A Public Service Academy

Students from across the county were recently in Washington in July lobbying Congress for legislation that would establish a public service academy that wold work in much the same way as the military academies. The purpose of such an institution would be to "build a more perfect union by developing leaders of character dedicated to service in the public sector." 

The necessity for an outlet to serve one's country, and being trained and prepared to do so effectively, is absolutely greater than it has ever been given our lack of leaders in Washington who can get anything done on behalf of this nation and is thankfully getting some support both in congress (by the likes of PA Sen. Arlen Specter and NY Sen. Hillary Clinton) and on the campaign trail.

Obama: "Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the Fourth of July...Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it." 

McCain:"I think after 9/11 we made a mistake...I think after 9/11, instead of telling Americans to take a trip or go shopping, I think we had an opportunity to call Americans to serve."

Though neither are co-sponsors of the bill, the idea of reengaging the American people, especially the young generation, with their country through public service is prevalent in their campaigns. This was also a main point in Bill Richardson's campaign, which suggested that college be free for those who will serve their country for at least two years following graduation. 

In order to solve the large issues we face as a country it is a good idea to start producing leaders and public servants who will be able to tackle them - leaders who will put policy over politics, much like this blog. 

It's Time For Some Campaignin'! (Jib Jab)

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

Give me a Break!

The Hotline posted an item about the focus that the Presidential candidates have taken lately to women's issues. McCain is touting how Obama's policies are bad for women. He tries to say that Obama will make it harder for women to open small businesses and manage the family budget. Meanwhile, Obama supporters shot back that McCain has not been a big fighter for equal pay in the workforce.

First of all, may I say that the last thing I need is a man telling me what is going to hurt "us women". Secondly, these are not policy issues. Neither of these men are going to enact policies that significantly shift the status of the well-being of women because there are larger things to attend to at this moment in history. Frankly, Sen. McCain, if Obama's policies make it harder for women to open businesses and manage the family budget, they will do so for men as well...leaving the gap largely where it is now. This is all lip service to try to win over a vote that they perceive to be swayable. What politicians all too often forget is that women are a broad group that come from varied economic, cultural, and professional backgrounds. Therefore, the issues that are most important to us vary just as widely, and influence our vote differently.

And the last thing that women who care about equal opportunity and representation in society want or need is another man trying to tell them what to do.

Patriotism as a Political Football

Have we allowed political discourse in this country to fall so far that we need our candidates to defend their patriotism? The answer is yes.

Apparently we need Senators Barack Obama and John McCain to actually come out and discuss their patriotism as a political issue. Because apparently it's not a given that people running for president are patriotic.

Have we become this paranoid about our politicians that simply because we don't agree with their political views we question their loyalty to this country? Have we really allowed ourselves to become so divided as a nation that political strife and discourse has turned us into camps that question each other's PATRIOTISM. 

This line of attack is bi-partisan. Barack Obama looked particularly vulnerable to this attack because he didn't wear a lapel pin. Apparently all you need to do to prove you're a patriot in the days of mass media is wear a lapel pin. Obama's desire not to emulate other politicians, his race, and a series of scurrilous rumors have put him on the defensive about his patriotism. This despite his record as a community organizer, his work in government, and his truly american story. This embodiment of the American Dream has to defend his patriotism because a small few of those who disagree with him politically have used the megaphone of the the internet to claim he doesn't say the pledge of allegiance, he doesn't sing the national anthem, and he was sworn into the senate on the Koran. 

The left in seeking to defend Obama, has it's own lunatic fringe. A fringe actually trying to attack the record of John McCain's war service. For those who have never served to impugn the record of a man like McCain who has not only served but was captured and tortured  is a little like me telling Oscar De La Hoya he's not a very good boxer. 

These men have spent their lives growing careers and skills that have gotten them this close to becoming the next president. They have sacrificed time with their families, personal lives, and submitted to constant public scrutiny. They could not have risen to this level in American politics if their patriotism could ever have been seriously questioned. 

Let's put down the rumors and pick up the questions on real policy. One of these men will guide the future of the nation. Let's agree they love America, and move on. 

V: List Cross Over--Come Write for Policythought

When not blathering on about how Kinko's should meet the same fate as old yeller, and rambling on about how man-cards are won and lost, I blog on politics and policy over at policythought.blogspot.com (see widget), of course I don't work alone. Marc V (of the list) and Mike Ruby are also policy-thinkers of great renown.

But we can't do it alone. Policy Thought is looking for more bloggers to join our team. And so I decide to pen a list of the top five reasons YOU should start blogging on policy thought. Once this list entices you to join the team, drop a comment or shoot an email to policythought@gmail.com

#5. Because You're Smart.

We love a good debate over at thinkPOP, and we need smart people to spur new ones. We strive to avoid the kind of numbskull yelling you find on the comment boards at Politico or Washington Post. We want point and counter, thought and counter thought, you get the idea. Whether is a debate topic or an observation about our culture, we want diverse, interesting conversation.

#4. Because you HATE politics

You care about the environment and taxes and energy, and the economy. Not if Hillary wore a pink pantsuit on national breast cancer day. You don't care about the horse race or the latest polls. You care about the country and world, you read or watch something and you want to talk about it, and get others to do the same...that's why you write for Policy Thought.

#3. You have a Specific Interest

Marc V. is a teacher so our debates on education are robust. Mike R. is an ad-man so our discussions on media are always engaging. I work in lighting, so I talk energy efficiency. None of us are limited to our area of expertise, but it drives how we work. Maybe you're a teacher, or a cab driver, or a nurse, or lawyer, or a college student. Whomever you are we want to hear you talk about how national policy effects YOU.

#2. You're a Karl Rove Loving Neocon/You're a Ralph Nader loving Greeny

We like minority points of view. Not because we always agree, but because our debates are too often on the one hand and on the other style, we don't offer enough variety of opinion and thats no good. Got a Rush Limbaugh Bumper sticker, we want to hear from you. Think Nader should be included at the debates, lets talk.

#1. We may actually make money!

Our readership is growing steadily month to month and the addition of more voices only adds to the potential pool of readers and "viral" spread. Once we reach a critical mass of readers, and ad revenue starts coming in, the wealth will be distributed to all Policy Thinkers. I don't recommend blogging as a path to riches, but if those riches come, we'll share the wealth!

Happy 4th

Happy Birthday America!

Patriotism is a funny thing it means such different things to
different people.

I won't attempt to thumb type the definition of patriotism while I
wait in an airport terminal.

But what I will say is America has its faults. But its faults lie in
policies we choose. Not in the concept of America. America is still
struggling to define itself and perfect itself after 232 years, but
the truth is our definition is in the struggle.

America to me is the most human nation on the planet.

Happy Fourth! Eat some BBQ drink a Beer and if you have any thoughts
on being a patriot, leave a comment.

Correction: obama on Iraq

Still mobile. But I watched the Newshour and after seeing the video
Obama has not yet reversed his position on Iraq. He simply opened the
possibility that the operational plan might change after consulting
with generals.

Quick hit: obama shifts on Iraq

Hey Policy Thinkers,

Follow the link below to see Politico's coverage of Obama's shift in
postion on Iraq. Pardon my formatting and the lack of a hyper link. I
am on the move for the holiday weekend. Keep thinking!

http://mobile.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517.html

Keep the parks public!

Can I get a "park-a-lleulia!"

Colin Powell and Barack Obama have a meeting

The National Journal is reporting that two weeks ago Colin Powell and Barack Obama had a private meeting. What was discussed we don't know, but apparently it was just an informal chat about issues. Take a look at the report here. 

More on the game-changing web

Monday Night PBS's Newshour did a great piece analyzing the role of the web in controlling a campaign message. You can watch it or give it a read here.

The New Spin Room

There was a lot of talk over Obama's decision to forgo the public financing system. His privately raised millions will out gun McCain from now until the election. The decision was clearly tactical, but it raises the larger specter of campaign finance reform. In many ways though, the debate is centered around a dying paradigm

Against the backdrop of an unprecedented internet fundraising campaign Barack Obama hurled himself to national prominence and now is one opponent away from the White House. However, the very same viral power of the Internet to spread Obama's message especially to the young when he needed them most, is also the very power he seeks to combat today. Fightthesmears.com is the Obama campaign's response to rumors that have swept the web. 

All of this stands as background to say that the battle of public relations and spin is moving from television to the internet. Barack Obama announced his decision to leave the public campaign system in a web video, Hillary Clinton announced her campaign online, John McCain is struggling to find his voice on the web, but is already making up ground.

So then the question becomes in this burgeoning internet age, when a candidate can not only fundraise, but indeed control their global message online, why do we need publicly funded campaigns at all? Moreover, why is Senator Obama raising hundreds of millions for the forthcoming fight with McCain? The answer of course is television. Paid television advertising is still the single most costly expense for any state-wide or national campaign. The cost of those 30-second spots all over the nation is what has spun campaign financing out of reach.

But is paid televised political advertising really necessary any more? I think Barack Obama and John McCain would tell you it is. That web video might be the future, but its not the present and plenty of Americans will be introduced to Barack Obama or John McCain via a 30-second spot on their screen.

I am not proposing a ban on political advertising on television it still holds a place in our media landscape. But with it's low cost of entry and global reach, plus the added benefit of having a message go "viral" the internet still offers the promise of a true market place of ideas. A place where not only well-monied candidates compete, but any candidate that can launch a website and start posting on youtube, can find a space on the web. All for far less in real dollars cost than television.

We are seeing the difference between being "good on the web" and "good on tv." The same way we saw the difference in the 60's between being "good on the radio" and "good on the tv." The skill sets are different, the strategy is different, and its the future of campaigning and media. 

So Barack Obama might have smashed the current campaign financing system to pieces when he opted out. But looking at the future of our politics, didn't it need to get rebuilt anyway?

Built Ford Tough?

The American auto industry reported dismal numbers as june sales figures slipped by double digits. While GM retained it's edge (barely) over Toyota, industry analysts are quick to identify a correlation between rising oil costs and the poor auto sales. These statistics speak volumes about the outdated American way of doing things. Whether we want to accept it or not, the times, they are a changin'. The American auto industry will have to creatively change the way it does business, or suffer a crushing defeat at the hands of Japanese automakers, namely Toyota and Honda. American companies are firmly planted in a paradigm that no longer works, and while Trucks and SUV's have been the American auto industry's bread and butter, with rising costs of fuel, that way of doing business will no longer work. I expect we'll be hearing rhetoric very soon about bailing out the American auto industry with federal dollars to ensure that American jobs are not sent overseas.  Before we start throwing money at these companies (which I'm predicting is inevitable) why don't politicians sit down with American automakers and open a dialogue about implementing all those wonderful changes we've been hearing in McCain and Obama's platforms. This is the perfect time for America to change the way that we do business and help the environment at the same time. This is the moment for American companies to move forward and utilize technology to combat the innovation already undertaken by foreign companies. The way I see it, either we can change the way we do business, or begin to accept the idea that American industrial and economic might is a thing of the past. Let's see if Made in the USA still means something.

Seeking more wonks!

Readers of policythought unite!

Hey guys and gals. We're looking to expand the policythought team to
include more opinions and more policy wonks. Regardless of political
affiliation, age or geographic location we are looking for writers to
share thief thoughts right here on policythought.

If you're interested in jumping aboard, either leave a comment or send
an email to policythought@gmail.com

Much love and happy blogging.

James

The Fix: Obama Idealist, pragmatist

The Fix over at the Washington Post has a fantastic post dated yesterday on Obama march to the center, and the fight over patriotism.

Remember that "other" war?

Came across this link...MSNBC is reporting that Afghanistan is now more deadly that Iraq for US and NATO troops.

Obama on Patriotism

The simple fact Senator Obama feels that he needs to give this speech is telling. But take a look at this video. Barack Obama lays out what he believes is patriotism, and why he is indeed a patriot.

Obama Moves to the Center

Senator Obama once vowed to veto any FISA bill that protected the telecom companies.

Then he voted for one.

Senator Obama supported robust public financing of elections.

Until he opted out of the system.

Senator Obama opposed NAFTA.

Now, he seems ready to just tweak it.

Obama is doing what is pragmatic, he is moving rightward toward the center of the political spectrum so as to appeal to independent voters in the general election. Having gleaned the support of the left he clearly sees a path to center and to victory in November.

Frankly, I am a little ambivalent toward his shift in positions, possibly because they are positions I am not terribly passionate about. But it does make the practical voter wonder, if I elect Obama in November, who do I get in January? Do I get the left leaning liberal who wants to withdraw from Iraq quickly? Do I get the the Obama that opposes NAFTA as presently written?

It's a fair question and its one that Obama will have to answer as the debates draw closer.

Thoughts from a Beach

As I sit here on vacation in Wildwood, New Jersey I can't help but revisit the topic of an archived post on Offshore drilling. For those who live near the shore, there is nothing quite like it. The constant noise of the waves hitting the sand is one of the most therapeutic sounds on earth. I can sit out on this balcony and enjoy nature's beauty forever. When we politicize a topic like environmentalism, rarely do we truly understand what is at stake. I don't believe there is any American who wouldn't like to pay less for a gallon of gasoline, but I believe Joni Mitchell said it best when she sang, "...don't it always seems as though, that you don't know what you got till it's gone...". Environmentalists get a bad wrap as people who care more for the planet than they do for people. I like to think they care for both by preserving the delicate balance between the two. Perhaps it's because they have faith in the human ability to think beyond destroying mother nature for all eternity just to save a few dollars on gasoline. Sure Americans would love to pay less to be able to drive farther on vacation, but as I previously stated, where exactly would you drive? Nobody wants to swim in an ocean that has been befouled by Petroleum. Nobody wants to eat seafood that has been tainted by chemicals. I would like to extend an invitation to supporters of offshore drilling to come and spend a week or two here at the beach and only after they have done so, ask, is it worth it? Just something I was thinking about here on the sand.

Latinos Lambaste McCain!

Both Republican and Democrats have recently criticized McCain for lacking the ability to energize audiences, and for appearing old when compared with Obama. McCain silenced that group of critics today when a crowd of Latinos seemed quite spirited and roused while being addressed by McCain. Unfortunately for McCain, these emotions took the form of jeers from hecklers who railed against his proposals for the Iraq War. I am somewhat torn on this outcome, because I don't think any dignitary deserves to be interrupted when he has been invited to lay out a platform. While this is not the first appearance of hecklers (Obama has had to deal with his fair share), I certainly hope that it is one of the last. I understand that people want their voices to be heard by government, but I seriously doubt that is the motivating factor in such cases. These people generally seem to be seeking their fifteen minutes of fame, for if they really cared about the issues they would behave in a more dignified and appropriate manner. I also realize these are troubling times and the economy is in shambles, however what will yelling at a candidate truly accomplish? McCain understands just as much as Obama that people are hurting, he doesn't need to be berated and quite frankly as an elder statesman and former war veteran he deserves your attention and respect. Do not go to a public event to dishonor his service in a pathetic attempt to derail his speech. I find myself disagreeing with McCain more often than not, but as a presidential candidate he deserves respect, regardless of how I feel about his policies. Not to sound like an elitist, but recent aggravated verbal assaults provide rationale for the Electoral College. While that is a long debate for another time, let me say that occasionally I am happy that we have a system in place to protect us from emotional voters, who are either misinformed or only vote on one issue. It appears that politics in this country is degenerating into boxing-style press conferences where anybody with a ticket instantly thinks he/ she is an expert in democracy and governance. When the Founding Fathers created a government based upon the voice of the people, I don't think displays like today are what they had in mind. Citizens have every right to be heard, but you have to do something before you get to debate McCain. He's up there on stage, and you're getting escorted by security out the door. There is a reason why. He knows his stuff, and you're an ignorant fool. Enjoy your spaghetti!

V List Crossover: Hail to the Chief!

Perhaps one of the most persistent and recurring roles on television and film is that of the President of the United States. While Hollywood's portrayal of the executive office may be far from the truth, it way more entertaining and revealing than any press release or declassified document. Hollywood remains light years ahead of reality, having already portrayed a female and african-american president, something we still grapple with here in the "real-world". Hollywood presidents don't just create policy on terrorism, in some cases they roll up their sleeves and kick a little ass too. Here are the top five films featuring our fearless Commander in Chief.

5. Air Force One

This film makes the list purely because it transforms the President (played by Harrison Ford) into an ass-kicking terrorist fighter. I can't think of many films where the Commander and Chief interprets his title literally by donning an MP5 aboard a hijacked jumbo-jet. While there are many moments in this film where you will yell "Bull Sh&%" at the outlandish feats that are accomplished mid-air, you will certainly get a good laugh in the process. Additionally, the casting of this film will surprise you, since William H. Macy, Gary Oldman, and Glenn Close provide outstanding supporting roles in this Wolfgang Petersen cheezefest. This is yet another cinematic steal you can find in the five dollar Wal-Mart bin that isn't as heady or as preachy as the next few films.

4. Dr. Strangelove

While Kubrick uses comedy to liven up the Cold War, he somehow reminds us of the delicate balance between preservation of humanity and total annihilation. I have always thought Peter Sellers was one of the most under-celebrated actors of the last generation, having been so much more than Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau in the Pink Panther films. Any student of film history simply must go out and buy this film in order to appreciate its artistic splendor, and for satirically capturing the spirits and sentiments at the height of the nuclear age.

3. Primary Colors

IMDB.com joking quips that this movie should be called "Hillary and Bill: The Movie". While I have never read the novel that this film was based upon, it encapsulated many of Clinton's shortcomings that have become the basis of so many Oval Office jokes in the past eight years. This film was also beautifully cast and adds a new dimension to the myriad of roles played by fictional presidents, that being the inspirational and morally bankrupt slime-ball.

2. The American President

After watching this film I am convinced of many things, one of which is that Michael Douglas should run for President of the United States. He has wonderful hair, even more so than John Edwards. Secondly, Michael J. Fox is a hell of a press secretary, it's shameful that George W. Bush didn't make use of his talents to spin his public relations disasters. The American President is the movie that has something for everybody. It's intelligent enough to not be considered quirky, yet endearing enough to qualify as a romantic comedy. While The American President can never be classified as a "chick flick" it would rank high on the "list of guy movies that women will watch" for it's love story between Douglas and Annette Bening. The American President could seriously make a run at number one if not for the strength of our final film.

1. JFK

While many of the facts of this film are distorted and/or created purely for Oliver Stone to make his epic film, it does not diminish the movie's obvious brilliance. I once asked a colleague what percentage of the facts did he believe were correctly represented in Stone's film. He guesstimated about 40 percent of the events of the film have historical backing and are "irrefutable". If this percentage holds true, then Stone has made a compelling argument for conspiracy theory that will be debated until the National Archives are completely declassified in the coming years. I have always believed that JFK was more like a religious experience than a movie. I was very young when I watched this film for the first time, yet it had a profound impact on my understanding of the workings of government and its relationship with its citizenry. I'm not saying I took this film at face value, but it certainly impressed upon me the need to constantly search for the truth, something that our Founding Fathers stressed approximately two centuries ago. That's what I call a powerful film.

There's more lists just like this one over at The "V" List.

Mad Men: Best Moments Season One

Here's a montage of clips from Season One. 

Mad Men: Betty

Yesterday we enjoyed the profile of Mad Men's main character, Don Draper. Today AMC brings us a profile of his wife, a fascinating character in her own right...

Subprime sprawl

MSNBC gives us this grim look at the sprawl of the subprime mess. What the people in the story really describe is the growing, relentless squeeze on middle class Americans. Give it a read. 

David Brooks: George Bush, the Surge, and surprising results

David Brooks came out yesterday in something like defense of George W. Bush and the surge in Iraq. 

Brooks points out that the same bullheaded traits that caused the failures of the first 5 years of the Iraq War, were the same traits that made Bush so sure "the surge" was going to work. Essentially, that the lousy traits Bush portrays in leadership, actually led him to the right decision on the surge in the face of vociferous opposition. From his column...

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.....

Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.

He makes a good point, one more about the pros and cons of any leadership style. I think in the case of the surge though, the jury is still largely out. What Brooks and other conservative commentators miss is why we were all so opposed to "the surge" and why even after it's measurable gains most Americans are still opposed to it, and George W. Bush in overwhelming numbers. 

People opposed "the surge" because it was seen as escalation. Not only in a fight we were losing, that was costing American lives, but in a cause we didn't understand. The essential problem with the war in Iraq has been and always will be in the eyes of many Americans, that we never should have been there in the first place. Many Americans, myself very much included, don't understand what "victory" really is over there. I recognize that "the surge" has created security, and that the country might even be rebuilding itself on some level. But when/if we leave aren't we just going to be left with another Lebanon? Another supposed beacon for Democracy in the middle east, that we will always worry will become a subverted strong hold for the Iran/Syria axis? 

No one ever understood the long term goal of going to Iraq because it's always been sold in short-term gains. We're going to get rid of WMD, then depose Saddam, then liberate the Iraqi people, then we were defeating insurgency, helping the government, building an army. All to what end? 

In the vacuum of a clear set of long term goals, the American people, with the help of satirists, authors, and cable TV, have ventured their own creative goals. Perhaps the Bush wants permanent bases, perhaps we want our own personal oil supply, perhaps we're there to support the military industrial complex. Pick your straw man and run with him because this administration doesn't explain it's actions, we just all deal with them. 

So maybe "the surge" is working...but I'd like to know what it's working towards.  

Mad Men: Don Draper

Mad Men observes and satirizes the changes our culture underwent at the dawn of the 60's through the eyes of the Men that built the era. Outside of the larger cultural critique, Mad Men also builds a series of incredibly interesting (if not incredibly lovable) characters. Here's a profile of our lead, Don Draper. 

Carlin on Death

George Carlin was the beginning of counter-culture humor in the US. SNL (which he was the first host of), Kids in the Hall, The Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy all owe him a debt of gratitude. As does our culture, his comedy made us uncomfortable, and in a society that is often far too comfortable with its norms, he made us question them. Unto his last he was questioning and criticizing, upon his death, I wanted to play a clip of what he had to say on the subject.

Would like some gas with that Lap Dance?

You know gas prices are high when a brothel is giving it away to get you come in the door. A BROTHEL. 

Come for the free gas, stay for lap dance!

Mad Men: The Best Show on TV

Ok, definitely a divergence from our usual policy talk, but none the less this summer marks the blessed return of my favorite TV, AMC's Mad Men. As such I will be posting a series of clips provided by AMC, to familiarize you with the show and hopefully get all of you as interested in it as I am. Take a look at the following promo from AMC. 

Promises, Promises, Promises, Promises.....Pro...You Get it

It will come as a shock to no one reading this blog that politicians, especially Presidential candidates make lots of promises. John McCain has taken the art of promise-making to a new level. On the one hand, John McCain needs to maintain his appeal with his base so he promises to lift the ban on off shore drilling. An act that would do nothing to alleviate short term oil prices and would do everything to maintain the choke-hold oil has on our economy. 

That promise was met by a new one as reported by the Newshour, a $300 million dollar prize for the best car battery.  A promise made to appeal to the independents he needs to win the general election. 

John McCain has made some more promises, like to cut the corporate tax rate and solve the budget gap with spending cuts. Those spending cuts would have to total a 30% cut in non-discretionary spending and virtually all discretionary spending to cover the shortfall we have today, to say nothing of the shortfall that would occur if taxes were cut further. 

Then there's the promise that we would be out of Iraq by 2013, that's a new goal post for success there, how much would you like to bet that if McCain were president sometime around 2011, we'd realize we need to be there until 2018? 

McCain has taken his shots at Obama for breaking his promise on campaign financing, as he should. But where is the media analyzing the promises McCain is making that he has no reasonable means of keeping? 

Carlin Remembered By NBC

V-List Crossover: Star Wars Sexual Education

With all this talk of pregnancy pacts in Massachusetts I suggest public schools institute the viewing of Star Wars as part of our Sex-Ed curriculum. You wouldn't believe all the things that George Lucas was pawning on unsuspecting moviegoers. For amazing lists on popular culture head over to:

The "V" List

Honorable Mention Goes to:

1o. "She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid."
9. "Look at the size of that thing!"
8. "Put that thing away before you get us all killed!"
7. "Get in there you big furry oaf, I don't care *what* you smell!"
6. "And I thought they smelled bad...on the *outside*!"
5. "Size matters not. Judge me by my size, do you?"
4. "I thought that hairy beast would be the end of me!"
3. "Hey, point that thing somewhere else!"
2. "Not bad for a little furball."
1. "I want you to take her. I mean it, take her!"



What's your favorite Star Wars innuendo?
Put it in a comment!

Preacher Problems

One of the reasons preachers should stay out of politics is because they make so much trouble for politicians. Take a look at these clips from Senators McCain and Obama. Watch as the Senators try to squirm away from relationships with crazy religious leaders, Jerry Falwell for Senator McCain and Jeremiah Wright for Senator Obama. With friends like these....

The Latest Blow to the Economy

I like blaming things on the Bush Administration as much as the next blogger, but the floods in the Midwest will take a toll on the domestic economy as many farmers in the midwest see their crop go under water. 

George Carlin, Dead at 71

My post last night was a bit of irreverent humor. But, that was nothing compared to the work of George Carlin, who died last night of heart failure. He was a favorite comedian of mine, his irreverent work didn't always make me agree with him, but it always made me laugh and think. 

Michelle Obama Whitey Video

It took me forever to find it, but Michelle Obama drops the "Whitey Bomb" below!

Net Neutrality

This is a topic I've been meaning to post on for a long time. I've been away for most of the weekend in my little spare time this evening I thought I'd hit on it. 

The topic is Net Neutrality. The topic is a difficult one to summarize, but I'll attempt to. Essentially, the way the Internet exists now, the pipes that allow ISP's to connect and broadcast on the Internet are content blind. That is to say no matter who owns the website and no matter how much bandwith their content might use. So whether you host your own website of cat videos or you're CNN you get the same access to bandwith as everyone else. 

Unless the telecom companies get their way. They have been fighting to make the web less neutral. The argument goes like this. In every other form of media, you pay for how much of it you use. If I make a telephone call to my friend around the block I use less network resources than if I call my friend in Kenya, therefore, the call to the friend around the block will cost less. The Internet should be no different. If I am posting high bandwith items like video, then I should pay more for that bandwith than if I am posting a text-only blog. So essentially the telecoms want to charge a premium for bandwith, pricing it out of range for many independent content providers and creating a corporate hierarchy on the web, like the one that exists on television. 

As a blogger, and someone that believes in the promise of the internet to connect people through freedom of expression I stand heavily in favor of net neutrality. I understand the telecom companies point, and if they can prove financial hardship in spite of their profits, than I would even be willing to consider public subsidy of telecom infrastructure to ensure a long-lasting, truly free internet. Otherwise we will stifle creativity, competition and the big ideas that are likely to come. 

Surfing youtube, I found Senator Obama's position on net neutrality (he's for it). Senator McCain also seems to be for it, though my evidence for that is based in a rather long winded explanation from Carly Fiorina. 

Don't Slap The Starfish!

A new blog launches today, and I think you should take a look. The
author is a bit younger than the average policy thought reader, but
she's smart, funny and loves to share her thoughts on what's going on
in the world.

Head over to don't slap the star fish and show some love.

Brooks: Two Obamas

Brooks goes to town on Barack Obama today, taking the bait on the campaign fiance reform contraversy. I am not an Obama apologist on this one, a pledge has been broken. But I can't help but feel that if a Republican candidate pulled out of public financing under the guise of "hard working americans' tax dollars shouldn't fund my campaign" no one would bat an eye, pledge or no pledge. 

The bottom line, when a Republican does anything to win (i.e. Karl Rove and Co. promising evangelicals everything they wanted to hear in 2000, or John McCain cow-towing to Jerry Falwell) it's portrayed as intelligent tactical maneuvering. When a Democrat sacrifices principal to win, its seen only as political calculation. 

Still its important to see the difference in stance:

 and

Funding, We Don't Need No Stinking Funding!

Senator Obama made a not-so-surprise decision yesterday and opted out of public financing yesterday. The first candidate to not take tax-payer dollars to fund his General Election campaign in history, Obama's choice stemmed from the simple fact that he is raising more money a month than the public system would have given him to play with from the end of August till November. 

There is a political risk here in that he gave the clear impression that he would opt into the public financing system if his opponent did, last year. I believe that this is ultimately a question of process and Obama will win the spin war on two fronts, one he already established, that the system was essentially broken and easily gamed anyway. The other, that the vast majority of his funding is made voluntarily by his supports in small amounts. John McCain's campaign would be funded by tax payer money. 

Overall this is a win for Obama, and I think deep down, most Americans won't see much of a problem with a candidate NOT leaving potentially $500 million on the table. 

Of course Politico.com is all over this. Here's their multimedia tour. And Ben Smith pens this view, Obama's decision is right in line with the rest of his campaign.

One last thought, this will annoy editorialists and political insiders but it will be a non-story in 2 days. When something is running hard in Politico but nowhere else, you know its an insider story. 

We Don't Wanna Grow Up! We're Toys R' Us Kids!!

There are lots of differences between Baby Boomers and Generation X or is it Y or Next, I can never remember what we’re called. It doesn’t really matter does it? What I have become more and more intrigued by is my generation’s growing, sprawling Peter Pan complex. In fact, if so many people have it to begin with, is it even a complex?

Baby Boomers have been obsessed with defying the natural process of aging for a long time now. This “Just for Men” culture has existed largely in the cosmetic industry and in the fodder that the mid-life crisis often creates. But I wonder if being Peter Pan is no longer reserved to middle aged men buying the sports car of their youth. Is it possible that we, the young never want to grow old. Is our’s a generation of lost boys and girls?

When I think to our grandparents, I think of kids that rushed to be adults. They married young, volunteered for one of the bloodiest conflicts in history, sacrificed their personal interests to grow the most powerful nation on the planet. When I think of our parents I think of a generation that also rushed to grow up, they were the protest generation, the generation of civil and gender rights. The generation that watched their friends, brothers and husbands fight and die in a war they didn’t understand. It was only after the harsh times of revolution and after they had bore their own children that they began to recede to wanting to reclaim their youth in the form of Mediterranean vacations and skin peels.

I look now to our generation and see a very different curve. Promised that we were to be the most powerful generation, a generation that could seize the full power of our educational assets and economic prowess, unfettered by global conflicts like WWII, Vietnam or the Cold War, we were free to do and become anything and indeed create a bigger and better world. Our college educations paid for, our parents relatively comfortable, we had no national interest to be concerned, no concerns at all really, but our own.

Then September 11th happened and a global conflict of mass proportions that had laid dormant for decades awoke to grasp a nation and a generation. Echoes of the calls to service heard during WWII, and Vietnam were heard. As a generation we were certain that we were going to be called to sacrifice as our parents and grandparents did. We were certain we would grow up. But something different happened. We weren’t called to arms. We weren’t called to sacrifice. We were called to the mall. We were called to make sure that we continue to keep the economy rolling along despite the huge problems our nation now faces. Our government told us that we faced huge crises ahead and they alone would solve them for us. Our government would go on to wage two wars, while cutting taxes. As a generation we weren’t asked to do any heavy lifting, just live our lives. Buy an iPod, if you don’t, the terrorists win.

But in the last decade something more is going on, something beyond political rhetoric. In the 1980’s Toys R Us the toy superstore chain came out with a national ad campaign accompanied by a now famous song. The primary lyric, “I don’t wanna grow up, I’m a Toys R Us kid.” Two decades later, maybe we didn’t grow up. Look at our culture. We are now the most coveted of demographics. The 18-30 year olds. Hollywood like most industries wants to create film titles that we will shell out money for. So have they turned their writers loose on creating a new set of provocative stories or a new set of action heroes built for our time to appeal to our new sense of heroism? Do we get our own versions of Captain America or Rocky or Star Wars?

No, we get to relive the characters of our childhood over and over again. A new working class hero? No, we get Rocky Six. A new sweeping action adventure in a far away time and space,? No, we get the Star Wars prequels. Since 2006 we have seen Superman, Batman, Iron Man, Spiderman (three of em), X-Men (ditto), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Indiana Jones, Live Free or Die Hard, Fantastic Four (twice), The Incredible Hulk (Twice), and who can forget Transformers (rumor is two more are on the way). These mega-titles are the driving force of the film economy.

So what? You may say. Well there’s more to it than nostalgia in film. While we are reliving our childhood fantasies at the movies, we are watching people attempt to live out their fantasies on TV. Becoming the next top model, becoming the next American idol, landing a rich bachelor, surviving a desert island, all done by real people. Our television landscape as become a rich tapestry of people living out their childhood fantasies. We all watch programs that elevate the mediocre among us to superhero status, at least for a little while, and we engage in the fantasy.

It’s not that I see total gloom on the horizon for the nation. Many people of my generation are starved to do something to change the path we are on, to wrestle control of our politics and culture away from huge, thumping corporate interests and engage the nation in a move toward progress.

It’s just that I see a generation already swimming in personal debt from credit cards and car payments and student loans, a generation for whom home ownership will be a difficult thing to achieve, who’s wages are growing stagnant and ever receding when adjusted to inflation. I see a generation that hasn’t been engaged enough to get outraged over the fact that our nation is plunging into debt, and we will need to figure out how to pay it off. But I wonder if like September 11th our gut will tell us we need to change our ways, but our culture and our president won’t be there to tell us to just keep spending money and it will all go away.

We may be looking for a change we can believe in, but are we ready to change? Are we ready to grow up?

Baracknophobia

John Stewart addresses the irrational fear that behind the mild-mannered facade, Barack Obama is intent on enslaving the white race.

Oil? Oil? Bit%# you cookin'!?

My pendulum is going to swing to the left from my previous position on Gitmo and the Supreme Court's controversial decision. On Wednesday, George W. Bush called for a lift on the Congressional ban to allow for offshore drilling, which will coincide with the suspension of a similar executive order. This is clearly a knee-jerk reaction to rising gasoline and oil prices, and meant to provide a solid soundbite for November. GOP zombie, John McCain wasted no time in associating himself with Bush's call for action (despite his multiple attempts to say that he is not a third term for Bush). McCain said, "It is much safer now, and if the oil rigs could survive Hurricane Katrina with little spillage then it must be save... ." I won't even get into the fact that oil companies already have a considerable amount of ocean real-estate that remains untapped. This is not about oil prices folks! Price relief at the pump will not be felt until at least three to five years from now if offshore drilling began immediately. I heard the funniest line today while watching CNN that I want to repeat because I think it bears repeating. "In the last eight years, the GOP has become the Gas, Oil, and Petroleum Party..." This is one more attempt to empower the oil companies and their lobbyists while crapping all over the environment. Think back to the oil leak in California in the late 1960's for evidence of what one mistake means for American shorelines and recreation. Sure people hate paying four dollars per gallon to drive to the beach, but what's if the beach is polluted to high hell? I'm far from what one would consider a "tree-hugger" , but I can say that the Bush/McCain solution is the same old solutions to complex problems. Where is the John McCain that opposed offshore drilling only a few years ago? Where has McCain's call for alternative energy and environmental sustainability gone? Funny how last election the Republicans used the word flip-flopper in nearly every sentence to describe Kerry, however John McCain is the "thoughtful candidate that is not afraid to change his mind." Wasn't McCain posturing himself as the candidate that didn't pander to lobbyists and special interest groups? Yet one more reason why the end of the Bush/McCain era can not come fast enough. 

Blue Balled: A Short Film

From the Democratic support group (no, not like therapy) Truth Through Action, here's their first short film. It is very clever, if not predictable. Enjoy!

BFF 4ever

Al Gore wholeheartedly supports Obama. Shocking, isn't it? Who could have possibly predicted that once Hilary Clinton conceded, that Gore would back the Democratic nominee? Still, one can't blame Gore for not getting in the middle of the primary spat. He knew that no matter which received the nomination, he would play a big part in (hopefully)their election, and they in turn would give him more power to do what he's passionate about--helping the environment.

Turns out, Al Gore is a pretty smart guy. But Obama is not too dull either. The unveiling of the alliance in Michigan at this point is pretty darn smart (as the NY Times pointed out). And with all these pictures of these two bright men standing together, we may be tempted to start thinking of a joint ticket, a real dream team when compared to the two currently in office. But before we all start getting giddy about a joint ticket, I ask what would Al Gore gain by being VP? Seems to me he would be much better off in a lower profile, high level position where he can drive the environmental agenda. And any candidate would be an idiot not to give it to him.

Hyrdogen Honda

Is this the deathnail of our fossil fuel driven economy? Let's hope so. Check out this article on Honda's new zero emmisions vehicle. Now the only problem will be changing our infrastructure to catch up with the technology.

Quick! Look over there...

Frank Rich of the NY Times talks about the narrative that's building in the media and how it is a tactic to distract us from looking too closely at the other side of the isle. I vote: Good read.

Evangelicals for Obama?

Take a look at this piece posted by Ben Smith at Politico. Stephen Mansfield supporter of George W. Bush and Tom Delay has penned a pro-Obama biography. Here's a quote...

"Young Evangelicals are saying, 'Look, I'm pro-life but I'm looking at a guy who's first of all black-and they love that; two, who's a Christian; and three who believes faith should bear on public policy," Mansfield, who described himself as a conservative Republican, said in a telephone interview (with Politico). "They disagree with him on abortion, but they agree with him on poverty, on the war." 

I find it amazing that when you get two candidates that aren't willing to pander directly to the religious right, we begin to see open mindedness of people. Not seeing a candidate that is willing to tell them exactly what they want to hear, Evangelicals are thinking critically about a wide range of issues before they make their choice. I love what happens when Karl Rove disappears. 

Wind Energy and Zero Emissions

It's one thing when environmentalists say it. It's one thing when lobbyists say it. But when our own Department of Energy issues a report stating that Wind Power could provide 20 percent of our energy needs by 2030 using no new technology, simply deploying it widely, that's news. 

I came across a great review of the article at the New Republic. Take a read of the summary...

Also CBS News has a nice intro piece on Honda's Zero Emission Vehicle about to arrive in Southern California. 

Town Meeting Anyone?

By now everyone has heard about John McCain's offer to have ten townhall-style meetings with Barack Obama between now and the scheduled debates of the fall. The debates wouldn't be carrie4d on any national media outlet, rather they would stream on the internet. The idea is certainly intriguing. The Obama campaign recently offered two townhalls in addition to the 3 debates. As the campaigns continue to wrangle over how many and the logistics of time, place and format, I have to wonder in the era of the moderated debate is over.

Its not for lack of desire to have moderated debates, and I am Jim Lehrer's (usual debate moderator) biggest fan. But II have to wonder in the day and age of bite-size media consumption and out-of-time viewing, if Americans really want to sit down and watch a moderated, mediated event. Rather they want the candidates to speak their minds directly to questions asked by audience members.

Of course as I read that last sentence I realize that the format proposed by McCain and being bandied by the Obama campaign does not come from a ground swell of support from the public. This format is believed to be advantageous to the campaigns. John McCain clearly believes he works better in this format, hence his proposal. I don't blame him, but I wonder why neither candidate wanted more network-sponsored debates? Was it because of the incessant questions about lapel pins, pledges of allegiance, age?

Well I for one hope they meet 4 or 5 times prior to the old-style debates and get speaking about the issues Americans care about. Lincoln-Douglas style.

Remembering Russert

Gitmo: The Supreme Court Rules

Marc Valentine, my fellow policy-thinker as made his feelings known on the Guantanamo Bay habeas corpus ruling laid down by the Supreme Court this week. His opinion lines up with many Americans who are wondering why the supreme court decided to extend the rights of the US Constitution to enemy combatants at the US installation in Cuba.

I am going to take the opposing view on this one because the Supreme court was absolutely correct in it's view concerning the facility and the extension of habeas corpus. To understand the court's ruling we must understand essentially two points. The first concerns the nature of the US use of Guantanamo bay. The Supreme court ruled that because of our total control of the base that it is essentially US territory of purposes of the law. Therefore, the rules of our constitution are in play. Secondly, the status of the prisoners in question. The Bush administration explicitly sought to deny these men POW status under the Geneva Convention which would have given them special status in the eyes of constitutional law. They were instead held as enemy combatants. The court previously ruled these combatants needed to be given rights to legal processes if they weren't to be held under Article Four of the Geneva conventions. The Administration sought to give them legal protections in the form of military tribunals which the Supreme Court struck down as inadequate. The Republican congress of the time wrote a law that protected the tribunals and gave the administration the legal grounds to stand on to try these detainees as they saw fit. One of the rights not granted to them was the right of habeas corpus.

I completely agree that Gitmo must be counted as under our control and therefore falling within Constitutional boundaries. Why? Because otherwise the precedent we set is that the US can set whatever rules for capture and detention is pleases as long as it done outside the United States. US entities could capture and hold detainees without cause or due process for years all around the world without affording them any kind of rights. Guantanamo Bay was the operated in this way. The Supreme Court's ruling in that regard was utterly correct. If we establish a base or an active installation of any kind with any level of permanence somewhere in the world it is our responsibility to operate it under the conventions we would expect.

Secondarily, even in this unending war on terror that we have engaged in, rule of law holds some weight. The people we detain overseas must be given a legal status that holds water both here in the US and abroad or else all future actions we take in this War on Terror will be seen as unjust. The Supreme Court's ruling on aspect was also correct.

Thusly I support the decision. But I encourage debate on this one as I'm sure some of you out there don't agree with me. Head to the comments section and let us know your thoughts or email us at Policythought@gmail.com

A great debate on this subject was held last week on the Newshour.

Fist Jab

Tim Russert dead at 58

We certainly won't be the first or only voice on this. But Tim Russert
of NBC's Meet the Press has died.

Television's longest running program has lost its moderator and NBC
its Washington Bureau chief. His show was a must watch for us at
Policythought. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

"Yes, You Can Buy A Kia"

This is awful. But they should get this guy for SNL...he's got Fred Armisen beat big time.

WTF Mate!

Can somebody please explain to me how individuals that are not citizens of the United States deserve the privilege of our civilian court system? While I have been quick to denounce torture on this site, I would not go as far left as to say that these people should be protected by our Constitution. President Bush may have become the pariah for Gitmo, but newsflash folks, he didn't create it. The Supreme Court's decision to offer detainees rights in the U.S. Constitution could be their worst decision since ruling that private industry can take private land for commercial use. I'm sure that human rights advocates will celebrate this landmark decision, but to paraphrase Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men, "all they did was weaken a country today...that's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams son." You can't hand people that want to destroy your civilization the keys to the castle. That's the bottom line. Enemies of this nation should not enjoy the same Constitutional rights of legal, taxpaying, and loyal citizens of this great country. I am outraged that an institution as vital as the Supreme Court would make such a reckless decision that threatens our national security. I always thought the Supreme Court's role was to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it. Shameful.

Fighting Smear Tactics

In the race for the White House, there are so many real policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama, we don't need smear campaigns. Senator Obama has faced smears that he's a Muslim (because ALL Muslims are evil *cough*cough*) that his wife calls white people "whitey" and that he hates white America. 

The Obama Campaign has launched a website, they hope will combat these smears quickly. Citing the swift boat attacks on John Kerry. I would hope for the sake of fair debate John McCain would make a statement denouncing such nonsense. 

Policy Difference: Obama and McCain on Iraq

A lot of hay has been made over McCain's comments on the Today Show yesterday (who knew the Today Show could make news). His sound bite-let came off more calous than I'm sure he intended but it leads to an important policy difference. McCain has consistently laid out a template wherein the US maintains a long term presence similar to what we have in Japan and all around the world. 

Here's the Today Show Clip one more time. 

Again, set the delivery aside. McCain believes a long term draw down is possible. But to a sustainable troop level.

Senator Obama on the other hand seems to want to get out of Iraq expeditiously. 

Above, Obama gets to lay out his Iraq Policy in some length (from a debate in February). He seems to suggest a draw down and a date certain, but then mentions all of these forces we will need. Embassy protection, counter-terrorism, humanitarian protection. What number are we drawing down to and when? His argument is about strategy on the world stage. It's cerebral and a breath of fresh air after the Bush administration. McCain's is about nuts and bolts military action. The question for voters on this issue is do they want erudite or do they want meat and potatoes? 

Feminism's wake up call

Thought the days of fighting for women's equality were long gone? Think again. The NY Times ran an article today detailing the increased number of hymen restoration operations in Europe preserving women's, particularly Muslim women's, virginity.

I have no problem with a religion's reverence of virginity until marriage. Christianity shares this with Islam. But I do object to it being used as weapon to degrade and oppress women. And unfortunately, this is what is behind the surge in operations. Muslim women need to "prove" their virginity-often going to the gynecologist to receive certificates that their hymens are still intact. Nevermind that the hymen is not a good indicator of virginity as they can be damaged in accidents, do not necessarily tear upon having intercourse, and there are women who are born without them.

And if abstinence until marriage is so virtuous, then it should be so among males and females. Yet, there are no tests and certificates required for men. There are no invasive check-ups, or operations to save them shame and exile. A man who makes the "mistake" of engaging in intercourse before marriage suffers no public humilation or shame. A woman does. That is where the wrong lies.

Smart Car Has Gas Singing The Blues

Smart: The Gas Can Blues
by hourigan

The Real (Left?) News

The Real News Network launched late last year as a independent news organization that pledges to use no corporate, government, or advertising money to provide we the public with unfettered news coverage. In principal this sounds wonderful, in practice I have my doubts. 

The news outlet seems to veer leftward in the issues and nature of its coverage. Look at the screenshot provided above some headlines...

-Greening the Evangelicals

-Hunger in the Wake of Climate Change

-Has Obama Moved to the Right?

-Cheney Blocked Talks with Iran

I am not questioning the value or temerity of any of these stories, is the the general leftward tilt the main page takes that raises my antenna. I recognize, that policythought leans a bit to the left as an outlet for news and opinion as well, but we try to call it like we see it. Real News Network has a lot of potential to become an independent voice out there with high quality video news. But if it becomes viewed as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the left, it will die a quick death. 

Check out this promotional video posted below. 

Policy over Politics

TIME magazine's take on Obama's economic policy plans, identifying strengths and holes:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1812964,00.html

Ruffling Feathers

Take a look at the link below on how Obama's pledge to refuse PAC money has raised the heckles of party operatives.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10962.html

What would he say about Obama's nomination?

Gitmo=Showtime in Cuba

On The Media from WNYC takes on Gitmo, and explains some of the stagecraft involved in presenting (or not presenting) the facts. 

My take on Gitmo (since you asked), quickly closing it would be impossible. However, for the sake of our American society, one held up on laws and guiding principals, I believe it is necessary to open up the processes of Guantanamo Bay to the media and let the American Public decide if they think our fight on terror is a being conducted justly. 

Access. That's all we need. 

American News Project: Evangelicals going Green

 Take a look at the video above. The Christian Evangelical community seems to be waking from the zombie-like march they had undertaken falling in line behind the GOP of the Reagan-Bush years. This piece highlights the some of the new debates surrounding climate change, stewardship, and the struggle for the various religious communities in the country to find their political voice. 

Let The General Election Begin

I just wanted to post a quick thought I've been ruminating over for the past few days. In the Democratic Primary, demography was king for voters. Faced with little policy difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voters fell into very distinct blocs. 

Now in the general election, there are many real policy difference between Senators Obama and McCain. I wonder now for many independent voters, will these issues permeate the campaign enough to crack the demographic barriers?

That is the key question of the general election. 

Hallmark gives us their take

Its not new for hallmark to take on political figures in their cards. It is new to see so many cards so close to the front door. Typical election year? Or is there some added interest?

Real News Network: Racism in West Virginia

The Real News Network gives us this priceless take on the West Virginia primary. I realize its about 3 weeks old now. But give it a look. It's a great example of how core Democrats refused to vote for Obama because of his race. Obama needs independents to win the general...how many more think this way?

A protest of Privitization

Think the government can handle nothing? So do these guys. (tongue
planted firmly in cheek-I hope)

Quick Hit: Enough Already!

Unless Barry Bonds is seeking a job as Vice-President, I don't want to hear about him anymore. Bonds headlines are increasingly frustrating when there are serious issues like the recession and rising oil prices in the news today. I have long railed against Senators and Representatives filling their precious time by prosecuting athletes that use performing enhancement drugs. Amid substantial headlines, I had to be bothered with Barry Bonds' plea of not guilty to 15 charges that he lied to federal jury in 2003. If you really want to see my blood boil, start talking about Arlen Spectre's investigation into allegations that the Patriots illegally taped their opponents. When sports climbs higher than poverty, education, and energy independence on our leader's agenda's, we may have a problem. I recommend our news media leave Bonds to ESPN and concentrate on something more important, like, you know, the economy. I want CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC to stop acting like TMZ and start acting like intelligent journalists.

Why Obama Won, the top five

Head over to the "v" list and check out my top five reasons for why Senator Obama won the Democratic Primary. 

Ben Smith on the Strategy

Ben Smith at Politico posts this piece on his blog, about the strategy for Obama as laid out by his Campaign Manager. 

Am I the only one observing this and thinking that it's still all about demography? Clinton was outspent in big state after big state and Obama still lost them why? the Demographics are still king. What Obama needs to do is find a demographic group he can win over....see his outreach to Jews, Latinos and Women. 

The Courtship Process

The New York Times offers an interesting look back on the process of courting superdelegates in the primary. Check it out.

Figuring out the future

Take a look at this photo from Time Magazine, swiped from Ben Smith's blog on Politico. Backstage at AIPAC after Obama secured the nomination.