Thanks, Rev.

Well, as usual, I have a different take on this whole Rev. Wright/Obama fracas. I actually think Wright has done America a real service in terms of moving us beyond racial division.

With his weekend "performance" culminating at the National Press Club, Wright reiterated extreme statements and positions (the U.S. Government planted AIDS in black communities) that could not be taken out of context. He dissed Barack Obama repeatedly and referred to the criticism he had received as worthy of a response called 'playing the dozens'.

Ok. I'm a white guy, but I've played the dozens. In New York City they were also called 'cutting contests'. It's basically, "you're girl's so fat, even Spandex runs away from her." The single funniest one I ever heard was one light-skinned Brother said to a dark-skinned Brother, "You so black, you sweat Bosco". (For you youngsters, Bosco was a chocolate syrup used to make chocolate milk.) But I digress. The point is, Playing the Dozens is done by adolescents and young men who have too much time on their hands and are looking for a way to build themselves up.

And that's exactly what Wright sounded like in patches of his speech. He resembled an unruly student who has given up trying to succeed and just wants any attention he can get. Even if he has to act like a fool to get it.

So how does this guy help us move past racial divisions?

Well, the fact that Wright's statements are so over the top has allowed Obama to unequivocally distance himself from his former Pastor. But more importantly, Obama stated that Wright's extremism does not reflect mainstream Black opinion. It doesn't even reflect the mainstream Black church. And in comparison to Obama, who has fashioned a mainstream movement that doesn't see race as an issue, Wright's rhetoric doesn't make him dangerously extreme, but simply out of touch.

As a result, White Americans don't see a potent rabblerouser who pricks at the collective white conscience. They see a narcissistic fellow on a press junket for his own commercial gain (he's writing a book due out in the fall). So we can all say, 'We are moving past this race thing. And not even a self-serving angry kook is going to change that."

The only group who must be confused by Wright's latest actions are Black Americans who support Obama. Those folks who thirst for an Obama presidency as the ultimate salve for racial inequality must view Wright's latest actions as a baffling case of sabotage --and to what end? To deny proof that America can move beyond race? So that an old man can remain angry about the injustices he's borne?

It's so crazy, it's obviously not a group mindset. It's not a conspiracy. It's not a movement. It's just the curious agenda of one man who's in it for himself.

The rest of us are doing just fine with race. Progress is being made. Thanks, Rev. We knew we had it in us.

Do you see race as less of an issue? Or has this Wright event made you feel that it's still out there? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on the 'comments' button below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Let's Party Like It's 1959

I was going to write about Obama's troubles and how he was having his Hillary moment. (You know that moment, that stalled eternity in political time when all the forces and stars seem to be uniquely aligned against you and you just have to tough it out?) But then I saw this article about another anti-citizen ruling by our scary Supreme Court. And by God, I realized we're all having a Hillary moment as long as these black-robed clowns are running the show.

In a 6-3 ruling, the high (I'll say!) Court upheld an Indiana law that requires everyone to have a driver's license, a passport(!) or other 'approved ID' in order to vote. Now this ruling in and of itsself, is not new or unprecedented. Many states, most notably Georgia, continue to impose voter ID requirements that make it harder for a certain segment of society to vote. But you have to read some of the quotes in this latest ruling to fully grasp how this court is hurtling us backwards in history.

"Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion upholding the law that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, acknowledged homeless or elderly people who can't track down a birth certificate needed to get an official ID might face a 'somewhat heavier burden.'

Ya think?

But then they got into a discussion of that old Jim Crow stand-by, the poll tax.

What's that, children? Never heard of a poll tax? Well, sit here on my knee and lemme tell ya about it. Was a time, not so long ago neither, when some states used to charge a 'poll tax' when you voted. In '66 it was $1.50. You paid your $1.50 at the polls and you could vote. Now, $1.50 doesn't sound like a lot of money by our standards. But it was a heck of a lot when you consider gas was only 32 cents a gallon. Whoops, get up off the floor now, child. Anyway, they did this poll tax thing to discourage poor and mostly Black folks from voting because they knew those poor minority voters couldn't afford it. Horrible, right? Well, not to some people then. And not to some people now. Check this out:

'To determine whether the Indiana law presented an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, the justices looked to a 1966 case that found Virginia's $1.50 poll tax unconstitutional.'

No more than three justices could agree on the right way to square the poll tax precedent with the voter ID law. Justices Stevens, Roberts and Kennedy acknowledged the potential for burden.

'Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, concurred in upholding the Indiana law, but went even further, and in a footnote suggested that even poll taxes, if imposed equally, might be constitutional. (italics mine). The ID requirement was "eminently reasonable," he wrote, and there was no need to consider whether it imposed a "special burden" on a subset of voters. The court has never held that elections laws must be calibrated "for their impacts on poor voters," he wrote.'

Oh, my Lord! Has that idiot read the Voting Rights Act of 1965?! That was the exact precedent which struck down the Virginia poll tax! And it was exactly calibrated to re-enfranchise millions of poor people.

But it's ok. Times have changed. This has nothing to do with the fact millions of new voters, some of whom are poor or black or immigrants, are registering as Democrats. It has nothing to do with the fact that an African-American has a real shot to be President. No. We've all moved beyond those old time shenanigans.

All of us except 6 old men. Who want to party like it's 1959. God help us all.

Yeah, It's Working

It started long ago with one word: 'naive'. The Clintons used that word to introduce the first question about Barack Obama's legitimacy as a Presidential candidate. They have since orchestrated a steady roll call of similar questions about the Obama candidacy: Louis Farrakhan; Commander-in-Chief; elitism. Say what you want about the Clinton's tacky political strategy, it works. Forget polls and forget the math, which points to an Obama primary victory. The fact is, when people start talking and writing about what Barack Obama has to do to 'close the deal', you know that the Clinton's are working their magic.

And what is that magic? Simple. Create doubt. Frame the Obama campaign inside a huge question mark. Not only is it the only strategy left, (Hillary long ago lost the 'between the two of us I'm the better candidate' argument), it's the strategy the Clinton's have always been very comfortable executing. To be sure, the Reverend Wright flap and Obama's own "bitter" comments were a gift to this strategy. The Clinton's had been waiting for a little opening and they got one. But they know how to take advantage.

How's it's working? Newsweek's cover shows a leaf of arugula and announces "Obama's Bubba Gap". Howard Fineman of Newsweek gives Obama tips on being less elitist. A Politico.com piece outlines Obama's troubles. XM radio's Politics Nation broke down the demographics of Hillary's win in PA and they point to real questions of race in this primary.

And he's winning! Imagine how fast folks would bury him if he was just a little behind.

Even Obama conceded yesterday in a press conference that 'There's no doubt that a campaign has to continually fine-tune itself. What worked well three months ago, if you're doing the exact same thing now, it may not work as well.' That was a direct rebuke to his pronouncement two days prior that he would not change a thing in his campaign. So what will change in Obama's campaign to parry the Clintons? Probably more press conferences at gas stations like the one he had yesterday and fewer rock star events. More basketball (like he did yesterday with great success) and less bowling.

What won't change is the Clinton strategy. The Wall Street Journal's Monica Langley reports: "... Mr. Clinton has become something of a strategist-in-chief in recent weeks. He has been pushing for harder and sharper attacks on Sen. Obama. … Mr. Clinton has placed several of his own aides at headquarters, including his former lawyer and a bevy of strategists... On his own daily message calls, advisers say, he implores: 'We've got to take him on every time.' At the Clintons' Washington, D.C., home recently, these people say, he reviewed possible TV spots and told ad makers to be more hard-hitting, faster and harsher."

So, as Obama himself has said, if he can get by the Clinton's, he'll be well prepared for anything the Repubs throw at him.

That shouldn't be a big "if" if you look at the math. But because it's the Clintons, it's always a big "if".

Do you think Obama's in trouble? Talk about this and anything else you'd like by clicking on the 'comments' button below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Quick Hits As We Wait For May 6th

As we wait for the next 'make or break' set of primaries in Indiana and North Carolina (we'll believe it when we see it, by the way), here are some quick hits and random observations for your edification.

Rev. Wright, The Gift That Keeps Giving
Jeremiah Wright has broken his silence in an interview with Bill Moyers set to air Sunday night on PBS. Is this good for Barack Obama? From the snippets I've heard, no. Wright is unrepentant and says of Obama's response, ..."he did what a politician does...". Ouch. The only way this could help at all is if Moyers can present a positive portrait of Wright that makes folks say, 'oh, wow, I didn't know that". For example, I shocked a conservative Republican friend of mine when I pointed out that Wright's church is UCC, (United Church of Christ), the same umbrella church of very waspy New England Congregationalists like my friend. But let's face it, while this interview may break PBS viewing records, most people will only hear the snippets of it and won't watch it.

On the other hand, the North Carolina GOP is giving Obama a preview of the kind of 527 style ads he can expect in a general. It highlights, big surprise, Rev. Wright. Check it out, and the response advocating the appropriateness of the ad. Jesse Helms lives!

You Heard It Here First
I hate to brag, but to prove the point that informed citizens can compete with pundits, a day before the Times ran this article analyzing the politics of race in the Democratic Primary, I had said that it was obviously a problem for Obama. I hadn't read this article, either, that reveals some numbers.

Seriously?
It's one of my girlfriend's favorite expressions when she can't believe someone has the chutzpah to do something inappropriate and think it's perfectly fine. And since she's a Hillary supporter, it's appropriate that I use her phrase to register my disgust for Clinton's foray into 'fuzzy math'. Now Clinton is saying that she has actually registered more votes than anyone in the history of Democratic Presidential primaries. Of course, she's counting Michigan, when she and Dennis Kucinich were the only ones on the ballot. And she counts Florida, where no one campaigned. Again, this is an old political trick. Throw rubbish into the air and get people to watch it fall to the ground so that they won't look at what's right in front of them. This is Hillary at her worst. Whether it works remains to be seen. The fact is, it demeans the intelligence of the electorate when she puts forth this balderdash. It also reinforces the notion that she will say anything and do anything to get elected.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has to more forcefully call her on the carpet for this kind of thing. When asked about it, he gave a very tepid response instead of saying, "Look, she's desperate, and she's making stuff up again." This isn't being negative, it's being truthful. Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted to say or do anything that isn't wholly in her self interest. That's a real problem when you're President.

Why We Consider All Sources
This is why we read all sources of political info regardless of political slant. Check out these two very good editorials from the Wall Street Journal. The first is on the Clinton Library , the second on McCain and taxes. This last piece contains the capitalist's credo on taxes and for all you liberals out there, it just makes sense. Whether you like it or not.

Uh Oh
The non-partisan Pew Research Center has noticed a downward trend in overall interest in the Democratic Primary. People blame the increased negativity of the campaign. No doubt, we are getting to the tipping point before this turns from a phenomenon to 'politics as usual'. Read the study here.

The questions are many. Is Obama hampered by Rev. Wright? Are Hillary's tactics good or bad? Is McCain's economic vision going to play? Talk about these or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Just Win, Baby

Al Davis, the owner of the Oakland Raiders football team, coined that phrase 40 years ago, and it serves as the de facto slogan of the United States of America. Because of our collective obsession with winning, Hillary Clinton's ten point victory in the Pennsylvania primary yesterday, changed perceptions in a way that belied the facts.

The facts say that she is still struggling for money, that she can't catch Barack Obama in pledged delegates, that she needs Florida and Michigan to catch him in the popular vote and that she has to just win, baby, every remaining contest to convince enough super delegates to support her for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The perception is that she's the one person who could actually pull it off.

While there has to be some hand-wringing in the Obama campaign, be assured that they were prepared for this loss. They have a fifty state strategy that clearly delineates where they'll win, where they'll lose and by how much. So far, their internal predictions have been spot on. So they won't panic. They remember when their candidate was just winning, baby. The bandwagon those eleven straight victories created was ginormous and almost forced Hillary out of the race. Now they know he has to start winning again to close the deal, which is the way it should be. If he wins North Carolina and Indiana, it's a done deal. If not, well, he's opened himself up to those pesky perceptions.

Here are some interesting questions to consider as this race moves forward:

1. Is continuing the race good or bad for the Democratic Party? In the face of the usual arguments that it's not helpful in a general election for the candidates to continue sniping at each other now, a contrarian opinion I heard suggests that it is great for the party. It keeps the focus on the Democrats, energizes the voters in the states that haven't voted yet, and most importantly, prevents John McCain from having a clear target to campaign against.

2. Polite pundits can't ask this question but Jon Stewart and I can: Is race the main factor affecting the outcomes in these blue collar states? 20% of Ohio Hillary voters flat out admitted that it was; 16% of Pennsylvanians for Hillary admitted the same. The corollary question then becomes: can Obama really win in a general when race is still a huge factor in our collective mentality? I mean, is this like a young white woman going out with a black guy but recoiling at the idea of marrying him? That's politically incorrect, but ask Harold Ford about its accuracy. He lost his senatorial race in Tennessee when a 527 ad supporting his white opponent closed with a young white woman salaciously looking into the camera and saying "Hey, Harold, call me." Apparently, the single Ford, an African-American, had been to a Playboy party, which now put him on a mission to sleep with all the ex-Chi O's in the state. He lost by 25,000 votes.

3. Finally, one school of thought believes that Barack Obama can close the deal the minute Americans see him get tough, or in politics parlance, "take the gloves off". But how can he do that with Hillary and still be considered a uniter? Maybe by doing what he's doing now: getting tough against John McCain to show how he would do it in the general. Here's his speech last night which hints at that strategy.

So, the beat goes on. And in this country, as long as there are winners and losers, the winner gets to change perceptions, even if the victory doesn't change the facts.

Let The People Speak...It's More Interesting

I apologize to my loyal readers for the prolonged absence of new content. The reasons? Well, first, I've working long hours at a new job. Second, I have been bored to tears by the rut this election has fallen into.

For those of you who have been following the gestation of this blog, you'll remember that I wanted to offer a non-pundit approach to politics; a space for an informed citizenry to speak their minds. I counted myself in that group. The interminable run-up to the Pennsylvania primary has reinforced my determination to continue offering this content.

Now, I don't want to contribute to the prevailing practice of beating dead horses and jumping on negative bandwagons. Since the ABC debate, enough has been made of the press's overkill of the less substantive aspects of this race. The media is often an easy target when things get slow and unnattractive. For the record, I appreciate the political media. I depend on solid information (and opinion) from diverse sources like the Wall Street Journal, Politico and MSNBC. I check in on Fox News and CNN. I absolutely love XM Radio's Potus '08. I offer much of this content to you, my readers, when it provides information that it is truly germane to the proceedings. But lately, that hasn't been the case.

The reason is clear: the point of an election is to let the people speak. And when we have 6 weeks between primaries, nothing but ugliness is revealed-- about the candidates, about the media, even about us, the voters. That's where we are now. I mean, here's an interesting editorial from The WSJ, I suppose. But, in addition to being the ten thousandth piece on Barack Obama's 'bitter' comments, it really distorts the basic point of his comments. And I would ask: if most people think that Obama's statements were not wholly true, why are we so obsessed by them? Methinks we doth protest too much. If someone says I'm Chinese, and I know I'm not, I shrug my shoulders and move on. I don't spend two weeks trying to prove I'm not.

The point is, the longer we have to wait for the people to speak, the more that vacuum is filled with chatter. Chatter that increasingly offers more speculation than fact. Here's another piece on Obama, from Michael Hirsh of Newsweek. He's entitled to his opinion, but whether or not Obama is like Kerry in '04 will be revealed in the campaign. And we need real contests to determine that.

Similarly, watching John McCain try to remain relevant without an opponent is a sure cure for insomnia. Again, in the absence of a real contest with empirical results, the vacuum is being filled with idle chatter. Consider this revived conversation about (sigh) McCain's temper. On the other hand, he's doing well with conservatives...in this piece.

And then there was the debate. But we don't need to go there. It's been covered ad nauseum. I simply say: Bring on Tuesday, let's count some votes in Pennsylvania. Let the numbers reveal how people really reacted to Obama's comments, or Hillary's negative attacks or whatever. Let's bring some reality back to this very real process of Democracy--and then we'll have something interesting to talk about.

Substance, At Last

I'm grateful to John McCain today for giving us something substantive to talk about. At last.

John McCain is making an economic speech today at Carnegie Mellon University. Read it. He has some ideas. The best one is the most obvious and the one I've been waiting for someone to suggest. He wants to drop the Federal gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Simple, effective. McCain wins on this one. As he mentions, it is a true stimulus rebate, because those few dollars saved at each fill-up go right back into the economy as discretionary spending by citizens and reduced costs for everything that gets transported by trucks.

McCain also talked to the AP yesterday. His comments, which you can see in the webcast on this site, showcase everything that McCainiacs love about this guy. Watch the first part of the video, especially his comments on his relationship with the press. It's good stuff.

Whenever I see politicians moving away from politics and simply laying out what they believe, I'm always impressed. It's when they get bogged down in the negative games that it all becomes such a turn off.

Thanks to McCain for taking 24 hours off from the jive to actually present some ideas that we can discuss.

Who's The Fairest Of Them All? Not Me? Fine. I'll Vote For Someone Else.

Wow. We're still talking about it. Obama's 'bitter' remarks. While everyone is insisting that these remarks reveal an Obama that we don't really know, I think they reveal more about us, the American electorate.

The first thing I would say is that we're all really touchy about our collective self image. I remember the immediate 19 point dive in approval rating numbers for Jimmy Carter after his infamous 'malaise' speech. The fact that I refer to it as the 'malaise speech' lets us in on the touchy nature of the American public. In fact, that speech in 1979 was about the energy crisis. But it included a profile of the American citizenry that offended almost everyone. But if you read this speech , and I hope you will, you will see that it's really a call to arms. It's a call to unite as a nation to find common resolve to battle the energy crisis. There are also other extraordinary points in this address. As you read it, it could be a speech from today in terms of the threat to our country from the rapacious practices of OPEC.

But the distinguishing characteristics of Carter's address are its unflinching honesty and accuracy. Before he presented the solution to the problem, he needed to present the problem. And as he explained, part of the problem was us; specifically, it was our collective psychological condition. His observations about the American psyche came from interviews he conducted with a vast cross section of Americans. In response to concerns that America had lost faith in its government, Carter went on a ten day listening tour to find out what Americans really thought. He got an earful. And he reported back what he heard. The result? A 19 point drop in approval ratings.

I see an awful lot of parallels with Obama's comments. Like Carter's observations, Obama's are arguably true--because he is reporting what people have told him. His general characterization of small town reaction to economic stress is not inaccurate. His basic thesis that humans latch on to what they know in times of uncertainty is so obviously true, that it's equally obvious that something else motivates the type of negative reaction his comments have engendered. That something else might just be that we don't like others to take our inventory. Fair enough. Or it might just be that we don't like to hear anything negative about ourselves, even if it's true.

If that's the case, then don't roll your eyes in disgust when politicians pander to you. You've conditioned them to do that. Don't ask politicians to speak honestly if you can't handle the truth they expose. And above all, beware of politicians like Hillary Clinton who jump on a negative bandwagon and proceed to say someone else is elitist--even though for the past 20+ years she has known only governor's mansions and White Houses and has 109 million reasons that she is more elitist than Obama will ever be. At least John McCain had the good sense to simply label Obama's comments "elitist' without taking the persistent bait of reporters' questions practically begging him to say Obama was an elitist. That wouldn't have worked for a guy who left his first wife for a Budweiser distribution heiress and then spent 20+ years in Washington.

And then maybe ask this question of our conservative Republican friends who believe that these remarks show that Obama is 'out of touch' with mainstream America: where's your disgust for political correctness now? When it means being polite to minorities or gay people, it's "Oh come on, lighten up, everybody". But when it means being polite to small town Americans it's "What an outrage that someone would say something so awful!"

Is there a better way to say almost anything that's not completely complimentary of someone or some people? Of course. Is tact a good thing? I think so. Were these completely tactful comments? In hind sight, no. But do Barack Obama's comments belie a fundamental misunderstanding of a segment of the population? I don't think so. They do expose his misunderstanding of a fundamental political truth: don't say anything about people that isn't completely positive, because when it comes to our collective self image...we're touchy.

What's behind this huge reaction to Obama's comments? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Maybe This Will Stick

Hey, I don't blame anyone these days for trying to trip up Obama. Let's be honest, it's a little boring out there now. We're waiting for Pennsylvania on the Democratic side and for McCain to get the Shiite Sunni thing straight in Iraq, on the Republican side. Just kidding, McCainiacs.

But really, no one considers the McCain/Obama public financing debate high political drama. And Hillary, who leads the league in plans, unveiled another one, I think. Scintillating.

So, when Obama suggested that some Americans in small towns are bitter because of the recent economic trends in this country, and, as a result, they "cling' to religion and their guns for comfort, the punditry (as well as the Clinton and McCain campaigns) jumped on the statement as a huge gaffe. Folks were saying that this might be the giant error that Hillary has been waiting for to alter the Democratic primary campaign.

Hmm. Did anyone see a recent poll where roughly 8 in 10 ten Americans feel the country's headed in the wrong direction? Did anyone notice how uttering the word Nafta in Ohio changed the dynamic of the Dem's primary race? So, I'm just wondering why this was a huge blunder? Are we getting picky about verbiage that may not sound perfectly complimentary? Or are we just trying to see if we can keep finding ways to not like Barack Obama.

If it's the latter, I say fair enough. There's nothing else going on. Let's keep poking around to see if we can uncover a sinister underbelly that will puncture his attraction for millions of Americans. But once again, I say to the Clinton and McCain campaigns: be careful what you wish for. Every time a situation is created to put Obama on the defensive and to expose him, he finds a way to move past it. And when he does, the teflon gets that much more non-stick.

Hillary tried the old "Obama doesn't think Pennsylvania is important" tack when Obama stuck to his 50 state strategy in March. Then he started to campaign in the Keystone state in earnest and promptly cut her lead in half. McCain's campaign uncovered the Rev. Wright speeches to bury Obama and--surprise--Obama neutralized the furor with one of the great speeches in recent memory.

Now Obama's hitting back at this lastest flap. Check out the You Tube video of his remarks in Terre Haute, Indiana. I don't know. It just doesn't seem like a really big deal.

And once again, the Clinton campaign is doing its darndest to neutralize any advantage it may leverage from Obama's remarks--this time courtesy of Bill Clinton resurrecting Hillary's Bosnia gaffe.

So, hey, I say go for it. But if you're looking for Obama to bury himself, don't hold your breath. And if you think either McCain or Clinton can somehow bury him in the court of public appeal, you're dreaming. But, it's boring out there. They might as well give it a shot.

Obvious question: will Obama's comments hurt him? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below , bypassing the Gooogle sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous buttons.

The Audition, Orwell Style

In the de facto audition for Commander-in-Chief at the Petraeus/Crocker hearings, the winners were...George Orwell and David Petraeus. No matter what you may think of the Iraq War, we should all be glad that Petraeus is on our side, not someone else's. Cogent, articulate, knowledgeable, and cool under fire, this guy makes me feel a lot safer because he's running the show.

Unfortunately, he's not looking for a job. The people that are, Sens. Clinton, McCain and Obama, received mixed reviews. But they each took an interesting tack in their questioning that revealed more about themselves than the situation in Iraq. Which was probably the point.

Oh, by the way, the situation in Iraq is status quo. And this where George Orwell won. We now know that things in Iraq are not bad enough to say "Enough, let's go", but not good enough to say, "We did it, let's go". No, we found out yesterday, in a real shocker, that we should take another 45 days to keep assessing the situation and if "conditions" warrant, then we'll see if we should consider considering a consideration to make sure that conditions warrant a new consideration. And some wars are more equal than others.

But back to the audition. John McCain seemed very Presidential in his questioning, until...well, we'll get to that. But he essentially conducted a de-brief of the General. He picked at certain failures, demanding explanations. Petraeus was deferential and amazingly knowledgeable of places and events in Iraq that no one has ever heard of. Of course, at the end, Mac wanted to make his point that al Qaeda was still a huge threat. So, and I can hear Ronald Reagan saying, "There you go again", he again stated that al Qaeda was comprised of radical 'Shiites' before he quickly corrected himself by saying 'or Sunnis' or whoever. No, Mac, al Qaeda is Sunni. Period. And if you can't get it straight, go home. Jeez.

Barack Obama started out well in his questioning, sounding very Presidential. He got a little bogged down toward the end, but he did make a solid point: until we get our expectations in line with a reasonable reality, we'll never be able to leave. Which threw a little sunlight on the scary motivations of the current administration's policy. Because of oil, the idea is to be there for thirty years or more. But at least Obama, in an uncritical way, pointed out the tactic that is being used to achieve that: create unreasonable definitons of success, then fail to meet them, neccessitating further effort to try to achieve them. 21st Century Orwell. Obama also instructed McCain on what a real slip of the tongue sounds like. He said "Iraqi government" when he meant to say "Iranian government". That's a slip of the tongue. And Ambassador Crocker answered the question as if Obama had said Iranian government.

In some ways, Hillary had the strongest showing, if only because she evinced the most damaging admission from Ambassador Crocker. Through her adept questioning, she established that The Administration will be trying to forge an agreement (already far along) to establish the legal right to have a 'permanent' force in Iraq. She asked Crocker if the Iraqi Parliament would vote on such an agreement. He said yes. She then got Crocker to admit that the Bush Administration had no intention of letting the US Congress also have such a vote. Checkmate. So the Iraqi's, who can't get their governance together at all, still have the good sense to let the people's representatives vote on such a huge agreement--and the US, the beacon of good governance for the rest of the world, will let this go the way of royal, I mean, 'executive' fiat. Nice job, Hillary.

So the bottom line is that all of the actors got a call-back for Commander-in-Chief. It's just ironic that the stage manager may strike everyone as the best person for the job.

And if you weren't concerned about what this conflict is doing to our country, in terms of money spent, troops stretched and Orwellian executive machinations, these hearings should have gotten your attention.

Who did the best in these hearings? Tell us what you think about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below bypassing the google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight

As I was driving to my teaching gig this morning I listened to a replay of Hillary Clinton's April 1st speech to the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia, on XM's Potus '08. Remember that date. April 1st.

I've heard portions of the speech and I actually like what I've heard. But I hadn't heard this: "I appreciate Gerry [McEntee] talking about how I did speak out and oppose NAFTA, the president made a different decision but whether it's President McEntee or David Gergen or the people that were in those meetings in the White House, they know that I raised a big yellow caution flag, I said I’m not sure that this will work. And I have a plan to fix NAFTA, with the strongest possible labor and environmental standards in the core text of the agreement. And unlike my opponent, I will never come to Pennsylvania and tell the people here one thing while my staff says something else to a foreign government."

Ok, the italics and bold faced type are mine. But the point is...well, the first point is, I'm lucky to be alive because I almost drove off the road. And the second point is...Mark Penn just 'resigned' as Clinton's chief campaign strategist, for personally meeting with a foreign government (Colombia) to help them get the US Congress to pass a (you can't make this up) free trade agreement with the US!

If this is what 'experience' gives us, forget Obama, I'll take Jimmy Stewart in Washington.

Now, the Penn story is two days old. The resignation is new. But the real story is this: How can Hillary Clinton not know that her chief strategist (italics mine), the guy who said 'go after Nafta in Ohio to get the rust belt vote', the guy she knew was a professional pollster and lobbyist, how could she not know that he was working for the Colombian government on a free trade agreement she publicly opposed?! Especially since Penn's firm had been working for Colombia for a year? And how could she then say,"And unlike my opponent, I will never come to Pennsylvania and tell the people here one thing while my staff says something else to a foreign government"?

The same way she can talk about sniper fire?

I mean, events have fallen perfectly for her to get back in this race; but she just keeps blowing it. It's unreal. And it really says some bad things about her campaign: about how she delegates responsiblity, about how she stays on top of things, about how she can't smell a rat, about her competence as a manager of an enterprise.

Or maybe it was just April's Fool's Day, and the joke was on her.

But this latest debacle is no joke for her campaign. This is a disaster. For the second time in three weeks, her credibility is in tatters. And she gives Obama an opening just as he is making his patented push to let the voters in PA get to know him. If she thinks extending the race will increase the chances of a major Obama gaffe, she better stop being the one who keeps committing them.

As for Penn, it's been a rough week. Before leaving the Clinton campaign, Colombia left him, saying it was "unacceptable" that he refuse to meet with them any more. This was after Penn told a rather exercised union official that his meeting with the government was 'an error in judgement'. Can we add that continuing to work with the Colombian government when your candidate opposes the thing your working on might also be an error in judgment?

Who are these people that Clinton has relied on? Mark Penn? Patti Solis Doyle? Bill Clinton? They keep making mistakes that their vast experience should avoid. This is truly the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

And it all comes back to Hillary. She's responsible for her campaign. According to most folks with knowledge of the inner workings of her campaign, Hillary herself was one of Penn's staunchest supporters. This one, especially, is on her.

We'll see if she can wriggle out of it all. She is, after all, a Clinton. Anything's possible. But if you're a Hillary supporter, I wouldn't hold your breath. She's heading the gang...well, you get the point.

How damaging will this be to her campaign? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the google signup and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Remembering....

Forty years. It's been forty years since Martin Luther King was killed at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. April 4, 1968. I was in 7th grade at Howard Middle School, Alexandria, VA. Going to school with many of the kids who would play on the famed TC Williams Titans football team immortalized in the movie "Remember the Titans."

The day was a whirlwind in Alexandria. With a sizable black population and right next to Washington DC, there was fear of widescale rioting--which never materialized in Alexandria, anyway. DC was another story. What I remember most were white kids I knew, 12 year olds, grabbing bats and saying they were going to 'get some N.....s'. I always felt ashamed I didn't try to stop them. When the day was over, we were all overcome by a collective shock as we watched the tanks rolling through the streets of Washington on TV.

There was also Robert Kennedy's brief speech in Indiana announcing King's death. Listen to it. It will make you think twice about Hillary's claim that words don't matter.

1968 was also an election year. And if you think that the Democratic Primary of 2008 is rough, all I can say is "Please". Starting with King's death, moving on to the bloody Chicago riots at the Democratic convention, followed by more riots in Miami at the GOP convention and then Bobby Kennedy's assasination in August, 1968 made 2008 look like like high tea at Harrods.

There are parallels, however. With Kennedy gone, Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey hammered each other just enough to to give us the glorious Presidency of Richard Nixon. Folks often forget that the '68 race was one of the closest in Presidential election history. Dems of a certain age shudder at this scenario as they look at the Obama/Hillary fisticuffs.

So the good news as we remember this awful day? Well, John McCain publicly admitted he was wrong to vote against a MLK Day in Arizona. Hillary Clinton recalled meeting Dr. King as a 14 year old girl from an all white world. And, of course, Barack Obama provides the most compelling evidence that Dr. King's dream, that we be judged "not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character" is close to becoming a reality. Here are his remarks yesterday.

It's also beautiful symmetry that on a day 40 years after MLK had led a march of sanitation workers and then was killed, Barack Obama reported he had raised...$40 million in the month of...March.

We'll get back to the campaign talk...tomorrow.

What do you remember about that day? Click on 'comments', by pass the Google sign-up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.

Careful...

I'm not trying to stir up controversy when the most contentious back forth in the Presidential campaign today centered around Barack Obama's pathetic bowling skills (Hillary had a cute April Fool's Day riff on it ). Really. But after annointing Obama with pixie dust in my last post, I'm sending up the caution flag today. After a strong rebound from the Rev. Wright stuff, Obama's gotten a little sloppy.

First, he made a serious gaffe in views expressed on abortion. He said that girls who make a "mistake" shouldn't be "punished with a baby...". Not exactly family values. If Obama gets to the general, he can expect to see that sound bite played, oh, a few hundred times. Second, he put out an ad that goes after the oil companies. The ad claims that he doesn't take any special interest money from big oil, so he can do something about those huge profits. Unfortunately, these kinds of claims are risky because they invite scrutiny. Which is Factcheck.org's bailiwick. Their examination of the ad's accuracy isn't particularly flattering to Obama.

Third, he was uncharacteristically tongue-tied when asked a question about the kind of troop presence he would have in Iraq. His answer was not at all clear and at one point he had trouble saying "diplomatic corps". It sounds picky, I know, but when people are questioning your readiness as Commander-in-Chief, you have to pour those answers out of you like Guiness Stout. Finally, he was challenged on a decade-old issues survey he took when he was running for Illinois State Senator. His answers in 1996 displayed a progressiveness from which he has tried to distance himself in this campaign. The problem is, his story has changed about the questionnaire. It's gone from 'I didn't even see it', to 'I saw it, but aides filled in the answers' to ...you get the picture. Here's the whole story.

None of these things are all that egregious in the rough and tumble world of Potus politics. I mean, he bowls a 37 in his tie and everyone laughs. And he still draws 20,000 at Penn State--outside. But the danger for Obama is this: he's operating under a different set of standards; standards he has set for himself. He is running as the un-politician. So everytime he slips up, or gives a typical politician-style explanation, or isn't on top of his game, he runs the risk of being perceived as just another politician. And if that's what he is, then folks will say,"Well I might as well vote for the politician who really knows how to play that game." And that would be Hillary Clinton.

Fortunately for Obama, Hillary takes two steps forward (talks to striking truckers, gives a great speech before the PA AFL-CIO) and one big step back (gets exposed for her campaign's failure to pay, ready for this?, health insurance premiums for her staff. Can anyone say "mandate"? ).

So, maybe Obama is Teflon Man. But be careful. When there's enough heat, things still get sticky.

What do you think might really hurt Obama? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.