that the current crisis will demand is the ideal fit for an octogenarian. 

 Vice President Biden's Chief of Staff --  Ron Klain, Al Gore's chief of staff when he held the office.

White House Counsel -- Greg Craig, best known for helping Bill Clinton beat the wrap at his 1998 impeachment hearings.  He has continued as close advisor to both of the Clintons.

I don't know about you, but as one who supported Obama based upon the campaign he ran and the promises he made, I'm about ready for some names that A)aren't joined at the hip to one or both of the Clintons, B)don't sit with conservative Republicans at Senate picnics or, C)are not hard-wired into the Washington power establishment.  I mean, the only group whose performance over the past few years rivals the incompetence and lack of integrity exhibited by Bush and the Republicans is the Democratic Congress.  

Obama promised, among other things, an approach in Washington that would be as fresh as it was bold.  No more re-treads.  Well, to channel a Clinton greatest hit, I suppose it depends upon what the definition of "retread" is, but most of the names listed above are awfully familiar.  

I'd like to see Samantha Power get some attention for State.  She's a realist -- she stated all the way back in March, while working for the Obama campaign, that sixteen months for an Iraq withdrawal was a "best case scenario" that he would revisit if elected.  She was forced to resign after speaking the truth about Hillary Clinton's campaign (that her level of deceit was unattractive) because she described her as a "monster," even though she told the interviewer that was off the record.  She won the Pulitzer Prize writing about genocide and was responsible for directing Obama's attention towards the atrocities in Darfur.  She would be a bold and fascinating choice.  

Obama met with vanquished presidential rival John McCain today.  The argument has been made that McCain won't relish continuing to serve in a diminished state with an increasingly minority party in the senate.  But it's hard to figure where he might fit in the Team of Rivals, were Obama so inclined.  Where do you put a flip-flopping Republican hawk who has declared a complete lack of respect for your experience and judgement along with a deep suspicion of your past associations, no matter how casual?  Come to think of it, I guess you sit him right next to Hillary. 

I can see only one realpolitik argument for finding a spot for McCain in the administration.  Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is reportedly being considered for Attorney General.  She would bring a fresh voice to Washington, and increase the cabinet's diversity at the same time.  However, she is in line to run against McCain for his Arizona senate seat in 2010 and there is some doubt that the Democrats could find anyone else to mount a substantive challenge against him.  It must be tempting to finish transitioning Arizona from red to blue (McCain only won 53.8% of the vote against Obama) with Napolitano snatching McCain's seat out from under him.  So maybe you leave her where she's at and offer the AG spot to someone like Eric Holder, who led Obama's V.P. search committee.

While attempting to predict the incoming administration is a bit of an old Washington chestnut, it makes for a more enjoyable parlor game than gathering around the television and watching the market fall on CNBC.  Besides, it's the only game in town for the next couple of months.  Unless you're putting together an over/under pool on how many more days until GM goes under.

Hang on.  How many cars does McCain own?  That's right, thirteen. 

Obama is said to be considering naming "a point person to lead efforts to help the distressed auto industry return to health."  It should obviously be someone who believes in the product.  Someone experienced in deal-making.  Preferably someone with a bit of a jingoist streak to keep him going through the dog days when he looks at the numbers and sees Japan is still kicking Detroit's ass.  Someone who puts country first and would be willing to spend most of this winter in Michigan rather that by a babbling brook in Sedona, Arizona.

The perfect choice to round out President Obama's Team of Rivals.

Car Czar -- John McCain.

This is from the blog, Last Kaul.

     One debate down, two to go.  (I don't count Biden-Palin.  That's not a debate, that's vaudeville.)  Last week's first Obama-McCain debate was scheduled to cover foreign policy yet was dropped surreally into the middle of the nation's most pressing economic crisis since 1929.  I don't mean to suggest they should have switched topics but let's just say that Waziristan has never seemed farther away than it did last week while watching the Dow do its impression of a lead balloon.
     McCain accused Obama of going through the entire debate without uttering the word, "victory."  Obama rebutted that McCain never used the phrase, "middle-class."  Both accurate points that, I suppose, say something about both campaigns and to whom they're speaking. 
     Here's a word I haven't heard either of them say in quite some time:  
     Poverty.
     According to McClatchy Newspapers and the lastest census figures (2005), there are now thirty-seven million Americans living below the poverty line of $20,000 per year for a family of four, which is a thirty-two year high.  Forty-three percent of those, or sixteen million, Americans live in extreme, or deep, poverty.  Deep poverty is defined as a family of four making less than $9,903 per year, or half the amount of those living in your basic, run-of-the-mill, common everyday poverty.  The total of Americans living in deep poverty grew twenty-six percent from 2000-2005.   
     Think about supporting a family of four on ten grand a year.  That's $200 a week.  $50 a head.  
     $50 a week to cover the cost of a life in the world's richest country.  Where a Venti Latte at Starbucks costs $4.  You do the math.
     Now, I'm no expert on monetary policy -- I buy a lottery ticket twice a week -- but I don't think $50 a week can get it done.  
     We're facing economic Armageddon, or something approximating it.  From what I understand, they're going to start making me pay cash in restaurants pretty quick here.  Businesses, small and large, will be forced to close if they are unable to obtain the credit necessary to operate in today's economy.  Which means a whole lot more people making under, not only $20,000 a year, but under $9,903 as well.  
     Deep poverty.
     I'd like to hear the candidates talk to the impoverished.  I know the reason they don't.  Poor folks don't like to think of themselves as poor.  They prefer to be called "working-class" or "lower-middle-class."  Just as upper-middle-class people are quick to answer to "rich."  It's a big downer for everyone to consider the deprivations and hardships of being really, really poor.  It's difficult to sell the American Dream in Paragraph One and pivot to $50 a week in Paragraph Five.  Nobody wants to think about being poor.  It was Reagan's genius that he sold the fantasy that anyone could be rich to a bunch of poor bastards that had no chance, nada, of every sniffing the inside of a Mercedes.  Twice.  
     But there's at least a reasonable chance that a whole bunch more of us are going to join the thirty-seven million Americans currently living in poverty.  The McClatchy analysis determined that fifty-eight percent of Americans will spend at least one year of their life in poverty.  One in three will succumb to deep poverty.  To quote Mark Rank, a professor of social welfare at Washington University in St. Louis:

"It would appear that for most Americans the question is no longer if, but rather when, they will experience poverty.  In short, poverty has become a routine and unfortunate part of the American life course."

     I'd like the candidates to address this catastrophic statistic in their next debate.  Not on their websites.  Not in a stump speech.  On national television, in front of tens of millions of Americans, many of whom, I'm sorry to say, are not middle-class.  They're poor.  They're not worried about their kids going to college, or retiring with dignity.  They're fighting to stay alive.
     And that number is growing.  
     Now, if you'll excuse me, the MegaMillions jackpot is $32 million tonite.  I gotta run.

This is from the blog, Last Kaul.

     The Dow dropped some five hundred points on Monday, losing 4.4% of its value between breakfast and high tea.  Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch was snatched up by Bank of America and American International Group teetered on the brink of collapse.  Contrary to John McCain's initial reaction, the very fundamentals of our economy (the mortgage market, access to credit, pension holdings) were being buffeted by the winds of deregulation.
     Thank God.
     Yeah, my net worth fell from inconsequential to piddling yesterday but, as I often tell myself, it's only money.  I lost a pretty penny but, on the flip side of that coin, many people went all day without mentioning the name of Sarah Palin.
     That has to be worth something.
     The Wall Street story allowed the Obama campaign to focus on what this election needs to be about if he is to emerge victorious -- how failed Republican policies have created a nation that is considerably worse off than it was when the Clintons left office in 2000.  McCain applied the shovel to his own grave by first declaring our economy "fundamentally sound," before his handlers pushed him back out in front of cameras several hours later to muddle through a stack of cue cards explaining that, by "fundamentals," he meant the American workers, their work ethic and their values.  Which was, of course, nonsense.  Ridiculous.  A blatant lie.  
     I've been of the opinion since McCain reacted so rashly to the spectacle of the Democratic Convention by plucking Palin from out of her tanning bed in the Great White North that the choice's bounce would have a short shelf-life.  He's too old, too Republican and too disinterested in domestic policy (especially economics) to get away with choosing a running mate who addresses none of his weaknesses and speaks to few Independents.  Throw in the near daily dose of Palin Drama -- pregnant daughter, Trooper Gate, the Bridge to Nowhere fiasco, her predictably erratic performance in her first major interview, her husband's history as an Alaskan secessionist, book banning, librarian firing, classmate hiring, etcetera, etcetera -- and the shine is coming off the Republican ticket before our very eyes.  I'm guessing November 4th looks a long way off to Team McCain right about now.
     Speaking of the Bridge to Nowhere, her version of the story is as close to the truth as their campaign has come on an issue since their hook-up.  She claims she said, "Thanks but no thanks."  Well . .  . almost.  What she really said was, "Thanks" and then, much later, "No thanks."  By Team McCain standards, that makes her George Washington.
     As for Obama, his brand has been losing its luster as well.  What started out as a pledge for a different kind of campaign has been inexorably dragged backwards towards the swamp of politics-as-usual.  He campaigned on the promise to accept public funding, thereby leading the charge to cleanse our electoral process of the influence of special interests, but he was ultimately unable to resist the lure of the huge financial advantage his fund-raising machine represented over the Republicans.  He initially agreed, in general terms, to a series of town-hall meetings with McCain only to flip-flop when he took a healthy lead in the early polls and was reminded of the old political rule that the leader debates as seldom as he can possibly get away with.  
     For most politicians, these would be minor infractions.  After all, the game has been played this way forever.  Money is speech, we have a constitutional right to Free Speech, so collect as much money as possible, from whatever sources are available.  And never play to an opponent's strengths if it can be avoided.  McCain has always been a one trick campaign pony -- town hall meetings.  So, the conventional wisdom was, don't debate him using the town hall forum.
     But Obama hasn't been selling himself as a conventional politician.  What made him special was his ability to inspire a belief in a new kind of politics.  Every time he resorts to politics-as-usual he cheapens his brand.  And every opportunity McCain has to accuse him of being afraid to go in front of the people with him is an opportunity lost for Obama to convince undecided voters that he is someone they can feel comfortable voting for. 
     It's a tricky problem.  While he might very well be able to govern with a new style of politics, it's proving very difficult to get elected with them.  When McCain manages to force Obama to waste time and money defending himself against scurrilous attacks and outright lies, McCain doubles his winnings.  He wins not only because Obama is thrown off his message that McCain is out of touch and is offering no real solutions, but also because Obama seems a little less special each time he engages in gutbucket politics.  And, on the other hand, if Obama chooses not to rise to the bait, he comes across as weak, unwilling to fight for himself.  And if he's unwilling to defend himself, how can we expect him to defend the American people.  Like I said, it's a tricky problem.
     McCain faces some of the same challenges.  McCain has spent years railing against Beltway politics and nasty campaigning.  Yet, when presented with the opportunity to carry his party's banner, he dropped those vaunted principles of his faster than he dropped his first wife.  When he realized he was going to have to go negative to stand any chance whatsoever, he replaced Terry Nelson with Steve Schmidt and saved a seat in the back of the Straight Talk Express for Schmidt's mentor, Karl Rove.  He agonized over throwing his lifelong ideal of honor off the back of the bus for about a second and a half.
     The difference is, Republicans can win with lies.  They're comfortable getting down and dirty.  They've been doing it since Lee Atwater.  Hell, since Pat Buchanan.  Republicans talk about the high road and idealism and leaving the world a better place for our kids.  But they don't mean it.  You aren't serious about improving the next generation's lot in life if you are borrowing money hand over fist against their future.  You're not serious if you are unwilling to admit that the country's infrastructure is crumbling and that it's going to take hugh sums to repair it.  Sums that will require more than cutting earmarks and eliminating wasteful government programs.  Goods and services cost money.  The only way to raise that money is to raise taxes.  Which the Republicans are unwilling to admit.  (Note I didn't say they're unwilling to do.  They'll do it.  They just won't admit it.)  You're not serious about leaving the world a better place if you deny the causes and effects of global warming and refuse to consider environmental, energy and transportation policies that are necessary to combat climate change.
     Obama started out this campaign almost two years ago and has been trying to stick to the high road ever since.  He was mostly successful in the Democratic primaries because he was running against, well, Democrats.  There is a bar below which, for the most part, Democrats will not crawl.  Let's call it common decency.  
     But now we're in the general election and it's Obama against the Republicans.  He's been slogging along the high road, dodging McCain mudballs and slowly losing his lead.  Last week he came to a bend in the road.  He rounded the turn and pulled up short.  He was met with Lipstick on a Pig and Comprehensive Sex Education for Kindergarteners.  Behind which, the high road had vanished.  It had crumbled and collapsed as surely as the bridges and roadways across America under the strain of Republican economic policy.  It had become the Road to Nowhere.
     So, Obama no longer has a choice.  McCain has forced him to finish the journey on the low road.  It was a noble experiment, this New Politics, but it's not for winning elections.  Time to take the gloves off.  Hopefully, Obama can put them back on when it comes time to govern.

This if from the blog, Last Kaul.

     Every four years I promise myself I'm going to make it through an entire Republican Convention.  Four nights, five-six hours each night . . . no big deal, right?  I do it happily for the Democrats.  From gavel to gavel, from invocation to acceptance, I am always interested and often thrilled by the spectacle of my party making sausage.  If for no other reason than civic duty, I feel I should be able to do the same on the Republican side.
     But I can't.  Every four years I fail miserably.  I generally make it through all of Monday night, albeit with a splitting headache.  By 9:00 pm Tuesday, however, the country music and chants of USA! and Drill Now! (or that year's convention's equivalent rants) are beginning to chip away at my resolve.  I call it quits a couple of hours early, but I'm able to convince myself I captured the gist of the night's message.  Besides, I'm TiVo-ing.  I'll catch up tomorrow.  Remember back in college when you had a three hour lecture class and you would cut out at the break to meet your buddies down at the pub, figuring you'd copy the notes of the girl who sat behind you next week?  It's like that.  On Wednesday, I watch the Veep nominee's speech, turn off the TV and have a fight with my girlfriend.  Because, by this point, I feel like someone has been striking me in the middle of my forehead with a ballpeen hammer for 72 hours.  Thursday night I manage to last through about ten minutes of the Republican nominee's speech playing in the background as I stare blankly at the ceiling before I throw a bottle through the television screen. 
     Every four years.
     This week was the same, only worse.  I've been watching these things since 1972 and the Republican Convention that ended last night was the most disingenuous, hypocritical, mean-spirited, race-baiting, classist (I'd add sexist but the Republicans have nominated an ex-beauty contest winner and Miss Congeniality for their runner-up spot, so they have necessarily had to soft peddle their usual little-woman condescension) celebration of the dark side of America's ruling class that I have as yet had the pleasure of violently pre-empting before the balloons fell.
     They sneered at the concept of community organizing.  They clamored for change with a straight face, as though by not mentioning Bush's name we will forget who has been carrying this hellbound hand basket for the past eight years.  They accused their opponents of being elitist and out-of-touch while their nominee's wife had the gall to show up on stage wearing$300,000 worth of runway clothes and jewels.   
     I am, for the most part, happy to debate the relative merits of the progressive agenda against the conservative platform.  Point of fact, I spend a fair amount of each day engaged just so.  But I need a short break here.  If you can picture yourself walking into the voting booth and pulling the lever for McCain-Palin after having watched both parties present their cases these past two weeks, well . . . I've got nothing.  Go to TPM or Kos orHuffington Post and browse the literally thousands of posts which delineate the Republican's mendacity and absolute dearth of fresh ideas or innovative policies.  
     If that sounds like a cop out on my part, so be it.  But it's hard duty, trying to put yourself in the shoes of an enthusiastic Republican conventioneer.  Walk a mile?  Hell, I can't get the things laced up.  I'm beat.  I'm tired and, worse than that, I feel dirty.  I feel like I need a long, hot shower.  No, come to think of it, a shower won't get it done.  I need to take a few days and travel to a spring-fed mountain lake.  I will bathe naked in its cold, clear waters and commune with nature.  I will meditate on the question of good versus evil.  I shall observe a vow of silence.  
     And then I'll drive back Sunday night ready to re-enter the fray.  By which time, I might add, I fully expect this silly Palin fervor to have broken.  If Obama loses, it won't be because the Republicans picked a right-wing, creationist, abortion-abolishing nut who hasn't yet formulated an opinion on the Iraq War as their vice presidential candidate.  The race is about Obama and McCain and, after the past two weeks, it still looks like a mismatch to me.
     McCain should lose, if for no other reason than he is the worst speaker I have ever heard at this level of politics.  I thought W was bad?  Shoot, Bush is John Barrymore next to McCain.  It seems to me that the bare minimum qualification for being handed the world's tallest soapbox should be the ability to use a teleprompter.  The thought of watching McCain address the nation for the next four years, his gaze locked on the cue cards like a rat eyeballing a piece of cheese in a trap, ignoring pauses and stepping on applause lines, declaring wars and cutting taxes while the deficit continues to skyrocket and ice shelves the size of Manhattan tumble into the Arctic seas is either too depressing or too terrifying for me to contemplate right now.  Maybe both.  
     I'll be at the lake if you need me.

This is from the blog, Last Kaul.

     Every four years I promise myself I'm going to make it through an entire Republican Convention.  Four nights, five-six hours each night . . . no big deal, right?  I do it happily for the Democrats.  From gavel to gavel, from invocation to acceptance, I am always interested and often thrilled by the spectacle of my party making sausage.  If for no other reason than civic duty, I feel I should be able to do the same on the Republican side.
     But I can't.  Every four years I fail miserably.  I generally make it through all of Monday night, albeit with a splitting headache.  By 9:00 pm Tuesday, however, the country music and chants of USA! and Drill Now! (or that year's convention's equivalent rants) are beginning to chip away at my resolve.  I call it quits a couple of hours early, but I'm able to convince myself I captured the gist of the night's message.  Besides, I'm TiVo-ing.  I'll catch up tomorrow.  Remember back in college when you had a three hour lecture class and you would cut out at the break to meet your buddies down at the pub, figuring you'd copy the notes of the girl who sat behind you next week?  It's like that.  On Wednesday, I watch the Veep nominee's speech, turn off the TV and have a fight with my girlfriend.  Because, by this point, I feel like someone has been striking me in the middle of my forehead with a ballpeen hammer for 72 hours.  Thursday night I manage to last through about ten minutes of the Republican nominee's speech playing in the background as I stare blankly at the ceiling before I throw a bottle through the television screen. 
     Every four years.
     This week was the same, only worse.  I've been watching these things since 1972 and the Republican Convention that ended last night was the most disingenuous, hypocritical, mean-spirited, race-baiting, classist (I'd add sexist but the Republicans have nominated an ex-beauty contest winner and Miss Congeniality for their runner-up spot, so they have necessarily had to soft peddle their usual little-woman condescension) celebration of the dark side of America's ruling class that I have as yet had the pleasure of violently pre-empting before the balloons fell.
     They sneered at the concept of community organizing.  They clamored for change with a straight face, as though by not mentioning Bush's name we will forget who has been carrying this hellbound hand basket for the past eight years.  They accused their opponents of being elitist and out-of-touch while their nominee's wife had the gall to show up on stage wearing$300,000 worth of runway clothes and jewels.   
     I am, for the most part, happy to debate the relative merits of the progressive agenda against the conservative platform.  Point of fact, I spend a fair amount of each day engaged just so.  But I need a short break here.  If you can picture yourself walking into the voting booth and pulling the lever for McCain-Palin after having watched both parties present their cases these past two weeks, well . . . I've got nothing.  Go to TPM or Kos orHuffington Post and browse the literally thousands of posts which delineate the Republican's mendacity and absolute dearth of fresh ideas or innovative policies.  
     If that sounds like a cop out on my part, so be it.  But it's hard duty, trying to put yourself in the shoes of an enthusiastic Republican conventioneer.  Walk a mile?  Hell, I can't get the things laced up.  I'm beat.  I'm tired and, worse than that, I feel dirty.  I feel like I need a long, hot shower.  No, come to think of it, a shower won't get it done.  I need to take a few days and travel to a spring-fed mountain lake.  I will bathe naked in its cold, clear waters and commune with nature.  I will meditate on the question of good versus evil.  I shall observe a vow of silence.  
     And then I'll drive back Sunday night ready to re-enter the fray.  By which time, I might add, I fully expect this silly Palin fervor to have broken.  If Obama loses, it won't be because the Republicans picked a right-wing, creationist, abortion-abolishing nut who hasn't yet formulated an opinion on the Iraq War as their vice presidential candidate.  The race is about Obama and McCain and, after the past two weeks, it still looks like a mismatch to me.
     McCain should lose, if for no other reason than he is the worst speaker I have ever heard at this level of politics.  I thought W was bad?  Shoot, Bush is John Barrymore next to McCain.  It seems to me that the bare minimum qualification for being handed the world's tallest soapbox should be the ability to use a teleprompter.  The thought of watching McCain address the nation for the next four years, his gaze locked on the cue cards like a rat eyeballing a piece of cheese in a trap, ignoring pauses and stepping on applause lines, declaring wars and cutting taxes while the deficit continues to skyrocket and ice shelves the size of Manhattan tumble into the Arctic seas is either too depressing or too terrifying for me to contemplate right now.  Maybe both.  
     I'll be at the lake if you need me.

This is from the blog, Last Kaul.

I apologize for the multiple posts, guys.  Computer glitch on my end.  

     Rrrrrring!
     "Hello."
     "Governor, Senator McCain is on the line."
     "Awesome.  Put him through."
     "Sandra, it's John McCain.  I hope I didn't wake you."
     "Um, no, I was just putting up some walrus meat.  Where does the day go, right?  Well, you know what they say, there's only twenty-two hours of light in a day.  And it's Sarah, actually."
     "Beg pardon?"
     "My name is Sarah, not Sandra."
     "Oh, right.  My bad.  Look, I'll get right to the point.  I just finished watching Obama in Denver and, I don't mind telling you, I'm a little worried.  For whatever reason, people don't seem to be seeing through his messiah act.  First reactions are coming in on the convention and I expect he'll see a pretty good bounce.  We need to shake things up here."
     "Er, well, I didn't really watch . . . the baby keeps me pretty busy these days."
     "Sure, sure.  Well, trust me, our country is in grave danger.  And I believe that I'm the one to save us.  But I'll need your help.  What would you say to running with me?"
     "Running with you?  Why, sure, that sounds fun.  I'm quite the runner, actually.  I finished Humpy's Marathon back in 2005 in under four hours!  How far do you usually go?"
     "I don't run, my friend.  I don't run.  When most people were taking up jogging, I was locked in a room, without a table, for five and a half years."
     "I'm sorry, Senator.  That was insensitive of me."
     "Don't worry about it, kid.  I like your spunk.  I'm not talking about jogging, I'm talking about running as my vice-presidential candidate.  Would you do that?"
     "Jeez, I'm shocked.  You could knock me over with a penguin feather, Senator.  Do you really think I'm qualified?"
     "Huh?  Qualified?  Listen, Sandy, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, the vice president has two jobs:  to attend state funerals and to inquire after the health of the president.  Can you do that?"
     "Absolutely.  I've got the cutest fox stole I pull out on formal occasions."
     "I'm afraid you're going to have to leave the furs in Alaska, Governor.  They don't play down here in DC with the liberal media.  Let me ask you, what's your position on the Iraq War?"
     "To tell you the truth, Senator, I don't really have one.  We're pretty independent up here, sir.  We don't pay much attention to the outside world.  To us, you're all pretty much snowbirds."
     "Independent.  I like that.  Anything else I should know?"
     "Well, I should mention, we're having a spot of trouble with Bristol. . . "
     "Pistols?  Don't you worry about the gun issue, Governor.  I used to tussle with the NRA, but I've come around to their side these past few months.  Gun owners have no stronger friend than Senator John McCain and I think your position as a sportswoman can only help the ticket.  You know, pacify the base, shut their yaps for just one goddamn minute.  No, this is feeling right to me.  You know, Sandy, I've always been a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy.  My gut told me 'Joe,' but my base told me, 'no.'"  OK, then, we move on.  But it's got to be outside the box.  If I play it safe, this race will be The Death of a Thousand Cuts.  Which I know a little about, after spending five and a half years in a real box.  So we'll change the game.  This is the first maverick move I've made since I won the nomination.  I'm back, baby!"
     "Not 'pistols,' Senator, Bristol.  My seventeen year old daughter just told us she's five months pregnant.  Now we have to plan a wedding, and quick.  Good thing I own a shotgun, right, sir?  No telling what that boy of hers would have done."
     "Listen, family is sacred.  I learned that back in '98 when I told that little joke about Chelsea Clinton at a fund-raiser.  Have you heard it?"
     "No, how does it go?"
     "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?"
     "I don't know.  Why?"
     "Because her father is Janet Reno.  Get it?  'Course, it was much funnier back then.  She was a mighty plain eighteen year-old, don't you think?  Anyway, I took eight kinds of hell for that one.  Obambi won't dare use your daughter against us."
     "Uh, OK, Senator, if you say so.  Just one last thing -- I wanted to mention that I'm being investigated . . ."
     "That's fine, Governor, just fine.  It's been good talking to you.  I had a strong feeling about you the other time we talked.  What was it, six months ago?  Now I'm even more sure this is the way to go.  My people will be in touch.  Good night, Sandra."
     "It's Sarah, Senator.  I'll be. . ."
     Click.

This is from the blog, Last Kaul.

     To call the Democratic National Convention conflicted would not do it justice -- it's positively bi-polar.  Dems have spent the first three days alternating between celebration and hand-wringing.  More time and energy is being spent dissecting the Clinton's role in the current state of Obama's campaign than in figuring out how to beat John McCain.
     I can't think of a time when the passing of the standard bearer's torch from one generation to the next has been so fraught with drama.  The media, like a pack of hyenas after a wounded wildebeest, has latched onto the story, circling ever tighter, closing in on the idea that perhaps the Clintons won't deliver her constituency, worrying it and gnawing at its twitching carcass until the bones are picked clean.  Political operative after pundit after elected official is lined up and asked, "What will Hillary/Bill say?"  They are asked this serially, one after the other, for hours on end.  A typical MSNBC night of coverage is three hours of guessing, exactly two speeches, and three hours of analysis.  The most fun speech so far -- Dennis Kucinich's six-minute, crazed-but-yet-somehow-the-most-rational-argument-against-the-current-administration-made-to-date rant that borrowed equally in delivery style from Mick Jagger and Adolf Hitler -- was ignored.  Montana governor Brian Schweitzer gave a barn burner in the midst of a hoedown that has been depressingly free of pyrotechnics.  MSNBC chose to talk over it while training the camera on Bill Clinton as he gazed out over the hall, mouth agape, in as unflattering an image as any Clinton-hater could dream of.  John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, rated about ninety seconds of air time as he took aim at the Republicans before they hustled us back to hear what the Gene Robinsons and the Dick Durbins thought the Clintons might do.
     There are a number of reasons for this.  The Clintons are not really a full generation ahead of Obama.  It seems like only yesterday when Bill was considered the future of the party and was drawing his own comparisons to JFK.  They have not, nor, I suppose, should they have, accepted the role of elder states persons.  Hillary is every bit the force Obama is -- the coin just came up tails this time.  Bad luck for her.  And, for whatever the reasons, many still wonder whether there is a there in Obamaland.  He hasn't exactly set the world on fire since the end of the primaries.  Driven home by the Republicans' quite brilliant Brittney Spears/Paris Hilton ads, the question of whether Obama has the heft to lead is hovering over the Democratic electorate like Hurricane Gustave bearing down on New Orleans.
     So the Dems have spent their time worrying in between the Clinton speeches which have, predictably, both hit their marks.  At which point the Dems congratulate themselves on their embarrassment of riches while struggling with their deep-seated fear that they may have backed the wrong horse.  It's this anxiety that leads Obama supporters to nitpick the Clintons' speeches -- especially Hillary's -- and complain that their support was insufficiently enthusiastic.
     Which is silly.  The Clintons just had the rug yanked out from under them by Obama, the South Side Wunderkind.  Their future was set.  They had given their notices, forwarded their mail to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and begun drawing org charts.  This nomination was theirs.  And then came Iowa and Mark Penn's plan and Super Tuesday.  And now it isn't.
     To expect them to go above and beyond the level of dutiful, pro forma support for the hotshot that snatched Hillary's dream from her very grasp is, at best, unrealistic.  That being said, one could argue that they did just that.  Hillary's speech was gracious and partisan, if not particulary Obama-centric.  Bill's was brilliant -- a reminder of what a superb politician he could be and an endorsement that he believed Obama shared the same abilities.  They did enough.
     It's not their job to drag Hillary's supporters, kicking and screaming, into the booth to vote for the new guy.  It's Obama's.  It's like the former CEO of a company calling the current boss and recommending a friend for a position.  The recommendation will get him in the door but he has to sell himself once in the room.  If the new boss isn't comfortable with the guy applying for the job, he's not going to hire him, regardless of the recommendation.
     Plus, if I were Obama, I would find it a little demeaning to admit such a deep dependency on the Clinton's good will.  Not only demeaning, but worrisome.  If Team Obama is expecting the Clintons to carry their water, after what has transpired over the past year, well . . . let's just say I wouldn't expect those buckets to arrive filled to the brim, if I were them.
     Barack Obama has been hailed by many, myself included, as a political talent who comes along once in a generation, if that.  Thanks primarily to his charisma and message of hope and change, there are more Democrats registered to vote in the upcoming election than ever before.  There are eighteen million Democrats out there who voted for Hillary Clinton.  Somewhere between twenty and fifty percent of them have expressed reservations about shifting their allegiance to Obama.  Guys like Chuck Todd peg the precise demographic as white, rural, female Democrats, age thirty-five to forty-nine, with an income of under $50K.  
     If the consummate Democrat of this generation can't convince that demographic to vote for him, what does that say?
     Maybe he's not all that consummate, after all.

This is from the blog, Last Kaul.

This is from the blog, Last Kaul.

     What's it going to take to push Obama over the 50% mark?
     He just completed a tour of the Middle East and Europe and was welcomed throughout as a conqueror, a liberator, as a breath of fresh . . . well, he wasn't George Bush.  And that was good enough.  Jordan's King Abdullah personally chauffeured Obama from dinner to O-Force 1.  Sarkozy all but filled out an absentee ballot in making his preferences known for the upcoming election.  200,000 Germans waved American flags at Berlin's Victory Column as he assured them that this is their time as well as ours.
     Back in the states, Team McCain stewed.  They bemoaned the press's love affair with all things Obama.  They countered video of Barack's triumphal speech in Berlin with footage of McCain taking questions at -- it might have been the Piggly Wiggly, I'm not sure -- in Bethlehem.  That's Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, not the one with the manger.  They ran ads claiming Obama would rather lose the war than the election and would rather work out than visit wounded troops.  Patently absurd but, hey, the Straight Talk Express ain't what it used to be, is it?  Basically, they ceded a two-week news cycle to their opponent and were reduced to nitpicking his performance as he tap danced across the world stage, winning friends and influencing people.  It was like watching a bunch of old maids critique the swimsuit competition at the Miss America contest.
     So where's the bump?  How can Obama create some space in this contest?  
     I suppose he could choose a running mate -- beat McCain and the inevitable Romney to the punch.  But it's not like his options are all that exciting, either.  Here's a list of possibilities and why Obama hasn't snatched one up yet:
     Hillary -- too Clinton.  Her Veep negatives poll as high as her positives.     Biden -- too Beltway.     Richardson -- too brown.  Barack's got enough trouble trying to win working whites already.     Edwards -- too many kids.     Bayh -- supported the war.     Bloomberg -- too rich, sort of Republican.     Sibelius -- not Hillary.     Webb -- Tailhook.     Rendell -- unwilling second banana.
     There are more -- Virginia governor Tim Kaine, retired general Wesley Clark -- but no one who makes your heart skip a beat.  Certainly no one who's going to push the polls.
     Which is the point, finally.  Nobody votes on the vice president.  Kaine, Rendell, Biden -- all fine choices but they're not going to help (or hurt) Obama's chances.  Clinton might be a big enough name to throw some weight around but it's going to cut both ways.
     The only thing that's going to drive Obama over 50% is voter registration and turnout.  Kids, African-Americans and Hispanics.  He needs blacks to comprise at least 13% of the total vote, up from 11% in '04 and 10% in 'oo.  Assuming at least 130 million vote ( a fair assumption, considering 120 million voted in the last election and registration is off the charts), that would mean around 17 million of them will be African Americans, up from around 13 million in '04.  
     According to a New York Times/CBS News poll taken on July 16, Obama is currently favored over McCain among blacks by a margin of 89-2.  He leads among Hispanics 62-23.  McCain holds a 46-37 advantage among whites.  If Obama can hold, or improve upon, those margins, as well as continue to attract new voters to his campaign, he won't have to worry about those tricky "hard-working whites" that claim they don't know him yet. 
     I'm not talking about all blue collar whites.  It's the voters the Obama campaign is specifically targeting with its most recent mailer that are problematic.  The ones that are still asking questions like, "Does he wear a flag pin?"  "Is he a Christian."  "Was he sworn in on the bible?"  "Was he born in America?"  That sort of nonsense.  Sure, there are people out there who don't pay much attention to politics until election week, but I don't think they're the one's doing the asking.  These questions are code for, "Do you really expect me to vote for a black man?"  And while the answer to each question in the mailer is "Yes," the honest response to their ultimate question is "No, I guess I probably don't."
     The people-just-don't-know-him-yet argument won't fly anymore.  Obama's been a front-page, prime-time story since at least January.  I keep hearing about how Americans are much more comfortable with John McCain, that they just have a feel for how he'll perform as president that they don't have yet for the the new kid in town.  Well, I'd be willing to bet the average man on the street could actually tell you more about Barack Obama than he could John McCain.  That he was born in Hawaii and brought up in the Philippines.  That he was raised by a single mom and his grandparents.  That he was a community organizer in Chicago after law school.  That he opposed the war.  McCain?  Take away the Hanoi Hilton and the Surge from his narrative and what do you have?  I suspect 4 out of 5 voters couldn't identify a single biographical or legislative accomplishment of note.  Of the other 20%, half would identify him as a maverick, campaign finance reformer and the other half would label him a flip-flopper.  How can anyone honestly say they feel comfortable with who he is?  He's pivoted 180 degrees since his last presidential run.  Maverick?  I don't think so.  He's a guy with a temper who likes to tell dirty jokes.  
     People are uncomfortable talking about the racial aspect of this election.  There was much hope that Obama's Philadelphia speech in March would initiate a national dialogue which would begin to heal the scars of our racial divide.  The enthusiasm lasted about a week before the discussion was dropped.  Other than a half-hearted debate about whether Obama's Appalachian Problem was race-based as Hillary rolled him in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky, the subject has not, for the most part, been revisited.
     I'm not sure Obama can transcend race in this election.  75% of the voters in this country are white and less than 40% of them say they have a favorable impression of the African American candidate.  I don't know what he can do to change their minds in the upcoming months.  
     Fortunately for him, he might not have to.  Each day the electorate seems to grow younger and more diverse as McCain appears older and less relevant.  Obama may finally overcome the race obstacle, not by transcending it, but by overwhelming it.      

"We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders . . . to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds . . .  (and) . . .  we are mired in a stalemate that could only be ended by negotiation, not victory."

     That's not a quotation from Barack Obama.  Or even Dennis Kucinich.  
     Walter Cronkite said it during the CBS news broadcast of February 27, 1968 in response to the Tet Offensive launched by the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army against U.S. and South Vietnamese forces on January 30th.  Although the communists sustained immense casualties over the eventual nine-month campaign (some 75-85,000 troops were killed in action), the 6,328 allied forces killed proved more than the American public was willing to stomach.  Cronkite, as the "most trusted man in America," was as responsible as anyone for the public's ultimate rejection of the government's Vietnam policy.
     On February 28th, the day following Cronkite's proclamation, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara resigned.  Back in Saigon, Generals Westmoreland and Wheeler determined that an additional 400,000 U.S. troops would be required to effectively respond to the communist surge.  This would necessitate the mobilization of the military's reserve forces -- a total commitment to the conflict in Vietnam.  Critics argued that it would only result in an uptick in communist forces and an increasingly bloody stalemate on the ground.  Clark Clifford, the new Secretary of Defense, as well as Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy and Walt Rostow -- all former hawks on the war -- advised President Lyndon Johnson to pursue a policy of disengagement.  On March 31st, Johnson announced a halt to the bombing and his decision not to run for a second term of office.
     Cronkite's words could just as easily have been applied to the current war in Iraq.  The American people were hoodwinked into supporting our neoconservative administration's hubristic determination to spread democracy and American influence in the region through the administration's fear-mongering, exaggerations and outright lies.  The forged "uranium from Africa" document,  the fabricated "senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda," Iraq's phantom possession of chemical and biological weapons -- all strategies to deceive the public into backing the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
     Unlike Lyndon Johnson, however, George W. Bush has never wavered in his conviction.  In January of 2007, when the war was at its nadir, he proposed a surge of 20-30,000 troops to his own council of wise men, the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  They opposed the increase, with the outgoing head of Central Command, General Abizaid insisting that adding troops was not the answer.  
     So who was right?
     Well, let's crunch the numbers.  The current confirmed death total of U.S. forces for the Iraq War is 4,104.  In 2003, there were 486 troops  killed in action.  In 2004, the number rose to 849.  2005 - 846.  2006 - 822.  Bush announced the surge in January of 2007.  The death count for the entire year was 902.  So far this year, 201 American soldiers have died.  30,000 U.S. men and women have been wounded in Iraq -- 7,200 of them since the troop surge began to work its magic.  On Tuesday, a bomb in a Sadr City district council building blew up two American soldiers and three civilians working for the army.  Oh, and six Iraqis also died in the blast, if that does anything for you.  On Monday, a security guard assigned to an Iraqi politician opened fire on a group of American soldiers, killing two of them.
     If this surge is a success, I'd hate to see Bush and Senator Surge himself, John McCain's standards for failure.  Come to think of it, I'm not sure any such measures exist.  The New York Times details a Government Accountability Office report released Monday claiming "the American plan for a stable Iraq lacks a strategic framework that meshes with the administration's goals, is falling out of touch with the realities on the ground and contains serious flaws in its operational guidelines."  It further claims that the administration "broadly overstates gains in some categories, including the readiness of the Iraqi Army, electricity production and how much money Iraq is spending on its reconstruction."  Any decline in daily attacks rests not on improved Iraqi security performance and a developing political system, but on "the American troop increase, a shaky cease-fire declared by militias loyal to the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, and an American-led program to pay former insurgents to help keep the peace."
     In other words, when the administration tells us, "the surge is working - just look at the statistics," they're cooking the books.  According to Bush, the surge had two goals:  to give the new Iraqi government breathing space to promote sectarian reconciliation and to provide security throughout the country by putting an end to sectarian violence.  Judging by the events of the week to date, as well as the 1,103 troops killed since Bush over-ruled his generals, can anyone really believe the surge is succeeding?  Or that McCain's vision of some type of long-term presence on Iraqi soil is a good idea for our national security interests?
     David Brooks does, for one.  His Tuesday column in the New York Times trumpets the surge's success and its opponents resultant lesson in humility.  He lists their stages of denial as the surge has played out:

"First, they simply disbelieved that the surge and the Petraeus strategy was doing any good.  Then they accused people who noticed progress in Iraq of duplicity and derangement.  Then they acknowledged military, but not political, progress.  Lately they have skipped over to the argument that Iraq is progressing so well that the U.S. forces can quickly come home."

     As if any of this "skipping" could hold a candle to the world-record long jump required to clear the canyon dug by Bush, Cheney and the rest of their cabal's collection of fairy tales and prevarications they spun to justify their intentions.  Brooks is apparently untroubled by the reality that we have spent 4,104 American lives in blood and over $548 billion in treasure to date in pursuit of the neocon ideal of what would be, in effect, an Iraqi protectorate from which we can keep our hand on the oil pump.  He is an apologist for a morally rancid policy that makes no more sense now than it did last January.  Or than it did in the spring of 1968 when, during the height of the Tet Offensive, Clark Clifford wondered:

"How do we avoid creating the feeling that we are pounding troops down a rathole?"

     You do it by getting the hell out.  
     November seems a long way off.  Especially to those kids who'll be enjoying the surge's success in the meantime.

This is from the blog, Last Kaul.

     Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, runner-up in the race to be the Democratic presidential nominee, may want to be vice president.  Or she may not.  She may prefer to consider the prospects of Supreme Court justice, cabinet member, Senate Majority Leader or the pursuit of a distinguished legislative career as the junior senator from New York.  All options are on the table and the world waits breathlessly.
     Oh, and on Tuesday, a black man was presumptively nominated to be President of the United States.
     As a news item, I realize it pales it comparison to uncovering the answer to that timeless question, "What does Hillary want?"  Judging by the media coverage, you'd think most of the eighteen million who voted for Hillary, as well as a good chunk of Obama's eighteen million supporters, were cashing in sick days and vacation time to stay home and monitor the minute-by-minute vicissitudes of Hillary's future prospects.
     Who gives a rat's hindquarters? 
     She's no longer the story and the sooner the media acknowledges that, the better off we'll all be.  There's a concept known as Q quotient.  It's the attractiveness, and therefore marketability,  of a celebrity.  Well, just before 10 p.m. Tuesday night, when Obama surpassed the 2,118 mark in total delegates, Hillary's political Q quotient dropped by about fifty percent.  She's still on the A list but, let's be honest, the gap between nominee and runner-up is the distance between Mozart and Salieri.  
     The Democratic Party is now Obama's Party.  He unleashed a blitzkrieg when he announced his candidacy for president on February 10, 2007 in Springfield, Illinois.  In less than than sixteen months, he went from being a freshman Midwestern senator to the undisputed face of his party.  We had grown so accustomed to the Clinton brand since 1992 that the abrupt shift in power seems all the more seismic.  Less than a year and a half ago it was unthinkable that Hillary would be on the vice-presidential short list and that Bill would have been reduced to albatross status.
     But Barack Obama, the Zen Master Assassin from Chicago's South Side, by way of Jakarta, Indonesia and Honolulu, Hawaii, wrested the party from their grasp in front of our eyes.  It was like watching a ninja pluck the still-beating heart from his enemy's chest.  He moved quickly today to follow up on his primary victory, installing his strategist Paul Tewes at the DNC to oversee fundraising.  The DNC announced it will no longer be accepting contributions from federal lobbyists or political action committees, bringing it in line with the Obama campaign's policies.
     It's hard to see Obama tapping Clinton for his VP.  While it's impossible to predict definitively her net value or drag on the ticket, Obama can make a strong argument that he doesn't need her.  
     She has substantially higher negatives than any other candidate, thereby assuring a more motivated opposition from both the Republican base as well as Clinton haters in both parties.  
     While roughly a quarter of Clinton's supporters claim they will vote for McCain in the general election, past evidence suggests this may be a heat-of-the-moment threat.  Since 1992, less than 10% of Democrats and Republicans have crossed party lines when voting for president.  How many women will actually vote to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade in November because they feel somehow cheated or disrespected by the Obama campaign is very much open for debate.  (Appalachia, not so much.  Obama might have to write off that vote although it wouldn't hurt him in some of the swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania to venture into a few hollers to say howdy.  Although, when over twenty percent of voters in Kentucky's primary admit that race was a factor in their decision, even the Scranton Scrapper herself riding shotgun isn't going to bring in the hillbilly vote.) 
     In addition, the Clinton Circus travels complete with its own baggage car.  Does Obama really want to deal with that drama for the entirety of his presidency?  How comfortable is he going to be that the Clinton's aren't pursuing their own agendas in the backrooms of Georgetown and Foggy Bottom that they already know so well?  
     Speaking of Clintons, plural, Bill might be a Veep deal-breaker all by himself.  Would he be able to pass the inevitable vetting process, what with his undisclosed list of donors and his murky business dealings around the world since he left office?  Would he even want to risk the humiliation?  And, if he did come through the process cleanly, of what value are assurances from the Clintons that he would remain in New York, concentrating on his foundation and piling up frequent flier miles on Air Burkle?  Does anyone really believe that the Big Dawg could actually be kept on a short leash for the next eight years?  
     Most importantly, Obama needs to enter the battle with McCain from a position of strength.  He's already saddled with the classic Democrat mantle of "soft on defense," exacerbated by his perceived eagerness to negotiate with anyone who owns a table and two chairs.  Plus, he's Harvard-bred, he dines on salmon and broccoli, he prefers tea to beer and he bowls the way most voters play polo.  The last impression he needs to give is that Hillary dangled her support as so much political capital and managed to strong-arm her way onto the ticket against his effete, elitist will.  
     Besides, after watching McCain's performance on Tuesday (Gail Collins of the New York Times captured it perfectly), it's difficult to imagine Obama losing -- I don't care if he picks Mike Gravel.  The contrast between the two candidates could not have been starker.  McCain would be the oldest candidate ever elected president.  His message is incoherent.  He supports the Iraq War, in direct opposition to somewhere between half and three-quarters of the American people.  He's selling Iran as America's most dangerous enemy, the same Iran that has inarguably been the largest beneficiary of the very same Iraq War he defends.  He supports Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy although, to be fair, he admits that he doesn't understand economics.  And he's pushing lobbyists out the back of the Straight Talk Express like ballast off of the Titanic.  
     Hillary, besides being yesterday's news, is the least of Obama's worries.  I think his biggest obstacle is going to be overconfidence.   

This is from the blog, Last Kaul.

     In the 1978 classic comedy, Animal House, Dean Vernon Wormer, the tight-assed, ineffectual head of Faber college slowly loses control of the institution as the rowdy Delta House battles the elitist Omegas for campus supremacy.  The chaos culminates with Delta's Bluto (played by John Belushi) popping out of a Homecoming Parade float in a pirate costume,  to which Wormer can only stand impotently by, watching in horror and muttering, "Oh my God."  

     Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean reminds me of no one so much these days as Dean Wormer.  The Republicans are running a candidate with no natural base of party support, on a platform of continuing Bush's war and corporate tax cuts and the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory.  
     Nader and Gore aren't really players this time around so the Dems have been forced to think creatively.  What they've come up with isn't bad -- they've created a scenario in which Florida  and Michigan, two swing states absolutely vital to regaining the White House, may not have their entire delegations seated at the Democratic Convention in Denver, basically guaranteeing a disaffected electorate when it comes time to get out the vote on November 4th.  If Florida and Michigan vote red, Obama can talk about Colorado and Virginia and changing the electoral map all he wants -- there will be another rich, white guy with his hand on the bible come Inauguration Day.
     In an attempt to find a way out of this game of Mousetrap they've created, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC is meeting Saturday in a Washington hotel.  Members of the committee, as well as representatives of the Clinton and Obama campaigns, the Michigan and Florida delegations, the national and international press and hundreds of rabid  spectators will participate in this day-long exercise in parliamentary procedure.  A DNC spokesman, Luis Miranda, said he expected most of the 30 members of the RBC to attend.
     Say what?  "Most" of the members?  What possible excuse could a panel member have for not showing up at this meeting?  "I'm sorry, but this is my time-share week at the Ocean City condo?"  "Geez,  I'd love to but I promised a buddy I'd help him move?"  Gimme a break.  I don't know what the hell the Rules and Bylaws Committee actually does but I have to think they share some of the responsibility for designing this absurd nominating process the Democrats have inflicted upon us.  The least they can do is show up to help clean up their mess.
     Not to put too fine a point on it, Howard Dean and the DNC are screwed.  By voting to strip the two states of their delegates to the convention, they backed themselves into a corner they cannot defend.  The Dems need Michigan and Florida.  Refusing to seat the delegations would be the most Pyrrhic of victories for the party's administrators.  Realizing this, they've spent the last weeks pivoting out of their corner and backpedaling away from their tough talk.  It is now apparent that the DNC will cave -- a compromise is evidently in the works.  Florida may get all of their super delegates seated but only half of their pledged delegates.  Obama will receive most, but not all, of the Michigan delegates assigned to "Uncommitted," Clinton's only opponent of note on the January 15 primary ballot.  But make no mistake about it, her campaign is not going to be happy if the committee doesn't rule in her favor, seating the entire delegations from both states based upon the votes cast in the primaries.  Meanwhile, some in the Michigan delegation claim the DNC has no authority to assign uncommitted delegates to a specific candidate, in this case, Barack Obama.
     See what I mean?  It's the Homecoming Parade in Animal House.  Or, more accurately, a cross between the toga party and the food fight.
     Best case scenario is they seat the entire delegations proportionally and pledge to blow up the current nominating process and rebuild it by 2012.  Take a long, hard look at super delegates and whether they have a place in a democratic process for the Democratic Party.  Revisit the caucus debate -- are they really the most fair way by which to divine the voters' will?  Is there any good argument remaining for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to kick off the primary season every four years?  Is proportional allotment of delegates a better system than winner-take-all?
     Worst case, no compromise is reached and the Dems remain in limbo until, perhaps, the Credentials Committee takes another shot in August.  It would give the Republicans another couple of free months to come up with some kind, any kind, of cogent message for the McCain campaign.  
     The Democrats are probably too smart to let that happen.  Right?  This election should be unloseable, even more so than the Gore and Kerry fiascos.  So why is it that I can't shake the image of Howard Dean furiously gaveling the meeting tomorrow to a close, the room in chaos,  as he sentences both the Florida and Michigan delegations to Double Secret Probation.  
     Just like Dean Wormer.

     This is from the political blog, Last Kaul.

     I walked around all weekend with a bounce to my step and woke this morning with a song in my heart.  I attribute my good cheer to the speech John McCain gave Thursday in Columbus, Ohio.  Did you see it?  If not, you really should read it in its entirety.  He painted a picture of where America would be at the end of his first term as president. 

     It's a long speech.  Not long like a Bill Clinton State of the Union address -- more like a Chronicles of Narnia type of long.  Or like the director's cut of The Lord of the Rings boxed set.  Basically, it's the public policy version of fantasy literature, without the Christian overtones.
     In McCain's vision of 2013, Iraq is a functioning democracy whose militias have been disbanded and the government has imposed its beneficent authority in all provinces.  Pakistan has partnered vigorously with us to capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda has been reduced to a leaderless rabble with no place to call home.  Although the U.N. Security Council proved incapable of ending the genocide in Darfur, the nascent League of Democracies has stepped in and, through stiff economic measures, persuaded the Sudanese government and their janjaweed thugs to halt their ethnic cleansing of the country's tribal  farmers.  More concerted action by the world's democracies has convinced China and Russia to persuade Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear programs.  Our Army and Marine Corps are bigger and better than ever.  The world food crisis has ended.  Global cooling has begun.  And Congress no longer attaches earmarks to appropriations bills after a stern veto or two by President McCain.
     Well.  Like McCain, I am a big believer in positive thinking so I've compiled my own modest list of where I hope/expect to be by the end of his first term:  
     I have two books on the New York Times bestseller list (the fifth and sixth so honored during term #1).  Four of those will have been made into major motion pictures with both a best picture Oscar and a best adaptation (also done by me) Oscar to show for it.  
     To the astonishment of the orthopedic community, the meniscus in my knee has regenerated itself and I am able to dunk a basketball at the age of 53.  I run five miles a day and my spacious, walk-in closet is filled with 32-inch waist slacks of the smoothest cotton/poly blend that rarely wrinkles.
     My wife and I have adopted two children, they've matured remarkably quickly and cost-effectively, and are both heading this fall for Ivy League schools on full rides, leaving us, no doubt, a bit lonely but eagerly anticipating quality time with each other once again after these last four chaotic but joyous years.
     Gas is $11 a gallon even though the Lieberman-Vitter Right-to-Drive bill (which requires anyone attempting to buy gas on Tuesdays, Thursdays and every other Saturday to present the station attendant with their National I.D. card) has been in effect for almost a year now, but we don't drive much.  We spend most of the year at our beach house in Southampton and I can ride my bicycle to the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club which I joined after winning the National Book Award and they relaxed their dress code to allow flip-flops in the lounge.  I play to a 3-handicap and rarely visit the driving range to practice.
     I've had my iPhone implanted directly into my head.  And, thanks to the partnership between Apple and NIH, I can now download mp3 files directly to my memory so I no longer have to listen to music -- I can just remember it by blinking my eyes.  I don't even recall what it felt like to wear earplugs.
     I've attained fluency in Italian solely through listening to self-improvement Podcasts on my computer and I can play some of the easier Goldberg Variations on the keyboard I purchased last year at Sharper Image, thanks also to self-helpful pamphlets that came included with the packing materials.  
     Money's not much of an issue, to be honest with you.  I'm really raking it in and I'm incorporated, of course.  Thanks to the Bush-McCain tax cuts, I actually pay less in total taxes now than when I was scraping to get by as a freelancer in 2008.  Boy, was I wrong about those tax cuts.
     So, there you have it.  My McCain-inspired list of positive projections for the relatively near future.  Like Senator McCain, while I intend to make my dreams reality, I cannot guarantee I will achieve them all.  But I like my odds of success against his.  I put my list down beside his speech to compare the two.  If I was the type to judge, I'd say his was the more delusional.

This is from the blog, Last Kaul.

     I'm every bit as sensitive to racism as the next liberal who grew up in the suburbs and attended a Big-10 university.  By which I mean, I've rarely seen it in person and pretty much never had it practiced upon my person.  I am, however, aware that it exists in America.  To argue otherwise would be the height of folly.  It would be like claiming we never landed on the moon and citing as proof the fact that I wasn't there as an eyewitness.  It would be analogous to insisting global warming was a Green Party scare tactic, evidenced by this past week's unusually cool temperatures in my hometown of New York City.  It would be a non-starter.

     That being said, I just don't buy the near-universal position across the progressive blogosphere that Hillary Clinton's recent statement concerning white voters constitutes race-baiting.  The exact quotation was, "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on" and she quoted an AP story that pointed out "Senator Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.  There's a pattern emerging here."  I don't know why Rep. Charles Rangel said, "I can't believe Sen. Clinton would say anything that dumb."  Or why Joe Conason over at Salon.com would argue that she "violated the rhetorical rules" and crossed a "bright white line."  
     This is not Ronald Reagan decrying (fictitious) welfare queens in Cadillacs and "young bucks" buying T-bone steaks.  It's not Richard Nixon running on states' rights and law-and-order in 1968 following the inner-city riots in response to Martin Luther King's assassination.  Both Reagan and Nixon were tacitly signaling to their white constituents that they would use the office of the presidency as a hammer against the black community.  
     The only thing Clinton was signaling is the truth.  Blue-collar whites have overwhelmingly preferred Clinton over Obama, especially recently.  Whites made up 80% of the vote in Pennsylvania and broke for Clinton roughly 60-40.  In Ohio, she won whites 64-34.  In West Virginia, she steamrolled him 72-23 among blue-collar whites.
     If you're Obama, that's a pattern and it's a problem.  If you're Hillary, it's a pattern and it's a lifeline.  Her only path to the nomination consists of the super delegates looking at the big picture after all the votes have been counted, seeing a contest that is basically a dead heat, both in terms of pledged delegates and popular vote, and using their position as it was intended -- to tip the scales towards the candidate they judge to be more electable in the general election.  Now, the odds of that happening are long, and the arguments against it are plentiful, but it's her story and she's sticking to it.
     Paul Begala says the Democrats can't win with a constituency of "eggheads and African Americans," the old Dukakis team.  Never minding the fact that Obama is also carrying the youth vote by a margin of 70-30% over Sen. Clinton, it's still hard to imagine a Democrat winning the White House without at least a somewhat competitive showing among blue-collar whites.  The question is, does a poor showing by Obama against Hillary necessarily presage a similar result against McCain in the fall?  I'm not sure we can draw that particular causal relationship.  Obama doesn't fit neatly into any of the candidate molds we have on the shelves -- he's a new breed and his organization continues to multiply at the grass roots level.
     But that's Obama's argument to make, not Clinton's.  Her challenge is to construct an electoral narrative convincing enough that the super delegates overturn the slight lead Obama takes out of the campaign.  The best way for her to do that is to point out that working whites make up a larger section of the Democratic Party than do African Americans and liberal intellectuals and that many of them will choose McCain over Obama in the general election.  I suppose you could hear a dog whistle in her "hard working whites" comments if you were so inclined.  Almost by definition, a comment is racial on some level if it refers specifically to race.  But "hard working" could just as easily be read as shorthand for blue-collar as be interpreted as code implying a comparison to lazy blacks.  Depends on what you're listening for. 
     The point is, it's a fact that Clinton is winning the white vote.  One could take issue with Hillary's argument that this is a pattern -- the breakdowns have actually been fairly consistent throughout the campaign, for the most part.  Obama did about as well among whites in Indiana as he has been doing all along, with the exceptions of the few most recent primaries.  I would argue that what she points out as a pattern is really just a reflection of primary scheduling serendipity.  It so happens that Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky fall consecutively in the campaign.  She happens to do very well in the Appalachian coal mines and hollers of southeastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky, where they've been spending an awful lot of time of late.  Basically, she's got the hillbilly vote locked up.  And pundits are taking this hillbilly vote and extrapolating it out across the entire electorate.  Which I don't think is an accurate reflection of working class, white America.  I would argue that hillbilly white America has a greater antipathy to the concept of an African American president than does much of the rest of white working class America.  It's just a theory of mine, and not one I'm about to go knocking on doors to confirm, but it seems plausible.
     The PC police need to recognize the difference between demagoguery and fact.  When Bill Clinton compared Obama's success in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's in '84 and '88, he was pointing out the fact that African Americans make up approximately 50% of Democratic primary voters in the state.  Given that Obama wins 9 in 10 black votes, it stands to reason that President Clinton would attempt to lower expectations for a race Hillary could not win.  To say that a legitimate black candidate is going to win the South Carolina Democratic primary, and that it isn't necessarily a precursor for the rest of the campaign, is not race baiting, it's fact.
     It's a fine line.  Lee Atwater, Reagan and Bush 41's "happy hatchet man," explained the subtleties of the southern strategy as:

     "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.'  By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' -- that hurts you.  Backfires.  So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.  You're getting so abstract now (that) you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is (that) blacks get hurt worse than whites."

     See, that's race baiting, in all its abstract brilliance.  Because the Southern Strategy was so successful, Democrats have grown hyper-sensitive to all things racial.  It has become impossible to bring up the subject of race without drawing politically correct fire.  Which is all well and good -- sometimes the race card is indeed being played.  But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
     And Barack Obama's problem with white, working class voters is a real cigar.  I'm not sure ignoring the state of West Virginia and the subsequent 40+ point defeat was his best strategy.  Maybe he should start spending some time in Hillaryland.  He might end up needing every hard working white voter he can get come November. 


This is from the political blog, Last Kaul.