I was pleasantly surprised to hear that Barack acknowledges that welfare reform under Clinton was a good thing, even if it might need some improvements. I've gotten used to "running against the 90's" as a basic theme of this campaign - even more than running against the 2000's.

So now on to today's flareup. It's hard to ask a serious question without it getting sidetracked onto "this is dirty politics". The position of President is an Executive position - the doer. While the campaign debates go over policy positions, these are really the prime responsibility of Congress. The President's is to carry out these wishes, or was until the Bush Administration.

So just as policemen often get to enforce bad laws, like drug laws they might personally disapprove of, the President often has to deal with carrying out imperfect and sometimes downright stupid laws.

If I'm running a computer center, I have backup plans, contingencies for power outages, equipment failure, staff problems, security breaks and intrusions, and even natural disasters.

We know that disasters like Katrina happen, and while part of the issue is preparing our infrastructure to avoid this, the reality is that between politics and incompetence, not everything is going to be prevented. We also know that our Chief Executive failed in dealing with warnings of possible failure of those systems, and even in the aftermath took a relaxed attitude when some of the worst damage (physically as well as damage to our reputation and self-respect) took place.

If I were interviewing someone for the job, I'd want to run through responses for different crises - Katrina, the Iranian Hostage situation, Rodney King riots, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Asian economic meltdown, the Russians taking the airfield in Kosovo, the occupation of Kuwait, the Indian-Pakistani nuclear flareup, the Chinese downing and capture of our surveillance plane, the mortgage crisis, the tsunami, AIDS, the devastating war in the Congo, 9/11 and so on.

These are different kinds of crises - manmade and natural, slowly evolving and sudden, quick fix and long-term, costly and insignificant, human and institutional. People are better with different kinds of crises than others. Some problems have no "right" or "complete" solution, they require a balance of measures to lessen the effects.

An old joke has a captain asking an up and coming officer what he would do if a storm came up leeward, and the sailor says, "throw out an anchor starboard", "and if a storm came up to the north?" "Throw out an anchor aft". "And if a squall came up....?" "Throw out an anchor...." "Whoa whoa whoa, where are you getting all these anchors?" "Same place you're getting all these storms."

We've proven quite well that our military's extremely limited in what it can take on, and because of our poor financial management, our hands are more tied now than since quite a long time on what kind of monetary aid we can put towards problems. So in evaluating how candidates would do, we have to think of how careful they are with the money, whether the understand the right levels of compassion, bureaucratic levers and management, where things can be expedited as needed, what kind of situations require alliances domestic and abroad, what kind of political buildup is required for this cooperation and what kind of price tag it carries.

Getting China and Russia to support us in the "war on terruh" has had a huge cost in terms of human rights and progress towards democracy in those countries. Necessity makes for strange bedfellows, and the offspring are often quite ugly.

I've known managers who were considered extremely smart and clever by the senior execs above them, and considered extremely clueless about how things actually work be those below them. Typically these managers did very well - having unworkable ideas funded repeatedly as they continued to fail, until something problematic happened, and then as is all too typical, they failed upwards into a position of more responsibility and more incompetence.

So, after all the verbage, the question is - in situations where quick, responsible, effective action is required, who is the candidate most able to show the right demeanor, has the most knowledge about the systems, knows the right people to call, has any relevant experience, is best able to put the right teams together to begin with, etc. Obviously we can't avoid all crises, so crisis management is an important part of the job description. One candidate may excel in some areas, the other candidate may do better in others. Get out your scratch pad, jot down the pluses and minuses, and see what you come up with.

Okay, you can shoot now.

What many people missed is that being grownup means making unpleasant decisions.

Giving up relaxing time to take care of the kids.

Putting in overtime to deal with a crisis.

Yes, sometimes as President you have to work overtime. A lot of times.

No, you can't just let someone else deal with it. It's part of the job.

Bob Somersby of Daily Howler noted that the media was already predicting a year ago (in February) that Obama would quickly catch Hillary when he announced.

There was no inevitability. Hillary had name recognition but also tons of bad press, so much of her candidacy has been trying to resurrect her image nationwide, to get past the dire predictions that she would be so divisive and polarizing that she would be a poster child for Republican fund-raising.

Of course one of the absurdities of all this was the polls comparing different candidates of each party to see who would win which matchup. Why absurdity? Well consider McCain. By conventional wisdom he was one of the strongest candidates, but didn't properly abase himself with the party "base" (code word for "bigots and flat earthers"). By December McCain was running about 4th place in the pack and was quite broke. Who would have guessed that when it actually came to voters voting, he would quickly rise to the top and never yield?

And then there's Giuliani, who came close to being a Republican "inevitable" until he actually started opening his mouth and the people of New York started remembering a few short years ago. So he began the slow descent into the depths of pollster hell, even challenging Ron Paul for the cellar.

So what do all those Clinton-McCain, Clinton-Giuliani, Obama-McCain, Obama-Giuliani polls mean? Pretty much nothing. McCain January would beat McCain December by about 30 points. The idea that Giuliani by January could beat anybody seemed delusional. But even these evaluations are simplistic. The public gets to know candidates fairly late, doesn't bother to make up its mind until shortly before the election, and then votes. Meanwhile there are news cycles, the horse-race effect building up from each successive contest, TV ads and canvassing, and of course lots more chatter in the blogosphere, plus an occasional YouTube or other video. Where candidates are relatively acceptable, we've proven there can be rapid shift of opinions just before the vote. But mostly people just don't pay attention until late, unlike pundits and wonks, and there's not much reason to pay attention until the candidates really get going.

It should also be obvious that until the voting starts, no one really knows how their "strengths" and "weaknesses" will work out. This can be demographics, specific issues or qualities, etc. One badly spoken phrase can break a campaign or lose credibility on an issue. It can often be hard to scramble back into position because like with McCain, once you start falling back you're frequently dismissed - and all eyes turn to the new "inevitable" frontrunner. Though "frontrunner" may not always be an advantage, as Gore struggled with. In some types of bike racing and running, it's better to tail the frontrunner by a small bit and give a last spurt to get ahead at the end when it matters. And in some sports such as car racing it's very difficult to switch positions at full speed rounding a turn. So candidates do find themselves "desperate" to change perception, and it often looks like two fighters clenched, not full out whacking each other, but doing little jabs and headbutts and side-steps and other moves to try to find an opening, get a movement, make enough space to throw in a flurry of punches. And sometimes it leads to a surprise KO, like with McCain, sometimes it leads to a slow comeback, and sometimes it's a lost cause. But you really never know until the final decision. At one point Mohammed Ali seemed unbeatable, and then the thoroughly whipped Frazier came out of nowhere and floored Ali. Ali beat Frazier, but Frazier won the bout, and spent a few days in the hospital cherishing his victory.

Every so often someone tells me what the weatherman predicted for the day, and I flip a coin and am usually as accurate. Same goes for politics, sometimes one of the least predictable sports.

Good idea, old chap, let's do it again:

Tim: If we got out, and Al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, would you reinvade? 

...

Obama: ... Reinvade Iraq: I reserve the right to look out for our interests, so if Al Qaeda did that, we'd have to act. Also in other places, not just Iraq. Cooperate with our allies, move out terrorists, but if they plan attacks on U.S., it' s my job to act.

Truly interesting. I liked the switch from "if...Iraq goes to hell" to "but if they plan attacks on U.S.", it's so, so, oh I can't bring myself to say it, so you fill it in: _____-like.

Now since Iraq obviously doesn't have WMD's, we'd be going in to save which faction in Iraq or simply protect our interests in general? And what interests might those be aside from oil?

And if President Obama asked for an AUMF on Iraq, would I be laughed out of the Senate for being skeptical about just how much presence and influence Al Qaeda really had and saying, "Al Qaeda in Iraq poses absolutely no threat to the US"? Would my political ambitions and aspirations for President be terminated by voting for that AUMF?

Perhaps it'd be safer to just vote Present.

Okay, I'm willing to step back from my foul moods of late and admit that bipartisanship actually is a good idea. But by that I mean real bipartisanship rather than the phony "triangulation" used in the 90's to split the difference between views. Something that will shake up Washington and change the way it works.

And I know we can show we're non-partisan and reach across the aisle in better ways than accepting the Republican-initiated NAFTA or WTO or gutting the welfare program. Some people act like making a Republican Secretary of Defense is a good idea, and that scaling back on gay rights to ease worries in the military is an option, or pushing for prayer in schools or more religious input in federal assistance programs. But that's not the bipartisanship we need.

Nor is expanding domestic spying the way to go, even though some are for more back doors in technology such as special voice chips.

Because there are bigger fish to fry. To balance the budget, we're going to have to have to go beyond politics, but not give in to shrill voices that just want to cut everything or make unrealistic demands that only polarize and shut down government. Health care obviously needs fixing, but not by throwing all the players together behind closed doors - we need open debate that doesn't give reform up to special interests and partisan bickering and public posturing, but opens up the system to compromise that achieves all our goals, even if not everyone can participate.

Social Security is an imminent threat that both sides agree on, but a lock box is too restrictive. Let's reduce benefits if we need to, or find ways to invest social security money in our homes and the stock exchange, because we all agree that it's the people's money and how better to grow that money than for each to take responsibility for wise investments.

And while we need to pull out of Iraq, we should make sure we don't leave chaos behind, which would damage our interests greatly. We'll have to adapt to the facts on the ground, but in any case we can't just abandon the region, but we should be able to draw down troops at least somewhat.

And a think we all agree that invading countries by ourselves is a bad idea, but in some cases where leaders are really dispicable we can promote regime change, but not through ineffective means like sanctions that only hurt the people and political isolation that turns countries into rogues and so-called carrot-and-stick rewards that only serve to give tyrants a way to prop up their failed regimes like in North Korea, but through fair dialogue that accepts self-determination, though we can't just pamper Israel and let it out of its obligations.

You see, Europe tends to have these parliamentary systems where you get lots of fractured Balkanized specialty parties making coalitions of convenience and bargaining to even get anything done. But in America, we have the advantage of the two-party system that makes it easy to see problems eye-to-eye and reach consensus and act non-partisan, not to see everything as a black-and-white, win-lose situation. And while it won't be easy, I'm beginning to regain my faith that we'll be able to reach common ground on important issues, but through new approaches to bipartisanship, not through the failed triangulation of the 90's.

"Hi, I'm here to apply for the job."
"What job?"
"It says here, this one, 35+, inspiring, competent, experienced, steadfast, Democrat preferred."
"Sorry, it's been filled."
"What do you mean it's been filled?"
"Well, to be frank, aren't you a little old?"
"Old? I just saw someone 72 years old walk in here!"
"Yes, but there's a lot of heavy lifting, not sure you can do it."
"Heavy lifting? For this job?"
"Oh, you know what I mean. When you periodically get....down? Do you really want your finger on the button at that point?"
"Ahah, I get it. No, I'm post-menopause. That doesn't happen anymore."
"Yes, but we're looking out for the youth vote. The kids are depending on us."
"Hmmm, so are the grandmothers and housewives, no?"
"Well, kind of. But we were looking for someone with a little more star appeal."
"Were Will Smith and J-Lo available?"
"Frankly no, but we think we got close. It's always hit and miss, but we think we found someone who fits our demographics pretty well."
"Wow, pretty neat - what's he do?"
"He's a Senator."
"Cool, I'm a Senator too, maybe I know him."
"Well, I'm not sure you do. He's only been around for 3 years. But he's got quite an impressive career back home."
"Back home? Where's that?"
"Chicago."
"Hey, I'm from Chicago, at least originally. What's his name?"
"Well, I don't mean he's been around that long."
"Oh, I see. Just exactly how long has he been around?"
"Let's see, 3 years here, 8 years there, about 17 years in all."
"Oh, that's interesting. That would be about the time I moved to the White House."
"I see. Are you name-dropping now?"
"No, I actually lived there. You see, my husband worked there, and I helped get him elected and did all kind of things in the background. You see, I'd been working on campaigns since I was a kid, rabble rousing on campus and all. Kind of my father's hobby and it rubbed off on me."
"Fascinating. Any experience abroad?"
"Sure, 80 state trips, meeting foreign leaders, carrying cryptic diplomatic messages, arranging conferences..."
"No, I mean as a child."
"Excuse me? No, I'm sorry. Chicago suburbs, Cubs and Yankees fan."
"Well, that's a shame. We were looking for someone with more authentic experience. You know, native."
"How native? You said this other guy's from Chicago?"
"Well, no, not exactly. You see, he's multicultural. And that fits our demographic to a T. A little of this, a little of that. Half of our audience has some mixed background these days or simply is tired of the Pat Boone/Jay Leno thing. You understand."
"Hmmm, not quite - first you ignore my experience, I'm supposed to be from another country, then you compare me to a couple of aging white guys when I'm a woman. What kind of Presidential race is this?"
"I'm sorry, Ma'am, you seem a bit confused. This is the entry line for American Idol. Perhaps you want to check at the information desk. They may be able to help you."

I confess. I leaked the Obama picture to Drudge knowing he'd print it, and with a friend of my sister's brother being well-connected to someone who lives near the New Jersey headquarters, you can consider me high up in the Clinton Campaign. And considering that any good leader will know what everyone in their 7000-member organization is doing or they wouldn't be competitive, she's obviously both disingenuous and out of her depth. Thus, she lied again. Bitch.

So if every time a picture or story about Obama comes out linking him to Moslems we're going to freak out, shouldn't we vote for Hillary? Isn't he carrying too much baggage? I mean, if Drudge is going to keep attacking him, we should find the easiest way out, no? "Uncle, uncle, you're right, Obama is too polarizing".

Way funny. Dudes, anyone ever seen the Twilight Zone where aliens turn on and off the lights in a neighborhood and the people freak out and start killing each other off? Moral: Drudge = Alien. Townspeople (Democrats) = Dogfood.

Yeah, it's a huge shame that racist fears and stereotypes are such an easy knob to tweak, and that sexist belittlement is everywhere and both overt and subliminal. But the only real to deal with any of this stuff is to simply be strong. And stronger. And unified. And tough. And intelligent. And calm, cool and collected. Because like any bully at school, someone pulling a sexist or racist trick will keep coming back once they see you twitch. And while we can put laws on the books, the real battle is won through everyday actions, both our own and defense of others.

And freaking out doesn't help. Obama is a black man - whether "half white" or simply "black". If you're voting for him, you're voting for him because he has good ideas and is a leader, and/or maybe because you think the time has come for a man of color or you dislike Hillary. If you're voting against him, you're voting for Hillary because you think she's better, or has a better chance in November, or she represents some of your ideas better, or even furthers the case and cause and representation of women. All good reasons. If I move into a neighborhood or join an organization, I don't want to be chased out because I'm black or a woman. I will stand up with dignity. But you can't make people vote against their fears and biases. You can only encourage and persuade and educate them. In the end, you have the power but they have the choice. Respect.

My name is Kawali. I'm from a country you've never heard of, because no reporters come here. We have a war, but it's not big enough to make news, and it's mostly just soldiers who are lazy and drunk and like to come burn villages and steal from us and then it stops for a while. We have politicians who say they'll end the war and will do something about the diseases and the lack of water and the long walk to the nearest town , but my sister's sick now and no doctors come because we can't afford them. My cousin lives in America and he says it will get better next year because all he hears about is saving the world. But last time I heard they were coming to save us they spent a lot of money on people in the big city and some man came here and asked me a lot of questions about our life here, and then I didn't hear anything more after that, except our cow died, but I don't think that had anything to do with it.

My name is Baskul, and I live in Europe, but my parents aren't originally from here. I want to be a doctor, and I used to think I would go to America, but my brother is gay and said it's too hard to get in (he got sick when I was little but he's better now), and now I'm afraid they'll see my skin and hear my name and think something bad about me too. I like American music and want to see my favorite band too, but for now I just watch them on TV.

My name is Ban Chen. I'm in the 9th grade and have a computer. My father has a computer shop near the center of the city, though I don't get to see him much because he works long hours and the traffic makes it slow to get home from work. I like America, but he says don't worry about it, that they all think we're stealing their jobs. I try to find out more, but our internet only has sites inside the country. I'm learning English, but I'm too shy to speak. My uncle was an engineer in San Francisco, and he says it's a lot like here but not as polluted and crowded. I think I'm smart enough to go to school there, but all my friends want to go there too, and I don't think they'll let us all in. My uncle says the schools here are just as good now, so I can stay here, but I would like to travel.

My name is Sergio. I live "south of the border", but don't worry, I'm not coming to your door. My father deals in mobile phone networks and call centers and my mother handles accounts for a shipping company. I'm in my second year of college majoring in business. My sister's husband is from LA, and he says people in the US think we're all maquiladoras and sweatshop operators here, which is funny for me, because my mom's company is European and has these huge modern nicely painted ships coming in and out of harbor. I'll probably do shipping as well but I want to do logistics for one of the US trucking companies here since they have the most money and nicest equipment. My brother-in-law also says Americans think everything is polluted down here, which is funny to him because 20 years ago LA was worse than my city.

My name is Peter. I'm from East Europe and I like to travel, but my brother paid almost $200 for a visa to the US last year and then got turned back at the airport for "insufficient funds". We have relatives who moved there 40 years ago, but I guess that's not enough. Now that we're in the EU, I don't know why they think we want to stay there - my aunt says they don't even have health care, where here in one of the poorer countries of Europe everyone's covered. I'd like to save up to see New York, Nashville and something out west like Montana, but I'll probably fly to Egypt or Spain instead since it's so much cheaper.

My name is Supomo. I'm from south Asia. My family used to be quite wealthy as my father worked with the government, but we lost everything when the tsunami hit. Lots of people gave money and things, but it didn't rebuild the hotel we had near the beach, and now both my parents work, but not for much money. Some people here said its America's fault, that they didn't do enough, but I saw on TV that they had a hurricane too that destroyed a city and it never came back. I'd like to visit America but my father says I'm a dreamer. Still, I try to get good grades and hope some day I can.

My name is Oleg, and I'm from Russia. Americans think they beat us in the Cold War, but they only beat the old worn out guys from World War II. Nowadays kids would rather do computers unless they know someone in the government, then they go into business. Lots of money here, everything's expensive, you have to pass money under the table to get anything done. People think America invaded Iraq to get the oil, but how come we got all the money? Oil's over $100 a barrel and Putin's a billionaire. Still, Bush invites him to Texas and people don't think of us as drunks so much since Yeltsin is gone. My grandfather thinks it was a mistake to get rid of the Soviet Union, but I don't really care. I'd rather visit Europe than any of the 'stans. They make me think of old collective farms, and I'd rather hack computers. My friend taught me how to crack videos so we get movies here before they're even released in Hollywood.

My name is Azita. I live in a slum. It feels nicer than the slums I see from America because it's sunny here and we have a nice old walled city with light walls, but our water makes us sick and we don't have sewage. My grandmother says we used to get along with America but now they think we're "Evil" and all they talk about are nuclear weapons and Israel. I want to go to school but we don't have the money for it, so instead I have to help in our store but I don't earn anything for it. My grandmother was from the first generation where girls could go to school, but that's stopped for now. I hope my children can go to school. I also hear that America doesn't like our religion as well. I don't understand that, because there's one God for everyone, there or here. My mother says they should read more poetry, that it would calm their souls. We used to have the world's greatest poet, but sometimes it seems no one has time for poetry anymore.

To all of you: Please remember us. You may think of us as an enemy or a friend or nothing, but you mean more to us than we mean to you. Most of what we know about you is from your movies, but at least you have movies about you. They say America votes its pocket book, but some of us have no pockets. And it feels like who you vote for affects us more than you. Many say it doesn't matter, American life will go on. Out here, the world's in turmoil. It does matter. Please think twice.

As I posted over the weekend, thanks to Tina Fey, we now have the strategy, "If you can't beat it, own it". There are two kinds of "bitch" - the beaten down bitch (Al Gore: "no controlling authority"), and the authoritative bitch (negative GQ story killed: "what a controlling bitch").

Political mythology has it that Hillary was way ahead and basically a shoo-in for President, but she blew it. Well, not quite. Of course she was way ahead when nobody cared - sheer name recognition - and throughout that there was her "baggage". Here's a rather funny but prescient animation on Hillary from October 2006, months before she announced, that aptly captures the attitude:
http://blogs.chron.com/nickanderson/archives/2006/10/hillarys_baggag_1.html
Bob Somersby at Daily Howler notes that conventional wisdom in early 2007 was that Obama would catch Hillary rather quickly. "Inevitable" was a term invented not by Mark Penn but by Politico.

And early on it was obvious how the press would play the female issue. The Washington Post recycled a post on Hillary cleavage that had failed to draw scandal the year before (presumably "pimping" herself). A long NY Times page one article on the travel habits of the Clintons, their time alone and the possibility of that Bill could be fooling around. (Funny that confirmed adulterous candidates on the road like Giuliani and McCain bypassed this speculation, at least until last week). Or the "Hillary is Inauthentic" dredge-up of unsourced myths and college diaries by Carl Bernstein. Or the Geffen rampage filtered through Maureen Dowd - Hillary effigy burning and all. Or the "unbiased" Dick Morris (now with NY Post and Fox) giving his expert slams on the Clintons. Obviously with these examples of fair and balanced media respect, there's no reason Hillary should have gone behind the scenes to kill a 7000 word GQ story by a columnist who admits he doesn't like her, but that's what she's rumored to have done. As the rest of the media gave the verdict between the lines: "Bitch" (or "Rhymes with Witch" when pressed).

(The media of course enjoyed reporting the McCain chuckle to "How Do We Beat the Bitch", and while not every talk show used terms as coarse as "Vaginal American", there was certainly something less than a love fest with the former First Lady. And when Hillary had her moment of almost-crying ("tearing up"), we all knew what that meant: "insincere, manipulative bitch". Won't release her White House emails? "Secretive bitch".

So it's time for Hillary to make a stand, to own the debate. Because there's only one kind of Bitch you can be as President of the United States: a Cold, Calculating, Domineering Bitch. Someone to send chills down the backs of her opponents, and yes, as they say so often on MSNBC, to make them instinctively cross their legs. The black widow spider who mates and eats her boy toy. If Sports Illustrated is going to put out a baseball card of her in hot pants, it might as well be Xena Warrior Princess, not a groupie. And that's all the choice she's going to get. Amazon Bitch or crew slut. I'll take the Amazon.

"Bitches get things done", as Tina Fey says. "Women [bitches] make lists", as Hillary says. But not just shopping lists. Who helped out. Who to thank. And who pissed them off and is terminally f***ed. Putin? Forget Christmas, dude. Kim Il Jong? Better send a giftwrapped set of dismantled reactors. Ahmadinejad? Better start learning Hebrew.

Now let's distinguish right now between Heathers and Dangerous Liasons. This is no high school girl punk'd scene. This is post-menstrual Maggie & Queen Victoria without the repressed sexuality. Morgan LeFaye's version of JFK's Camelot. Is Hillary sleeping with a female advisor? None of your damn business. One of the prerogatives of the Queen Bitch.

Now about 60% of the Democratic electorate is female. Not all of them are comfortable with this change. Some will say, "Can't we wait for someone less polarizing?" Like who? The alrady-weakened Nancy Pelosi? The Bush supplicating Diane Feinstein? The "pimped out" Chelsea? As Martin Luther King said, 'This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."'

Time to get in touch with our Inner Bitch.

Once upon a time, America had good jobs - farm jobs, jobs in manufacturing, auto jobs, steel jobs, manly jobs, good wholesome sweaty jobs, jobs that attracted migrants from Mexico, jobs that were the envy of the 3rd World.

And then came NAFTA, and Tom Joad loaded up his truck one more time, still rickety from the trip from Oklahoma but good enough for one more slow dash across the border from the Salinas Valley. Gone were the hopes of the last generation - "We're Moving to Bever-leee!!!". Instead it was the wrong way across the muddy Rio Grande, past border guards with keen eyes and keener fingers, past the teeming mass of humanity longing to be undocumented. Yes, the jobs were heading south, not with the great sucking sound Ross promised, but with the low barely noticed whimper of a puppy sent from the room. But it would be a short stay - soon they'd be hopping a junk back to China - backtracing the shipping lanes coolies from the century before had used on the way to building the railroads and planting the Golden Spike. Our honor had been betrayed.

In 1993, trade between the US and Mexico was $80 billion, roughly balanced. Last year it was $350 billion,
favoring Mexico by $75 billion. But stop. Look. Listen. We're now exporting 3 1/2 times what we did in 1993 - a 350% increase. Which somewhere translates to jobs on the US side of the border. And the $170 billion increase in imports - a 400% increase? Presumably these goods are lower priced so save Americans money. Taking taxes into account, if I pay $1 less for a toy, that's like receiving a $1.50 more in wages. Downward pressure on prices is money in the bank for businesses and individuals.

But what are those jobs we're creating? Well, Mexico isn't just the petrol and sharecropping nation of the 30's. The world's richest man is a Syrian immigrant to Mexico specializing in telecom. The service sector is the largest part of the economy at 70%, and Mexico is now the world's 12th largest economy. In short, we're not just talking about maquiladoras (manufacturing). We're talking about the creation of a huge service partner. But what does this all mean? Stay tuned.

I don't know, folks - you think "Bitch Is the New Black" will replace "Yes We Can" as the national motto? Or will McCain pull an upset with "Feel the Surge: Iraq 4Evah" and wife Cindy doing "(Not) Black and I'm Proud".

I feel old because I even understood what "Change You Can't Xerox" meant - just cut-and-paste me back to the off-line archives section.

Anyway, I guess Tina Fey might be right - if Hillary can't stop the sexism, she might as well own it. Wonder if she can get Oprah to flip.

Two items from the debate made me think of one of the funnier portions from Animal House.

First was a mini-debate whether "Xerox" was old-fashioned vs. photocopy or cut-and-paste (tied in with the bickering over whether "words matter").

The second was whether Hillary's last comment was a concession.

Watch the original:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N2YWHBFx3Zg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N2YWHBFx3Zg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
[ Otter: Germans? Boon: Forget it, he's rolling. ]
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!!!
... [silence]
What the fuck happend to the Delta I used to know?
Where's the guts? Where's the spirit. This could be the
greatest night of our lives - but you're going to let it be the worst.
Otter: He's right, I think this situation absolutely requires something extremely futile and stupid be done on someone's part...
Bluto: ...LET'S DO IT!

As Bluto shows, attitude matters more than words. Even George W "I never spoke a coherent thought in my life.. perhaps never had one either" Bush knows that. And Dylan says the only one who worries about lyrics are teenage girls (though he must care a lot about them to put in the time he does).

And American movies and myths and D-Day and industrial history and settler spirit and civil rights all say one thing: NEVER GIVE UP. Or as a buddy used to say, "You may kick my ass, but you'll be one tired mofo when you're finished." Or as someone else said, "If you're going to lose, you might as well lose big."

So why all the talk of polite surrender, especially when the delegates aren't that far apart and the Republicans are just around the corner and then Al Qaeda, the Russians and all the other challenges of the world waiting to slam the winner.

If you've got something to fight for, fight smart and tough and mean and do whatever it takes. If you don't, well, perhaps you can bow out gracefully and go be a commentator. We can't afford another Florida 2000.

As Yogi Berra said, "Politics is 90% mental; the other half is physical". Don't the Democrats have something worth fighting for?

As for those worried about long-term short-sighted effects of playing too hard,  as John Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead."

...LET'S DO IT!!!