January 2008 Archives

by shep

Remember when Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey testified that he would resign if the president were to violate the Constitution?

Well, Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Bayh, Carper, Landrieu and Nelson, you’ve been punked again. That is, unless you intended to put the United States of America in the same company as Stalin’s Soviet Union, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

David freaking Brooks gets it:

Then, in the speech’s most striking passage, [Sen. Kennedy] set Bill Clinton afloat on the receding tide of memory.

“There was another time,” Kennedy said, “when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a New Frontier.” But, he continued, another former Democratic president, Harry Truman, said he should have patience. He said he lacked experience. John Kennedy replied: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do!”

The audience at American University roared.

It was mostly young people, and to them, the Clintons are as old as the Trumans were in 1960. And in the students’ rapture for Kennedy’s message, you began to see the folding over of generations, the service generation of John and Robert Kennedy united with the service generation of the One Campaign. The grandparents and children united against the parents.

It's hard to tell what the practical effect of Kennedy's endorsement will be. But I will say this: he is a leader and in times of fear, uncertainty and doubt, people turn to their leaders for clarity. And Kennedy stepped up and provided that yesterday.

It remains to be seen if it is too little, too late. It remains to be seen whether or not the race card will bring Obama down -- now or later, if he gets the nomination. Because, make no mistake, that is all the Clintons have left to move their constituency: race.

And race is a powerful mover. It excites the base whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. If you are a Republican, you have a fear that the white majority is being threatened by a black candidate for President. If you are a Democrat, you have a fear of something else: that "the black candidate" cannot win. But fear is fear and it does move voters.

Will voters see through it? They will if enough people call attention to it AND if there is a candidate who can inspire opposing emotions of hope and optiimism that we can move past the old prejudices and fears and on to something better and brighter. I'm for Obama because I think he is that candidate.

The respect for institutions that was prevalent during the early ’60s is prevalent with the young again today. The earnest industriousness that was common then is back today. The awareness that we are not self-made individualists, free to be you and me, but emerge as parts of networks, webs and communities; that awareness is back again today.

E Pluribus Unum, baby -- we're all in this thing together.

President Bartlet delivers his State of the Union message. The scene in the House antechamber (starts about 1:30 in) still makes my heart skip a beat. And of course the cold smash opening is a classic.

Prior to Bartlet's first SOTU speech, he briefs the Assistant Undersecretary of Mining who, according to custom, is the sole member of the cabinet to remain behind -- in case the US Capitol is destroyed in an attack.

by shep

The most salient feature of the Republican Movement is that it is authoritarian based. By that I mean that it is made up mostly of people who are animated by the compulsion to follow their leaders and defeat their enemies. Explicit proof of this fact, beside the well-established social science, can be found in the presidency of George W. Bush.

In six short years, we have watched Republicans abandon every so-called principle that supposedly motivated their political behavior prior to that time. While they practically pissed themselves at the sight of Janet Reno (of all people) and jack-booted UN thugs in black helicopters (of all things) they have enthusiastically defended the Bush/Cheney expansion of the police state, including secret government kidnapping, torture and indefinite detention of American citizens, secret electronic spying on Americans, and the near destruction of Habeas Corpus and other Bill of Rights protections.

In a single presidential term, they moved from shamelessly persecuting and impeaching a popular president for prevaricating about consensual oral sex in a (politically-driven) civil suit, all ostensibly in fervent support of the rule of law, to re-electing a president who’s vice president orchestrated a conspiracy to expose an entire clandestine operation working against weapons of mass destruction proliferation in the Middle East. This after deceiving the public into a disastrous war of aggression, occupation and nation-building, ostensible to thwart weapons of mass destruction proliferation in the Middle East. Speaking of which, this is the same Republican Party and George W. Bush that savaged the Clinton Administration for…wait for it…unnecessary aggression and nation building in Bosnia and Kosovo.

From “small government” and fiscal discipline fanatics, to supporting the most inefficient, spend-drunk, corrupt, government-expanding government in US history, under complete Republican rule. From denouncing “activist judges” to cheering a narrow conservative majority of the Supreme Court as it regularly ignored and corrupted the clear language of the US Constitution (starting, literally, before George Bush was even inaugurated). The “party of the military” that slandered a decorated war hero just to maintain their grip on power, the list goes on and on.

Which brings us to the salient difference with Democrats: Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats, value principles such a truth and justice more than they value winning. They are also crappy followers.

Which is a natural short-term disadvantage against an unprincipled adversary (the very crux of the human struggle: civilization against the more savage) so dishonest, divisive Atwater/Rovian politics may actually have some utility in the general campaign against the Republican candidate, if more cynically-minded Democrats (still talking to you Billary) choose to use them against Republicans. Independents, the folks who’s political choice is to choose neither of the only two governing parties, seem particularly susceptible to those backward, transparent appeals to blind dislike and even hatred (Passive-Aggressive, anyone?). But they have no use and no place in a Democratic primary and will continue to drag your candidacy and most certainly your legacy into the mud.

So keep it above board until the general. It will give you both your best shot at winning the nomination of your party. And if you don’t, you can always turn the Big Dog loose on the Republicans on behalf of candidate Obama. Some liberals might even secretly cheer you on, against their better nature, for the good of mankind. It’s a sad day for civilization.

OK, indulge me for a moment while I quote myself:

So my son (who's supporting Hillary) asks me: "At this point, what can Obama do to win this?"

I said, "Get Bill to campaign for him."

Well, we know Bill won't do it; so how about Teddy instead? This, after Obama trounces Clinton in South Carolina and Caroline Kennedy hands down her endorsement.

And for lagniappe, on Monday after Bush delivers his SOTU, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) will deliver the Democratic response -- and then, the next day, will announce her endorsement of Obama.

And then there's the (mischief-making?) rumor that Obama has promised Edwards the AG position in an Obama administration if Edwards endorses Barack now, not later.

Talk about momentum. Is it enough to put Obama in the lead? I have my doubts -- and I'm speaking as an Obama-Firster.

The reason is that the Clintons know how to move their constituency and playing the race card is one of their primary tactics -- but in a different way than a Republican might play it.

Hear me out:

When the Republican nominee plays the race card (and he will), it will be to generate fear, uncertainty and doubt about the future of the white majority. The Clintons can play the race card to generate fear as well. But the fear will be of a different kind: it will be the fear that "the black candidate" can't win the White House.

Whatever it is, fear moves voters.

Does it mean that the Clintons are racist? Of course not. Does it mean that the Clinton's base is racist? Nope. Does it mean that the Clintons know how to move their base? Oh, most definitely so. They are masters of the universe when it comes to that.

Fact is, the Clintons said precious little about Obama's race -- other than to call attention to it. It was the one thing that Obama did not want to talk about it, and the Clintons talked about it. Clumsily. Inartfully. Even offensively, although it was their proxies -- black and white -- who said the most vile stuff.

And the residue that was left over? Obama is now the "black candidate." Obama can only win in the "black states." Obama won't be president of ALL the United States. And, this weekend, Bill Clinton says Barack Obama is the new Jesse Jackson. Talk about fainting from damned praise.

I'll be blunt: this is far more benign that what the Republicans will roll out against Obama in the fall, should he get the nomination. And if Obama cannot turn it aside now, how's he going to handle it later?

As a voter who wants Obama to be the 44th POTUS, I worry about that.
========================

Regardless of which Democrat wins the nomination, the Republicans will play the race card. It's what they do.

Lee Atwater:

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N----r, n----r, n----r.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N----r, n----r.'

...and if you're wondering how the Republicans will play the race card on Hillary, start by googling "Charlie Rangel." Then "Harlem office of Bill Clinton." Or just "Harlem." That word alone lands an emotional punch on the Republican body politic. Combined with stories about Bill's wandering eye, the Republicans will go for broke if Hillary gets the nomination.

It's what they do.

By Mark Adams, Cross Posted at American Street

Hurray! We're all gonna get Paid!

Remember when your Dad or Grandpa (or perpetually drunk uncle you'd only see on holidays) would slip you a couple of bucks and tell you with a wink not to tell anyone where you got it -- and "Don't spend it all in one place," even though it really wasn't all that much to spread around? The stimulus package coming out of Washington is kinda like that.

Now that money really isn't much in a 13 Trillion dollar economy. $150 Billion is like a penny on the dollar in an economy this size. The stuff you grab at the checkout counter to make the correct change instead of digging through the fluff in your pocket. That's what Washington says will make all the difference.

As Shep points out, we got the money from the same place we have been right along, our Chinese loansharks. (That's why Dad told you not to mention it to Mom.) Up to our eyeballs in hock, we go to the same well one more time. Meanwhile, the biggest cause of our pockets holding not much more than fluff and a penny or two goes on and on and on.

We not only are putting our young men and women in harms way as targets in a perpetual occupation -- we're going to make their generation pay for both the war and my new iPhone. Awesome! A twofer!!

Krugman is predictably not happy, and for good reason. Republican ideology trumped good sense. The myth that these guys are fiscally responsible stewards of the economy simply means that the vast majority of Americans know nothing about politics or economics.

Of all tax and spending stimulus options that CBO examined, the only two that it found would have a large "bang-for-the-buck" as effective stimulus and act fast to boost the economy are the unemployment insurance and food stamp provisions. Both could start injecting more consumer purchasing power into the economy within one to two months. The planned tax rebate checks, in contrast, are not likely to be sent out until June.

***

The unemployment insurance and food stamp provisions apparently were rejected by House Republican leaders, who reportedly said that the inclusion of spending measures would be unacceptable to the House Republican Caucus and would derail the package. Such a stance reflects the elevation of ideology over sound economic reasoning.

Lemme get this straight. Pelosi et al. caved in to some conservative bluster because they threaten to obstruct the bill on ideological grounds -- and the Dem leadership agrees to their blackmail in fear of themselves being labeled obstructionist? As we see every day, the ruling coalition is not the Democratic Party, but the Blue Dogs Plus the GOP. The Republicans may be the party of fear, but we're represented (and I use the term loosely) by the party of wusses.

The Street Insider goes on to say, "Economy.com found that for each dollar spent on extended UI benefits, $1.64 in increased economic activity would be generated" and another $1.73 per doller spent on Food Stamps. But for a dollar in lost revenue handed over to the accelerated depreciation portion of the Stimulus Package (the business tax-cut), "only 27 cents" of boost would be realized.

Despite this evidence, the package apparently contains at least $50 billion in business tax cuts while excluding unemployment insurance - the single measure most focused on the people hardest hit by the downturn - and food stamps.

Oh, and the States would lose revenue too on items pegged to the federal and state tax codes -- and they don't get an offset.

Look, I know that any legislation made in haste is going to have problems. But even at a glance, this thing is Teh Suck!

But Oooh! Looook! Shiney!!!

Sorry uncle George. But I AM going to spend it all in one place.

by shep

Shorter bi-partisan wisdom from the leaders of the most powerful capitalist nation on earth: So we’ll borrow from the Chinese and give that money to individuals and businesses so they’ll buy more from the Chinese and they’ll lend us more money. Pass it on.

[Cross=posted on Dispassionate Liberal]

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

If Obama loses the nomination, here's the headline that foreshadowed his loss (paraphrasing NPR):

Bill Clinton chases voters throughout South Carolina; Obama sends Truth Squad after him.

In basketball this is called the pick and roll.

[BTW, if you're not a sports fan, skip this next section -- I explain it in simpler terms below.]

In the following example, Obama is the defender and Hillary is the ball-handler. Bill is the intruding teammate:

The play begins with a defender guarding a ballhandler. The ballhandler moves toward a teammate, who sets a "screen" (or "pick") by standing in the way of the defender, who is separated from the still-moving ballhandler. The defender is forced to choose between guarding the ballhandler or the intruding teammate. If the defender tries to guard the ballhandler, then the teammate can move toward the basket, sometimes by a foot pivot ("roll"), and is now open for a pass. If the defender chooses instead to guard the screening teammate, then the ballhandler has an open shot.

Clearly, this play only works if you have a first-string player, e.g., Bill Clinton, to send out on the floor.

If this sports analogy leaves you cold, never mind: it's a simple case of two-against-one. Who's Obama going to get -- Oprah? Not gonna happen. He's on his own. And what he said at the debate in SC may end up being the defining statement of his campaign: "I feel like I'm running against both Clintons."

No sh#t, Sherlock. And I say that as someone who has an Obama bumper sticker on my car.

[BTW, are you as surprised as I was that the Clintons have, in fact, NOT given up in SC? Apparently Obama was caught off-balance as well.]

At this point I would be shocked (but not surprised) if Hillary wins, the SC primary on Saturday. No matter. After that comes Florida and after that is Super Tuesday. Even if Obama wins in SC, he will probably not have the momentum he needs to run the table on Super Tuesday. He's leading in only a handful of states -- like Alabama and Georgia. Had he won Nevada, maybe. Had he won NH, more likely. But now? Not so much.

[Note: Obama's leads in Georgia and Alabama are another indicator that the Clinton's strategy worked: Obama is now the "black candidate," which is most definitely NOT what he set out to be.]

So my son (who's supporting Hillary) askes me: "At this point, what can Obama do to win this?"

I said, "Get Bill to campaign for him."

Now that's a flip answer, I realize. But barring any unforeseen catastrophes -- war, depression, a plane crash, dead prostitutes/live boys -- Obama has a pretty steep hill to climb, no pun intended.

P.S. I pity McCain or Romney or whoever is unlucky enough to get the Republican nomination.

Regardless of who the Republicans pick, their base is just not energized to vote in nearly the numbers that the Democrats are. The WSJ calls this "the intensity gap" and it may be the single most important fact about the 2008 Presidential election.

Of course, that could change if Hillary gets the nomination. But even then, history doesn't show us any instances where a candidate won because he was able to get people to vote against his opponent. In other words, "NOT-HILLARY" isn't a ballot choice. You either vote for your guy, the other guy, or you stay home.

If it was any different, then we'd be discussing the re-election of President Kerry right about now.

I haven't written too much about the Hillary v. Barack tussle recently because, to be blunt, I'm OK with either one getting the nomination. Yes, it's fascinating to watch how the Clintons have double teamed Barack; and it's too bad he doesn't have an open man to pass the ball to. And I'm in awe of the way that Bill has gotten inside Barack's head. Politics ain't beanbag (or basketball) and both Clintons know this in their bones. Barack, on the other hand, has got to figure this stuff out on the fly if he's going to win. And although winning isn't the only thing, it is the first thing that has to happen before he can do all the rest.

Now, from a philosophical point of view, I realize that Clinton and Obama represent very different choices. But regardless of how fundamentally different the two of them are, they both have qualities that would make either one of them a valuable addition to the ranks of "great Democratic presidents."

It was Edison who said that invention was "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." And although I'm sure Obama would beg to differ on the relative proportions of these two elements, I'd say Edison had a pretty good eye for politics as well as applied science.

Hillary is the 99% perspiration candidate. She's the operating officer who will make change happen by knowing how to manipulate the user interface. She is the operating officer that Obama admits he is not. Obama, on the other hand, is the 1% inspiration candidate. He will rely on his ability to motivate the average American to force change from the bottom up.

The ideal president can do both, but there haven't been too many of those in our lifetime. My short list of nominees would include JFK, LBJ, Reagan and Clinton. Some would suggest that JFK and LBJ were part of the same transformative movement. You could also make the case that Reagan was transformative but in the wrong direction. Lastly, you could say that Clinton was not transformative at all -- his changes were too small bore. But all of that is for another discussion.

For now, let's just say that Hillary and Obama (as well as Edwards) represent two different -- but worthwhile aspects that are necessary for presidential success. I'm fine with any of them.

After weeks of triple digit losses in the US stock market and after the overnight Asian markets tanked again, the Fed makes an "emergency rate cut" of a whopping (no irony, folks) 75 basis points.

Well, that's one way to prime the business pump; hope it doesn't spark another round of inflation. Another way to stimulate business would be to inject tens, or hundreds, of billions of dollars of "liquidity" into the market. That would definitely bring up the specter of inflation. Make existing tax cuts permanent? That's part of the problem, not part of the solution. Besides, even tax cut proponents admit it wouldn't help soon enough. Targeted tax rebates? "Experts" suggest that a stimulus of this kind should equal $145 billion or 1% of GDP to be effective. At best that equals $2000 per family of four. And it would probably be an advance on your tax refund, not cash out of the Federal Reserve. And it might spark more inflation. Lastly, wouldn't you just use it to pay off your credit card debt? Most people would, I suspect.

Bottom line: After 7 years of running the economy, after 7 years of supply side economics, after 7 years of the most business-friendly administration in several generations, after 7 years of tax cut after tax cut after tax cut, after a trillion dollars has been thrown down the rathole of the Iraq war, the Bushies have finally admitted they're out of ideas. Will the last one out of Fort Knox please turn the lights out?

I don't know about you, but I think it might be a good time to start getting paid in Euros.

Mardi Gras is early this year. It'll be here February 5 -- brrr, it's going to be cold. Here's a video I shot from my first Mardi Gras in 2005.

Laissez les bon temps roulez!

By now you've read that Clinton "out-polled" Obama 51-45 in Nevada; but would it surprise you to discover that Obama won more delegates to the convention than Clinton?

Chris Bowers:

I've learned two things today. First, the Democratic presidential nomination system is not particularly democratic, since the system of delegate selection is different than the concept of one person one vote.

Second, I have learned that the national media is not actually covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign. If the media was covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, then they would have projected Barack Obama as the winner of the Nevada caucuses, projected New Hampshire as a tie between Clinton and Obama, and declared that Clinton finished second in Iowa.

That is, after all, what actually happened in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, which is based on delegates, not popular votes from states.

Instead of covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, the media is instead covering who wins the popular vote of individual states. While what the media is covering is interesting and closer to the concept of one person, one vote, it isn't the Democratic presidential nomination campaign.

In fact, the 51-45 outcome doesn't represent the percentage of the actual vote; not sure that anyone knows what that is.

P.S. Oh yeah: Romney's win in Nevada is "less significant" than McCain's win in South Carolina, even though Romney won more delegates yesterday than McCain.

Is there a more natural politician on the planet than Bill Clinton? Dday paraphrases the Big Dog, stumping for Hillary:

Obama says we need to turn over a whole new leaf, we must begin again. He has explicitly argued that prior service is a disability in picking the next President. Hillary wants to put the country in the solutions business. We must come together by doing. The purpose of politics is to live your hopes and dreams by making changes in people’s lives. Vision and inspiration is important, but so is perspiration and delivery. The ultimate test of our service is who’s delivered for the American people.

It's a description of the Clinton Family brand and it's a pretty compelling argument for Hillary's election.

The Second Annual Baton Rouge Jewish Film Festival (of which Miss Julie and I are two of the co-chairs) opens tonight. We've got six great films and we're really excited about the response in the community; last night I heard that several of the shows are already sold out.

Here's one of the radio spots I recorded for the Festival.

Click below to visit the Festival website (I'm the webmaster).

In doing some interviews recently I was asked "Do you have to be Jewish to enjoy the films?"

The answer is, of course, "no." To me, the best films are those that help you understand something about yourself. The best films (regardless of who made them or what their content is) provide some insight and/or give some meaning to your life. Any film that does that is called "inspirational" and I believe all of these films are inspirational in that sense.

• The Rape of Europa tells the epic story of the systematic theft, deliberate destruction -- and miraculous recovery -- of Europe’s art treasures during the Third Reich and the Second World War.
• The Tribe weaves together archival footage, graphics, animation, Barbie dioramas, and slam poetry to shed light on what it means to be an American Jew in the 21st Century.
• Blues by the Beach started out as a documentary about Mike's Place, an international hangout in Tel Aviv that is a metaphor for the friendly side of Israel -- different from the customary images of terrorism and conflict. But before the film was complete, the story changed into one that presented a completely different metaphor, one about coping with daily life in the wake of violence.
• A Jumpin' Night in the Garden of Eden was the first film to document the klezmer revival, tracing the efforts of two founding groups, Kapelye and Boston's Klezmer Conservatory Band, to recover the lost history of klezmer music.
• Varian's War tells the story of Varian Fry an American who built an elaborate rescue network that managed (during World War II) to save some of the most influential cultural figures of our age, including Marc Chagall, Franz Werful, Alma Werful Mahler and many others.
• Secret Lives: Hidden Children is a documentary about the tens of thousands of Jewish children who were saved from almost certain death by an equally small number of non-Jewish neighbors, friends, or even -- in many cases -- total strangers. This film is being shown exclusively to Baton Rouge public middle-schoolers.

Anyway, that's what Miss Julie and I have been working on lately and we're excited that it's finally here.

So Richard Cohen has written an op-ed piece where he essentially calls Obama an angry black anti-Semite, except he does it like any proper concern troll would:

I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.

Fair enough. One would hope that Obama would be pretty forthright in speaking out, although I suspect that (up to now) it is a matter that would be pretty far down on his "to do" list. After all, it wasn't Obama who lauded Farrakhan, it was Obama's preacher. Or more specifically, Obama's preacher's magazine. Or more specifically, Obama's preacher's magazine which is run by Obama's preacher's daughters. And it wasn't last week or last year or even last decade. It was in 1982.

Got that?

So, to recap: Obama's preacher's daughter's magazine gave Farrakhan an award over 25 years ago last year and now Obama must explain whether or not he agrees with that award. Or, I presume, else.

Or, I presume, it will mean he is an angry black anti-Semite.

Fair enough. I'd be mildly interested in hearing Obama's take on that. After all, if he can't answer to the likes of Richard Cohen now, how's he going to fight Rudy Giuliani or John McCain or Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee when they play the race card this summer and fall? Because, make no mistake: they will, because that's what they do.

This is how the race card gets played: Obama is black. He represents an unknown quantity. Furthermore, Obama speaks about "change." Change is unsettling even when the candidate is a WASP. "Heavens! We can only imagine what it means when a black man says it." Unsettlement leads to fear. Fear leads to other emotions such as dislike and even hatred.

Bottom line: Negative emotions like these are what cause people to vote against a candidate.

So let's not kid ourselves as to what Cohen's piece is about. It isn't about Farrakhan or Rev. Wright. It's about fanning the flames of fear, uncertainty and doubt about a strong Democratic candidate for president who represents the kind of change that Cohen (and his readers) do not want.

And now a word about Cohen. This piece sheds more light on the kind of person Cohen is than the kind of person Obama is. Obama can never say that, of course, so I will. Cohen has seen fit to turn the valve on a tanker truck full of poison gas and let escape a toxic cloud into the political atmosphere. Ask yourself: what kind of person does that?

In a strange way, Cohen's diatribe has more in common with Farrakhan's modus operandi than anything you could possibly imagine coming from Barack Obama.

So, according to Cohen, Obama is an angry black anti-Semite until he proves otherwise. Now you can decry that kind of gamesmanship, but (as the Lake Superior State University English department would NOT like you to say) "it is what it is."

It's up to the rest of us to shine a light on the likes of Richard Cohen and expose what he's trying to do.

P.S. All those "present" votes that Cohen decries? Here's the real story:

The votes were actually part of a strategy developed by Planned Parenthood to stop Republican attacks on pro-choice candidates. “We had a very astute and devious Republican leader that we knew was using abortion votes as wedge issues, putting those votes into mailers to help defeat pro-choice Democrats,” Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood, told reporters on the call. “It was our strategy, Planned Parenthood’s, to decide that a “present” vote was the same thing as a “no” vote.” Then-State Senator Obama “was always ready to vote “no” on these bills but he understood how it important it was to help his fellow colleagues,” Sutherland continued. Obama “was key to the strategy… not only did Democrats follow suit, so did many Republicans. The strategy actually worked… very few of those bills actually made it into law.”

I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

UPDATE: Obama has released this statement this afternoon:

I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.

"There is no greater voice against Republican candidates than Republican Mitt Romney. If he loses Michigan, he may be done. So, Michigan Democrats, you can keep this circular firing squad of jerkos alive. Vote for Romney. They may call it underhanded, but it's time for Michigan's mitten to take off the gloves."

P.S. Just can't see voting Romney in '08? Pick a different Romney. For example, Romney from 1994: "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."

Or Romney in 2002: "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts and I support them."

Or Romney in 2006: "It is my pleasure to introduce my collaborator and friend, Senator Edward Kennedy."

Catch this guy on the right day and he's Che-frickin-Guevara.

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

It was a morning, not unlike this morning, at a stateside military base not unlike the ones you've seen on TV dozens of times.

Preparations were complete for a visit by the Commander in Chief, not unlike dozens of other visits he'd made during his tenure.

A large conference hall had been reserved and over 450 men were present. They were active duty personnel scheduled to be rotated soon to Iraq.

Some sat on the stage in front of a row of American flags and behind the lectern now decorated with the Presidential seal. Many more of the audience sat on plastic chairs in front of the stage, quietly talking. Scores more stood along the walls and in the aisles. In the back were pool reporters from all four major news networks.

Those personnel who had never met the president were excited. Perhaps they'd get to shake his hand and even say a few words to him. The excitement was palpable.

Presently, the band struck up Hail to the Chief. President Bush entered the hall and mounted the stage, not unlike the way he had dozens of times before. The men stood and cheered. The room was illuminated by a staccato of strobe lights. The applause died down and the men sat.

After some introductory remarks, George W. Bush delivered an upbeat message about the situation in Iraq.

"Iraq is now a different place from one year ago," he said. "Much hard work remains, but levels of violence are significantly reduced. The surge is working." The men applauded and cheered.

"Hope is returning to Baghdad, and hope is returning to towns and villages throughout the country." More cheering. But much work remains. And this is where you come in."

"It is with great sadness and reluctance that I must inform you that every one of you seated and standing here today will be dead before the end of this year."

There was a stunned silence. It was broken only by the noise of the motor-drives on the cameras. The sound was like hundreds of trapdoors opening and closing under the 450 men sitting in plastic chairs and standing in the aisles.

The president continued, now suddenly serious, in a soft, sing-song voice, glancing frequently at his notes, pronouncing every word carefully as though he were speaking to a classroom of first graders.

"Our wars have won for us every hour we live in freedom. But the cost has been dear. Our wars have always taken from us men like you -- " here he looked at them, then back at his notes -- "and today I want to honor your sacrifice.

"I want to recoginize, today, every hour of your lifetimes that you had hoped to live, but will not."

There was some murmurring in the audience.

"I speak for all Americans when I say our thoughts now turn to you, our fallen comardes in arms. In the coming months, we will think of each and every one of you with lasting gratitude."

More murmurring.

"We will miss you with lasting love. And we will pray for you. And we trust in the words of the Almighty God: 'I give unto them eternal life, that they shall never perish.'

"Thank you and God Bless America."

With that, the Commander in Chief turned and strode from the room, the TV cameras with their bright lights, following him. As they left, the room went dark.

by Mark Adams, (Cross-Posted at the Street)

Larry Sabato is a very smart man, having come closer than anyone I've seen in predicting the outcomes of recent elections. However I'm unclear when he made the switch from prognosticator to campaign adviser, offering this unsolicited advice to John Edwards:

Edwards can play a critical role, though. He shows every sign of continuing his campaign, which is certainly his right. But he may have the ability to determine the Democratic nomination by ending what will very likely be a losing campaign and endorsing either Obama or Clinton. (One assumes it would be Obama, given the antipathy that exists between Clinton and Edwards, but with politicians you never know anything for sure until they do it.) Usually candidates never withdraw until they run out of money or energy. Edwards may have sufficient quantities of both to last through February 5th, but he may discard his ability to play kingmaker if he waits that long. Maybe he doesn't mind: Most presidential candidates really don't care much who is President if it's not them.

I don't know about you, but I find that fairly insulting, both to the integrity of John Edwards and to my intelligence.

Actually writing publicly what I confided privately a month ago is not something I take lightly, but Sabato and the punditocracy is right to a point. Barring something catastrophic, John Edwards will not be the Democratic Parties nominee because everything hinged on Iowa.

Before Iowa, in the face of polling data that was less than inspiring, I knew that Edwards could not win without a 1st or very narrow 2nd place in Iowa. He needed to tie Obama not Clinton there and take that momentum into New Hampshire. Barring an outright win in Iowa where a 2nd place in NH would have been acceptable, he probably would have got the Culinary Union endorsement in Nevada, won NV, and improved his standing in South Carolina from respectable to inevitable.

Right now, Edwards doesn't even look viable in South Carolina. A good showing in South Carolina was the ticket to being competitive on Tsunami Tuesday, a locomotive that would steadily pick up steam and get enough free media attention to counter the gross domestic product of Micronesia that the other candidates will pour into the major US media markets in the months to come. All of that hinged on Iowa, the key domino in what was always an unlikely Quixotic journey.

We all knew that, and if we didn't do the math, knowing that Edwards practically lived in Iowa the last three years should have told us something pivotal would happen on caucus night. I know that's the reason I've learned more about the absurdity of the political dynamics of that little state than I ever wanted to.

Under the fold, I'll let you in on some of the math that bears this out, and why Larry Sabato's cynical statement is all wet. As long as he keeps going, Edwards can write his own ticket.

by Mark Adams
Cross Posted at American Street

Bartlet: (quoting) "By God, I'm 50, alive, and a king, all at the same time."
Toby: I turned it on just as they got to the scene when Richard, Geoffrey and John were locked in the dungeon, and Henry was coming down to execute them. Richard tells his brothers not to cower, but to take it like men. And Geoffrey says, "You fool. As if it matters how a man falls down." And Richard says, "When the fall is all that's left ..."
Bartlet: "...it matters a great deal."

The scene my favorite fictional president was remembering was from the Oscar winning A Lion In Winter, (1968), the story of Christmas 1182 with Henry II and a typical family get together -- everybody at each other's throats. A time when honor was held in the most high esteem, yet seldom achieved, yet the way great men and women left this world is still remembered centuries later.

A leader who knows how to fall won't just be remembered as a Richard, or a dick, but if he truly inspires, they call him Lionheart.

So the question arises what is the honorable thing for John Edwards to do now that his fall from the lofty heights of being a presidential candidate is all but certain? If you were his adviser, his Toby Zeigler knowing that the fall was all that was left, what would you tell this former Dauphin to ensure that the fall indeed mattered a great deal? How should he be remembered?

Is the honorable thing simply falling on his sword? Or should he fight on, resurrecting another memorable Peter O'Toole role, dream the Impossible Dream? Is it simply enough to have fought the unbeatable foe, trying to right the unrightable wrong -- then just walk away?

And the world, will be better than this,
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove with his last ounce of courage,
To reach the unreachable star.

And who knows? I'll share with you all the facts and calculations that "prove" it's next to impossible for even Barack Obama to get to the White House later today, let alone why anyone should still hold out hope John Edwards has any shot in hell of even being a kingmaker.

But for now, I'm thinking that John must slog on. Besides, as Elinor of Aquitain told her Husband, Henry, "In a world where carpenters get resurrected, everything is possible."

by shep

Notice to the Village Gassbags: from now on, every stupid, immature, self-absorbed attempt to choose our candidates or the winners, will work exactly backwards.

Yes I mean you, MoDo. It wasn’t Hill’s crying, it was the inane, childish, self-important crap from people like you that turned the tide.

Get it? People hate you and your manipulative shit worse than the politicians themselves and they will do and think the exact opposite of what you tell them.

Huckabee’s still in it. Mit and Rudy are toast. Edwards beat Hillary in Iowa and Hillary made you and the pollsters look like dopes in New Hampshire.

This is still a bad thing because, except to inform the public of the facts, simple-minded, emotionally crippled charlatans shouldn’t be affecting our elections at all. But it’s a big improvement over treating you as if you deserve to be believed.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

UPDATE: The Politico's Loud Mea Culpa.

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

I used to dissect frogs in high school. It was a dirty job, but we all had to do it get a decent grade in Biology. The smell of the formaldehyde was something that brought tears to my eyes. Even today, I can recall the squishy putrefaction of the frog body as we cut into it.

I was reminded of that when I read Karl Rove's op-ed today on "Why Hillary Won."

In brief, Rove (whose candidate got smoked in the 2000 NH Primary) says "Clinton won the beer drinkers, Mr. Obama the white wine crowd. And there are more beer drinkers than wine swillers in the Democratic Party."

Really. I seem to remember the exact opposite being true in 2004 -- back then, Kerry's crowd was swilling white wine on Martha's Vineyard during breaks windsurfing.

What. Ever.

He goes on to list four other reasons why Hillary triumphed. I put on my rubber gloves and goggles, steeled myself against the putrid smell and cut into this dead amphibian, so you wouldn't have to:

1. She targeted female Democrats
"It didn't work in Iowa, but it did in Iowa." That's...it? That's what passes for brilliant insight from Svengali?

2. She had "two powerful personal moments"
One was the jokey "that hurts my feelings," the other was the "powerful and warm" response to the woman in Portsmouth. He faults Obama for being "dismissive" ("you're likable enough") and engaging in juvenile "trash-talking." Does that sound like the Obama you know? I didn't think so.

3. The Clintons drew attention to Obama's "failure of leadership"
And, yes, this is where he says "Obama is often lazy." Joe Biden got nothin on Karl Rove!

4. Obama is "a vitamin starved Adlai Stevenson"
Anyone who heard Obama's victory speech in Iowa or his concession speech in NH knows how inspirational a speaker (and observer) Obama has become. He has far surpassed anyone in either party for his ability to emotionally engage his audience in ways that haven't been seen since the days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy.

So, to be blunt, Rove is talking out of his ass.

Oh, he admits Obama is "eloquent and moving" (something I don't recall ever reading about Stevenson) but also "light as air."

Well.

Coming after McCain's plodding performance I'll take light as air every time. If it's Obama v. McCain, Johnny Mac better watch out -- Obama will eat his lunch.

Rove admits that Obama "found his voice" at the Jeff-Jack Dinner in Iowa but "rather than sharpen and build on this message of contrast and change, Mr. Obama chose soaring rhetoric and inspirational rallies."

This, coming from a guy whose candidate couldn't utter 15 words in public without smirking and winking like a moron.

He admonishes Obama for using a prompter in the Iowa and NH speeches. Talk about a process story. Ask anyone who attended (or heard) those speeches. You think they'll care (or even remember) the presence of a teleprompter? Of course not.

Rove includes an analysis about which markets to buy ad time in for Super Tuesday. Interesting, but...enh.

Rove concludes with this pearl of wisdom: "At the end of Super Tuesday, it won't be just who won the most states, but who has the most delegates."

No shit, Sherlock.

Dang.

This is why I try so hard (yet fail so often) to not predict the outcome of political campaigns.

So, let's recap. Hillary Clinton wins this year's "Comeback Kid Award," doing something the original Comeback Kid never did: win the New Hampshire primary. Barack Obama gets the culinary workers union endorsement in Nevada, which I'm told "ensures his victory" in the caucuses there. In Michigan, Hillary is looking pretty smart now for leaving her name -- virtually unopposed -- on the ballot, so she'll get some positive press after her win there --and they'll count those delegates even if the DNC doesn't. And South Carolina? Wait and see. Same for Florida. And as for Super-duper Tuesday, it might as well take place in a galaxy far, far away.

[UPDATE: Cynics will point out that this is two elections in a row where the Clinton team was shocked by the results -- not exactly inspiring confidence in whoever is running that campaign.]

In other news:

John Edwards, who slammed Hillary for crying (and then blew off the question as to whether he himself had ever cried in a campaign setting) must feel kind of ... silly this morning. He'll be reading stories about how women voted for Hillary out of sympathy and solidarity, as evidenced by numbers showing that one-third of voters had not decided on their choice until the final three days of the campaign.

In other words, look for plenty of stories about how Edwards got trumped by the gender card ... again. Paging Rick Lazio!

[Actually, and in all fairness to Edwards, Clinton's win may have owed much more to the wave of Independent voters who voted for McCain and not Obama. Similarly, how'd the youth vote do -- did they turn out for Obama this time? I haven't seen any final results on that.]

Would it have killed John McCain to read his victory speech off a teleprompter? I got tired of looking at the top of his head while he read his dreadful victory speech word-for-word in that inconguous sing-song voice last night.

Mitt Romney: If you get a chance, watch any video of Romney's speech last night. Actually, watch Ann Romney, who was standing behind and to Mitt's left. When he says, "Well, we won another silver medal," Ann Romney briefly touches the side of her nose. In poker parlance, this is called "the tell." In other words, she's tired of hearing about the damn silver medals already and probably told him that when all the volunteers and campaign officials finally left them alone. Bet you a nickel!

Mike Huckabee: Anything is possible for him at this point.

Rudy Ghouliani: The traditional media has dubbed him the "real winner" last night, apparently because all his opponents are in disarray. That might be, but at some point the dude has to put some points on the board. That said, he did beat Ron Paul.

UPDATE: Fred Thompson: Yes, he got smoked by Dennis Kucinich AND Ron Paul.

by shep

Hi Mark,

On the News Hour New Hampshire Extravaganza, I thought your answer on Hillary’s "comeback" was brilliant (also a nice point on the "is blowing 20-point lead a great victory" question). At least, I agreed with it: roughly, female sympathy and backlash at the treatment Hillary has received from the press and her rivals over that last few days (why it wasn’t reflected even in late polling) turned the female vote out for her big time.

Wish I could say the same for your answer on McCain: “the anti-Bush”. Other than finally turning on Rumsfeld, and an all-too-tepid resistance to US sanctioned torture, he’s barely been off his knees before Bush since 2000.

I think the real Republican story is that rank-and-file Republicans, particularly Evangelicals, simply reject Romney (the Mormon) and Gulianni (the philandering New Yorker) and are choosing one of their own in Huckabee. Regardless of their automaton-like fealty to the Republican Party, they have been trained to despise (any) government (pretty shrewd of Huck to play the populist) and to do (and believe) what their preachers tell them.

Oh, and the (conspicuously unspoken) story with Edwards is that the corporate media ignored, marginalized or outright ridiculed him – because, obviously, they hate his anti-corporate, populist rhetoric – so his message never reached the voters who would be energized by it. Others simply bought into the media-framed “no chance against the frontrunners” status (breathtaking chutzpa considering that he came in second in Iowa).

IMHO, for what it's worth.

Best,
[shep]

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

No. 2 LSU made OSU see double last night, gaining its second BCS title and sending OSU home winless from the championship game for the second consecutive year. The game really wasn't as close as the score shows (and the score wasn't that close either). LSU quarterback Matt Flynn threw four touchdowns and OSU committed multiple penalties. The Tigers became the first two-loss team to win the AP and BCS championship.

So Mark has to put Mike the Tiger in his masthead for a week. Better than shaving your head, eh old friend?

P.S. Oh yeah -- they're holding a primary election in New Hampshire today, or something.

Chris Matthews goes after Hillary Clinton and gets her just where she wants him.

You have to see this to believe it:

• Hillary sheds a tear on the trail, gets blasted by Edwards. Not good for either one of them -- too late for Clinton, too harsh for Edwards, although it may be a moot point for either one.
• Newsweek puts Obama on the cover. Most revealing part of the story? The narrative relating to Michelle Obama. This article is the first of many to come. We're all about to get to know her a lot better as we should -- far more important than a candidate's pick of a running mate is his/her pick of a life-mate.
• Joe Trippi says the Clinton campaign is broke. Hunh. On the other hand, if Joe Trippi is so smart why isn't Howard Dean president?
• Bob Shrum says he knows why Clinton is losing. Hunh. On the other hand, if Bob Shrum is so smart ... oh never mind.
• Who cares what dick Morris says? He's just vile. And Bill Kristol is a wanker.
• Hello, Walter Mondale! Hillary asks "where's the beef?" Brilliant -- she just locked up Minnesota.

...and, I might add, he's right on schedule. What a pantload:

I think it's worth imagining a certain scenario. Imagine the Democrats do rally around Obama. Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he's the nominee -- and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged. I can imagine the fear of this social unraveling actually aiding Obama enormously in 2008...Obama has a rendezvous with destiny, or so we will be told. And if he's denied it, teeth shall be gnashed, clothes rent and prices paid. [emphasis added]

Fear, uncertainty, doubt. That's all Republicans have left. No inspiration, no future, no policies, no hope. Since the days of Lee Atwater and Ronald Reagan, they've built their electoral dominance on racial politics and they'll continue to do it during this campaign because that's what they do:

You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N----r, n----r, n----r.' By 1968 you can't say 'n----r' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N----r, n----r.'

So don't kid yourself: Jonah Goldberg is just taking a page out of the old Republican playbook because that's what they do.

I'm no English major, but I know poetry when I hear it. And the first two sentences of Obama's victory speech in Iowa last night had a cadence that, when Obama delivered them, took my breath away.

"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high."

For once, a victorious politician does not overestimate his success: like Obama says, this really is "a defining moment in our nation's history."

How significant is Obama's victory? David Brooks, of all people, said it best this morning:

You’d have to have a heart of stone not to feel moved by this...This is a huge moment. It’s one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance...

Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity — the primordial themes of the American experience.

Unity through diversity. As you can tell from this blog's very title, this is a theme that has always resonated within me. And when Obama first talked about how his own family background informed his world view, I knew he was someone I could support. I really don't think that it's too much to say that Obama's very DNA makes him a walking positive ad for the American Dream. Marshall McLuhan used to say that the medium is the message. With Obama, the messenger is the message.

And what is his message?

He talks about erasing old categories like red and blue (and implicitly, black and white) and replacing them with new categories, of which the most important are new and old. He seems at first more preoccupied with changing thinking than changing legislation.

Race is the shifting tectonic plate on which American politics -- and American history -- is built. That said, Obama's candidacy offers hope that we might be moving toward a brighter future, one with more hopeful possibilities.

by Mark Adams Cross-Posted at American Street

When my 15 year old daughter said Barack Obama's Iowa victory speech sounded like Martin Luther King Jr., it's safe to say he played the MLK card in an obvious way. She never saw the Reverend except for what she reads in history books and sound bytes of the "I have a dream" speech. She's not a political junkie like her dad. So I'm safe in assuming that I wasn't just hearing echoes in my mind's eye.

Was he reading of a teleprompter? Sure. Did a hired speechwriter compose it? Of course. Did it sell, was it memorable, delivered impeccably, did it create a seminal moment in American politics? You bet. For the first time in our history an African-American outright won a presidential nomination contest. We should all be proud that we've finally arrived at a time and place where this is possible, especially in a state that is 92% white.

The man is an orator without peer. He pulled off that cadence reserved for the pulpit better than anyone I've seen. Not even the Reverends Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton could have pulled it off better, and certainly lack the subtle nuances a Chicago accent has in smoothing out the southern origins of the style. Say what you want, but I for one am more than comfortable to watch BHO strap on MLK's shoes; but he's walking down his own path.

Obama beat Hillary by 9 points. Even with grumbles of backroom deals with Richardson's people, that's huge. Edwards doubled his 2004 numbers just to keep the same percentage and keep pace with the massive influx of new voters Obama attracted.

The Iowa caucus is frickin' weird anyway, and it's unreasonable that so few people can influence so much. This version was flukier than most, earlier than ever, colder than shit, and hyped to the max. The actual difference in delegates who go to Denver as a result of this caucus leaves Hillary with one less and Obama with one more than Edwards, that's all it really means.

But what it REALLY means is Obama takes a much needed bump in the polls going into New Hampshire, and can count on even more ungodly sums of cash pouring in from contributors.

What it REALLY means is that Hillary goes into the next contest perceived as a loser, with a demoralized entourage furiously spinning the collapse of her inevitability as something they never took for granted.

What it REALLY means is that all of us long time Edwards supporters who thought we owned Iowa just six months ago have to regroup and hang on, recognize that we were always up against incredible odds, hope our hero pulls a rabbit out of his hat, stays in play, and keeps moving the goal posts to the left. Getting outspent 6 to 1 killed off all the other contenders, so there's still some gold left in the message.

It truly is a three-way race now, and Richardson's only role is spoiler and probably drops out by South Carolina. I'm looking forward to the debate I've been wanting since summer, between just the three top contenders where Edwards can truly stand out as the professional arguer he really is and Hillary's machine and Obama's oratory skills won't upstage the man with all the plans.

9 points. Damn.

Good luck John. You've got your work cut out for you.

But what the Iowa caucus goers have shown us is that if you're willing to have a little backbone, to have the courage to speak for the middle class, to speak for those who have no voice, and if you're willing to stand up to corporate greed, then that message and the American people are unstoppable, no matter how much money is spent to prevent that message from getting out. -- John Edwards.

by Mark Adams
Cross Posted at The American Street where I'll be every Friday, and where I usually rant.

I watched Huckabee on Leno Wednesday night, and can tell you why he outperformed expectations in the Iowa caucus. If this guy manages to do the impossible, buck the GOP moneyed elite and withstand the onslaught of the entrenched conservative noise machine led by Limbaugh and Hannity, get outspent 25 to one, and still win the Republican nomination -- we're fucked.

He can take Edwards' populist message to a more authentic level with one story about his wife and him living in a double-wide trailer, and call out the same corporate lobbyists on their crap without the fighting words all the Broderites tell us liberals will always doom our cause.

He's soft-spoken, natural, and speaks of unity and ending our divides between right and left (moving up, vertically instead of horizontally) in a way captures the essence of Obama's recurrent uniter theme without sounding like a college professor, but a father-confessor.

And he not only was born in Hope, Arkansas, but was raised there, lived there most of his life -- unlike Hillary's hubby whose family moved to Hot Springs when Bubba was seven. And the dude can jam, but wisely forgoes the Blues Brothers' shades when he straps on his guitar. And while he embodies the "everyman" qualities Bill Clinton personified, he lacks that calculated guile Hillary Clinton oozes, which is both her strongest quality and her perpetual curse. (It's great that she has it, lousy that we know about it.)

Yep, Huckabee is stupid, dangerously so, but doesn't come off that way. He doesn't know squat about foreign policy and claims he didn't think he was crossing any picket lines by appearing on the Leno show. He's got a seriously flawed tax scheme, is one dumb joke short of being a gay basher, and is willing to hold up major disaster relief legislation because he doesn't think his boss should be blamed for Acts of God.

However, you never see him hesitate as he talks. He avoids those annoying vocal segregates you use when thinking of what you're going to say next (“aah”, “um” “uh-huh”) that even a crisp litigator slips into -- like John Edwards does habitually which makes him sound hesitant and uncertain when he interjects the word, "aahhnd" every other sentence. I guess this is where the communication degree balances my political science studies.

Style does matter. It sucks, but it's true. Wearing a goofy helmet or baby-blue bunny smock leaves an impression, even more so in a YouTube world. Speaking style, a graceful natural intonation has taken Barack Obama far indeed, which makes the substance of his message resonate in a way that Hillary tries, but fails, because it always seems like she's trying and not just doing. She needs to learn to just ... be. Barack does that, so does Huckabee. Edwards could if he wasn't trying to cover up a stutter.

Most of what any speaker communicates is non-verbal, and leaves an inarticulable impression on the listener/viewer. Often this impression is completely wrong, as people who stutter learn to use these vocal segregate devices as a way to control an even worse delivery -- yet they sometimes sound like they are trying to convince themselves as well as you. It's what got me through my college speech and debate team competitions as a former stutterer, so I know. It's the lessor of two evils.

You gotta dress the part too, look like a president, which Mitt Romney has spent about eight million bucks doing from the looks of him. Giuliani is running a campaign strictly on some tough-guy cred. He has to, the guy walks and talks like a thug. That's all he's got. The days when John McCain and Fred Thompson could pull off the illusion of inspirational leader have passed them by. Think Ronald Reagan in his second term, without an entourage of image-consultants to keep them looking the part.

Huckabee doesn't give the great, inspirational sermons Obama can crank out, but he can engage in conversation and not just parrot talking points, string two sentences together and make sense, tell a joke that gets laughs and not just a wince and nod, and comes across (as he says) more like the guy you work with than the one who laid you off. Already that makes him more than qualified for the position than the current resident, even after seven years of on-the-job training.

The more I learn about Mike Huckabee and what he stands for, the more I don't like him -- that he would be a disastrously impossible follow-up to the current fiasco. He stands for crackpot solutions to the very real problems his party has created. The more I see and hear him however, the more I know we're in for yet another fight for our lives come next fall if he's the GOP nominee.

He comes across "genuine." A genuine "what" is irrelevant, at least to the likes of Russert, Blitzer, Scarborough and Chris Matthews. The professional courtiers known as the Washington Press Corps live for those moments they can find a rich, unbelievably ambitious, narcissistic empty suit and tell us "He's one of you!"

You see, those of us who quest for information have a desire to learn. But there are more people who value action over knowledge, impressions over information, and are unconsciously more moved by style over substance in our American culture. The proof of this is that someone as utterly incompetent as George W. Bush got to the point where he is (thankfully) term limited, having fooled the voters enough to even make it close enough to steal, twice.

Mike Huckabee has a natural, comfortable ability to deliver more bad ideas than Bush ever dreamed.

The intrade.com prediction market has pegged the outcome of the Iowa caucuses for the Republicans (click the image for a larger view):

...and the Democrats (click the image for a larger view):

Intrade contracts trade between 0 and 100 so you can think of the price at any time to be the percentage probability of that event occurring. If the Obama Iowa caucus contract is trading at 61, it means that traders gave him a 61% chance of winning the caucus. Holders of those contracts will make a 39 cent profit per share if that happens.

On the other hand, if Edwards' Iowa caucus contract is trading at 16, it means that traders gave him a 16% chance of winning the caucus. And/But holders of those contracts will make a 84 cent profit per share if that happens.

UPDATE: First it was Kucinich throwing his support behind Obama in Iowa; now there are rumors that Richardson and Biden want their supporters to do the same if they cannot reach the magic 15% threshhold of viability.

by Mark Adams

I've always had a nagging question about one of the most glaring canards involving our occupation in Iraq, and now John Edwards forces that question into the presidential debate. (H.T. Atrios)

Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who is waging a populist campaign for the Democratic nomination, said that extending the American training effort in Iraq into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to provide logistical support and protect the advisers.

“To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq,” he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.

In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.

Not to get too hung up on the original mendacity that got us into the war (lest I be accused of being the boy who cried Wolfowitz), but why do these folks need this much training, by us, and paid for with our blood. You could get a bachelors degree in criminology in the time it's taken to "train" the Iraqi security forces.

Before we took over, Iraq was a nation-state with a fully functioning security apparatus and one of the largest land armies in the world -- where everyone and his brother-in-law has their own AK-47 and knows how to use it.

So what exactly is this mysterious "training" we've been doing for the last five years, and just who hasn't been doing their homework so we can dismiss the class?

If they need experts in the craft of busting heads and keeping the rabble in line, I'm sure our State Department would hook them up with the nice men at Blackwater or KBR. Of course that might mean they'd have to do something so repulsive to their neoconservative overlords it would be tantamount to heresy -- tax something or someone, or nationalize the oil industry so they could pay for their own "training."

Make no mistake about it, we're not "training" anyone. We're sorting. We're finding out who can't stand American domination of their country and who can tolerate it; who can be bought, for how much and for how long.

In neocon reality-world (hadn't you heard, they create their own), the idea "Give me liberty or give me death" was a quaint sentiment of a bygone era. They theorize this new form of patriotism here when they say you can't enjoy liberty "if you're dead," and practice it there where a militant terrorist extremist can become a loyal member of the coalition of the willing for 300 bucks a month. (One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter, and yet another man with deeper pockets' hired thug.)

Anything short of getting up, walking away from the table and asking for the check is mere jingoistic chest-thumping. We're done there, have been for a while. Let Exxon and Halliburton hire their own cannon fodder to guard their oil fields and bring our kids home.

Rosemary is highlighting her favorite two dozen comedians with an extensive series of YouTube clips. In the meantime, I thought I'd pass along Shtick!: Comedy and the Jews a mini-documentary about (wait for it) Jews in comedy.

With two days to go, pick any poll you like -- your candidate is winning (or "winning"). Or has momentum. Or will ascend to the heavens on a magic beanstalk. Or whatever.

The Des Moines Register, previously thought to be the most trusted and reliable Iowa poll, shows all the top tier Dem candidates bunched together with Obama in the lead. Suddenly, the other candidates are pointing out that the poll doesn't matter because it's all about momentum and turnout..or poll methodology...or historical averages...or trends in all the OTHER polls (which show Clinton in the lead).

Meanwhile, Edwards supporters are setting the bar pretty high, claiming their candidate will prevail on Thursday because, well, he just will. You gotta believe! Seriously, is that the best strategy -- setting the bar so high? Where do you go if you come in second? Shy of placing first, I guess Edwards has to beat Clinton. If he can do that, he has a shot against Obama. Otherwise -- get a taller beanstalk!

The sooner the sniping stops between all the candidates, the better. I know that's how you run a campaign, and it's juicy, and exciting, and cathartic, but the differences are so minor between them that it's annoying to see and hear them blown up into major fights. I know, I know -- all of them have raised so much money for the primaries that you can barely spend it without trashing your primary opponents. But I just don't care for it. It gives the traditional news media (already inclined to favor the Republicans) more ammunition against the Dems in the general.

by shep

This is the second of two announcements in as many days from “US Officials” about how they supplied intelligence to Benazir Bhutto (small wonder she was killed) about threats to her life. In this one they helpfully add their professional judgment that, “key suggestions appear to have gone unheeded.”

"We gave them a steady stream of intelligence," one official said.

"it's up to (the recipient) how they want to take action."

Translation: “It ain’t Musharraf’s fault (even if he ordered the hit), that bitch might as well shot herself.”

Much like the ridiculous official Pakistani (re) statements describing the cause of Bhutto’s death, US propaganda has become so transparently mendacious that its only effect is to further diminish the propagandists. One wonders whether the current collaboration of administration fascists and Pakistani thugs can accomplish anything but more hell on earth.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]