Chelsea's Wedding

So Chelsea finally got married, and to get the stuff out of the way: (1) her husband is "Jewish", (2) she did not convert, and as such it was an (3) interfaith wedding (as shown in this quote from the Times: "The interfaith ceremony was conducted by Rabbi James Ponet and the Rev. William Shillady. Ms. Clinton is Methodist, and Mr. Mezvinsky is Jewish." I guess the rabbi is my old New Haven colleague Jim Ponet of Yale Hillel who is a Reform rabbi and possibly knew the President at school. The picture of the chossun shows him in his tallit, so way to go Jim for doing that, and it wasn't during the 9 days, but it was on Shabbat. Oops.

Anyway, rather than lament about the nature of intermarriage among American Jews, or some other weirdness, I would like to point out that we live in a remarkable age when in a single administration the President and Vice President (both non-Jewish natch) have children who married Jews. Cheslea to Mark Tallisdork yesterday, and Al Gore's daughter Karenna Gore Schiff (OK, the Schiffs are now separated but its (a) besides the point and (b) pretty typical for intermarried couples, especially who name their firstborn son "Wyatt".)

To make this point clear: the two most powerful men in the world, two men permanently engraved in American history, have Jewish inlaws. And you can even add that the same president had a Jewish mistress, you can see that Jews have come a long way (oy). OK, forget the mistress and concentrate on the marriages.

While intermarriage is terrible for the Jewish people, and will bring sadness and teeth gnashing to non-Orthodox Jewish continuity, to think of either Clinton & Gore's marriages as 'intermarriage' misses the point: it would have been assumed that for this to happen in a previous era, possibly up until the mid-1960s, the Jew would have been the one to convert. What an age we live in when we would even assume that the daughter of a two-term popular Baptist president would herself convert to Judaism. Let's get real, people.

Chelsea Clinton Is Engaged (to a Tribesman)

The NYTimes is announcing that "Chelsea Clinton Is Engagedto her longtime boyfriend, Marc Mezvinsky..." The story goes on to say:

Mr. Mezvinsky, 31, works at Goldman Sachs and is the son of two former Democratic members of Congress, Edward Mezvinsky of Iowa, who served from 1973 to 1977 but was later convicted of defrauding investors and sentenced to seven years in prison, and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky of Pennsylvania, who served from 1993 to 1995 and lost re-election after voting for President Clinton’s budget program.

A quick wikkiing, shows that shver Ed is Jewish (and I assume Margolies is, duh).

So, will Chelsea pull an Ivanka? Maybe if Hillary were still a NY Senator, she would.

But along with Gore's daughter, and Howard Dean, this is an interesting 'high-placed Democrats marrying Jews' thing. That and Gore's elected VP, makes a nice pattern of the party and Jews. True, Bush was grrrrreat for Israel, but there's more to listen to than assertions of ignorant Fox-News-Frummies.

Pic from the Times.

More Thoughts

Continued from below (read that first):

1. More people who deserve rewards: Howard Dean, Tim Kaine, Bob Casey. I assume Dean will want to leave the DNC (leave on top, ya know), but will he want a cabinet post? Ambassadorship? I don't know how these guys think, so I don't know what's considered a 'reward.' Kaine (Gov. VA) helped carry Virgina, and he's young and needs to get a new job because of term limits (and since VA now has 2 Democratic senators, he won't get those slots for a long while). I've heard he wants Sec of Education, so OK. Casey (D-Sen. PA) was an early and solid supporter. PA is now reliably blue, with a Democratic governor (the irritating Rendell) so it's safe to move on up. Then again, I've long felt that being Senator is the best, cushiest sinecure in America, so maybe he wants to stay put.
   
   
2. Will John Lewis want to leave Congress to join the cabinet? Like I said above, I have no idea what a politician likes as their reward. Maybe the election of Obama is the biggest most amazing dreamlike award he cold have wanted.
   
   
3. There's debate as to who will be Obama's chief of staff. I always looked at that role - while it's cabinet "like" and stature - to be a real job and not something to be filled as a reward for a deserving politician. So while people have mentioned Rahm Emmanuel or Tom Daschle, I don't understand why either would take it. Emmanuel is great in the House and I want to see him as Majority Leader soon. He's way better than Pelosi - whose been door-matted too often these past 2 years - and better than Hoyer. And Daschle deserves to be rewarded, not overworked. My assumption is that if David Axelrod wants the job, he needs to get it.
   
   
4. Other big posts: CIA chief? FBI chief? Do politicians want to be rewarded by being appointed as Federal judges?
   
   
5. Will Obama need to 'tokenize' the cabinet or his other appointments?
   
   
6. What about the proper respect and repayment for Al Gore? I'd love to see him get the next open slot on the Supreme Court. He deserves some kind of restoration for the scandal of 2000.
   
   
7. Oh, and while others may, I still don't forgive Bill and Hillary for the crap they did during the primaries. I don't think Obama owes them anything.

More Thoughts on the Victory

Some points on the incredible victory:

1. We just elected a black guy with a Muslim name president. Just gotta say that, over and over, until I fully understand how incredible this all is.
   
   
2. I see the Obama election as a type of 'virtual impeachment' of Bush. We won't get the chance to do the real thing - we still may be able to put the SOB behind bars - but the election of a brilliant, articulate, African-American, Muslim-named, liberal intellectual Constitutional scholar is a point-by-point repudiation of the stupid, mush-mouthed, pampered patrician rich-boy Texas oil-millionaire, white-bread legacy Christian conservative incurious human rights abuser.
   
   
3. Democrats haven't had a win like this since 1964. And as a result of that election, we received Civil Rights and the Great Society. And even if you think the latter was bad or flawed, you have to take into account how bad it was to be in America *before* those programs were enacted. 1964 ushered in a state of civility and greatness - as the names declare - to America. And that's great change. And that's what we can do in 2008.
   
   
4. For my fellow Hebrew brethren who are worried that Obama's win will bring about the destruction of Israel, or whatever: There is no support or proof for your fears. The fears are based on innuendo, ignorance and in some cases racism. The worst thing to happen to Israel in the past few years wasn't Oslo (which was a mitigated disaster), nor the Clinton Camp David Accords (whose blame can be laid on Ehud "the Other" Barak's feet), rather the worst has been the legitimizing election of Hamas to the Palestinian leadership and the subsequent creation of a pure terrorist state in Gaza. And that was all Bush, baby. Bush also created a terrible threat to Israel vis-a-vis the Iraq war - which has strengthen Iran (taking away it's biggest foe, replacing it with a sympathetic Shiite regime) and emboldened Tehran to pursue nukes. All Bush. And McCain would have continued this insanity. Even if Obama turns out to be like Carter - which isn't borne out by evidence - Carter was better for Israel than Bush!
   
   
5. It's a press axiom - which naturally means its boneheaded - that Obama's toughest job now begins: the cleaning up of the nation. Blah blah blah. No. That was not the toughest job. Becoming the first black president, as a first term Senator with a Muslim name, defeating both the Clinton machine and the Republican party, was the toughest job. Cleaning up the country will be not be as tough. Why? Well, first of all because it's just an obvious point. But second of all, because most of our problems were CAUSED, they didn't just 'happen.' Bush created this fate. All Obama needs to do is not be a horrible person/executive and it's already an epic win.
   
   
6. I'm disheartened by the possibility that Coleman and Smith may have been re-elected. While the landslide for president is a nice thing, if Obama's coattails weren't enough to defeat Republicans in blue states, then its a bad sign.
   
   
7. It's so sweet that Elizabeth Dole was spanked by her opponent, Democrat Kay Hagan. Dole ran a disgusting race and deserves to have lost. It's ironic: her husband ran for president in 1996 and conducted a comparatively clean and honorable race. Yeah, he lost, (159-379, see map to the left) but he kept his dignity, soul, and the good graces of history. I've long said that 1996 was one the only years where both major tickets had great candidates such that a victory either way would have been palatable for the country (as opposed to, lets say, 1988 which was wretched either way). So Bob Dole ran with respect and his name can be seen as a watchword for how to lose with grace. Then came Dole's doppelganger, John McCain. Another war-hero, Senate lion, known for bipartisanship and moderate views (note: McCain's rep was largely myth while Bobdole's was true)... and McCain ran a shameless, horrid campaign (see more below). And "Liddy" Dole chose, for her defeat, to be like McCain instead of Bob. And her name is mud.
   
   
8. The great victory for America, and the world, has a the concomitant benefit of validating the clean, respectful style of Obama and repudiating the sewer methods of McCain-Palin. That will have far-reaching consequences and all for the best. After Bush-Rove won dirty in 2000, and dirtier in 2004, it seemed we were doomed to a future of sleaze and fear every election cycle. Not anymore. True, many unregenerate Goopers will believe that were it not for the cratering economy etc. the slash-burn tactics would have worked. I disagree (for the billion reasons I've written about before), and the Goopers may not learn from their mistakes (considering they are now the party against science, evidence, and expertise), but I trust cooler brains will prevail.
   
   
9. Related to the horrible Republican tactics, and the paradox of the McCain campaign, was the McCain concession speech. So odd. Just like how John Kerry and Al Gore spoke with fire and talent at the Democratic convention - and many of us asked where these people were when they ran their national campaigns! - so too with McCain last night. What a gracious and honorable speech. And it was delivered so well! With clarity, confidence and decency. We should ask "where was this guy on the campaign trail?" but also note that any person who sounds better when no longer campaigning (Gore, Kerry, McCain) obviously has mental reservations, and a fundamental problem as a politician. Does this 'mental game' automatically presage defeat? Not sure; which successful politician sounded better when out of office than in? I can think of a number, successful pols, who were better while running than not. Something to inspect.
   
   
10. And, of course, at that same concession speech we heard the base of the Republicans booing Obama's name, shouting and bellowing out who-can-imagine-what craziness. The crowd was the embodiment of the McCain campaign, the speech was the embodiment of the mythical McCain that the press apotheosized and who I had liked back at the beginning of the millennium.
    
    
11. Let's not forget Joe Biden. I am very happy for him; I genuinely like the guy. And - speaking as a rabbi and a budding scholar of the sociology of religion - the president-elect is just another Protestant, but we just elected our first Catholic VP, and only the second non-Protestant in the White House. Wow.

More later.

The Styx Endorsement

Ya know, I've been so busy, I completely overlooked my sworn blogger duty to actually endorse a candidate for president! This is probably the toughest part of blogging - because my words are so consequential, millions (or posssibly dozens) of people are hanging onto my pixelized words, in suspense for whom I will endorse.

To clarify my thinking, I will list the pros and cons of each candidate. That should make it easier to decide in this election season where - like I was told repeatedly in 2000 - there's really not much difference between the two candidates. And, as people remember from the ho-hum results of 2000, a Gore presidency would have been indistinguishable from the subsequent Bush presidency. So too with McCain v. Obama.

McCain - Pro & Con

Pro: He is "experienced". Which is short-hand for "old." He's a war hero, and that's always a good predictor for executive ability. He is a maverick. He's physically ill and may die at any time, so if we don't elect him now, we won't get another chance. Moreover, if he loses, we run the further risk that he will hawk Viagra, and I don't think I can stand that. His running mate fills me with glee and expectation of a wonderful future filled with sports stadiums, no state colleges, and children with hilarious first names. Most importantly, he promises to do everything George W. Bush has been doing without the slightest change, except maybe more tax cuts; but clearly there will be more wars. And wars are fun.

Con: I'm not sure the world will survive 4 years of a McCain presidency. When I said a similar sentiment about Bush back in 2004 ("I feel as if a great worldwide tragedy has occurred. It's like 9/11 - but instead of seeing the mass murder, I have the nightmares of all that this criminal government can perpetrate. ... I am sick, scared, and devastated. God help us.") it turns out that we only have barely survived the second term (unless you lived in New Orleans, good luck with that). The cratering economy, the debilitating mindless war in Iraq, the warrant-less wiretaps, the destruction of habeas corpus, Hurricane Katria, the dissolution of the Justice Department... all because of the Bush re-election. So, if we elect McCain, I have a feeling things will possibly be worse.

Oh, and to elect McCain will also give support for his despicable, scorched earth campaign of lies and sleaze. Not good.

Barack "Huggably Hussein" Obama, Pro & Con

Pro: Not Bush. Not McCain. Not Palin. Not Hillary Clinton. Once in a generation mind and temperament at a critical time in World history.

Con: Young. Black. Funny name. Democrat. According to many in the Orthodox community, Obama is actually Louis Farrakhan and Saddam Hussein.

Conclusion?
After considering all the pros and cons, I feel undecided. This decision is too big, and it has come upon us too quickly. If only there was more time to get to know these candidates. Especially McCain... I mean, gadzooks, where has this guy been for all these years?

If forced, I will say vote more my youngest child (pictured below). And if he's not on the ballot, then vote Obama.

Biden v. Palin

When I last commented about Biden it was my claiming that his choice would be a mistake: "I think Biden would be a mistake. While he's a fierce partisan fighter, he's also a gaffe-prone goofball. Nonetheless, it won't be a disaster." And I had no follow up, so here it is: my analysis back in August was on the basis of politics and not governance. Biden is a mistake for politics - he makes gaffes, his state isn't helpful - and all the other choices were for electoral reasons only: Sebelius (woman, Midwest), Bayh (moderate, boring WASP, Midwest), Kaine (governor, swing-state).

But once Obama chose Biden I was quite happy with the choice and because it was the electorally poor choice. It showed me that Obama was (a) confident enough in the election, and in himself, that he was concentrating on being an executive and not the Permanent Campaign (the hallmark of the Clinton and W.Bush years), (b) that Obama chose someone who was fierce, independent and a contrary thinker, emphasizing the 'cabinet of rivals' model of Lincoln, (c) and ultimately, because Biden is the best sitting Democratic senator for both defense issues (chair of Foreign Relations) and Domestic/Legal (chair of Judiciary) it showed that Obama cares more for good governance than good politics.

If Obama had gone for the electoral/politics route - chosen the three above or Hillary Ugh - then I would have accepted the situation as reflective of a weak coalition or a difficult election road. Instead, by choosing Biden, Obama showed confidence, competence, and seriousness. It made me feel better for my support of Obama, presence as a Democrat, and hope for the country.

Then we get Sarah Palin. Who is the exact opposite. Chosen for purely partisan and electoral reasons. My feeling about Biden - which I had talked to people about but alas didn't blog about, so you'll have to believe me - shows the reason why I reacted so negatively towards Palin, even before I knew just how horrible she was.

But if I needed to use a shorthand to describe the difference, it would be Politics or Governance. And the GOP has shown that over the GWB years, they have placed governance and policy as the lowest of priorities, while for teh Democrats it has long been the highest priority - often to our detriment.

This argument about governance/politics is seen in this Sept 14 essay by Alex Massie, about why McCain chose Palin. Massie basically states what did you expect McCain to do? He needed electoral help! He was *forced* to choose an unqualified nutjob!

Massie is wrong about the order, though. McCain's current scorched-earth campaign - and the subsequent trouble he's in - comes as a direct result of the choice of Palin. If McCain chose a moderate (Lieberman, Ridge) or a friendly talented person (Graham, Crist), then McCain would be able to run in 2008 like he did in 2000. However, even through downright cowardice or doddering incompetence, McCain surrendered to the Rove Crew and decided to run like GWB in 2000 & 2004 - through fraud, fear, and polarization.

Can you imagine what a McCain-Lieberman vs. Obama-Biden election would look like? That would have been enviable. The last time we had two decent tickets was 1996 (and before that 1964). But McCain was threatened by the freakazoids of the gnarled GOP base that there'd be a floor-fight if Lieberman - McCain's first choice (whose vibes I somehow intuitively picked up) - were chosen. McCain, when threatened by the GOP base, blinked (in the argot of the GOP chickenhawks). He pooped his pants, he ran away from principles and good judgment and into the waiting arms of the Karl Rove Machine.

Why should McCain fear the floor fight? Because it'd make him look weak? Remind us of 1968 (similar times ya know)? I think it's because ultimately McCain is a weenie who cares more for winning than for honor. He's a disgrace.

But I digress. By choosing Palin, McCain decided on a campaign of fear and intimidation - because she has nothing else to offer but red-meat to the partisans. And any candidate that has to run to the extremes in the general election, is doomed.

Which leads us to the paradigms of VPs. I've discussed this at length, but I think I can make the binary chakira of VPs of Politics (VPP) and VPs of Governance (VPG). And both of these categories are part of the vagaries of how the VP is chosen. As opposed to the old days (pre-12th Amendment) and especially in post-1968 times, the VP is directly chosen by the Presidential nominee. While beforehand he was nominated at the convention just like the President, and as such could reflect a balanced perspective of the party, the modern VP choice is the sole decision of the Presidential nominee. And while the Pres Candidate needed to weather an often expensive, debilitating, pummelling primary campaign, the VP candidate is allowed to just waltz right in. The Pres. candidate needs millions of people to choose him/her, the VP needs only 1.

As such, the VP provides an opportunity not only for the electorate to evaluate the judgement and sagacity of the Pres. nominee, it also gives the nominee (and to some extent the whole party) a chance to nominate someone who could never get past the gauntlet of the primary campaign.

And this is where the Politics/Governance split comes in. Sometimes the VP couldn't get through the primaries because they are talented at governance but have no electoral appeal (cf. George HW Bush in 1980, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, Al Gore in 1992, Jack Kemp in 1996, Joe Lieberman & Dick Cheney in 2000). Or the VP is a token ethnic/ideology that's to 'out there' to be acceptable by the primary voters, but is considered necessary for the general election (cf. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, Dan Quayle in 1988, and Sarah Palin in 2008).

This is one reason why the electorate was so angry about Palin... here's a woman who could not survive a month of a primary campaign allowed to just shtup her way into the (second) most powerful job in the world. Dan Quayle in lipstick, as it were. I remember how angry I was, and the country was, after Quayle was chosen. This is worse. Yet this is why I'm happy about Biden and was happy about Lieberman - two men who would be good at governance but who are just too nutty or boring to survive the primaries. So it works both ways.

One thing Massie says that I very much agree with, and felt intuitively, which I will quote in entirety:

there's an argument you can make that the Vice-Presidential candidate needs to be more, not less qualified to be President than the chap at the top of the ticket. Why? Because a VP can only become President in an emergency and so needs to be able to start governing immediately. A President - eg, Clinton - can learn on the job even if this costs capital and credibility; a Veep does not enjoy that luxury. Of course, if Palin were to become President in, say, 2011, that would be one thing, but the potential for her to in the Oval Office next year is quite another. Biden could do the job next year, Palin probably couldn't. That's an unfortunate truth that her boosters just look silly trying to deny

Yes. The reason why most smart people think that the VP should be highly qualified - ironically, even more qualified that the President - is because of this intuitive understanding of the historical role of the VP: to step in when disaster strikes. Moreover, as I explained above, because of the unique opportunity to be able to easily place a person in line for the presidency who has high qualifications but could not otherwise make it through the primary, also depicts the feeling of lost opportunity when it comes to Palin... when Obama had to sneak someone into the White House, it was someone who conceivably could walk in on his own merit. When McCain chose, it was to sneak it some crypto-crazy Christianist hillbilly.

Am I Worried About November?

Well, in a large abstract way, I am worried about the election in the same way I'm worried about death or Nazis. Two national elections have been awarded to a profoundly unqualified man (Bush) and a party that decided to commit themselves to strange and evil policies.

2000 was terrible but until 9/11 most of us thought that the damage would be temporary, given that we were living through peace and prosperity. 2004 was heart-rending because it was clear how bad Bush was and things were getting worse and worse. The past 4 years have been horrifying and I know my kids will ask me about them with the same hushed awe I asked my parents about 1963-1968 (assassinations, Vietnam, Nixon). And if things were teetering on the bad in 2004, the re-election of Bush in 2008 would be a full-gonzo catastrophe.

It bears repeating: all of us who warned about the horrors of a second Bush term, and were ridiculed by Goopers who claimed we were being paranoid hysterics, were proven to be correct. And I was not correct by accident - i.e. many people are correct only by chance. For example, the smartasses who said that John Edwards was *of course* cheating on his wife... basing their assertions on the sole facts that (a) Edwards was good-looking, and (b) they disagreed with Edwards' policies/profession/accent.

Not liking somebody, and thus attributing to the disliked person all sorts of crimes, does not make your criticisms prophetic. You just got lucky.

However, if you said that Edwards was a wife-cheater because of certain provable factors (e.g. you knew of some shady behaviors, you read in his book that 'cheating on your cancer-stricken wife ain't the worst thing a person can do', or if you personally slept with him), then - fine - you can be considered a perceptive prognosticator.

For the record, I didn't believe the rumors that Edwards was cheating on his wife because I didn't think that someone as successful as him (self-made multi-millionaire, young Democratic senator in a red-state) would do something so destructive and stupid. I mean, it was Spitzer-esque! And even then, I had some glimmering that Spitzer was a sexual-schkutz because he intermarried. Ya see, that's a provable indicator. Sex crime here leads to sex crime there. But Edwards? Why would someone running for president - someone who constantly references his wife's terminal cancer - have an affair on the campaign trail.

Anyway, I went on this tangent to talk about the stakes of the election: just as the loss in 2004 was bad, and I knew it would be bad beforehand, I can say with confidence that McCain winning in November would mean total freakin' disaster for the U.S. of A. McCain is unfit to lead and will most likely die soon in office (based on simple actuarial prediction) leaving the country in the hands of a serial-fabricator hillbilly Evangelical.

And, as some dude pointed out, Bush managed to destroy our country from the starting point of Clinton's peace and prosperity. McCain - an uck-fup of Bushian magnitude - would be elected in the midst of two draining wars and an economy teetering on the brink.

Stop, You're Scaring Me!

I hear you cry. Yes, if McCain wins in November, we are totally screwed. But I don't expect it to happen. In fact, and you can quote me, the only way for the GOP to win in November is through fraud. I say this based on three proofs: (1) the frauds of 2000 & 2004, (2) the 2006 midterms, and (3) American history.

1. The only way the GOP won in 2000 and 2004 was through fraud.

Yeah, the Goopers amongst you will deny that 2000 was fraud, even though, based on facts, it's clear that Gore *would* have won in Florida if the votes that the voters cast were actually tabulated. If you prefer winning at all costs, and see a 'win' as proving retroactively everything done as right and correct, then the fact that the Supreme Court allowed Bush to win Florida, and thus the whole election, to be enough to say that Bush actually won.

But in the world of facts, it's important to remember than no matter what the weird rules stated, Gore won in 2000. A sports analogy, if I may. If quarterback Jack Drake throws a 95 yard touchdown pass while being tackled by a blitz of linebackers, yet the play is invalidated because the second-string slotback was barely offsides, do you credit the QB with a touchdown.

In the official game scoring, Jack Drake does not get credit for a touchdown. In the world of real life and of commerce, Jack Drake will be known as an amazing athlete who can perform under pressure and whose expertise was proven in real events. The rules of sports, while important to those who follow sports, are arbitrary and do not determine actual events.

Gore *should* have won in 2000; and for this argument it means that the country was willing to have a third Clinton term, and to elect Gore-Lieberman, even though arbitrary (and ultimately skewed rules) undermined the true events.

2004 was not as close as 2000 and for months after the election I was devastated not only because Bush was still in office, but with enough of a margin to suggest that people approved of his idiocies.

However, as the numerous scandals that were uncovered from 2006 on have shown, the Bush administration was involved in systematic voter fraud in every election since they took over the Justice department. I don't have time or space to get into great details - yet, they are easily found all over the internet - but event after event has shown that Bush administration politicized every aspect of the executive branch, skewing policy and actions to help Republicans get elected. The very core of the attorney scandal was that Bush/Gonzales were forcing the U.S. Attorneys to (a) suppress the vote of probable democratic voters (e.g. minorities), and (b) indict Democratic politicians or their staff-members close to the election date. The 8 attorneys who were fired all refused to engage in malfeasance.

Read the data, get scared, and conclude - as you should - that 2004 was won via fraud.

Now, this does not deny that the Democratic candidates of 2000 and 2004 were poor candidates. They were pusillanimous, uncharismatic, and not great leaders. But also recognize that conditions were such in 2000 and 2004 that would have made the country vote for an accept a mediocre Democrat.

Barack Obama is not a mediocre politician. He has many detriments, tis' true - he's young, black, and smart. But he also is a galvanizing speaker and a sober thinker who has raised the most money in history and did so with small donations. Which means he excites millions of people. These facts militate against the not-unfounded anxieties that Americans won't vote for a black man with a funny name. I'd have said that - and in fact did - back in 2007. Today, it's an unfounded fear.

2. The 2006 Midterms showed that the country wants change.

Even with the Justice Dept. vote-fraud, even with the Senate lineup stacked against the Democrats, we still managed to win Congress in 2006. Things were so terrible, in just 2 years, that the country threw their bums out. And, it needs to be said, it's hard to throw out congressional incumbents, and a switch-over in the Senate is not a great way to gauge public mood since only 32-33 people are up for election and not always in states that express the public mood. Even with all that, the Democrats won in 2006.

In 2008, the country is in even WORSE shape. The economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, the Iraq war is still hated (and our soldiers are still dying), etc. Add onto that the fact that congressional oversight of the Executive has led to mass firings in the Justice Dept. and elsewhere, making it very hard to repeat the fraud of 2002, 2004 and 2006.

Without the fraud, it's very hard for the GOP to win... even in a good year. And this year is one of the worst.

3. The past 100 years have shown that it's very hard for the incumbent party to win a third term in the presidency.

Since 1900, there have been a few third terms:

1. 1896-1912: McKinley was re-elected, but his assassination makes things difficult to gauge, so we start with Teddy Roosevelt. He had two terms, and he was succeeded by Taft who only had 1. Note, Taft would have been re-elected if Roosevelt hadn't run against him in '12, so following my Gore-2000 rules above, I think the GOP should get real-world credit for winning in 1912.
   
2. 1920-1932: Harding's death led to Coolidge's ascension and his two terms was followed by Hoover's 1.
   
3. 1932-1952: FDR had four terms - the only true 'third term' proof we have - and he was succeeded by Truman who won 1 term on his own right. He would have lost in '52 if he had run.
   
4. 1952-1960: Eisenhower almost won a third term; Nixon barely lost in 1960 (and, following Gore-2000 rules, it could be that this is a third term).
   
5. 1960-1968: LBJ, despite being elected via a grief-fueled nostalgia landslide in 1964, was quite unpopular in 1968. His successor didn't get a third term (even though I could hear an argument that he would have won if Wallace wasn't a third-party spoiler, but it was a complicated year).
   
6. 1968-1976: Nixon led to Ford who lost to Jimmy Freakin' Carter.
   
7. 1980-1992: Reagan was able to secure a third term for his bland VP.
   
8. 1992-2000: Clinton won a third term, but just just barely.

What does the chart prove? That a party can win a third party only when things are going very well, and the incumbent is popular. Coolidge, FDR and Reagan are the successes that prove this rule. Even when the incumbent is pretty popular, and the country is in good shape, the party still has a hard time staying in power: Nixon in '60 and Gore in '00 show this. Even if you want to say that Nixon and Gore actually were cheated out of their deserved victory, it's also demonstrable that the elections were very very close.

The bottom line is that a party gets a third term when (1) people like the outgoing president and (2) the country is in good shape.

In 2008, Americans hate George W Bush and 80% think the country is on the wrong track. The Iraq War is killing our soldiers, breaking our military and draining our coffers. The economy is going through shocks unseen since Herbert Hoover. Just on history alone, it's nearly inconceivable that the voters will reward the incumbent party with a third term.

This is why, ultimately, I'm not so worried about 2008. Barring fraud, which will be hard to do this year, the GOP will lose.

P.S. If my enormously long-winded description above doesn't comfort you, doesn't quiet the 2004-embedded fears that the GOP is so scummy and/or the American people so stupid, that they will defy the rules of logic and history and elect Growly McSame and Jesus S. Palin, I will just say that there are three presidential debates coming up. If the polls are still depressing after the debates, then it will be time to panic.

Why Aren't They Reporting the Lies?

I mentioned below that the press will try to cover up for the McCain/Palin horrors as much as they can. How do I know this? Well, uh, because they've been doing it. Were Obama, Hillary, Gore, or Billy J Clinton to have said or done the same things McPalin has done, they would already have been laid out on a spit and roasted by the press. So why the double standards? Here's why:

1. Fox News & WSJ plus about half or more of the columnists in the major newspapers are lock-stock part of the GOP. No, they're not paid by them (as far as I know), but they identify closely with the GOP and believe that its crucial to their financial well-being and possibly the existence of civilization that the GOP remain in power. So this group of "journalists" - plus, naturally, all the known scum on the radio - will be campaigning for the GOP, attacking Obama, and covering for the GOP stooges. I suspect that based on the roster above, more than half of the voices in the major mainstream media are part of the GOP. Add onto that what I wrote about here - that the mainstream media is not liberal because of the market for news.

2. Reporters are basically cowards driven by market forces and will support anyone who's popular and attack anyone who's out of favor. People seem to really like Sarah Palin - and who doesn't want a evangelical dominatrix with a Fargo accent? - and the press won't rock that boat. Until people stop liking her.

3. Above all, the press need a horse race. The tension and conflict of politics sells news. We got the Iraq War because the press were cowards and we got a Bush re-election because the press needed to keep the election close. Even though in 2004 the Abu Ghraib story had already broke, and we hadn't found WMDs in Iraq, even with all these horrible things, the press decided that we needed a close election. Thanks.

What this means for 2008 is that even though McCain is clueless, has a temperament problem, changes his views more often than he changes shirts, appears to be very very stupid, and all in all will be a very dangerous president... were the press to point that out, there'd be a landslide for Obama and nobody would watch TV.

And even though Sarah Palin is a crazy Christian who can't tell the truth, bullies her enemies - which include those whose religion she despises - and is manifestly unqualified to be Vice President... if the press pointed all this out, they'd lose advertising dollars because of lack of interest.

As I said before, I think there's a good chance Palin/McCain will end up like Romney, but the press will do it's durndest to make sure we don't hear it from them.

Murdoch Bets the Smart Money

This story from Reuters has been commented on by a number of blogs, and I finally remembered to join the chorus:

Rupert Murdoch predicts landslide for Democrats By Eric Auchard, Thu May 29, 8:19 AM ET,

CARLSBAD, California (Reuters) - News Corp Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch on Wednesday predicted a Democratic landslide in the U.S. presidential election against a gloomy economic backdrop over the next 18 months.

Murdoch has yet to endorse a U.S. presidential candidate but considers Barack Obama very promising, the media magnate said in an interview by two Wall Street Journal reporters at an annual conference for high-tech industry insiders.
...
"You have got the Obama phenomenon. You have got, undoubtedly, a recession ... The average American is really getting hurt financially and that all bodes well for him (Obama), Murdoch said.
...
Murdoch is associated with conservative political views but has a reputation for a pragmatic streak in major national races where he has shown a willingness to switch sides when he detects major political changes afoot.
...
Murdoch said he had played a role in the endorsement by the New York Post, one of his global stable of papers, in endorsing Obama during the Democratic primary with Hillary Clinton in New York.

Murdoch may be the amoral tyrant of a the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but he must also be extraordinarily smart/cunning... and he knows what's coming. It's in the historical structure. Were Obama as untalented in politics as Kerry/Gore, he'd still win. I said before, the only person who could have lost this election was Hillary.

The Jacket Can Come Off

Obama has (putatively) won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in what may be the biggest upset in (modern) American political history. Now the jacket comes off. Two jackets, really. The first jacket is doffed when gentlemen prepare for fisticuffs. Or a duel. Of all Republicans, McCain is a gentleman, and we know over and over that Obama is, so this battle of two men of honor will be as bloody as a hillside duel, but it portends to be on a higher level than other contests in the past.

The other jacket is a straight-jacket that Obama has had to wear since Hillary announced her intention to run for president. Bill Clinton was enormously popular in America and even moreso in the Democratic party, where he was the Democrat to leave office as popular and powerful (contrast to Carter, LBJ, Truman; this point was first made by Marshall). And the Clinton's fought dirty.

Obama was straight-jacketed, hamstrung, shackled by having his opponents be the most popular Democrats in a generation. And Hillary compounded the trouble by invoking female-disempowerment at every slight. Her "unconcession" speech last night - a disgusting display of narcissism, hubris, and neurosis - contained an especially galling line in this vein. I was fortunate to hear the line uttered live (we get only one TV news channel, it was showing her speech, and I could only listen to her for a minute or two at a time), transcribed passage from here:

You know, I understand that a lot of people are asking, what does Hillary want? ... I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible.

What's galling about the 'invisible' line is that it is red-meat to angry feminists who have cried 'sexism' at every criticism of Holy St. Hillary.

I won't refute the 'invisible' remark because it is beneath contempt; I bring it up to show the lines of the straight-jacket that has now been removed. Other bindings that have been loosed: now every single Democrat can, with full voice, support Obama. Many have been silenced because (a) they don't want to unleash the Clinton fury or worse (b) the fury of Clinton voters. So Reid, Pelosi, Webb, Emmanuel, Salazar, Gore - all big names with set constituencies who have had to remain 'neutral' can now plaster the walls of America with pro-Democratic, pro-Obama words and ideas.

As a number of smart commentators have noted, until last night McCain was at the highest point he could be and Obama the lowest. McCain enjoyed a unified GOP and comparitively little press scrutiny while Obama had a deeply divided party and attacks coming from three sides (GOP, Clinton Democrats, the Press) with only 1/4 of a defense (his part of the party). No longer.

McCain and Obama may be in a dead-heat today, but now that Obama is unrestrained? It's going to be a slaughter.

As an anonymous blogger from the Economist online (UK) wrote last night, comparing the speeches of all three candidates:

At the risk of bolstering the reporters-mooning-at-Obama stereotype, if this evening's speeches were a video game, a wrinkled wizard would be hollering "Finish Him!" to Barack Obama while a dizzied John McCain wobbled. And Hillary Clinton would be frenetically mashing the buttons on an unplugged controller.

The biggest proof that Obama will destroy McCain comes from simple structure. The same structure that elected Harding in 1920 and Carter in 1976: that when the populace has had enough of the status-quo, they will elect the other party.

The only person, truly, who could have screwed that up this year was Hillary. Because she's so divisive, so hated, and quite frankly such a bad campaigner, that it would have been possible for the Democrats to have lost. It would have been a repeat of '04, when an unpopular incumbent was ALMOST unseated by a deeply flawed, lackluster candidate. And while I'm no fan of Kerry, he didn't prompt the deep visceral hatred that Hillary can and does. We just dodged the bullet.

Ah, but I hear you cry, what about Obama's weaknesses? The ones that are skin-deep, if you catch my drift. Well, 16 months ago, I thought the strongest ticket for the fall was Edwards-Obama, and I claimed that I didn't think America would vote for an inexperienced Black man with Hussein for a middle name. But, uh, he won. He won over whites, blacks, hispanics, in all the states.

Yeah, but he lost Ohio and Pennsylvania! Yes, and no. As I said earlier, he lost *closed primaries* in those states. A closed primary has no bearing on the fall general election. All a closed-primary proves is that he's not as popular to Democrats. And while, intuitively, that may bother people (how can a guy win when his party doesn't like him as much as another), it also repudiates the biggest weakness of the primary process which is that it rewards the extremists of each party, which give a rather poor general election contender.

More open primaries may have spared us from Dukakis and Kerry. And if PA/OH were open, I would wager that Obama would have won them handily, like he did in Virginia, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Minnesota (all open).

Obama is a very strong candidate, which is how he beat the Clintons. Let that settle into your skin for a moment: he beat Bill and Hillary Clinton. Nobody beat the Clintons since 1980! And Obama is inspiring, a historic orator, a gifted thinker, a talented writer, and damn near perfect campaigner. He has also just campaigned in all 50 states - something not done in any previous primary - which means he has already run a general election campaign once. From now til November, it's just picking up the lost sheaves.

And the structural reason why Obama/Democrats will win? The Iraq War is enough. And McCain, god love him, has decided to embrace the Iraq War as his running mate. It's the one thing which may be more unpopular than Bush, and McCain's embracing it?! And he embraces Bush, too. Why else would McCain reject the improved GI Bill? In an election year, the Republican nominee rejects a veteran-friendly piece of pork, a rejection not shared by his party but only by the incumbant president who enjoys the lowest approval rating since Andrew Johnson.

And you think McCain can win? Running on a platform of "I like the Iraq War and Bush's treatment of the country!" The only way Obama can lose now is if there's a crippling scandal. Could happen, sure. But I don't play lotto, and I don't bet on long-shots when the stakes are this high.

The twin jackets are now off. It's a great day for America.

Comic Watch: Prickly City

In addition to my daily political cartoon intake, I have a monthly/bi-monthly regular ol' cartoon intake. Politics I need to follow every day, Garfield can wait for a 6x year binge. By waiting a buncha weeks, the storylines make more sense anyway.

My subscription is "Mycomicspage.com" and over the years (I've subscribed on and off since 2000) some of the best 'toons have left. Some of the new ones are very good (probably the best new one is "Cul De Sac"), but others not so much. Usually the cruddy ones don't make it on my subscription page, but there are a few I keep under 'watch,' which brings us to Prickly City.

This is a pathetic attempt to be a Republican Bloom County. As with GOP sponsored comedy, the sense of humor is shrill and insulting; the messages are actually much stupider than the comic medium is assumed to be.

The main characters are a black Republican girl (chyeah, those are common) and a Democratic yellow dog. The girl is the voice of reason and intelligence, the dog is a stand-in for idiotic liberals. Or whatever. Here's a great example (from April 24,2008) of the "political relevance" as Da City takes on the myth of global warming:



Things to emphasize: how every argument about global warming from the GOP devolves into a hissy fit about Al Gore. No matter what Bush and his slack-jawed lackeys say, it REALLY bothers them that Al got a Nobel Prize.

Note, though, that Glenn McCoy, who writes one of the worst political cartoons, has a rather decent daily strip The Duplex. I want to give Glenn credit for both doing a daily strip and political cartoon (not easy) but keeping the politics out of the strip (which explains why it can be funny on occasion).

The Sad Tale of Wilentz

In the last post I described the core constituency of Hillary as basically women, old people, dumb people and racists. So where do Professor Sean Wilentz, and his fuzzy alter-ego Paul Krugman, fit in? Both are not women, dumb, or racist. Why do they hate Obama, and like Hillary, so much.

Part of the answer comes from analyzing their screeds. For Wilentz (who, I should add, was my professor in college and knows me personally, even if won't remember my name correctly), see this piece of guano in the New Republic:
"Making the Case... for Hillary Clinton" and for Krugman, just read any column over the past 4 months.

What both have in common is the small group of the Democratic elite who support Hillary:

1. Baby-boomers (who are the "old" category of the previous post)
   
2. and/or fierce liberals who hate the GOP so much that they want to keep fighting the fractious red-blue wars of the 90s (and the 60s, go figure).
   
3. and/or pundits who endorsed Hillary too early - before Obama showed himself the real deal - and are now trapped in either cognitive dissonance or, worse, Pundits Dissonance (the malady that afflicts moron commentators, disallowing them from admitting error).

Wilentz and Krugman are in all three of these groups.

Baby-Boomers Against the Youngin': These hypocrites were inspired by JFK as teenagers, flocked to an inexperienced hillbilly when he was in their age group, but now that the candidate is younger than they are - like the narcissitic nihilists they have been since the banana-peel smoking 60s - they can't handle it. Punk bastards. I'll be glad when they are shoved aside, because the next president will either be the anti-baby boomer Obama (say that 5 times fast) or the stodgy crew-cutted square that the hippie boomers rejected back in the day (McCain).

Liberal Fighters: Nothing quite so sad as a victim turned bully. Especially when they don't know how to bully well. Wilentz and Krugman don't want the culture war to end. They hate Bush and the GOP so much - for what happened to Bill and Hill in the 90s and for what Bush has done since then - and heck, maybe allaway back to Nixon - that they want to keep the fight going. The logic - and Wilentz/Krugman say this explicitly - is that the GOP needs crushing and Obama is a weenie and Hillary is a fighter.

Let's take this apart, because all three premises are wrong. First, we see what a great fighter Hillary has been (even when this was first proposed, back in 1-15, and its crystal clear now): she's awful. A shrill maladriot. She can't convince a drowning man to drink and she can't beat Obama - a political newcomer with a funny name, handicapped skin, and who refuses to fight back! Hillary is as good a fighter as Kerry/Dukakis/Gore. That is, she sucks.

But the real false premise combines the misdiagnosis of Obama and the nature of our battle with the GOP. Assume for a moment that the GOP needs to be punished for the horrific misdeeds of the past 15 years (the Clinton-Bush terms). What's the best way to do that? There's the shrill victim way - that of Hillary/Wilentz/Krugman - which is just fantasy. The victim getting the upper hand on the bully... doesn't happen in the schoolyard, and it certainly doesn't happen in the boardroom. Power is power and doesn't switch hands unless the bully is in a coma.

Which brings us to the weenie charge. Only true weenies - like Hillary/Krugman/Wilentz, and their mentors in weenie-dom: George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, John Yoo, Rush Limbaugh - think that direct conflict is the way to win a war. Obama's skill is that of great politicians (think FDR or LBJ): diplomacy. To quote LBJ: "Remember the prophet Isaiah: Come let us reason together. Telling a man to go to hell and making him go there are two different things." A diplomat will defeat a bully unless he's outnumberd 5:1.

Obama has the true political skill that converts enemies into allies and to get his agenda - which is delightfully left-wing - passed. Bullies and other weaklings want wars because they like the glory of battle (specifcally the glory of winning). Obama, following the principles of Master Sun Tzu, will win. And if Wilentz/Krugman were real culture warriors they would flock to Obama because of that. But they're blinded, or bullies, and can't escape their prisons of thought.

Pundit Dissonance - Just as Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge became towering figures because they were the populist opposition to Pres. Clinton, so academics like Wilentz and Krugman were the necessary opposition to Bush. Especially when the mainstream press rolled over and played dead during these years, these pundits were must-reads, providing information and courage during the dark times. These smart guys became talking-heads, and they lost their academic skills and fell into a papist 'just so' trap, where they considered that their words were incontrovertable truth (note: this is also known as the Charedi Rosh Yeshiva With Only a High School Education trap).

But times have changed since Krugman had been elevated into infallibility. From 2000-2006 his indispensibility was valid and unquestioned. But then came the realigning midterms of 2006, the explosion of trusted blogger journalism, and Youtube. The Democrats now have the GOP in a fair(ish) fight, the news and reality are getting out there. Krugman is not indispensible, and he seems to have let the revolution pass him by.

One proof of Wilentz/Krugman's failure is to assume that Hillary is experienced, and/or liberal, and/or a fighter, or whatever new guano comes out of her self-inflicted wounded bunker. Her claims are demonstrably false. Any intelligent person can see that. Wilentz/Krugman won't. They are infallible! They cannot be wrong. It is we mush-headed youngsters who are being snowed over by a talented black man! Whatever.

The mystery fourth category

Even were my above analysis to be wrong (and it isn't because I am now a pundit), I have discovered, through this painful primary, a mystery fourth category that Wilentz/Krugman - and many other wrinkly Democrats who support Hillary - are in: they are McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Kerry Democrats (MMDKD). I'll explain that later.

Backpost: 1/15/08, 1:48 PM. All I had was the link. I'm adding the context and commentary now. Pic from here of Wilentz in 1994, 2 years after I had him in class.

Kerry & Clinton

The body of a letter I just wrote to Sullivan, re: Kerry's backing of Obama:

Despite being a life-long Democrat, I also shudder at Kerry's endorsement. However, it is the first step in balancing off the damaging bias of Bill Clinton. If Bill had decided to be above-the-fray then I would consider him the leader of the party, but he has decided to forgo that honor. So there are 3 people who can credibly be called the leaders of the party in descending (basically chronological) order: 1. Nancy Pelosi, 2. John Kerry, 3. Al Gore.

Pelosi is the current party head, the second in line to the Presidency (and for some reason the milestone of her female-ness hasn't been mentioned too much by the rah-rah Hillary crowd... could be because Pelosi wasn't married to a former speaker of the house?). The link to MSNBC you gave suggests that Pelosi won't endorse, but we'll see.

After her is Kerry, who, whether I like it or not, was my party's nominee four years ago. That means something. And even though the Republicans managed to create a cult of hatred around him, he's an innocuous politician with a lot of experience (who would have been a decent running mate for Obama had he not run in '04).

After that comes Gore, who you also indicate may be above it all.

But in any case, all three lead my party. Bill has decided to abdicate his leadership in favor of his wife - which I can understand as a husband - but he won't regain the title unless he does penance (e.g. campaigning STRONGLY for Obama or Edwards should they be the nominee). Bill won't do that, but hey, I need to be fair to the rules (I just made up).

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-13.

Policies or Personality

I've already been trumpeting my cynic cred, so I might as well go whole-hog. [Mmmmm, hog]. When choosing a politician to support as an executive - as opposed to legislator - there's wisdom in choosing personality over policies. One reason comes from the peculiar system called Federalism that we in the United States have had for a few centuries.

The president has NOTHING to do with making policy. Yeah, we've eroded those lines steadily through the years, most notably with W's 'signing statements' but (a) those were illegal, and (b) it's not the norm by any means. The president submits whichever ideas and policies he wants Congress to enact into laws and then Congress takes those ideas, defecates on the assorted documents the ideas were written on, then takes a fresh sheet of paper and piles money on top of that amid chunks of salt-pork from a big barrel. Viola, how a bill becomes a law.

The president is in charge of leading the nation by carrying out (or 'executing' like an 'executive') the laws of Congress. And that's about character, not policies.

Simply put, each of the major candidates this season - and every season - need to paint a picture of their attitudes and character. And that's what's sold, and purchased, by the electorate.

For example, in 2000 Gore was selling "I'm a big ol' Nerd and I will bore you to death about things you need to hear but won't bother hearing from me." Bush was selling "I am a Southern Cracker who likes to Party - before with hookers and beer but now with Jesus"

Note, that these were remarkably true personalty projections. Bush has spent our money on things that he thinks Jesus cares about: live stem cells and dead Arabs. And Gore is still annoying as all git-out to the point that most Republicans deny that there's global warming merely because Gore said it exists (using a freakin' slide show to do it... how nerdy A-V club do we need to be?!)

2004 was the battle between Flightsuit Bush and the Even More Annoying Nerd. [Note, I still cannot get over the fact that Bush wore a freakin' flightsuit to announce mission accomplished... even if it HAD been accomplished, it was tacky; now that its clear that it was a despicable lie, how can he still be not behind bars?!. [Barfing sounds]]

The Democratic contest is among three main candidates with three narratives:

Hillary = "Hi! I am Gore and Kerry but with Ovaries!" or "Do what I say or the puppy gets it!"

Edwards = "I am a very handsome, small town, Southerner who will fight for you, the small guy, against big business"

Obama = "I am young and handsome and want to tell the Baby Boomers to finally take their hellish ball of partisan warfare and go home."

I like Edwards and Obama's messages - and chances in November. Because winning in November is all about attitude and not about policies. The last wonk who won POTUS was Nixon.

Obama's Veepstakes

Note, see part 1 for the other dudes.

Here we go. Obama is going to need someone who will balance his shortcomings, so he'll need a white male with a lot of DC government experience. Which means old white senators only. Which rules out Edwards. Hillary is also out (wrong gender, no actual experience, and she will melt when exposed to water or sunlight). However Dodd or Biden would fit the bill.

I think Biden is a poor choice because he's a dingbat. With a loose tongue. He'll become a quick liability (but he could carry Delaware! Wooo!). Dodd would be a smart choice - old-school white-as-hell long-time-Senator. The biggest liability would be that Dodd's state (mine) has a Republican governor and if he wins then that will hurt the delicate Senate ratio. One solution would be for Dodd to make his allegiance early, say he's resigning from the Senate, and then allow for Democrat to run in CT in '08.

Outside of the current candidates (and Dodd's the only one viable), the next question is: does Obama care if the VP is someone who had already endorsed Hillary? Almost all of the old guard has done so already. Will those dudes mind (I think not, because they probably signed up with her because they feared what would be her iron grip on their gonads that would come with her Inevitable Victory... they cheered on the insect overlords and may not have their hearts into it; and Obama seems to have the talent of turning enemies into friends, so maybe they'll go along with that).

So, if Obama can accept people who have endorsed Hillary, then Bayh would be a good guy. Maybe Vilsack, if Hillary hasn't already eaten his heart with fava beans and a nice chianti. Bob Kerrey was always in the back of my mind as a tough customer (Medal of Honor Navy SEAL), but his recent Obama smear tarred him as (1) a schmuck, (2) unfriendly to Obama, and (3) a fruit-loop.

Casting a wider net, I had thought someone like Sam Nunn would be good. But Nunn has established that he wants to be in the weirdo Bloomburgian third-party (the Everyone Else is Partisan But Not Us Because We're Otherwise Out of A Job Party) and only as the Presidential slot. So up his.

Someone suggested Bob Graham - former Governor and Senator from Florida. That sounds ideal - swing state, old time white guy - except that he was born in 1936 (72 years old?!) and that's just too old.

But swing state former Senators is a good start. What about Chuck Robb? Even though I'd have liked to see, on purely poetic grounds, a Dodd-Robb ticket, Robb is a former governor and Senator from Virginia who lost to George Allen in 2000. He'd be a great choice.

If Obama wants all of the above issues (white, senator etc) and also more moderate support, then maybe people from the Democratic Leadership Council, or the New Democrat Coalition, or my beloved Blue Dogs. True, there's almost complete overlap in the three groups, but that's fine for this.

The DLC (which brought us Bill Cliton, Al Gore, and Joe Lieberman - all winners in their elections), had Vilsack, Bayh, Nunn, and Robb (above) as leaders. Another DLC and NDC leader is John Breaux - a popular former Senator from Louisiana. I like Robb better.

Before I decide on Robb (and then send that suggestion to the bloggers I read), I'll check this handy list of currently alive former Democratic senators, which is divided up by state and gives the ages, how nice. I will see who is under 70:

• Whoa, Dale Bumpers is still alive! OK, not him, but kol ha-kavod to his doctors.
  
• There's Max Cleland (D-GA), but I met him in person and I wasn't so impressed. And he had only one term, not so good for the 'DC experience'
  
• Wyche Fowler (D-GA) - Rep. for 10 years, Senator for 1 term, then Clinton's ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Eh.
  
• Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL). Just kidding.
  
• Bill Bradley (D-NJ) - Now that's interesting. Born in '43. Hmm
  
• David Boren (D-OK) - Oklahoma, another Governor-Senator deal. I just don't believe a Democrat can win over a deep-red state no matter who the running mate is. The best VP picks, I believe, will be popular swing state guys.
  
• Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) - yeah, I know I said Democrats, but Chafee was pretty liberal, has recently changed his party affiliation to Independent, and that could really help a bipartisan push. And if Obama really wants to channel the Abraham Lincoln vibe, what a better way to remind people?
  
• Tom Daschle (D-SD) - see Braun above.
  
• Al Gore (D-TN) - ahem. Too bad. Did ya know, he's not even 60 yet?!

And that's it. Well, from my list above, the best choices would be:

1. Chris Dodd (current Senator, CT)
   
2. Evan Bayh (current Senator, IN)
   
3. Chuck Robb (former Senator, VA)
   
4. Bill Bradley (former Senator, NJ)
   
5. Lincoln Chafee (former Senator, RI)

That's it for now. I will send my list to appropriate time-wasters.

Glenn Greenwald Has a Good Point

Glenn Greenwald is not my favorite political commentator (a little too knee-jerk lefty, especially about Israel), but he's a meticulous reporter and hard to argue against when he marshals his facts. In a recent column, he brings up a good point about how the grudging respect the Right Wing has for Obama will quickly turn sour. Yeah, we've all been predicting it, but he brings a good proof (and something I've marvelled at as well): "Hatred is their [the Right Wing Crazies] fuel. Just look at the bottomless personal animus they managed to generate over an anemic, mundane, inoffensive figure like John Kerry. At their Convention, they waved signs with band-aids mocking his purple hearts while cheering on two combat-avoiders."

I dislike Kerry because he's everything I don't like about machine Democrats. But, the GOP whipped the country into a Kerry-bash frenzy that extended even until the '06 election (cf. "the botched joke").

Note, that I don't think the Kerry-Gore hatred that the GOP created will work against Obama in the same way, just as it failed against Bill Clinton. The two men are natural politicians and charismatic as can possibly be. But it does mean that the same hatred that worked to almost impeached Clinton will be the same hatred brought against Obama.

Except for one BIIIIG difference: the GOP used the hatred to take over Congress and that caused the impeachment. It would take multiple miracles for the GOP to regain the House in the next 2 election cycles.

Hence why I'm not worried about the 'swift-boating' vs. Obama. The man has charisma which equals to Teflon. And the GOP is out of Congress, so all they can do is fan the race-bating flames. And I just don't know how well that flies in 2008.

We're in a different world. The mainstreaming of black actors, black sports figures, and especially black music has made them less marginal figures than ever before. And since the GOP has been trying to attack the immigrants (read: Mexicans) for the past four years, that's made the black question more off the table.

And, it very well may be that the bald-faced tokenism of Condi Rice has also inured many of the younger voters as well.

Obama's Victory Speech

More about last night in a moment, but just a few thoughts about Obama:

1. I like hearing him talk. He's the first major candidate since who knows when who talks like an intelligent person. No more crackers (Jimmy, Bill, W), no more insensate wonks (Gore, Kerry), or just plain airheads (George HW Bush). He's a good speaker on just technical terms.

2. There's intelligence and substance in his words. He says things which should be cliches but he puts the real meaning into the words. And he knows what and why he's saying the words. It's a script, for sure, but in the manner of a preacher and teacher, not a politician. I have a lot of respect for that.

Hear his victory speech:

Just Not That One

Mormons have some pretty freaky religious ideas. It's possible that theology involves - and I'm not making this up - space aliens and that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, or that each person has the chance to be a god. These beliefs make Mormonism to be both freaky and idolatrous. Yet, because I am a Democrat, I don't care. I don't care if the president - or any elected official - is of one religion or no religion. Note, since Romney is a Republican and since Bush-Rove ensured that the GOP is dominated by the Christian Right, religion has become a litmus test for the GOP.

But, because I'm an equal-opportunity cynic, I must point out that while Democrats don't have a religious litmus test, we seem to have tests based on ethnicity. A black candidate - or a woman, or Latino - achieves a special protected status. Just as George W. Bush is venerated by the GOP because he's a born-again-Christian, Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson are accepted as Democratic standard bearers because of what they look like, and only because of what they look like.

I'm not proud of these litmus tests, on either side, but (as I said in the earlier post), I prefer the "Minority Cred" litmus test over "Soldier of Christ" litmus test.

But, as it's still early in the primary season, I'm glad I still have a choice. And both parties can play this game: it's called "Just Not That One." It goes like this: "I find nothing wrong with nominating/electing a [fill in the blank], but just not that one."

Examples: I have no problem with electing a woman president, just not that one (Hillary). I have no problem with elected a Mormon, just not that one (Romney).

The good thing about this game is that when we actually find a decent candidate who exemplifies the glorified group, then the support can be extra hearty. This, I believe, will be the strong wind in Obama's sails.

I now believe that a lot of Americans, at least 60%, would be happy to have a Black president. Happy. Even more happy with a Black president than a woman president, but there's that too. I think the majority of Americans - after being inured to strong prejudice over the past decades through the positive exposure to black Sports and Entertainment stars.

And now that we have a candidate who's not only talented, but extremely way-very-to-the-top talented, I think that people are ready to vote for a black president. For years, even liberals, could say "I have nothing wrong with a black president, just not that one (Jesse Jackson or, heaven help us, Al Sharpton). Even a run-of-the-mill hack politician wouldn't be able to rise over the 'not that one' hump. A black or woman candidate of the below average ability of Gore or Kerry, wouldn't get the votes.

And this brings us back to Hillary. Hillary is as talented as Gore or Kerry. But that's not enough to rise above 'not that one.' I don't need to vote for her just because she's a woman because, like Kerry, she sucks. I'll happily vote for a woman president... just not that one.

Electability

The problem is not that 'electability' is hard to determine. It's that the primary voters suck at it.

John Kerry was not electable, but people I know (including family members, I'm sorry to say) were convinced that while Kerry was horrible, he'd be 'electable' because he was acceptable to Independents. The fact is that Kerry - as I've said before - was a boring, effete, waffling, liberal from Massachusetts with actually little going for him besides heroism expressed 40 years earlier. If actual independents would have been asked in early 2004 if they would elect someone boring, callow and shallow, they would have said "NO"

Yet, instead of Bill Clinton in 92 & 96, the Democrats nominate gawky, irritating nerds. Here's the key to electablity, something I wrote a while ago (from my old blog, Sept 15 2004):

A conclusion I make from this [a collection of polls], as a die-hard Democrat, is that my fellow party-voters are a collection of fumbling chuckleheads. Back in the primaries they voted not for the candidate they wanted, but for somebody they thought “Swing Voters” would vote for. In general, as an anthropologist, I am reluctant to call a group of people, a culture, idiotic. Generally, a mass of people do something that is in their best interest. Not in this case.

I said it back then, too, Kerry is a poor candidate. He has the charisma of untanned leather. He makes Gore look like P Diddy. He also has gaping gaps in his trained moral reasoning. How could he support the Iraq war? I’m not talking about flippy-flops, and despite my [initial] support for the war (see my post on 9/11/03 for nuances) – if Kerry were any fashion of real deal he would have voted against the war. The comparisons to Vietnam are clear for a sidelines observer, for someone who ostensibly based his youth on ‘Nam-opposition, he should have been the first to vote against. He didn’t. He’s a weenie.

The Democrats primaried Kerry because of what they thought someone else would want. This is stupid because of a countervailing psychological rule: when in doubt choose real over potential. Put simply, the Democrats liked Edwards, but thought a Swinger will like Kerry better. Except that Edwards had inherent and established value while Kerry had potential value. Is it any surprise that people still like Edwards and nobody – even Democrats – like Kerry?

If I had a chance to talk to the Democratic leadership (alert me next time a pig flies) I’d tell ‘em straight out – the only way a Democrat wins is with charisma. That is it. Yet the party keeps nominating these policy robots (Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) as if the power of ideas will outweigh the natural human desire to look up to a leader.

Successful Democrats? All charismatic bastards. JFK, Clinton, LBJ, even Truman. A Republican doesn’t need charisma in America, despite the majority of the country’s population being democrats, the state-electoral college thang makes the states significant, and there are more Republican states. The GOP can run moral reprobates (Nixon, Bush II) and spineless crackers (Bush I) and win as long as the opposition is a standard Democrat weenie.

Both parties know these heuristics:
Evil GOP vs. Robot Dem, GOP wins
Weenie GOP vs. Robot Dem, GOP wins
Charisma, no matter whom, always wins.

1960: JFK v. Nixon – Charisma/evil
1964: LBJ v. Goldwater – Charisma
1968: Humphrey v. Nixon – evil/robot
1972: McGovern v. Nixon – evil/robot
1976: Carter v. Ford – the only exception which is manifest evil is hard to win
1980: Carter v. Reagan – doofus/Charisma
1984: Mondale v. Reagan – Charisma
1988: Dukakis v. Bush – possibly the worst election in my lifetime; gads what a waste
1992: Clinton v. Bush v. Alf – Charisma
1996: Clinton v. Dole v. Alf – Charisma
2000: Gore v. Bush v. Nader – don’t get me started on the election results

If the Democrats had only nominated any one of the candidates with charisma – this would have been no contest. E.g. if the ticket were flipped and you had Edwards as the candidate with Clark, Dean, or even Kerry as VP, then we'd be having red-terror alerts every day of the summer just for Bush to barely catch sight of the donkey's rear.

Back in 2004, I said that Kerry was annoying - just as annoying as Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore. And now we got the howler monkey in a pantsuit: Hillary.

Backpost finished 4/15/08, 1:57 PM. Why didn't I publish this at the time? The whole thing was written and just sitting there.

Why I Still Like Edwards

I'll get into a longer discussion of the Democratic field soon, but you readers know that I really don't like Hillary and I've been supporting Edwards as the next president since 2003. I'm not rabid behind him - I actually like Obama as a full package because he's the smartest and most thoughtful out there - but Edwards is the model of a modern major general, uh, president.

As 1964, 1976, 1992 showed, Democrats are equally able to be elected president as long as they come from the South and are White (with good hair).

But the reason why I'm still supporting Edwards in the coming primaries is because he has been first, and best, in a lot of issues I care about. He is the best about Labor, the class/economic inequality, about Israel, and about Health Care. And he got the right answer on these issues earlier than the others. The GOP hates him because they fear him - as I showed in an earlier post. The GOP would love for Hillary to be the nominee because she is defeatable.

The most recent Edwards "first" is that he is making the best, most effective attacks against Hillary.

It's always dangerous to be negative in the primaries because if you're unsuccessful in toppling the front-runner, then you've crippled your party's chance to win. If you're a small-timer and you launch against the big-guy (e.g. Jerry Brown vs. Clinton or Bradley vs. Gore) then it's folly to go negative.

However, despite the early numbers, we're not stuck with Hillary yet. If Edwards weakens her enough then either he or Obama could be our next president. So Edwards' attacks against Hillary are important. Let's see if it works.

Here's what Edwards put out today: