Results from the DNC Rules Committee:

I wish they had weapons!

Did you watch the Democratic Rules Committee meetings on CNN? The only thing that would have made them better was if the meeting used gladiator style combat, with the last man (or woman) standing getting to decide the fate of Michigan and Florida. I love it how they are so nasty to each other, yet every sentence begins with some meaningless salutation like, "I think you are a very intelligent, and dedicated public servant, but..." People who say the Democrats will not have a rough road ahead clearly are not watching these events unfold. If Hillary wins the popular vote, this may not be as easy as some have been saying over the past three weeks. Remember months ago when some pundits predicted this election would be decided in a smoke filled room? I may not smell cigarette and cigar smoke, but I do smell disaster.

Ron Paul, the revolution will be televised (on youtube)

Ron Paul might be a squirrelly little guy, but he continues to draw a crowd and his libertarian message continues to be popular among the faithful. Paul's youtube profile page has over 51,000 subscribers and over 7 million page views. While he has no chance at his party's nomination, he has created a force in the political year.

My take on Ron Paul is this...his contribution to the election cycle is far more valuable that Ralph Nader's. Why? Ron Paul is a representative in the United State Congress, that means that his name has been on a ballot and he has one elections. Ralph Nader has been on the outside of the political sphere his entire life and very few people that have ever actually cast a vote for him thought he would win anything. Ralph Nader for a time had an impact on American culture. Now he has become so enamored with his own philosophy his campaign is a waste of time.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul won 15% of the vote in the Oregon this month. There's a Ron Paul nation. Don't believe me? Check out this groovy video from his recent trip to Cali...

Are we still fighting a war?

It strikes me that we have talked an awful lot about the economy lately and the latest political gaffe. Many Americans have learned what a super delegate is and can now explain it by heart. But can we find Baghdad on a map? Are we up on the status of our troops? Where is the media coverage of what's going on?

If a country fights a war and there is not media to cover it, is it really happening?

Elite is a four letter word

Why are we afraid of elite’s in our government? One of the more irrational fears that has gripped the American electorate for a long time is the fear of someone too much more qualified than themselves might take the office of president.

Listening to the pundits this weekend one of them mused (and I’m paraphrasing), “President Bush back in 2000 didn’t have a lot of the qualities people might look for in a leader but he seemed like the kind of guy you could have a beer with, and people responded to that.” They went on to talk further about President Clinton, whom after winning the democratic nomination was seen as too “learned” and elite, being from the Ivy league and being a Rhodes Scholar and all. They had to relaunch and reintroduce "the man from Hope" to make him more like everyone else. What is it about our politics that makes us strive for the mediocre? Why do we fear having our best and our brightest at the top of the heap? Why does Barack Obama have to constantly remind us that he ate Jello molds as a kid and that he’s just a regular guy who can drink a boilermaker like the rest of us. Why did Hillary Clinton have to throw back drinks in a Pennsylvania bar to prove that she was ready to commander in chief? Why did Al Gore lose in 2000 because he seemed like too much of a nerd? Our recent history is full of examples of extraordinary people of high accomplishment doing whatever they possibly could to avoid appearing stellar.

This practice of who can be the most folksy wouldn’t bother me so much except that it takes intelligent people and makes them say and do dumb things. The best recent example I can think of is Iran policy. The latest political football to get tossed around, Barack Obama has positioned himself as recently as last July as ready to talk with any foreign leader without preconditions. This stance is of course ludicrous. Preconditions and talks with lesser members of government are a pre-requisite of presidential meetings, as they well should be. Senator Obama knows that, and he knows that when he is President he will be able to justify not actually having meetings with rogue leaders because of the specific circumstances involved at any given time. This is a pander to the left, a way of saying, “no, no I am one of you, I really believe that if we all were to just talk that the problems would go away…”

John McCain of course has allowed his pander machine to run off course in the opposite direction. The world according to McCain is a very quiet one, because apparently we would only be talking to our staunchest allies. Presidential interest is a reward for only the best behavior. Under the McCain doctrine we would clam up with Hamas, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and even China (its a communist country, and a human rights violator). Of course that’s not really what’s going to happen. McCain is smart enough and experienced enough to know that with the proper circumstances it makes all the sense in the world to come to the table and discuss.

My only hope is that in all this hope to stop being elite, our candidates don’t lose their minds.

The Rove Factor: A Negative?

Karl Rove was the "architect" of President Bush's election and reelection. He's a political operative extraordinare. But I wonder if his consistent role in the public eye Rove has maintained since his "retirement" from the Bush White House isn't something of an albatross for the Republican party. Scott Mclellan's book was yet another description of Rove's critically important role in the White House. In many ways, I wonder if the Democrats will not attempt to link Rove to the larger Republican party. The "architect" of a failed administration that won't go away. It would be an easy charge to deny except that Rove remains a fixture on Fox News and shows up regularly for grilling on the Sunday morning shows. Op-Eds, speaking engagements, it seems Rove can't escape the public eye. While Mclellan's book won't fundamentally change the presidential race, I wonder if it won't provide yet another rope in the public eye for Rove to get tied to the larger Republican party. To be sure as long as Fox News is having interviews like this, somewhere John McCain winces.

Obama on Education

Education has been a popular riff here on policythought, with good reason. Education one of the most important domestic policy issues facing America long-term. In America today one third of all teenagers drop out of high school. The candidates have lobbed this football back and forth, with little substance. Well in a refreshing change of pace, Senator Obama talks education policy yesterday in Thorton, CO. Take the time to watch his speech, I think it gives a clear window into a change on education.




In the interest of equal time, I was able to find this, far briefer statement from John McCain. It was an interview given to the Des Moines Register, way back during the Iowa Caucuses. If anyone has any links to a newer education policy statement by McCain, please let me know and I'll put it up.

Dodging the (Gas Price) Bullet

I find few sales pitches more abhorrent than the Dodge/Chrysler promotion to actually subsidize the cost of gas for new buys for the next THREE YEARS. In case the ads haven't penetrated your living room, Dodge is willing to guarantee you 2.99 gasoline for the next three years if you buy a new car during their promotion.

Here's a quote I read in Thomas Friedman's NY Times column today, attributed to Tim Shriver, head of the Special Olympics, "So Dodge wants to sell you a car you don’t really want to buy, that is not fuel-efficient, will further damage our environment, and will further subsidize oil states, some of which are on the other side of the wars we’re currently fighting. ... The planet be damned, the troops be forgotten, the economy be ignored: buy a Dodge.”

Friedman goes on to explain what a mythical truth-speaking presidential candidate would call for. I would prefer to stick with Dodge/Chrysler here. This promotion runs completely counter to what the United States needs economically, and some would say morally. What we don't need is auto manufacturers subsidizing the cost of an outmoded fuel model for the sake of short term sales. Dodge's attempt to revive and resuscitate its flagging brand with the offer of cheap gas appeals to the lowest in our consumerism.

Americans are better than that, our free markets innovate their way out of problems. Consumers organically change habits as the economies of scale take hold. For a corporation to defy that basic law of the market is wrong.

The Mclellan Problem

Politico broke the story yesterday and already the pundits are commenting. Scott Mclellan buried the administration in his book. The interesting timing and rapid media release has infuriated the White House. I'll be interested to see how Obama and McCain line up with the book. Can McCain create daylight between himself and the administration on the subject of competence and honesty? In the mean time, take a look at the Today Show's summary.

The newest front in the media war

What if independent people created their own home-made attack ads? Not just for youtube, but for mass consumption on local television? Network affiliates for CNN, Comedy Central, and ESPN to name a few. Then what if like minded voters could buy the air time to get those ads seen.

Thats the the idea behind SaysMeTV go check it out, it's a distrubing look into the future of political discourse.

John McCain's Good Sense Problem

Senator McCain is a good man and a good American. He's been a loyal and faithful public servant. He's also well know and well respected for his "maverick" status. But John McCain has a youtube problem. His problem stems from being too flexible in his thinking too often.

Mind you this is not the ideological flip-flopping of a Mitt Romney. It's more the nature of being a good in the moment leader. McCain has always been a fearless member of congress out in front for the Sunday morning shows explaining his opposition or support for a particular policy or plan, then as the situation develops months or years later, he reevaluates his position. He's also given to hyperbole, its not that the conditions in Baghdad have improved, its that you can walk around without armor. It's not that General Petraeus can patrol the streets himself, its that he can do it without a protected vehicle.

Well in the hands of an expert (or no so much) video editor at home with his laptop you get the following.

Political Paparazzi

To many, it would seem that this batch of candidates has an affinity for ill-worded statements. Hillary had her Bonsia story and her most recent RFK reference. McCain said that he would remain in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it took to get the job done. (Bet you wish you could take that one back sonny) And today Barack Obama said that his uncle liberated Auschwitz when he actually liberated Buchenwald. 

In my previous post on enjoying the weather I voiced my displeasure at the media's  tendency to manufacture headlines in order to create drama. For those who don't believe me, how else can you describe the scrutiny of Obama's latest statement? We're really getting picky when we're saying that because he liberated ANOTHER camp, Obama is a liar. While I have rolled my eyes at Hillary's constant excuses that she "misspoke" this instance with Obama may generally be one of those occasions. I have made mistakes when presenting my lessons on numerous occasions, but does that make me  a liar? I don't believe so. We need to stop criticizing every little soundbite, and focus on something more important, issues. 

Why isn't there an equal amount of disdain on the part of Republicans when it comes to soaring gas prices? Why aren't Democrats bringing about all those "changes" promised in the last election? How about we stop focusing on what camp Obama's uncle liberated or what awkward statement Hillary made about RFK and focus on something of substance. Why do people become so disenchanted with politics? It's because politics is an ugly business that generally doesn't address the issues at hand. Political parties merely use important issues as political fodder for the latest election and then puts them back on the shelf for use in another four years. Excuse my recent aggravation, but I'm growing weary of all the pathetic attempts to keep the candidates in the spotlight. I believe this election has seen the birth of a new trend, the political paparazzi. Now that's something I can truly live without.

Brooks: Running Mates

Today Brooks takes on running mates and why the current discussion in the talkosphere is headed the wrong way. Brooks talk about how the VP shouldn't be seen as a short term answer to winning a swing state, but a long term investment in good governance. It's nearly impossible to disagree, but I will argue with his take on what Obama needs.

Brooks says he'll need someone seen as an unorthodox liberal with legislative chops that can take lofty rhetoric and turn it into real legislative action. I think he actually needs an ideological liberal driving the agenda with a very bipartisan cabinet in the wings. Thoughts?

Going on (and off) the Attack

This month's Conde Nast Portfolio asks if we're seeing the end of attack politics. Howell Raines recalls his invitation to the annual press dinner in Washington where he was seated between top political operatives Karl Rove and the Doug Schoen.

While these 30 year veterans battled it out over whether or not Hillary's 3am phone call ad amounted to negative campaigning, our author muses about whether these attacks are going to work with the youngest generation of voters.

He mentions the rise of the blogging class and his belief that we are still in a teenage phase of development simultaneously emulating our parents (big media) but seeking to strike out our own path.

I found his article interesting on two fronts. Were he a member of the new media, he would have blogged about the argument he witnessed as soon as he got home, or from his blackberry in the men's room, gossiping to the web at large about Karl Rove's bluster. Perhaps his not being a blogger is what got him invited to the table in the first place. Secondly, I think its a wide generalization to say that all blogs are created equal. Blogs like the moderate voice, or even policythought are dedicated to trying to invigorate the landscape with substantive debate and not boilerplate "527" style attacks. It's worth noting that this blog refrains from attack politics and might be suffering traffic loss from it. Make no mistake the Internet age is indeed hyperkinetic and eyeballs are what count in the newest age of ratings.

While people seek to find a new media age, I think the changes we will see are both rapid and glacial. The under 30's out there were born into an age of internet consciousness. While the immediate fit of blogs and youtube show up as a new front in the war of attack politics. It will take a generation growing and changing, sharing their thoughts on everything from shoes to China's rising political clout on the web in real time to truly measure what it will do to the electorate. Make no mistake, the times are changing, but no one knows where's we're headed.

V List Cross Over: Top Five Reasons People Dig This Election

This election cycle has proven to be one of the most exciting in recent memory. The drama and headlines, some natural, some manufactured have kept the public unusually interested in the reality TV show we call the presidential election of 2008. However, there five reasons above all that keep this one interesting...folks if you enjoy this list there are more to be found on topics ranging from sports to star wars over at the v list...

#5. The first open source campaign

We saw inklings of it in 2004 for the Howard Dean Campaign, and some of the mechanics of the machinery for the Kerry Campaign, but the online juggernaut that has exploded in political coverage since both of those campaigns is astounding. The blogs are a whole new level of political importance-the third leg of media checks and balances. There's the official line of the politician, the media's spin, and the the blogosphere hyper-spin or counter spin. Convince the MSM of your point is one thing, read the blogs the next hour, did you convince Kos? 

#4. It's Reality TV

Hillary Clinton's quest to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling, Bill Clinton's obsessive desire to regain the White House by proxy, the public break up between Senator Obama and his off-the-wall pastor, Ron Paul's never ending crusade. This political season has become the best reality show o

n television. 

#3. Bill Clinton

Just when you thought the story line might get boring. Bill pops back up like the plastic dad in Don't Wake Daddy, wide eyed and pissed that some 2 year Senator woke him from his dream of he and his wife going round #2 at the White House. In his agitation he might compare Obama to Jesse Jackson, or maybe he'll claim Hillary's faced brutal sexism, or maybe he'll say that the race card was played against him. Sometimes he just wants to scream at people at campaign rallies. Whatever it is, Bill's always there as ex-presid

ent combatant in chief. 

#2 Yes We Can!

I know its a simplistic and some would say lame campaign slogan. Some would say that the hope Obama promises is hype. But whatever way you slice it, Senator Obama has generated a new an very exciting interest in politics. He has turned the youngest voters on to the process. His charisma, his political skill, his oratory and his thoughtfulness have turned him into the Vin Diesel of politics. I bet he hopes he has a longer shelf life. 

#1 President Bush

Let's face it-we all wouldn't care who was going to be the next president so much if not for the fact that we all disapprove of President Bush so much. Mr. 28% per cent approval has given all of us a reason to be interested in who replaces him. Maybe you hate the war in Iraq, or his administration's abuses of power, maybe you think negotiating with enemies is intelligent, maybe you like a President that can string together a sentence with more than 3 multi-syllabic words in it without getting that dim sort of glazed over look is appealing. Maybe you don't want a vice president that reminds you so much of Darth Vader. Whatever your particular beef it's reason enough to want someone new, desperately. And so we all watch with great intent the buffon reality play that is our current presidential cycle. 

From the Land of Over Reaction

Sometimes we say boneheaded things. We all do. Senator Clinton recently made remarks considering the timeline of other nomination contests one of which being the Robert Kennedy's win in California in June of 1968 only to be followed, tragically with his assassination. Her invocation of the event was stupid. But it was not the political football that some have chosen to make it...Keith Olbermann took a nearly 11 minutes of air time to attack the NY Senator for her remark. 

I have not been a Clinton supporter this cycle, but I fail to understand how her bringing up a historical timeline, even in these charged political times warrants the following reaction from Keith Olbermann.

Enjoying the Weather!

Is it me, or is anybody else enjoying the media silence of the past few days? As James mentioned earlier, there will be a lull in media coverage over the course of the next few months, however I view this as a good thing. The media's coverage has been like a feeding frenzy lately, rather than objective, accurate journalism. I've grown tired of the manufactured headlines and drama. I'm sick of Reverend Wright and Bittergate. I can't stomach anymore talk of racism in this election or the voting tendencies white, blue-collar workers. While the media is certainly still trying to convince you of the hype and controversy (see Hillary Clinton's remarks on RFK) I'm not biting anymore. I've come up with a brief list of things of family friendly activities to occupy the space between the nuclear holocaust of a primary and the upcoming category five general election.

5. BBQ

Nothing says summer like a nice day in the yard / or on the deck like a good ol' Barbeque with your friends. Open a few beers, kick back and talk about better times. Get some fresh air and take in all natures wonders in the waning days of spring.

4. Catch a Flick!

The spring / summer box office line-up is chock-full of goodness this year with titles like Batmans Returns, Ironman, Kung-Fu Panda, Indiana Jones, and the Hulk just to name a few. Enjoy a film with the family and suspend your disbelief for two hours. Forget all the rising gasoline prices and political infighting and feel like a kid again watching your old big screen faves return to a new generation of moviegoers.

3. Play catch...

Dust off your old Baseball mit and throw the baseball around for a little bit with a family member. There's nothing like a talk over a game of catch. I don't know what it is about this activity that is totally Zen. You'll feel so good that all your problems will melt away.

2. Ice Cream and a Walk

Nothing says summer and beautiful weather more than a nice ice cream sundae. Get a gigantic ice cream cone and take a nice walk around the neighborhood. If you neighborhood is skanky, go visit somebody else's. Bring some friends along. Much like there's always room for Jello-O, I would argue that there's always room for ice cream.

1. Hit the open road

Get a handful of your summer music collection, open every window in your car, and start to drive. You don't need a particular destination, just drive. Put on your sunglasses, blast your music, and sing at the top of your lungs. Take a navigator with you. Don't be afraid to pack a little overnight bag, just in case you don't want the journey to end. You don't need an expensive Carribean vacation or flight to gain some peace of mind. Travel to small towns that are not in a brochure. Sample some local customs on this low budget vacation. You don't have to go far (it can only be a weekend) to feel like you've taken a break from your life. Get away from all the negative and break the monotany of the Monday to Friday grind. Don't worry the political infighting and career will still be there when you get back. Take a break from them for a while, I guarantee that you will feel better for it.

Harrison Ford Waxes Conservation

Indiana Jones and The Inconvenient Truth. Or, in this case, the absolutely gross truth. What a bizarre PSA...

#400

Hello All!

This is a special post. This is the 400th post here on Policythought! We are still in the infancy of this blog and what we believe it can offer our readers. We strive to deliver potent policy debate, political insight, humor and varied points of view. That being the case I wanted to take a brief pause for our 400th post and ask our readers to suggest what we can do to improve the blog. the comment section awaits, and if you have something more personal to say...well you can always email us policythought@gmail.com

Beware: Lull Ahead

As the delegate math sews up for Senator Obama look for the lull to set in. Political coverage in MSM is going to slow down in the coming weeks as media organizations have fewer contests to cover. To be sure the blogs and cable news will go on dissecting every uttered syllable, but the public's attention span and therefore big network coverage will shrink on this topic until the conventions. This is good news for Senator Obama. He hasn't won a dominant victory over Senator Clinton, but rather a war of attrition. As long as Senator Clinton doesn't do anything to make their battle more public in the weeks and months leading to the convention, the media will yawn as she makes her arguments on electability. The lull will be the media slow-down Obams needs to quietly mend fences after a divisive primary battle.

The lull hurts Senator McCain. He needs all the free media coverage he can get with so little in his campaign coffers. With Republican brand ID so startlingly low, McCain needs open air to declare himself the unconventional Republican. If people fall asleep to the election season and wake up for McCain's convention speech he might get tagged with that brand clear to November.

Perception and Politics

Just one more quick hit before I must away. Oregon and Kentucky have been at the polls all day. Early returns are coming in, but the the press is already carrying Obama's water for him. His campaign initially had planned to announce victory of sorts today after winning the majority of pledged delegates. As the month rolled along they decided instead to back off as the media seemed to be minimizing Senator Clinton on it's own. 

However, media outlets have widely reported the milestone for Obama today even if the campaign plans on making no mention of it. While I am no Clinton supporter, the media is ending this thing for us, whether Hillary likes it or not. 

Brooks Tuesday: Who's gonna bring the reform?

Today Brooks lays out his case the it is McCain the elder statesman that will actually be able to bring change to Washington from his seat at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Brooks takes the farm bill as an example of an opportunity missed for Senator Obama. Take a look and see what you think. 

Oh, and we'll dive into the farm bill soon...

Demogogues and Demographics

The electoral college was invented to respect the differences between states politically speaking. It was a way of localizing a national election for president and respecting that the interests of New York are different from those of Alabama.

Yet today it is likely not the state you live in or even your income that are likely to determine your party allegiance. Rather it is your cultural demographics and tendencies that will likely determine who you vote for in a primary or in the general election.

In 1976 a relatively close election 25% of voters lived in a "landslide" county. Landslide being defined as a win by 20 points or more. In 2004, that percentage went up to 50% of voters. This has led to the continued "Balkanization" of voters. As the general election progresses the candidates will begin to spend the bulk of their time in the swing states, the electoral battle grounds that will determine the election.

The candidates involved in this general election (assuming Senators Obama and McCain do indeed become their party's nominees) are seen as bridge builders. They are seen as candidates that can reach across the aisle and work from a centrist position. They are swimming against the tide of demography.

But let me return to my original premise. The electoral college breaks the country into states. But when a state is broken so sharply along its own county lines into shades of red and blue, one wonders if simple state wide counts tell the story any more.

Is the Democratic Party's system of proportional delegate counting a more accurate way of assessing the electorate? Or should we do away with all slicing and dicing and do our elections by a simple popular vote of all citizens? The way you count is the determining factor for how the game is played. Do our rules and the country's trends force our candidates to play into a box?

The New Math

What can you do when your opponent will probably cross the finish line on Tuesday, securing him the nomination? Move the finish line backwards of course, silly! For those of you who thought Hillary might come to her senses, think again. The new math according to the Clinton camp should include the disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida, despite Hillary's prior commitment to follow the DNC rules which stripped them of their delegates prior to the Iowa and New Hampshire votes. Amazing isn't it? Let's talk about how important Iowa and New Hampshire are in the voting process, and denounce Michigan and Florida's decision to move their primaries up. Then once New Hampshire and Iowa are in the rearview mirror, change your song about Michigan and Florida. How typical of a Clinton. I did not have sexual relations with that woman... Why do most Americans think that Hillary is untrustworthy? It's because she even lies to herself. Hillary, the math is 2026, it's over.

Nature vs. Nurture: Fostering New Hate

In a time where the wounds of war are constantly being inflicted upon generations of children in Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems the US would find it within the best interest of all, the children and ourselves, to foster a better relationship with the families and youngest hurt in the footsteps of the war on terror. Instead, an article today on AOL.com proclaiming "US Military Holds 500 Youths in Iraq" shows us that we are hosting a war on terror, as well as fighting one.

(http://news.aol.com/story/_a/us-military-holds-500-youths-in-iraq/20080519064909990001)

If our country was in turmoil, and another governing nation stepped in to help us correct the insurgence and the unrest, how might we feel if those who disagreed were captured or killed? Or furthermore, if the children we have left, fighting under the only ideals and memories their dead fathers have given them, were captured and held, without warning or deadline of release? What then?

This is what has happened over in Iraq; as the article goes on to state, "a total of 2,500 youths under the age of 18 have been detained, almost all in Iraq, for periods up to a year or more in President Bush's anti-terrorism campaign since 2002, the United States reported last week to the U.N.'s Committee on the Rights of the Child."

The the idea that a child, on the brink of adulthood, fighting for all that they have ever known, is imprisoned from their family, and we are just finding out about it now when it started in 2002, scares the hell out of me. What else might we not know about? What else has this administration been doing over there in the name of peace and ending war, when it is ripping families apart and brewing new hatred? And lastly - who will answer our nation if another attack happens, because it was provoked through the imprisonment of a child? I cannot imagine anyone, even Bush, having an argument for that one.

A Minor Tale of Racism

Barack Obama is poised to be the first mixed-race nominee for president of a major political party in the United States of America. His nomination is a quantum leap forward for the status of minority Americans across the country. It is also a reflection of the growing demographic changes of the United States. While Obama's story is highly unique, his racial make-up is not necessarily so. His mixed race background is the leading edge of a trend that will change the landscape of American political and social life.

There has been ample discussion about whether or not he can't win the white working-class because of underlying racism, there has been talk about his known ceiling when it comes to support from those white americans that will never vote for a black man. I know in reading these stories, I said to myself, "these must be isolated cases." Sure in some backwoods areas of the country people still feel this way, but with a little education, and a little exposure to different kinds of people, surely most Americans are open minded enough to vote for who they think is best qualified to be president.

Well this past weekend I was given a first hand example of why that is not true, why racism exists everywhere. Even in the greatest city in the world.

Those of you that know me personally know that I love to play roller hockey. I've done it since I was a kid and I'm pretty passionate about it. I recently got back into the swing of it and now I try to play 2 or 3 times a week at a rink in Queens. As I've gone more and more I've fallen in with a crowd of regulars. People I don't know very well but who come down to the rink often enough that we recognize each other and are probably on a first name basis. One of the games I play in comes on Saturday morning, around 11am.

It's always been a fun game, usually anywhere from 15-20 people show up, with a few goalies, we divide into teams and play for a while. Lately, a new group of younger players has been showing up. They are "good enough" despite their age, probably 15-18 that they get to play with us.

Despite their age and relativly small stature they could hold their own. In fact I often found myself getting frustrated that I would take them too lightly and make a mistake. They had only two things in common as far as I could tell-a deceptive speed moving with the puck and dark skin.

This past Saturday was one of the hotter we have played on this year. During a "sweat break" so the goalies could cool down I took a knee by the boards to fix my shin guard, unconsciously making myself appear anti-social. After tossing some jokes out from my kneeling position about one guys lousy wrist shot, and somebody else'w lousy stick handling one of the players I had known for a few weeks rolled over to me.

"What is this bull____?" he asked me.
"What bull____?" I replied.

He answered in a low whisper, "These kids? What are they black or Indian or what...?" I answered truthfully that I didn't know, but their names were Kevin, Tony and I didn't know the other kid. He shook his head. As I was answering, another player came over probably in time to hear me naming the kids. The two of them commiserated on how the dark-skinned kids "didn't know the game." I found myself stuck between hating where their sentiments were coming from and not wanting to get on a soap box. So as I rose from my kneeling position I said simply, "Well for not knowing the game they get around us pretty well." and then I skated away.

The point of this story is that when people are threatened by something new, by something that they don't quite understand or isn't exactly like them, they try to find ways to separate so they can attack. Whether it be on the roller rink or in the general election, people are scared of something different. There is room for hope though, despite our fears and differences, when it came time, we dropped the puck and started the game.

The New Role of VP

The Sunday morning talk shows didn’t have a lot to talk about this week. With the democratic party’s story line getting decidedly less exciting as it appears Senator Obama will be the nominee, it was time to fill some air. I only caught parts of This Week, on ABC and Meet the Press for NBC and both shows were covering the same topic for at least part of their round table discussions. The ever looming Vice Presidential debate. Who should near-certain nominees Barack Obama and John McCain choose as their running mates. I don’t really feel a need to engage in more speculation. Both candidates will choose based on a calculus on they really understand, so why try to guess?

As a matter of policy however, the role of Vice President has changed vastly in the last eight years. Dick Cheney wasn’t simply an adviser and President of the Senate as the constitution provides. He was at the center policy decisions and by many accounts was running a parallel white house. So the question is for all you policy thinkers, without delving into your personal feelings for Dick Cheney, which I’m sure are only warm and fuzzy, what kind of a role would you like future VP’s to play? Policy-drivers? Or political back-seaters?

 

The comment section awaits your thoughts. 

Gay Marriage in California allowed again (for now)

A better writer would give you all the background and previous information needed to full assess the California gay marriage ban and subsequent ruling but the state supreme court deeming that ban unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the constitution.

What I found amazing in listening to a debate about it yesterday on Newshour, wasn't that people are opposed to gay marriage, it's that opponents of gay marriage called the judges decision legislating from the bench, but never attempted to explain the constitutionality of the ban. Why? Simply put, there is no constitutional defense of a gay marriage ban. It just makes some people uncomfortable, period. No one is saying that your particular church or place of worship has to start performing same-sex marriages. But why should two men or two women who are in love and want to commit for a life time, not be given equal ability to do so under the law. Their right to do so would in no way effect anyone else's rights. 

Much the way conservative groups stick to their "keep the government out of my life" argument when it comes to the 2nd amendment and bearing guns (an argument they are correct in making by the way), under the same constitutional grounds two consenting adults of any gender should be able to get married under the law. To say anything else I think is unpatriotic to the ideals this nation was built on life liberty and and the pursuit of happiness. 

The media is talking about how this ruling will be the law in the land only for a short time as opposition groups plan on a ballot initiative that will bake a same sex marriage ban into the state constitution. They are calling it the officially homophobic act of 2008. Alright maybe I made that one up, but if that ban passes I hope the California courts will strike it down. It is not legislating from the bench to strike down an unconstitutional law. 

Brooks: Obama Hearts George (H.W.) Bush

Today my man David Brooks at the NY Times delves a little deeper into Senator Obama's plans for Middle East negotiations. Far from appeasing the Nazi's as W's thinly veiled comparison tried to portray-Brooks seems Obama as far more pragmatic. 

Obama/McCain: Will this be the candid cycle?

Every season the same thing happens. We all start off with so much hope for the election cycle. New faces emerge with the potential to radically change the electorate or the face of our politics. Then as the race wears on, the battle lines become more entrenched, the mud starts to fly and in the end the voters are so disgusted with both, no one is excited any more. 

I wonder if this cycle won't be different. Not because we are such better people but because of the nature of the campaigns both of these candidates have promised to wage. The nature of the politics Barack Obama is trying to sell to the American people is supposed to elevate up above the realm of name-calling. He is essentially supposed to be changing the game in Washington. It will hurt his brand if he begins to the pivot away from that. 

McCain as well will be looking to stop attack politics. Elevating our discourse to helping the American people is part of the McCain brand and if he lets that aspect drop, Obama will too easily tag him as being part of the old-style politics. 

But I also wonder if there isn't something more cultural at work here. We are in an age not just of 24-hour spin meisters, but 24-hour bloggers and a never-ending commentary cycle. The YouTube effect has already been felt throughout the primary season, as not only can pictures and text be transmitted in the blink of an eye, but so to can video. More important than it's abundance is the nature of peer-to-peer sharing the internet enables. Six million people watched Barack Obama's speech on race in Philadelphia on Youtube. I wonder if that's why the spin camp of team Hillary has run into such opposition, maybe its the legion of bloggers there to parse her words, or compare her positions to past ones. Perhaps its when she talks about dodging sniper fire, there is video that proves it's a lie. Not just on the local news, but posted again and again on blogs and across the internet. 

The home-made-media cycle is beginning to prove its worth this cycle as not only can it be a cash cow, but it is a place for minds to come together. I wonder if these candidates consciously or unconsciously play well in this environment and we might actually see some policy thought this election cycle. 

Are You Having a Bad Fuel Day?

From 5 Blogs Before Lunch, Urban Dictionary has coined the term "bad fuel day." It's defined as: The mood or feeling one experiences after having just filled his or her vehicle with $4.00+ per gallon gasoline. (Usually consists of a sense of great economic despair, impending doom, anger, frustration, depression and/or a combination of all the above)

EXAMPLE: "Leave me alone. I'm having a bad fuel day!"

Looks like we're in for many a bad fuel day ahead. And, unlike a bad hair day, you can't hide your pain in a hat.

Different Election, Same Bull$h^t!

Too dumbfounded to write, let this explain...

Why I'm a Care (polar) Bear

The question was asked to day in response to my post below, "Why do we care about the Polar Bear?" The answer I think across the board with the various endangered species can be boiled down to a simple point. Before man came to this planet there was a certain number of species and as man has evolved and from more powerful countless species have perished.

Each species that goes extinct represents a part of the eco-system gone. The commentor's example was the Passenger Pidgeon, a species lost to the world in the early part of the last century. The commenter posits that the loss of this species represents no direct impact on man, and therefore was rightly ignored. I have no idea if he is right on the first point, but on the second, I must disagree. Biodiversity is a measure of the sustainability of life on this planet. The more species our planet can support, the more vitality our eco-system demonstrates. The loss of any given species might be ignored, but taken in totality our planet is beginning to lose it's ability to sustain life.

The polar bear, like the spotted owl before it, is becoming a symbol for a larger environmental issue. Instead of deforestation now, its global warming. The polar bear isn't dying off because of some internal dysfunction, it is dying off because we are losing ice at the polar caps. These are vital to human existence.

To conclude I would have to disagree with the commenter's premise. The idea that if an extinction doesn't affect man, man should take no action. Every extinction affects man, even if in a small way. Moreover, I especially disagree with using the Polar Bear as an example of this premise, because its health is barometer of the health of the ice caps. If they melt, humans are in for a world of hurt.

A call to (polar) bear arms

Possibly missed in the fray among presidential endorsements, earthquakes and cyclones, the US government took an extraordinary step and placed the Polar Bear on the endangered species list. 

Determining that the bear's natural habitat is disappearing and rapid declines in it's population are imminent, the government moved to put the bear on the list. Once a species goes on the list, the government is supposed to enact actions to protect the natural habitat of the creature and protect it from it's unnatural endangerment. 

The case of the polar bear is unique and could be a landmark case for the legislation and for the government's stance on climate change. The science that documented the loss of natural habitat of the polar bear is essentially global warming science. Therefore to save the polar bear the US government is mandated to take action on global warming to protect the bear. There seem to be legal actions underway to prevent such actions, but the really paralyzing thing is no one really knows what to do to repair the arctic and reverse global warming. Slowing it down seems to be problematic enough. For a complete report on the state of the polar bear and legislation attempting to protect it head here. 

Eating my words, and loving every minute of it!

There are some times in my life where I love being wrong. On this blog nobody has been more critical of John Edwards that I. Long have I waited for Edwards (whom I supported for president) to stand up and make an endorsement of a Democratic candidate. My waiting turned into impatience and I incorrectly predicted that he would sit on the fence until the convention. Today my friends, I was proud to eat those words as I flicked on the television to see Breaking News: Edwards endorses Obama! Only one day after pundits predicted total divide in the Democratic party, Edwards rushed in and offered words of reconciliation at just the right time. This is exactly what we needed folks. If you listened to his tone he congratulated Hillary, applauded the gains the party, and simultaneously pumped up Obama. This folks, is the tone that the Democrats have longed for, which only Edwards could provide. I am so proud today, I could barely contain my excitement. For the first time in two years, I would consider myself a Democrat again. Thank you John Edwards for transcending the garbage news headlines and providing stewardship for your party when they needed you most.

Things I could have done without

In my copious spare time, I contribute to the "v" list, our own Marc Valentine's definitive list on well, everything. Check out my recent post on things I could have done without this primary....

Something Wicked this way....

Popular discussion of the West Virginia Primary dictates that despite Hillary Clinton's long expected trouncing of Obama in the contest it makes little difference to Democratic Primary. In the short that is certainly true. But when 2 in 10 voters admit in exit polling that race was a deciding factor in their decision, it triggers a worry in me. While there have been definite accounts of racism on the trail, in beginning to look at comment boards around the Internet an equally disturbing wave of counter racism is beginning to emerge. For a sample check out the comments section on Ben Smith's blog.

The narrative that is emerging among Obama supporters is that its not that he's losing the "white working-class" vote, it's that he's losing the "hick-racist" vote. West Virginia's exit poll numbers serve the narrative, but that doesn't make it any less destructive to the party and the nation. Could we be facing a breaking of this country along racial lines? Or the greatest leap forward for the advancement of mixed race and minority citizens since the peak of the civil rights movement?

Hillary Wins, Nobody Cares!

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? This is the logic I apply to Hillary's victory in West Virginia. Sure, her victory was huge (according to the pundits), but I have never seen so much ado about nothing. So for those who skipped out on some previous discussion, let's go over this one more time. Mathematically she can't win. If the party gives her the nomination, they lose the African American vote and fracture Democrats forever. Barring catastrophic meltdown, Obama is in. While the pundits were busy gabbing about Hillary's victory, very little attention was paid to the fact that on the day of her triumph, Obama picked up more Super Delegates. Don't be distracted by the Hillary's warped rhetoric or reasoning that no Democrat can win the White House without West Virginia. At this point she will say anything to keep her prospects going just a little longer. I hate to burst your bubble, but don't count on it ending anytime soon while networks like Fox News and CNN can draw in ratings on fake drama and mathematical improbability. I don't know about you, but my tuner is set to American Idol. Forget Hillary versus Obama, it's David versus David. Now that's what I call a competition!

We get blasted

Policythought reader and facebook member Alex Lotoro took us to task today about our coverage of issues...in response to a thread I posted concerning our coverage of 3rd party candidates and party outsiders such as Ralph Nader and Ron Paul here's what came back...

The biggest reason why you should cover third party candidates, particularly Ralph, is because blogs are independent news sources that don't suppress truths when it hurts them...like Ralph's thoughts on the public airwaves and how they should be leased, not sold.

You don't have to cover what gets you ratings, you can cover what your readers need to here. That's what the press is for! Otherwise, it's impossible for the full-time student, the 60+ hour a week employee, the working parent, to make an educated decision in November.

Your blog is too similar to what I can see on CNN and Fox News, same story different commentary. I'd rather spend my time reading AfterDowningStreet, Counterpunch, Democraticunderground, or CommonDreams...so I learn something new.

I thought I'd take the opportunity to rebut and see if other readers had a take on this...

I admit our coverage of third party candidates is limited. Particularly of Nader, this comes from a few things. First of all he isn't a legitimate candidate for President. Each of his attempts have gotten less credible and I think most readers want to read about candidates that are likely contenders for the White House.

That doesn't excuse our lack of coverage for his policy ideas. However, I tend to believe that the cream rises to the top when it comes to ideas and politicians. Nader enjoyed a more prominent role in the 90's as a consumer advocate and occasional presidential candidate, over time his capacity for new policy and new ideas hasn't kept pace with his longevity. In truth Ron Paul is seeing a more sustained following despite his incredibly small chance of winning the White House. His libertarian platform and opposition to the war in Iraq has gained him a solid following. He also has the added bonus of actually having a job in government, that means people have voted for him and continue to keep him in congress. Ralph Nader has a political movement and people who believe in him, but as we've learned throughout this primary season, translate that into votes.

We don't have to cover what gets us ratings...just want our readers need to hear. Determining what our readers "need" to hear is a difficult task and one I know at least I struggle with everyday. We have posted powerful pieces in opposition of the war, media coverage of the race, and global climate change. Recently, when candidates called for a gas tax holiday, I posted on a piece on the need for gasoline prices to go up not down. A point that even today, I buttressed.

The reader posted the names of several liberal blogs they would read before ours. I take no issue with a person's taste, we cannot please all readers all the time. However, the blogs named are part of the same echo-chamber effect that we have railed against. They serve to harden reader's views in a hyper partisan way. At policythought we try to call it like we see it, not how Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity would like us too.

I hope more readers step up and serve us some smack down...we need it around here. It gets our dander up and gets us posting on issues our readers want covered. Keep em comin!

If the shoe were on the other foot.....

The proof of Hillary Clinton's political power lies in the fact that she's hung in this race for this long. Any other candidate would have been outwardly pressured to leave the race by the party. The fact that Senator Clinton has not been is proof of her stature in the party, and the strange fear many dems have of the wrath of the Clinton machine. If you don't believe me, think about this....

What if it had been Senator Clinton, not Senator Obama that had won 11 straight contests after February 5th? If Senator Clinton's campaign had run up a delegate margin comparable to Senator Obama's and out fundraised him, and won Iowa, would he have been able to withstand the chorus of calls for him to get out the race? The media would have pronounced him dead long, long ago.

Sue Drops The F-Bomb

Those of us who live in New York have known Sue Simmons on NBC forever. She is a staple of the WNBC news team. And she went ballistic on the air and let fly the fearsome F-Bomb. I'm curious to see if the FCC jumps down NBC's throat with a fine or if this slides. Reason being, it was late-night...and I've noticed "vulgar" language grow increasingly more acceptable over the past 10 years. For example, on TNT during prime time, I heard the ever-popular "douchebag" go by without anyone even batting an eye. "Shit" was all the rage on NYPD Blue, now I doubt anyone would really care. There was an entire South Park episode about "shit." And yet, flash a breast on TV and everyone goes nuts. It never ceases to puzzle me as to what our "moral" priorities are in this country. That isn't a comment on censoring language; I could care less. Just an observation. Now, here's Sue Simmons droppin' da bomb.

Ben Smith-Racism on the Trail

Ben Smith consummate blogger for Politico posts this piece about racism on the trail. It's an important, and short read. Please take a second a check it out.

America Doesn't vote on Policy...and that is OK.

It might sound ironic coming from a guy who writes a a blog dedicated to thinking about Policy and Politics. This presidential election will change the political landscape in America, it will not however, be about policy.

Why?

Because it never is. Ever since the dawn of media machines owned by political campaigns voters have learned to judge politicians not by the promises they make, the vast majority of which end up being false, but by the sense they get for leadership style.

There are real policy differences between senators Obama and McCain. But by the time it comes to voting people are going to be making judgments based largely on feel and who they identify with more. Americans understand that a campaign platform does not mean every policy will get enacted, more that this platform represents the kinds of changes a particular candidate would like to see made.

Mind you, I don't think this is a bad thing. This comes from a legitimate, if unspoken understanding of the constitution. Americans understand that while a president may drive the agenda, they cannot by themselves radically alter the nation. Our founders put in place a series of checks and balances so precise and so demanding that any president no matter how charismatic, must work the political levers to enact legislation. Ultimately, that kind of leadership prowess is what is being judged.

Gases Prices are Going Up...and that's a good thing

I've blogged on this before. Gas is getting more expensive, there isn't a damn thing the government can do about it, and it's a good thing. Nothing more expediently creates change than rising prices. Last summer Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was exalted as the kind of national call to action we finally needed. It won an Oscar and a Nobel prize for its merits. While we are still seeing its effects on our culture, what is really motivating people to change their behavior are prices at the pump. High gas prices are forcing Americans to change their behavior in ways that Al Gore cannot. Don't believe me? Check out this article in Time about families cutting back their vacation plans and getting more local this summer. The article describes the beginning of a shift in lifestyle choice by average Americans.

But we need action on the federal level. As global demand for energy increases we need local governments to begin funding mass transit initiatives. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Boston went through a mass transit renaissances long ago. We need to foster the same in cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami, and yes Los Angles.

The Ballad of John Edwards

Funny that Marc should post a hit on John Edwards today. In thinking about how the campaign between Clinton and Obama shook out over the months since Iowa, I see John Edwards more and more as as tragic figure in the 2008 election cycle.

John Edwards' message all year heading into Iowa and New Hampshire was that he was the fighter. He was going to fight poverty, and fight corporations for a better life for the rest of America. Yet for whatever reason he could never make his message stick with voters and John Edwards' was forced to suspend his campaign after the early contests.

I for one think his exit was too early. Edwards wouldn't have won the nomination if he had stayed in but think of how his message and indeed in many ways his brand have been co-opted by Hillary Clinton. Hillary entered the primary season as the the "experience" candidate in a change year. The change versus experience argument played strongly into Obama's hands, and left Edwards with no real position to be in. Yet as the race wore on and Clinton began losing constests after Feb. 5th she began to pivot away from being "ready on day one" to being the candidate that's going to fight for the little guy. In fact, her coalition of voters were the very folks that Edwards claimed. Yet for whatever reason Edwards never passed the smell test with the electorate, and never got a chance to do the distance. Now he is left pseudo-endorsing neither candidate, waiting to see what his next gig might be.

Do I Smell an Endorsement?

Is it me, or did it just sound like Senator John Edwards said he supports Hillary? If you listened to Face the Nation on Sunday morning, Edwards said that Clinton was gaining steam and would be a stronger candidate in the fall. Maybe it's me, but I can take this one of two ways. Either Edwards has little chance of becoming the VP under Obama, or there's more than meets the eye to this race. Is it me or is it strange that pundits keep saying that it would take a shocking revelation to knock out Obama? Why do they keep saying that? It's almost like they're trying to cushion the blow when Hillary overtakes Obama because of some nasty scandal or political secret. Edwards words reminded me why I hate politicians more than any other profession, because they can never say plainly how they feel. They have to dress us their words and encode them, almost as if they think we are incapable of handling the truth. I think this story is far from over, so stay posted.

He's Winning in Every Column Folks!

Quick hit before I got to bed. Obama picked up another four Super Delegates today vaulting him ahead of Clinton in yet another category. While none of these are set in stone, it definitely marks a shift in momentum and may display a trend that will emerge in the next three weeks. I'm predicting a small trickle of delegates (as we are seeing now) rather than one mass exodus from one candidate to another, whereby they save face and don't alienate Hillary supporters. Regardless, time is running out as Obama now leads in the popular vote, delegates won, and pledged Super Delegates. Tick Tock Hillary. 

A New Blog to check out

I have many favorable characteristics as a human. But I also have some unfavorable ones, one of them is taking credit for things that have nothing to do with me, but never the less creating some tortured logic to instill my own greatness into something that had little to do with me.

In this case, I am applying my tortured logic to The V List a new blog started by fellow policythought contributor Marc Valentine. I take credit for providing the inspiration for Marc's venture.

In all seriousness, Marc's sense of humor and irony keep policythought the varied, enjoyable read we all hope it is, and we all support his newest online venture. So check out the v-list and keep it on your blogroll, right there next to Policythought.

Nine more pick Barack but Hillary takes another shot

The earth is officially crumbling underneath Hillary's feet. Another nine Super Delegates have now joined the Obama camp swinging even more momentum his way. I understand Hillary's desire to exit gracefully, but all these charades are just delaying the inevitable, not to mention they are running up quite a bill for the Clinton campaign. At this point, as I have said in numerous blogs, I think it's time for the heavy hitters to step up to the plate and make an endorsement. That means John Edwards and Al Gore need to stop playing politics andhave to start to think about the big prize, November. A prolonged race could have lasting negative effects. 

 

Hillary might be eliminated, but that hasn't stopped her from using racially divisive language in trying to smear Obama. Recently in a phone interview, Hillary reiterated that Obama will not win in the fall because white voters and blue collar workers don't identify with him. All these shenanigans might actually hurt her standing in the party and should Obama lose, especially if his loss is attributed to all her attacks. The Dems are hungry and if they are denied the White House after an eight year drought because of Hillary she can say goodbye to any chances of running in 2012. I know that Mike said in his earlier post we need to step back and appreciate exactly what Hillary is trying to accomplish, but I have to disagree with him on one major point. I was hoping that the first female candidate would conduct herself with a little more dignity and grace instead of running (in my opinion) one of the most divisive primary campaigns in modern history. I understand that top Super Delegates don't want to feel as if they are "forcing" Hillary out, but the time for subtlety is over.  Hillary take a hike!

Less talk of Green, more talk of Green Backs

I believe man-made global warming and climate change are real. Why? Because I believe in science. However, my beliefs are not shared by all Americans and never will be. Many Americans don't believe in Global Warming and think Al Gore is crazy. I think that PR action for climate change is all mixed up.

Even if you don't believe in big bad global warming, all Americans should want to end our dependence on foreign oil. If I were running an anti-carbon organization, it wouldn't be targeted at a disaster some where in the future. It would be targeted at the already-present energy we have that will only get worse if we remain dependent on carbon. So here are a few bullet points that I think we can all agreed on, that should be the forefront on the anti-oil campaign.

1. We don't have enough of it. Worldwide demand for energy is growing exponentially. China and India are going through a revolution. In China alone 200 million will shift from poverty to a middle-class lifestyle in the next decade. I say good for them, but if they emulate the American standard of living that means they'll want at least one car, and one house that burns energy. This will increase the demand for oil and again raise global prices as the commodity becomes more scarce. That's not environmentalism talking, that's the free market talking. Middle class Americans will not be able to afford a gallon of gas, or to heat their homes, unless we change our ways.

2. Oil is a security threat. When we buy gasoline, or home heating oil, we are indirectly funding regimes, and individuals who hate America. Their oil revenues fund all Middle Eastern life. We are actually funding our enemies every time we go to the pump. Forget surging prices, what happens if production is halted by surprise? A terrorist attack or an earthquake hits? We could see unfathomable economic harm. We need a diverse energy portfolio so our grid can keep working and powering our vehicles not matter what.

3. Strategic assets. Whenever you hear a politician talk about Middle Eastern strategic assets they are talking about Oil. John McCain even said in reference to our oil dependency that getting off foreign oil would ensure "we never have to send our young men and women into harm's way in the middle east again."

4. Economic diversity. We always hear about diversifying out portfolio. We need to do so in energy as well. It's just senseless to rely on one source of fuel. Solar, wind, hydro-electric, biofuels, nuclear power, all should be in the mix to keep each supply in competition with the others and relatively cheap.

So those are the bullet points, but I think you get my point. Independent of the environment or global warming there are very cogent reasons for us to get off oil. Perhaps these inconvenient truths will push people to action.

Olbermann Versus Hannity: Death Match

Policythought was largely founded as departure from the echo-chamber, and a way to stimulate debate and maybe hear something you don't agree with every so often. However, as a blogger on policy and politics I think it is my duty to things that my reading public doesn't want to. One of those things is filling my head with the ranting and raving of pundits and talk show hosts from around the country.

I listen to everything from PBS to CSPAN to ABC and FOX news and let me tell you two shows that I would like to see disappear from the public sphere.

The first-Sean Hannity's show. I can't stand Sean Hannity. Why? Not because he's conservative. Because "interviews" are nothing more than having people on his show that are like-minded so they can bash the other side. Take for example, Hannity's recent interview with Rudy Giuliani. They took their time to bash Senator Obama because of his personal relationships. Giuliani at one point expounded, "You know I've hired a lot of people....his resume looks thin." I find it ironic that Giuliani first of all found it smart to talk about his hiring practices and secondly to talk about personal relationships given that the Bernard Kerik incident kind of lampoons both in one fell swoop. But he knew he could on Sean Hannity's show because there is no such thing as a hard-hitting interview there, its just a place to rub elbows and bash the other side. But what's worse, is that there is "another side." Sean Hannity, a disciple of Rush Limbaugh has made a career out of polarizing people and not being able to see the other side of create compromise. His show never really discusses policy or brings up debate, in fact debate is almost totally shunned. He assumes his audience is stupid, then proceeds to prove his assumption.

Not to be out done-the well-dressed, well-worded, well-worn out Keith Olbermann, is newer to the pundit scene than Sean Hannity, but he is taking his place upon the throne that Air America could not build. His nightly news and opinion show Countdown With...(heavy on the opinion, light on the news), has become a liberal staple. Olbermann spouts his leftward opinions as forcefully as Hannity on the right, and with the same lame-o interviews. When Keith's laid down the law on some opinion, most recently tarring John McCain with the idea that we went into Iraq purely for oil, he has on "experts" to discuss. His experts tend to always be from Air America radio and in what is a shock to no one the "expert" and Olbermann tend to agree 100% of the time, thus he has expounded "the truth."

Hannity strokes conservative listeners by appealing to their sense of tradition and values. Olbermann strokes liberals by appealing to their intellect, and by stringing together long sentences with large words. Both are false idols not to worshipped. I leave you now with a clip that sums up these morons, in the hope that one day one network will be brave enough to get them to share a desk together and actually debate each other.

We've Forgotten How Important Hillary Is

Barack Obama's status as the first African-American front-runner for a party nomination for President has in many ways overshadowed an equally momentous event. Just as no one wants to talk about race, it seems fewer want to discuss gender - and the truly colossal achievement of Senator Clinton as the first female front-runner for a nomination. She has broken through the glass ceiling with two fists and a knockout right hook. So, why my sudden epiphany? Take a look at this Goodyear tire advertisement from the 1970s that I saw today, and think about what it's taken for women to earn the respect they rightly deserve. According to this ad, how could a woman ever be president if she can't be trusted to drive a car? Oh, right. She'll have Air Force One, a presidential motorcade and an entire nation at her disposal. Nomination or no, whatever her tactics, Senator Clinton is to be applauded for her success and for earning a place in history that isn't tied to the infamous affairs of her spouse.

When will it End? How about May 20? No? May 31?

Politico reports this morning that the Obama camp plans to declare victory on May 20. They expect after the intervening contests to have a majority of pledged delegates, and therefore every concievable path to the nomination locked up. However, the Clinton camp has already begin spinning the need to count Michigan and Florida as voted, the only way the mathematics come back to her favor, and only then...barely.

It is time for the super delegates to make their decision and end this thing. The last thing the party needs is to fight this out till June.

I don't suck, but together WE suck

I haven't really taken my crack at the WE campaign yet. Mike skewered Al Gore's latest project a few weeks go. I took my time, thinking that perhaps the media moguls behind this expensive project are just taking their time to build the brand, and perhaps they still are. The WE campaign isn't all that old to be tossed aside like a piece of unrecyclable styrofoam. However, the WE campaign is already falling short for me in a few ways.

First of all, its not yet viral. Nothing about it is. It has a distinctly, Rock the Vote feel to it. Like its something we should all take a look at, but its slightly too establishment to be cool. My fellow blogger Marc made a great point yesterday that Barack Obama's candidacy caught fire among young voters not because he begged them to come out and vote, but initially because he convinced young people, partially with his rhetoric and partially just by the nature of who he is, that change was possible.

The WE campaign, has nothing like that going for it. No spark. I am a card-carrying member of the WE (its even odd to say) and as a blogger, Al and Co, asked me to pass this along to you all.




Now maybe they or WE simply haven't hit their or is it our stride. I WANT to be interested in this campaign, but truth be told I'm just not. Speaking of truth, it amazes me that everyone has seemed to miss the golden quality of An Inconvenient Truth, it was a giant, constant call to action. I need to do more that add my email address to a petition. I want to get called into service. We Can Solve Climate Change. You bet we can.

But maybe we need better inspiration.

Has the General Election Begun?

On Monday I wrote my prediction piece on the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. While dead-on (if I do say so myself) about the results of the tallies last night, we're all waiting to see if the predicate of my prediction will also hold up, but given the tone of the Clinton camp this morning, I suspect that it will.

The math is against her, but that's not new, what is new is that despite the emergence and reemergence of Rev. Wright, the most politically damaging personal relationship of the cycle, Senator Obama held his lead in NC and drew her to the narrowest of margins in Indiana. Her continuing argument to the super delegates has grown much, much weaker. I doubt, however, that she will concede of her own accord.

Never having worked on a national campaign, but having worked on lots of non-profit theatrical productions (the parallels are often striking) I always look to the donors. Clinton made a public plea for more cash last night. But she'll need another flood of cash to keep this thing going. Her ability to solicit it might have a lot to do with whether or not she continues.

Taken from this morning's NY Times:

Clinton advisers acknowledged that the results of the primaries were far less than they had hoped, and said they were likely to face new pleas even from some of their own supporters for her to quit the race. They said they expected fund-raising to become even harder; one adviser said the campaign was essentially broke, and several others refused to say whether Mrs. Clinton had lent the campaign money from her personal account to keep it afloat.

What Obama Should Have Said

I know my generally effusive gushing over Senator Obama's oratorical skills trend to the realm of guy-love. But there is something I wish Senator Obama would have said, something I wish he would have risked. Obama has allowed himself to be painted as an elitist. I have so many issues with the nation and the media perceiving being "elite" as bad. I for one want our elite running the country, not our average, but then maybe that's me. 

That aside. Obama refused in all of the bitter-gate controversy to give the kind of speech on economic diversity in this country as he did on racism in this country. He never took a moment like the one in Philadelphia and told the country that he was raised by a single mother, that at one point collected food stamps, that he and his wife only recently finished paying off his student loans. That he grew up playing basketball, being called Barry by his friends. In other words that his rise to relative stardom here in America is the embodiment of the American Dream. Moreover, he didn't say the one thing I missed most. I longed for a moment over the course of Pennsylvania and North Carolina and Indiana, for him to say just once. 

"Don't call me elitist because I refuse to talk to you all as if you are stupid. Don't let the other side paint me as something I'm not because I speak to truths we'd rather not acknowledge." 

But then he couldn't do that. What does it say about this leader, that he was too cautious to tell Americans what they really didn't want to hear?

Obama Wins North Carolina

His victory in NC looks decisive. Indiana at the moment is trending toward Senator Clinton. It remains my contention that simply making the margin very slight in Indiana will uncork a flood of super delegates eager to get this thing over with. We'll see over the corse of the night if my prediction holds up. 

Hillary: The Choice of the Last Generation!

Analysis of the polls will tell you that young people don't favor Hillary. Maybe it's her mullet, or the fact that she represents everything wrong with the world of politics; double talk, skeletons in her closet, and the ability to pawn pure bullshit on an unsuspecting and uneducated voting public. Let me not mince words, because now my narrative is taking a turn for the worst. After tonight's primaries it is abundantly clear that she cannot win. In baseball this would be where a team's magic number is zero, but oddly enough Hillary is still playing for the postseason. Why? Pure vanity and megalomania have consumed the person that once claimed she was in the race for the ordinary voter. Oh, please Hillary! 

This isn't about the voters, it isn't about the Democratic party, it isn't even about who is the best suited candidate against John McCain. What is left of your pathetic and desperate run for the White House is all about one thing, your ego. Perhaps you cannot fathom how you, the inevitable heir to the White House, were beaten by this upstart that captured the hearts and minds of voters the Democratic party has been unable to mobilize despite "Rocking" the vote for the past eight years. Not even a pop laden MTV campaign could accomplish what the Obama campaign has done in a few short months. How could this happen? It's because the young voters don't want a band aid to fix the bullet wound that has injured American government. People with college educations, (who mainly vote for Obama if one should analyze the statistics) can see right through your crappy gas tax idea, which will leave most of the middle class with a little less than seventy dollars. I would rather set fire to that seventy dollars than to see your unoriginal ideas, which mirror those of McCain, become policy in the upcoming months. 

Despite the media's (and Republican talk radio's) clear attempts to turn this election into a debate on everything except the economy, the war, and other pressing issues, you are still not winning. So go on and cry about how if you count Florida and Michigan, you are winning the popular vote. Continue to say that you won the battleground states where the old Democratic guard has been so well received (despite losing twice to the unelectable George W. Bush). Continue to play the race card and continue to tie Obama to his preacher, who I might mention IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! Continue to duck sniper fire and hold on to your connections in the inner circle of the Democratic party. The more you do, the more you will demonstrate how bitter and "unlikeable" you really are. It's no surprise that you are basically winning every Republican county, because you are the choice of the last generation, and if the Democrats want change in the White House, your scowl will not deliver it. 

Repost From Ben Smith's Blog

I realize that we already link to politico's Ben Smith though our widget but I ran across this post and I think it's important. Even while running for President, Senator Obama is brokering a cease fire. This isn't a joke, you can find the Reuters Article here.

For Clinton Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

George W Bush is everyone's favorite punching bag. And at slightly below 30% approval I say why not. Senators Clinton and Obama have taken shots early and often at the beleaguered POTUS. But it if imitation is the highest form of flattery then Senator Clinton is praising W to the heavens. Over the course of the last week, we've heard her say things like, "I'm not going to cast my lot with economists." when challenged to name one credible expert who thought the gas-tax holiday was a good idea. Essentially putting herself above and beyond things like fact and logic, not unlike a certain someone we've come to know and love.

Then of course there's everyone's favorite middle eastern straw man. Iran. Despite our own country's National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran was not presently developing nuclear arms, Senator Clinton decided to threaten to "totally obliterate" Iran if she attacked Israel with nuclear arms. A credible presidential candidate might have pointed out facts, instead direct threat of force was he stand of this presidential candidate. Given the chance to back off the comment she simply restated her threat. Ah yes decisive cock-sure leadership, the kind Americans crave. The kind President Bush has provided.

Am I trying to equate Clinton with Bush on policy, no. But when it comes to leadership style, I was struck by a certain feeling that I had seen this movie before...