The Sunday Morning Read

Here is what is happening in the world:

Frank Rich on the differences between Obama and Hillary, especially in relation to the Kennedys, Iraq, and John McCain.

George Will on the economy, foreign investors, and the American people.

Gallup Polls show Hillary Rising after the debate in California and Edwards leaving the race.

If the election were held today: Poll Data on the 2008 Presidential election.

Maureen Dowd on the fairy-tale, love-fest between Obama and Clinton. There will be no "dream team."

Peggy Noonan on the unconventional nature of the 2008 elections. This one is very interesting.

Anticipating Tom Petty's Super Bowl Performance

While Harrogate isn't much interested in the outcome of the actual game, he is excited about the discussions to come about the commercials, as well as what will likely be a wonderful halftime performance by Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers.

From the link, true words:

The group is still going strong after releasing its debut album back in 1976 and has sold more than 50 million records. And the band members took this occasion to announce they will tour the United States and Canada in the upcoming months.

Both to celebrate the upcoming festivities, and to continue his efforts to at least partially escape the Rhetorical Gravity of Primary Season 2008, Harrogate offers this charming rendition of one of his all time favorite songs, "Walls." Note especially Petty's effortless rapport with the crowd.

Down Syndrome Suicide Bomber

The election day bombing in Iraq this week appears to have been committed by a young woman with Down Syndrome, possibly a child. Here's one of many online articles about this. I'm not sure what to say about this yet, other than that I'm mortified, and I feel like it deserves a more thoughtful comment. I'm going to think about it and post more sometime this weekend. In the meantime, any thoughts?

The Dems' LA Debate: Harrogate Responds with Measured Enthusiasm

Well, Harrogate watched the debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the only time these two were the only participants, and the last debate before Super Tuesday.

Now, as a rule Harrogate has grown somewhat tired of the debates as well as the stump speeches. The repetitiveness of it all is enough to make one wish for a hole in the head. For example, how many more times must we be subjected to Romney's little "they haven't" routine every time he gives a speech?

Yet there was much to recommend tonight's Democratic debate. Harrogate was struck several times thinking, these may not be the candidates one most prefers, but these are absolutely candidates one can live with. The moral and intellectual superiority to the GOP is palpable--indeed, both Clinton and Obama showed tonight that, unlike Kerry in 2004, neither of them will try to hide their thoughtfulness and moral apprehension.

Harrogate also agrees with Jeralyn over at Talk Left that this may have been Obama's finest performance at a debate yet. Obama's oratory skill and his much-celebrated imaginative scope were on full display here, and throughout it was made abundantly clear that the man has no problem taking it to the GOP for their practical and moral failings.

And, it's funny Jeralyn linked the video of Clinton's devastating line about the Mormon's "private sector" rhetoric, which we have all had plenty of opportunity to grow sick of by now. Verily, as soon as Clinton let it fly, Harrogate thought to hisself, this right here is one of the strongest moments of the campaign. If Romney gets the nomination, either Clinton or Obama need to pepper him with this every time there is a microphone anywhere in the vicinity.

Go here to see the awesome clip.

The Literary Endorsement

Which endorsement is more important: Maya Angelou's "State Package for Hillary Clinton" or Toni Morrison's "Letter of Endorsement"?

How often do prolific literary authors engage in overt politics? I know of Robert Frost with JFK, and Angelou and Morrison's past with former President Clinton... anyone else?

Apology to Britney Spears

Britney Spears is back in the hospital. I, like millions of Americans, have read about this online and seen it on the cable networks; even major news sources are selling (I mean, telling) the story. Today, I even--and I'm now mortified by this--went to TMZ to read about it. (I'm specifically not linking to TMZ today because it makes me feel dirty.)

So I'd like to apologize to Britney. In taking part in a culture of celebrity obsession, I have promoted the existence of the magnifying glass that has, if not caused, then at the very least worsened, her sickness. I don't always have sympathy for celebrities who complain of the lack of privacy. But this woman is very, very ill. Gawking at her downward spiral is like making fun of someone with cancer.

I'm not one for New Year's resolutions, but here's one a month late: I will no longer read TMZ or any of it's incarnations online. I will only participate in star culture when it is in the forum of fashion and the red carpet, which is an arena in which celebrities willingly take part.

I'm sorry, Britney. Really, I am.

Campaign Finance Reports

Campaign Finance Reports are due today for the Presidential Election.

The Barack Obama Campaign raised $32 Million during the month of January. The raised the most amount of money the day after the New Hampshire Primary. Also, the campaign attracted 170,000 new donors and has 650,000 in total. (To note how significant this is, Howard Dean raised $51 million for his entire campaign in 2004). This means that the Obama camp has replenished from what it spent on advertising for February 5th and the campaign is advertising in all 22 states.

Rudy "America's Mayor" Giuliani raised 14.2 between October and December of 2007.

Kate says it better. . .

For weeks now I've been trying to articulate my feelings about the democratic presidential candidates, largely for myself, but like my friend Kate at ak8, a cat, a mission, I've been asked who am I voting for? I want to direct everyone to Kate's thoughtful response to this question; she says it much better than I think I could have.

I do, however, want to add that if I had to vote today I am still unsure who I would vote for. I fully admit that the posts I have made here suggest that I would vote for Hillary Clinton, but I really don't know. A big part of me wants someone new in the White House. I don't think it will be advantageous to our country to establish a Clinton-Bush Dynasty. We've experienced 4 years under George H.W. Bush, 8 under Bill Clinton, and 8 under George W. Bush. If Hillary Clinton is elected (and possibly reelected), does that mean that we have to endure another Bush in the White House? I'd really like to move away from dynastic politics and encourage growth in Washington. That said, I like the idea of Hillary Clinton as president for many, many reasons (which I'm not going to go into here). I also find Barack Obama compelling for a number of reasons. In an ideal world I'd love to see an Obama/Clinton ticket (or vice versa). I really think their blend of experience and different views would be beneficial to the country. Unlike my fellow bloggers Solon and Harrogate, I tend to believe the ideal could really happen, but then sadly, I am generally disappointed. . .

Hillary, Obama, and Constitutional Order

Jeffrey Tulis, author of Rhetorical Presidency, has an interesting post at Balkinization that suggest the race between Hillary and Obama is a race between competing interpretations of Constitutional Order or competing characterizations of our political institutions. The competing visions:

"In Obama’s vision, presidential success is not measured by how many detailed policy proposals he can ram through Congress. Rather, his vision sets a new standard, that presidential success will be measured by an improved functioning of the government as a whole. In this vision, the details of policy are not as important as the principles that guide policy. In this vision, it is less important to secure ones preferred version of a bill than it is to mobilize Congress to solve the problem for which the legislation was designed.

"In contrast, all recent presidents, and especially Senator Clinton, understand the President as the chief legislator, as the person and the place where legislation is made. She seems incensed that anyone not as technically skilled as she in legislative craftsmanship would think they are as qualified for election to the presidency. Obama understands that although the president needs to be very knowledgeable about public policy, to demonstrate that knowledge, and even, as president, to offer legislative proposals to the Congress – he has an instinctive sense that his job is to lead, not to legislate."

The Democratic Debate

Tonight, the Democratic debate will feature just Barack and Hillary as the third wheel finally went flat. This is both good and bad for the candidates:

(1) There will be no team debates without John: Barack cannot team up against Hillary, and Hillary, Barack. Is this good or bad? Hillary scored some points with voters in New Hampshire when it appeared that all of the other candidates were against her. (This has not worked for Mitt Romney though-- even though all of the Republican candidates are against him he is quite the unsympathetic figure.)

(2) There should be very little "fireworks" at tonights debate. It may be a bland love-fest. Barack cannot be aggressive against in case he were to lose political points. Hillary cannot look vindictive and must look in more control than she did in South Carolina.

(3) Wolf Blizter will need to drum up some controversy by interjecting the "Snub" and "Billary," maybe even the bridge to the past, which is not an ad personam but a perfectly valid argument in order to turn-the-tables on the opponent. These topics may not persuade new voters but just reinforce the supporters (as Debates typically do).

(4)I am not sure what the "ghost of John Edwards" will do to this race, other than raise the pandering level. Demographically, his supporters seem as if they would support Hillary. However, Edwards was not a fan of the Clintons (as they are not a fan of him) and there is a reason his supporters supported him rather than Hillary. Because of interests, they may go to Obama or Nader. Both Clinton and Obama will attempt to pander to the Edwards crowd but the two most important questions may be: who will win the crowd over (Barack and Hillary) and who will Edwards endorse (but if that even matters is an entirely different subject).

My take:
Hillary: She attempts to incite Barack to get him off his message of hope. She plays the experience card over and over and over and over and over, no matter how misleading, and attempts to make this debate out to be her versus George W. Bush. Overall: She seems "nice" during the debate but is not too emotional. Further, she works on maintaining her perfect posture and avoids any unflattering positions whereby she looks as if she wants to hit Barack over the head with a frying pan. She reminds the audience this is about George W. Bush, you know, the president that no longer receives any press, even after delivering a State of the Union Address. This strategy would have worked in 2004 but where was she then?

Obama: avoids confrontation as he attempts for humor instead. He counters experience by mentioning Iraq. He says "hope" and "change" 2.3 times per minute (average count). Overall: He also attempts to work on reducing the number of verbal pauses and avoids placing his fingers over his mouth as if he would rather be outside smoking, like he did during the state of the union. He attempts to kill Clinton with kindness and, at the same time, bashes her and her supporters (e.g. Now) for disliking intellectual diversity, reminding the audience that she would be like George W. Bush, and former President Clinton, and former President H.W. Bush, and former President John Adams, and John Quincy Adams, former President Grover Cleveland, and former President James Buchanan, and former President Rutherford B. Hayes. No one in the audience knows anything about any of them except G.W. and Clinton. He then reminds his audience he was the editor at the Harvard Law Review.

The audience: loses interest within 15 minutes when no fireworks occur. They spend the rest of the debate mocking Mitt Romney and Wolf Blitzer and wondering why the candidates are not having a conversation in front of Air Force One like the Republicans did. Overall: They puzzle over whether or not the polls are correct as to whether or not Hillary can beat McCain but opt for another glass of wine or beer before reaching a conclusion on the matter.

Rest of the world: Extremely puzzled over how the Democrats will lose the general election in 2008 and wonder if it could be possible that the Republican nominee may be the anti-torture nominee.

Any thoughts? What advice would you give the candidates?

Waterboarding: A Saturday Night Experiment

From the Wall Street Journal: Three Twenty-Somethings see for themselves if waterboarding is torture.

The Endorsement Race: When Belvis Endorses

In the heels of the Kennedy endorsement of Obama and, more importantly, the Scarlett Johanssen endorsement of Obama...wait...let me think:

Ted, Patrick, and Caroline endorsed Barack while Robert F. Kennedy endorsed Hillary Clinton. For the Republicans, Guiliani and Arnie endorsed McCain while space aliens endorse Ron Paul.

While these are all well and good, they mean nothing. Here are the endorsements that matter:
Mike Huckabee: Walker, Texas Ranger
John McCain: Rambo, America's Mayor, The Last Action Hero (or The Terminator)
Hillary Clinton: Belvis, Maya Angelou, Diane Keaton, Jack Nicholson.
Barack Obama: Hulk Hogan, Kumar (yes, from Harold and Kumar go to White Castle), Toni Morrison, Robert DeNiro, Scarlett Johanssen, The Grateful Dead, Susan Surandon, Maria Shriver, Chris Rock, Dave Matthews.

We have now reached the absurd when Hulk Hogan and Belvis endorse and the media reports the endorsements and then I report it here.

Clinton and the Bridge to the Past

The Obama campaign is beginning to try and set Bill Clinton off before Super Tuesday. Yesterday, in Denver, Obama mentioned that we had two George Bushed as presidents and would it be wise to "Build A Bridge to the Past." This refers back to the 1996 Presidential Campaign when, at the Republican Convention, Bob Dole argued that we needed to build a bridge to the past to restore America's traditional values. At the Democratic Convention, Clinton pounced on this to argue what we needed was a bridge to the future. It was a very good line for Clinton then and Obama wants to use it against him. Here is the excerpt from the speech, that the media is showing:

"I know it is tempting, after another President named George Bush, this is our second one now, And so I know it is tempting to simply turn back the clock to look backwards and try to build a bridge back to the 20th century."

The speech itself is about how, "The story of America leads west. It is a story of ideals that know no boundaries." Of course, the Hillary loving media just wants to expose the conflict and not message of the entire speech.

The current Clinton campaign stated it was not a very hopeful message.

Coincidently, in today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof raises the "Dynasty" issue:

We Americans snicker patronizingly as “democratic” Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Singapore, India and Argentina hand over power to a wife or child of a former leader. Yet I can’t find any example of even the most rinky-dink “democracy” confining power continuously for seven terms over 28 years to four people from two families. (And that’s not counting George H.W. Bush’s eight years as vice president.)...

A tongue-in-cheek Web site called Bush-Clinton Forever is already proposing Jeb Bush in 2017, Chelsea Clinton in 2025, Jeb Bush’s son George P. Bush in 2033, Chelsea Clinton’s husband in 2041 and George W. Bush’s daughter Jenna Bush from 2049-2057.

The Ron Paul Moment

As the Republican race winds down, I will miss the Ron Paul moment of the debates. While John McCain had a Clinton moment in the debate (and the campaign) by lying about something Romney said, forcing McCain and Romney to spend over ten minutes on a pointless debate over "timetables", CNN's Anderson Cooper asked Ron Paul to comment. And here is his response, showing he is the only Republican candidate that has read the constitution.

Forget what I said...

If I were the New York Post. Today, the Post un-endorsed Hillary Clinton and endorsed Barack Obama.

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers' "The Last DJ": Lyrics that Deserve to be Taken Seriously

The title track from one of their best records, circa 2002. Harrogate has often maitained that these guys get extra kudos for, instead of resting on their "classic rock" laurels, actually improving over time.

This song here has been on Harrogate's mind much lately. Some of it is just due to what a badass song it is. Some because the song touches upon that meme that never tires: that the "human voice" is being elided by converging forces of technology, convenience, and profit share.

And certainly the lyrics transcend radio and pop music. As major media outlets continue to consolidate into a small elite ownership, ideological diversity is getting harder and harder to come by on the radio and on television.

A sad song. Yea, perhaps even an angry song. Harrogate's favorite line: "all the boys upstairs want to see/ How much you’ll pay for what you used to get for free."

But then, there's a triumph to the song as well. An ironic assertion that, despite the "last dj" monicker, there won't really be a "last human voice" until there is a last human.

Well you can’t turn him into a company man
You can’t turn him into a whore
And the boys upstairs just don’t understand anymore
Well the top brass don’t like him talking so much
And he won’t play what they say to play
And he don’t want to change what don’t need to change

And there goes the last DJ
Who plays what he wants to play
And says what he wants to say
Hey, hey, hey
And there goes your freedom of choice
There goes the last human voice
There goes the last DJ


Well some folks say they’re gonna hang him so high
Because you just can’t do what he did
There’s some things you just can’t put in the minds of those kids
As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to see
How much you’ll pay for what you used to get for free


And there goes the last DJ
Who plays what he wants to play
And says what he wants to say
Hey, hey, hey
And there goes your freedom of choice
There goes the last human voice
And there goes the last DJ

(Instrumental break)

Well he got him a station down in Mexico
And sometimes it will kinda come in
And I’ll bust a move and remember how it was back then


There goes the last DJ
Who plays what he wants to play
And says what he wants to say
Hey, hey, hey
And there goes your freedom of choice
There goes the last human voice
And there goes the last DJ

Very Cool

I think the Australian government has just done a very cool thing. Perhaps it is time that our government follow Australia's lead and offer a similar apology to Native Americans and African Americans. I think the rhetoric of the Australian government is key, as well. I don't see any benefit in assigning guilt or blame to people alive in 2008, but I do think there is a lot of merit in recognizing the wrongs of history and how those wrongs have resulted in institutional racism.

And then there were two....

Senator Edwards will announce at 1pm EST from New Orleans that he will no longer be a candidate for the presidency.

The questions: Who will he endorse? Who will his supporters vote for?

And, after the last debate, there was talk of a "shared moment" between Clinton and Edwards.... Speculation, as Edwards drops out right before the CNN debate on Thursday.

One more point: This news is a buzz killer for Hillary. Though Hillary "won" Florida, it is no longer the story at CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, and Fox News.... interesting....

Update: From Joe Klein in an article at CNN:

An aide said Edwards does not plan to endorse either Clinton or Obama at this time but he may do so in the future.

"The cynics will say that with Edwards out of the race, a lot of the white working-class people who voted for him will now vote for Hillary Clinton; they'll see it in racial terms," said Time magazine journalist Joe Klein. "On the other hand, you could just as easily say that with Edwards out of the race, those people who are more interested in change who were part of his constituency, will go vote for Obama."

He added, "I don't think he endorses Hillary Clinton. The question is whether or not he endorses Barack Obama."

Klein contends that Clinton "represents a lot of the things that [Edwards] campaigned against, you know, the old Washington Democratic establishment that he believes got too close to the corporations in the '90s."

Edwards had campaigned on the message that he was standing up for the little guy, the people who are not traditionally given a voice in Washington, and that he would do more to fight special interests.

Goodbye, Rudolph Giuliani, You Officious, Sanctimonious Demagogue

Speaking of Florida, one thing that we all kinda knew, but we can now be sure of: Rudy Giuliani shall not be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States a year from now.

Yea, in a political season offering much to turn the stomach, this is as a beam of light.

Go here to witness what promises to be the opening movement of a multi-thread wailing and gnashing of teeth courtesy of the fascists over at Little Green Footballs, bewailing the fall of their wire-tapping, torture-happy, 9/11exploiting, war mongering, mandatory minimum sentence loving champion.

Voting Errors in Florida

Shocked! So Shocked! I am Shocked! I Am Very Shocked!

The Miami Herald reports about the troubles.

In related news, or maybe unrelated, or maybe related-- we do not know how the Clintons won... but the Clintons won Florida.

Voters who voted early supported the Clintons. Voters who voted closer to the deadline voted for Obama.

Speaking of Ads with Good Music...

...which wasn't really the criteria for consideration in the previous post, but is unarguable, nevertheless.

Has anyone seen the new ad for the Macbook Air?



Not only do I completely covet the laptop, which is rare for me--I think I'm think I'm the only Mac person in America who really didn't care about the iPhone-- but I'm in love with the song, "New Soul," by Yael Naïm. Not as immediately addictive as Mac's use of Feist, but it really sneaks up on you.

Liberty Mutual and Cause and Effect

Ever notice how the Liberty Mutual make no sense. How can the first act of kindness lead to the next act of kindness, which eventually leads to the last act of kindness, which leads to the first act of kindness. So the first act, leads to the second, third, fourth, fifth, etc., all the way back to the first?

Does this involve time-travel at all?

Is anyone really surprised?

I'm always a bit annoyed when the results of studies examining the "lingering" affects of sexism are released. One such study, on Title IX, has just been released. I do think these studies are important and keep the general public aware that yes, sexism and gender discrimination continue to exist in our country. But my immediate reaction is always, "Well, yeah. Didn't everyone know that?"

And of course the answer is, no, everyone didn't know that. Or at the very least, most Americans seem to believe that gender discrimination is a non-issue. I am continually amazed that people, especially the young women that I teach, believe that sexism no longer exists. I have been repeatedly surprised and angered by the lack of attention given the issue of gender discrimination in the current presidential campaign. The racist ways that Barack Obama has been treated (often by his fellow candidates) has received a fair amount of attention, and deservedly so. But those who recognize this overt racism seem less willing to acknowledge the sexism that is also pervading the campaign. Certainly Hillary Clinton has called attention to her gender (as Obama has called attention to his race), and there are those who would argue that by playing the gender card herself she should be prepared to be criticized for playing it. But, thus far, no one is saying that Obama should be prepared to be criticized for playing the race card.

It is a fact in this country that sexism has always taken a back seat to racism, and again, perhaps justifiably so. Historically, victims of racism has suffered much more than victims of sexism, but both minorities and women have suffered tremendously, and both continue to suffer. Further, racism and sexism know no boundaries, and many women are victims of both. But few people are surprised to be told that racism is still an issue in this country, but everywhere I go I meet people who tell me, "Sexism doesn't exist anymore." Why is that?

Visual Rhetoric

This is a dramatic photo: what is the argument? And how much does the lack of context alter the meaning of the photo? (I say this because we have no idea what occurred right before the photo was taken.)

The headline at Talk Left is that Obama Snubbed Clinton at SOTU.

Morning Joe has been discussing it but they are not providing a serious reading.

An Obama spokesperson stated the because of the awkwardness of the day and the endorsement, he backed away to allow Clinton and Kennedy to "talk" without hovering over them.

Tuesday: Great Moments in Superbowl Advertising

In 2007, the NFL launched its SuperFan campaign. This contest allowed fans to pitch a commercial to NFL execs and the winning person would be allowed to develop the commercial for the SuperBowl.

Here is the winning commercial, "Hard to Say Goodbye." There are two clips to wacth. The first is the "invention" of the ad or the pitch. And the second is the "praxis" or the ad itself.

Full disclosure here: I did go to high school with the winner, Gino. My sister knew him and was friends with him but I did not know him very well.

Random Musings about the State of the Union

I only watched a few minutes, bet here are some observations on what they must have been thinking:

President Bush: His metaphors were beyond banal. His delivery was good. He must have been thinking about his next job: Commissioner of MLB when Selig retires.

Congress:
Republicans- please, do not talk about immigration.
Democrats: Talk about whatever you'd like; your days are numbered. Please, mention immigration once again.

Cheney & Pelosi:
I don't know who looked less interested, the VP or the Speaker. Cheney was most likely thinking when he would break the news that the 2008 elections would be canceled. Pelosi, the aesthetics of an all-female team behind the podium.

The Supreme Court Justices:
As they listen to the policy proposals, do they sit there and think: constitutional, constitutional, unconstitutional, constitutional, unconstitutional...

I think Justice Alito has a crush on #43. After the speech, when Bush was shaking hands, Alito, out of the corner of his eye, watched the president move about the room . As the president approached, he attempted to remain focused by looking down. Once the president approached, he laugh like a giddy school girl and became smitten with him. Once the president moved on to the next Justice, Alito stared longingly at the person that gave him life tenure on the Court. It was just an endearing moment.

Also, do you think they ever tire of hearing, "We need justices that stay within the bounds of the constitution" or "We need justice that read the letter of the law." It must be a shot to their credibility that a man who has never read the constitution, or at least does not understand the meaning of the constitution, to lecture on the constitution. I think it was last year when President Bush read the line of "judicial activists" and then winked at Justice Souter. Yes, the camera caught that non-verbal which undermined his argument.

Oh well, farewell to #43 and his banal exercises in public speaking.

In Honor of Superbowl Week:

From YouTube: The Ten Best Commercials from the 2007 Superbowl. I did not see most of them that night because of the birth of my daughter.

"Just admit it Ted..."

The NY Chapter of NOW chastised Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. from what I can tell, it is not a hoax. Here is the letter (via Slate and Politico):

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

“This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.

This election is getting quite interesting as the political becomes personal.

To Honor Harrogate: The Meaning of "Dude," Dude

A few days ago, Harrogate posted on the brilliance of the "Dude" spot by Bud. It seems that Slate ruthlessly plagiarized his work. Thumbs up to Harrogate for his prophecy; thumbs down to Slate for not given due credit.

A Little Perspective

I'm not usually one to wax nostalgic about living in the U.S. In fact, I generally complain more about the state of our country than I praise it. That said, I'd like everyone at The Rhetorical Situation (especially in light of the recent/continual discussions of the upcoming presidential elections) and all of our faithful readers to take a minute to be glad that we live where we do. After all, we are permitted in this country to express our dissent with the government; yes, we may suffer some repercussions, but those repercussions do not include being bludgeoned to death with machetes. If the candidate whom we do not support gets elected, we have the right to protest and to complain, but we do go on with our lives, even when the candidate of choice gets elected in a questionable way.

Then, I'd like everyone to ponder this question: why do we, as a country, continue to involve ourselves in the affairs of the Middle East and continue to ignore the horrors taking place in Africa? Consider this headline: "One Month After Vote, Kenyan Toll Reaches 800." This is a topic I'd like to see all the candidates address.

Beware the Unity Schtick: Reason # 16,869

Lately a lot of people have been comparing Obama's current run to Bill Clinton's in 1992. At the same time, most of these same people, in the media anyway, have been firing away at the actual Clintons with both barrels. There are exceptions to Obama's media darling ride, though.

Here, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman takes a look at the comparison between what Obama is saying about Unity now, and what Bill Clinton ran on in 1992.

But more importantly, Krugman does a great job interrogating the promise of Unification in the first place--That is, the illusory idea of a man who, on the basis of his passion, intellect, and sheer coolness shall get us beyond the "old divides."

The column rocks. Harrogate's favorite part:

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.

For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it’s worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

Notice the substantive difference, BTW, between what Krugman describes, when he points out that the "bitter partisanship wasn't a result of anything the Clintons did," and the political discourse we have seen since 2000.

Despite the idiotic monicker "BDS" propogated first throughout Talk Radio Land and then Cable News and now, sadly, increasingly, into the popular lexicon, all without the slightest actual referent in reality:

Yea, contary to the myth of "BDS," disgust with the Republican Party and its Hallowed Spokesman has been the result of neither more nor less than their policies.

Pat Forde's Piece on Rick Majerus

ESPN Writer Pat Forde has an interesting piece on the developing story about Rick Majerus and his expression of support for abortion rights at a Hillary Clinton rally.

One reason Harrogate has been following this story is that, as a lifelong sports fan, Harrogate has always been disappointed by the Social and Economic Conservatism freighting American sports culture. There are exceptions, like Dean Smith and Carlos DelGado, but on the whole the pattern has been pretty fixed for a long time. Same is true with sportswriting and sportscasting, again with exceptions.

One the whole Harrogate likes Forde's piece very much. It would have been nice had Forde ceded that ersatz social and economic Conservatism freights American sport, but hey, let's not be greedy.

Here's some good stuff:

Difference of opinion -- and the thoughtful discussion of those opinions -- is supposed to be part and parcel of a university community. Even at a university with a religious affiliation. A campus with only one school of thought and one slice of the American demographic sounds like a pretty dull place.

We know Tiger Woods believes in Nike and Michael Jordan believes in Hanes and Peyton Manning believes in Gatorade, but we sure don't know how they vote or how they feel about societal issues. Same with the vast majority of the coaches who have become the stars of college basketball, pockets lined with shoe money and other endorsements. With Majerus, we know.

With all his beliefs laid on the table in a deeply Catholic city, he will accept whatever response this controversy generates. He said he understands why the SLU president, Father Lawrence Biondi, cannot make a public show of support for him -- but he also does not expect any condemnation from the university.

And the Majerus quotes aint bad either. For example:

"I believe in ending the war. I believe in gun control. I believe in stem-cell [research]. I believe in pro-choice. I respect that women need to make the decisions that are right for them, and I think it's wrong for people to speculate what they would do in a gut-wrenching, agonizing situation."

You tell 'em, Rick.

"New Obama Rules"

Big Tent Democrat over at TalkLeft has posted a compelling thread today in which he discusses the Media's overt hostility to Hillary Clinton, as well as the new Obama rules that have emerged over the course of this Democratic primary.

Some snippets:

Regarding the Media coverage of this primary season it now seems clear that there is a new rule that objectivity and appearances thereof are out the window. Certainly at NBC this is true. From the far right commentators like Joe Scarborough to the liberal newscaster Keith Olbermann and Establishment columnists like Eugene Robinson and Margaret Carlson any pretense of not openly rooting against the Clintons has now been discarded. NBC's performance last night was unlike any other I have seen outside of Fox News. Olbermann, who likes to trash Fox, properly in my view, should pause for a moment and consider how much his broadcast last night resembled Fox.

[New Rule #]4. Obama's attacks are always fair and merited. Any suggestion otherwise is, at the least, vaguely racist.

Can we get these rules enforced in the Media in a General Election? Let's hope so if Obama is the nominee.

As for those of us who have been trying to push Obama to be more of an explicit partisan Dem well we can give that up now. He does not even have to give that concern a second thought. Obama can not be criticized period now. We must operate on faith now. I am putting to an end my own critiques of his political style as I have ended my push to have Congress end the Iraq Debacle. I know when I have been licked.

If Obama is the nominee, the Clintons will NOT be able to help him in the General Election. Not because they would not want to help or that Obama would want their help, but because the Media will not ALLOW them to help Obama.

But perhaps the Media can pick up the slack. Let's get these new Obama rules enforced for the General Election.

Harrogate embraces both the spirit and substance of BTD's remarks. And again, like BTD, Harrogate promises to hold his nose and get on board with Obama's political humpty dance should he win the nomination.

The Voice of the People in Florida & Michigan

On Florida, both Republicans and Democrats will vote in the state's primary. Yet, the vote will only count for Republicans. The same held true for the primary in Michigan.

In an attempt to give voice to the smaller states, as well as minority candidates (blacks in South Carolina and blacks and Hispanics in Nevada), the Democratic Party ruled that no primaries or caucuses, except the primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, could be held before February 5th.

Florida and Michigan, two very important swing states, especially if Romney wins the Republican nomination, moved their primaries to a date before February 5th. In response, the Democratic Party stripped the states of their delegates and candidates agreed not to campaign in those states.

Recently the candidates (Clinton and Obama) broke their compact and decided to advertise in Florida to gain some "votes" before the Tuesday primary. Hillary Clinton will win the vote but not the delegates, as she did in Michigan. (In Michigan, neither Obama nor Edwards were on the ballot. Hillary won with 55% of the vote; however, uncommitted received 40%).

Clinton will challenge legally the DNC's decision to strip the states' delegates to ensure she receives those delegates. While this will certainly violate principles of fairness, that does not matter to all involved.

yet, if the lawsuit is not successful and if the Democratic campaign goes to the convention without a nominee, which it may depending on how Super Tuesday plays out, then the question is what will happen to those delegates at the convention? Will they vote in accordance to the vote during the primary? Or will they assign the votes to who they choose then?

An interesting stat from South Carolina

In the South Carolina primaries, both Republican and Democratic, Barack Obama beat the combined vote totals of McCain and Huckabee.

Could the South be in play for the Democrats?

JFK, Revisited

In the New York Times tomorrow, Caroline Kennedy presents an op-ed in which she endorses Barack Obama. Yeah, yeah, I'm a Barack supporter, so I'm posting this. But that's not the only reason. It's a well-written piece that aptly negotiates the intersection of the personal and the political. Kennedy writes of her father--in fact, the editorial is titled, "A President Like My Father"--of her children, of her hopes for the country.

The timing of this publication is crucial. Following a primary that focused intensely on race, Obama did well in all voting blocks except white women. Kennedy's writing seems particularly geared toward her own identity group. Will it add to Obama's campaign?

Divergent Paths.... $3.01....

To continue a discussion started by Harrogate and developed by MegsG-H, here is my response.

The focus of Harrogate's argument is that winning matters and ending the GOP reign is the most important issue in 2008. Yet, this is not the issue; this is not the debate.

The issue for 2008 is ethos. This debate is about the ethical characterization of the US political system. While there is little choice on the Republican side, there is real choice on the Democratic side.

As I have discussed before, there are numerous signs that a Clinton nomination for the Democrats would mean that the same tactics that were used before, would be used again. I would argue that a Clinton nomination would mean not only the continuation of the Clinton Administration, but the Bush Administration as well. The signs are there: employing rendition, dividing the base by putting factions against one another, attacking candidates based on race, relying on dishonesty,the dominance of interest groups, etc.

To forgive these because they might disrupt the "endgame" of a victory would miss the point of this election entirely. To focus on winning is to miss the forest for the trees.

Hillary Clinton may win the nomination against Obama or not. She may win a general election or not. However, if she were to win, political life would not change. A victory may allow for some to feel vindication; however, after a few months, it would feel like the alcoholic at the bar asking for one last drink, night after night.

A early evening distraction...

Talk about having a bad day....


From Andrew Sullivan

So Now What?

While I disagree with the wise Harrogate on several issues, I think the more salient point to raise in response is, "What now?" Only a few weeks ago, I, like many Democrats, felt confidence in both--actually, all three--candidates. When Obama took Iowa and Clinton won New Hampshire, it felt like good, clean democratic debate. I supported one (actually, I had recently moved from one to the other), but the other was looking like a great second choice and I would be happy to support either/or in a general election. Now, I feel VERY strongly about my candidate and the opposition makes me feel a tiny bit dirty. People feel like this on both sides of the Clinton/Obama divide.

I've read a little about a joint ticket, but that seems unlikely. In what tangible ways will the party unite for a general election?

Shall We Continue Down This Road?

When the Mormon said he couldn't imagine Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do, it got heavy applause from the GOP audience and Chris Matthew made sure it ran again and again on that bastion of liberalism, MSNBC.

All this talk, both from the GOP and increasingly from those supporting Obama, about Bill Clinton's Presidency and its failures, about Bill Clinton "coming unhinged" or "injecting race into the primary discourse," the open willingness to invoke Clinton's affair as though it matters in the wake of all this death, in the wake of Wolfowitz running the World Bank and the American Economy falling ever more squarely into the grip of an elite cadre of individual interests, in the wake of FEMA. The nepotism, the abject incompetence, the deliberate immolation of government institutions from the inside: the fact, O Readers, that "American torture" is now a term in the common lexicon. None of where we are is Bush specific. It is the GOP platform at work.

If one is okay with the things Harrogate has listed (only a tiny sampling from the GOP fare, Harrogate might add), then Harrogate could see why one wouldn't think it important for GOP rule to end.

Shall we continue down this road is the key question that the 2008 Presidential election ought to revolve around.

The case against Obama

One of the writers at Open Left presented a case against Obama. In sum, politics now is about the culture war and Obama would lose the war because he doesn't understand it. Here is an excerpt (and note, the article does not present a case for Hillary or he she would be successful in fighting the culture war or how it could be won):

The commonsense meaning of "culture war" over the past few decades is a war over social mores between hierarchical "traditional values" and the post-1950s emergence of egalitarian values, especially with respect to race and gender, more closely aligned with the traditional values at the core of our Constitution.

But there's a deeper meaning, which is clearly understood by rightwing culture warriors, and virtually unknown to everyone else. This meaning comes, ironically, from a leading Marxist theorist, the highly independent Italian leader, Antonio Gramsci, who described culture war as a struggle for ideological control of the broad range of institutions in society. And in this deeper sense, Obama's analysis is completely upside-down--the problem is not that both sides are equally to blame, but that only the right is actually fighting a coordinated culture war as Gramsci defined it. It's not a case of bringing a knife to a gunfight, it's a case of brining a plastic yogurt spoon to a nuclear war.

Fake Plastic Surgery II

One interpretation of the "Reverse Plastic Surgery" follows: Hillary is a likable person. Those that "know" her, like her. A small, power-hungry faction of the Republicans have engaged in "reverse plastic surgery" against Democrats, with "reverse plastic surgery," meaning to disfigure the Democratic party and to make it ugly. This means:

(1) There is a dissociation between appearance and reality, a common argument: The attacks are appearance only; the reality of the situation if she is very likable.

(2) Republicans are divisive, not Hillary. This is an apologia of sorts as it deflects attention away from the Democratic primary. Further, it is an attempt to blame the ideological divisions in the country for the last 20 years. For, it was not about his perjury, but a political with hunt.

Any other explanations? Is this a good metaphor to use? He has used it before.

Reverse Plastic Surgery

I am not sure what these means. But here is Bill Clinton campaigning for his wife:

One woman stood up, pointed out that South Carolina is one of the reddest states in the country, and said she spent eight years defending Bill Clinton.

"Thanks," he deadpanned slightly rolling his eyes and getting a laugh.

She asked how to respond to critics who say Hillary Clinton is polarizing.

"The only people that she's a polarizing figure around is the people that don't know her," Bill Clinton said. "I mean, the reason I think she's the most electable Democrat has nothing to do with race or gender. It is that they have systematically polarized the country, the right-wing Republican faction has. They first took over the Republican Party, and then they preformed reverse-plastic surgery on the Democrats."

A few things: first, this is a complete non-sequitur and it sounds like he developing a conspiracy theory here. Second, if it is not about race and gender, why mention it unless you want to look sleazy. Third, is the reverse plastic surgery a good metaphor to describe the politics of the last twenty years because it eliminates the agency of democrats-- they forced us to be this way....

The former president does go on to say that if the nominees were Clinton and McMcain, they would run the most civil campaign ever. I bet they would even hold hands during it:

"She and John McCain are very close," Bill Clinton said. "They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their parties, it will be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid it would put the voters asleep. Because they like and respect each other."

This is why there will never be an Obama/ Clinton ticket.

John Gibson's Comments About Heath Ledger

Many of the Situation's faithful Readers may already know about sociopathic FOX News pundit John Gibson mocking Heath Ledger's death during his radio show.

Wednesday, Think Progress reported:

Opening his radio show with funeral music yesterday, Fox News host John Gibson callously mocked the death of actor Heath Ledger, calling him a “weirdo” with a “serious drug problem.”

Playing an audio clip of the iconic quote, “I wish I knew how to quit you” from Ledger’s gay romance movie Brokeback Mountain, Gibson disdainfully quipped, “Well, he found out how to quit you.” Laughing, Gibson then played another clip from Brokeback Mountain in which Ledger said, “We’re dead,” followed by his own, mocking “We’re dead” before playing the clip again.

Go here for more, including the audio clip.


Gibson "apologized" on Thursday on FOX. Here's the link to that.

Let the Rumors Begin

According to Robert Novak, sources close to John Edwards state that if Edwards awards his delegates to Obama and Obama wins, John Edwards will receive the Justice Department, which big labor would adore.

Installation at the Justice Department of multimillionaire trial lawyer Edwards would please not only the union leaders supporting him for president but organized labor in general. The unions relish the prospect of an unequivocal labor partisan as the nation's top legal officer.

In public debates, Obama and Edwards often seem to bond together in alliance against front-running Sen. Hillary Clinton. While running a poor third, Edwards could collect a substantial bag of delegates under the Democratic Party's proportional representation. Edwards then could try to turn his delegates over to Obama in the still unlikely event of a deadlocked Democratic National Convention.

Holding Representatives & Senators Accountable

The editorial board of the NY Times has written an interesting piece about holding representatives and senators accountable for their voting records on judicial appointments. The article references a ad put out by People for the American Way; the features actress Kathleen Turner (a long time supporter of Planned Parenthood and a former national spokesperson for the organization) calling Maine Rep. Susan Collins to task for claiming to be pro-choice but voting for judicial appointees who are staunchly anti-choice.

In an attempt to draw the focus of The Rhetorical Situation to something other than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I wanted to highlight this key issue. In presidential election years we tend to focus on only those candidates running for the highest office, and perhaps justifiably so. That said, the congresspersons we elect have the power to reject any presidential judicial nominees. Check out the voting records of the representatives running for office in your district; you may find that you don't like what you see and you may also find, as I imagine many Maine voters would, that your representatives didn't vote in support of the issues they promised to support.

Romney, his wealth, and the election

During the MSNBC Republican debate, Brian and Tim tried to get Romney to state how much of his own money he contributed to his campaign and whether or not he was buying the primary in Florida. Romney refused to disclose this amount and argued that he spent his own money because this was something about which he cared deeply.

While it did show his problems with fundraising and may suggest he lacks the support of people to win, it may be better in some ways because the thought of him being bought by corporations may seem less likely.

Oh the hell of campaign finances. How do you avoid this problem of fair elections and campaign finance?

The New York Times' Primary Endoresements

The paper endorses Hillary Clinton and John McCain . The reasons: For Hillary, they adhere to her "ready on the first day" and "experience" arguments; for McCain, he is a likable republican who possesses some of the same beliefs as democrats.

Interesting...

A Political Humpty Dance? Following Reagan, Anticipating Obama: One of the 80s Boldest Rhetorical Claims

When a man says, "stop what you're doin', cause I'm about to ruin the image and the style that you're used to," he's talking a lot of shit and if he can back it up, deserves to be taken seriously. As Mark Wahlberg once pointed out in a different context.

That Reagan backed up such Epic Shit-Talking, that he was indeed "Transformational," cannot be denied. Harrogate deeply wishes the Clintons had not embarrassed themselves by pretending not to understand Obama's point on this matter, for Obama clearly was not saying Reagan transformed the political landscape to the good.

And that he is capable of achieving a similarly transformational feat--only this time, to the good of the country. Whether or not Obama's large assertion is true, however, is a different question, one that each person must wrestle with as the primary rolls towards Tsunami Tuesday on February 5th.

Westboro Baptist Church will Protest Heath Ledger's Memorial Service

According to MSNBC's entertainment writer Courtney Hazlett, the Westboro Baptist Church, home of the radical Christian Fred Phelps, will take time out from picketing the funeral of military servicemen and women to picket Ledger's Memorial Service. Shirley Phelps, the sister...er... I mean wife of Fred, stated that they will picket the Memorial because of Heath's role in Brokeback Mountain:

“You cannot live in defiance of God. He (Ledger) got on that big screen with a big, fat message: God is a liar and it's OK to be gay,” said Shirley Phelps in a statement sent out by the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church.

Man I Miss Texas: Why are UFO sightings only in the South

Of course, because NYC has too many lights... There would be no other reason, right?

The US Air Force stated that the lights over the small town in Texas was not a UFO but F-16 fighter jets. Those who saw the lights remain skeptical.

Noe, who are you going to believe: the government, which does not always tell the truth, or citizens of rural Texas, who um... I will stop right here.

Why the Candidate Matters: The Case Against Hillary Clinton

This is in response to the comments found here.

It is not important that a Democratic candidate wins the 2008 presidential election. In fact, because of problems with Iraq, especially in terms of leaving Iraq, a candidate that runs on leaving Iraq may not accomplish his/her goal. Since there is construction of military bases and embassies, it may be unlikely that the US Military will leave any time soon. Senator McCain may be correct on this.

Yet, despite Iraq, here are three reasons why the correct candidate matters.

First, listen to this recent Hillary Clinton Ad against Barack Obama:



Reason One: This ad is intellectually dishonest. The intent behind Barack's comments is that he believed that the Reagan Presidency was transformative because Reagan reached out to Democrats to gain their support for policy, which is something the Democrats now should do. Unfortunately, the former Clinton administration could not do this because of ideological opposition between the parties. More importantly, if the Clinton camp is resorting to these tactics during the Primary, what reason is she giving the country that these acts of intellectual dishonesty would change during a general election or during her administration. And remember, intellectual dishonesty is one of the most important criticisms of the Bush Administration.

Reason Two: This ad perpetuates the ideological divisions in the country, which undermined the Clinton administration. Republicans gained control of Congress and forced President Clinton's hand on many issues, making him useless on many grounds. This will continue under a Hillary Clinton administration because of the ideological opposition to her. It is a fact that many would not vote for her or support her policies.

Reason Three: If the Clinton administration won the general election, which I am not sure she can do, and unless the Democrats win a super-majority in the House and Senate, which is unlikely, then the Clinton administration would not be able to accomplish major goals. Opponents to her ideology would have no reason to support her and every reason to object to her. Consequently, her opposition would persuade their base and independents that her presidency has not met her goals and should be voted out.

Rick Majerus in Hot Holy Water: Free Speech, Sports, Politics, and Religion

ESPN and the AP have been following this story for a couple of days, see this update of the fallout from comments by St. Louis coach Rick Majerus in a television interview, indicating his support for abortion rights while attending a Hillary Clinton rally over the weekend.

Tricky Rhetorical Situation at play here. Does his high-profile job at a leading Jesuit University entail a reasonable expectation on the part of his Employer that he not go to the Media with politics contrarian to Church doctrine?

Would retaliation of any kind be an abridgment of his right as an American citizen to speak his mind, as it were, off the clock? For that matter, does the University's status as a private religious institution put it in a position to legally fire him over this?

And even if it would be within its legal rights, would it be an asinine thing for the University to do?

Snippets:

A Roman Catholic archbishop said Tuesday that he will ask officials of Saint Louis University to take "appropriate action" against its basketball coach [. . .]


St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke declined to say what the action against Majerus should be, saying that was a decision for the Jesuit university. But he said the coach is a leader and shouldn't support views in opposition to church teaching [. . .]


The archbishop resigned last year as board chairman for the Cardinal Glennon Children's Foundation because of a benefit-concert appearance by Sheryl Crow, a native Missourian who supports abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research

The Bud Light "Dude" Commercials

This Bud Light campaign continues beer commercials' proud tradition of being awesome.

First, the melancholic music: from a Movie Score perspective it's almost Godfather-esque and then with the slightest dash of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Then, there is the episodic memory sequence. OH! Those 'scenes of life.'

And of course, Readers, the Resolution at the end that is less a Resolution than a bold signifier that this gentleman's Jamesean story has only just begun to be told.



Dude.

Election Quote for the Day

Just something to think about from The New Republic: In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody, Obama was asked, "Will Hillary be a drag for down-ticket races as a presidential candidate?" his response:

I think there is no doubt that she has higher negatives than any of the remaining democratic candidates. That's just a fact and there are some who will not vote for her. If you look at the results in Nevada, for example, she eked out the popular vote victory over me, but I ended up winning more delegates because she got almost all of her votes from Clark County, Las Vegas and some of the traditional democratic areas. We got votes there, but we also got votes in northern Nevada and rural conservative regions of the state that traditionally don't vote Democratic, but were excited about my campaign.

I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is can she get the people who voted for me? And I think that describes sort of one of the choices that people have, just a practical choice, as they move forward."

The "True" Meaning of Boot-Gate

It has been revealed, finally. The real reason why Tom Brady is wearing a boot: he foot is sore from kicking the ass of every team he faced this season. He even sent cards to the teams he beat, which you can read here.

"Why Vote When You can Bet"

Slate offers a guide to The Political Markets. Here is an explanation:

The idea behind political prediction markets is simple. Lots of people wager on the outcome of political campaigns: Who's going to be the Democratic presidential nominee? Will the Republicans take back the House? And when the votes are counted, the winning bettors collect. The thrill of prediction markets for political junkies is that they harness "the wisdom of crowds." A single person's bet on an election outcome isn't very good, but thousands of bets, with real stakes, are more likely to predict the correct result than even the best pundit. The Iowa Electronic Markets, the big daddy of the political prediction markets, is consistently better at forecasting winners than pre-election polls.

Um. How Odd.

And not funny. But it does have Lisa Loeb in it.

Slate: The Case Against HIllary Clinton

This article, from Slate, makes the case against the Junior Senator from New York. According to Christopher Hitchens:

For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband's uncontainable sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?

Issues on Which Race Matters

From Slate: Christopher Hitchens on why should the former Gov. Mike Huckabee should not get a free pass from the MSM on the Confederate Flag Issue. According to Hitchens, the appeal to the Confederate Flag is strictly racist for three reasons:

1) The South Carolina flag is a perfectly nice flag, featuring the palmetto plant, about which no "outsider" has ever offered any free advice.

2) The Confederate battle flag, to which Gov. Huckabee was alluding, was first flown over the South Carolina state Capitol in 1962, as a deliberately belligerent riposte to the civil rights movement, and is not now, and never has been, the flag of that great state.

3) By a vote of both South Carolina houses in the year 2000, the Confederate battle flag ceased to be flown over the state capitol and now only waves (as quite possibly it should) over the memorial to fallen Confederate soldiers.

Ankle-Gate

Sports Illustrated, among others, are reporting that Tom Brady was spotted wearing a walking boot and nursing a high ankle strain. Here is a video of Tom entering girlfriend Gisele Bundchen's NYC apartment:



BUT, TMZ now reports that Brady wasn't wearing the boot when he left Gisele's home:

Is it all a plot to complicate the Giants' defensive schemes? More at 11.

How the Race Was Lost

The perfect example of a representative anecdote as this statement summarizes the campaign by Fred Thompson:

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

Fred, gone so soon? We hardly knew you. Really. And that effort: did you ever finish higher than third in a primary? Did you even reach the coveted number three position?

A Must Read: Hardballs

A quirky thought experiment from Slate: what if Chris Matthews treated men the same way he treated women.

For example-- and these are real quotes--, when Conservative pundit Laura Ingraham appeared: "I get in trouble for this, but you're great looking, obviously. You're one of the gods' gifts to men in this country."

To CNBC's Erin Burnett, Aug. 10: "[Y]ou're beautiful. … [Y]ou're a knockout."

Now, what about the same treatment for current presidential candidates:

To Ron Paul: Congressman, fess up. Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that a seventy-something gets to look as good as you do? Believe me, when you step into a room, all men are not created equal. You're big on civil liberties? I bet the ladies aren't civil when they take liberties with you.

To John Edwards: Wow! The temperature just jumped 10 degrees in here, and I'm not talking about liberal fury. What am I saying? Who cares? Help! Senator, you could be a construction worker. That's how hot you are. You could lay pipe in my house, except my wife would be jealous. If you're president, don't invite us to the Lincoln Bedroom if you intend to get any sleep.

To John McCain: Senator, I know why you pushed the surge. Because you give me the surge. I can barely sit. And don't expect me to set a timetable for withdrawal. I look at you, and I'm a prisoner. A prisoner of love!

To Hillary Clinton: Thanks for coming, Madam Senator. Before we get to national policy, let's talk about your husband. Do you have any photos of Bill you could share with me?

The least dangerous candidate....

Is at it again. Yesterday, in Florida, Mike Huckabee announced that his views should trump federalism:

Huckabee, who said he was not there as a presidential candidate, warmed up his conservative audience by declaring that overturning the Roe v. Wade court ruling was not enough because it would leave individual states to decide their own laws on abortion – a moral issue where there is a right and a wrong, contends the former pastor. He argues that a constitutional amendment that defines life at conception is necessary to prevent “50 versions of right and wrong.”

“How could we expect God’s future blessing on this country if we cannot come to the logical conclusion that every life He creates He creates with the same equal intrinsic value and worth as another?” Huckabee asked.

After listing several huge problems in America, the former preacher said the purpose of Christians on this earth, as taught by Jesus, is to be salt and light. Salt preserves while light overcomes darkness.

“We are taught that we are the salt of the earth. That means that when something is spoiling, we are to be there to keep it from spoiling,” Huckabee explained. “We miss that if we think the purpose of believers is to be really, really well behaved in church.

“Being well behaved in church is a fine thing, but we don’t change the world by being behaved in church,” he pointed out to a receptive audience. “We change the world when we are the salt and that means we sometimes will irritate and sometimes agitate, but we will preserve.”

Why is it that his religious views possess the power to decide all questions, regardless as to whether or not they are political? And what is his method of interpretation, for the constitution and religion?

Editorializing on the Primaries

There are two interesting columns in The Washington Post today, one from George Will and one from Eugene Robinson.

Though lacking in some substance, George Will presents a flavorful account of the race so far, pointing out the ineptness in most of the campaigns with such witty remarks as:

Also, Obama seems flummoxed by the Clintons' Clintonness. When he committed the gaffe (defined as the utterance of a truth in conditions inhospitable to that fugitive virtue) of saying that for many years the Republicans were "the party of ideas," he was merely repeating something said decades ago by an exemplary Democrat, the senator whose seat Clinton fills -- well, occupies: Pat Moynihan.

One of the Obama campaign's senior leaders, who must have dozed through the 1990s, has expressed astonishment at the Clintons' intellectual sociopathy...

[After losing in Nevada-- a heavy union state] Someone should tell him [Edwards] the joke that another populist, William Jennings Bryan, told on himself after losing three presidential elections (1896, 1900 and 1908) as the Democrats' nominee:A man tried three times to enter a saloon and three times was tossed out. After the third time he dusted himself off and said, "I'm beginning to think those fellows don't want me in there."

Huckabee is a niche candidate who has run out of niches.

At the moment, however, it remains possible, perhaps even probable, that each party will offer its oldest and most familiar candidate, Clinton and McCain, to a nation clamoring for a rupture with the recent past.

As for Eugene Robinson, he examines why Bill Clinton is out to attack Barack Obama:

t times, in his attempt to cut Barack Obama down to size, Bill Clinton has been red-faced with anger; his rhetoric about voter suppression and a great big "fairy tale" has been way over the top. This doesn't look and sound like mere politics. It seems awfully personal.

Obama's candidacy not only threatens to obliterate the dream of a Clinton Restoration. It also fundamentally calls into question Bill Clinton's legacy by making it seem . . . not really such a big deal.

Being as How The Malignant Specter of Giuliani Approaches the Fore

Caption This Photo

And this one

Well said

"Though we are celebrating 35 years of Constitutional protection of a woman's right to abortion, we cannot let our guard down. With so many limitations and roadblocks, the promise of Roe is already denied to many women, and access to birth control is under increasing attack. This year we have the chance to elect a new administration and send new members to Congress who will help protect and expand our reproductive freedom. Come November we must elect a president who will be vigilant in upholding a woman's right to make her own childbearing decisions, including access to birth control and abortion," said NOW President Kim Gandy.

Tomorrow NOW will holds its annual vigil on the steps of the Supreme Court commemorating the 35th anniversary of Roe V. Wade. I wish I could be there to show my support and to remind the rest of the country that this constitutional right is constantly being threatened. I will, however, be there in spirt.

Heh

Consider all the Components here. It's Murdoch's New York Post. It's an outbranch of Obama's Good Morning America interview. It emanates from, speaks to a hatred, irrational but still real, shared by a huge chunk of the electorate.


.

Outraged, Well Not Really

House Resolution 888 Reads:

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

Whereas religious faith was not only important in official American life during the periods of discovery, exploration, colonization, and growth but has also been acknowledged and incorporated into all 3 branches of American Federal government from their very beginning;

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this self-evident fact in a unanimous ruling declaring `This is a religious people ... From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation';

Whereas political scientists have documented that the most frequently-cited source in the political period known as The Founding Era was the Bible;

Whereas the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible;

Whereas Congress regularly attended church and Divine service together en masse;

Whereas throughout the American Founding, Congress frequently appropriated money for missionaries and for religious instruction, a practice that Congress repeated for decades after the passage of the Constitution and the First Amendment;

It continues by listing "facts" and dates and such and omits just as many facts and dates and such.

Sigh. I am not even outraged, really. Depressed possibly.

I marvel over the intellectual dishonesty.

In Response to a Query: Some Flaws, as Seen by Harrogate, in Obama's Candidacy

One thing that particularly bugs Harrogate about Obama is that, like Hillary Clinton, his pretentions to Leadership virtuosity have no actual referent with respect to his time in the Senate. Indeed, after the Democrats took the Congressional majority in 2006, one might have thought some sort of Unification might have occured, by virture of which GOP Rule would be at least attenuated. But perhaps like Clinton, Dodd, and Biden, Obama has been too busy running for President to attend to the fact that the Dem Congress has been getting thoroughly rolled in every way since he arrived in Washington.

If he is so good at "bringing Democrats together with Republicans", why couldn't he "Unify" them enough to get an override of the President's Veto on S-Chip? Where is his Leadership on stopping institutionalized Torture? Where is his Leadership, his great unifying skills, on Iraq? The truth is, he has been an absolute non factor in the United States Senate. Leadership? Bringing people together? We're fortunate he's even voted "Present" as much as he has.

Second, his campaign is predicated on his supposedly unique ability to get Washington to rise above partisan divides in the most important political issues of the Day. This--The Kumbaya Schtick--is perpetually silly. As if this needs explanation, consider the likelihood of Insurance and Pharm Lobbyists, on the basis of some politico's Soaring Rhetoric, saying you know what, our profit margins are less important than realizing this wondrous vision.

Third, Harrogate's heart is sick because BOTH Obama and Clinton are running campaigns that glorify their own personal qualities (cult of personality), at the expense, Harrogate firmly believes, of the Democratic Party and thus the nation.

Harrogate appreciates that both candidates want to highlight the positive, and go on and on abhout what they think they can bring to the table. But at the same time, somewhere at the front of this entire election should also be the social, economic, and global consequences of GOP rule.

Obama does not warn people about the danger of the GOP retaining power, he's too busy prattling on about Unifying "Democrats and Republicans alike," getting them beyond "old divides," etc. While Hillary Clinton is also narcissistic to the point of gagging Harrogate with a Spoon, she at least occasionally reminds voters that it is not Bush, but the GOP Borg, which has brought us where we are, and which will make things much, much worse should they win again.

There are lots of other things that Harrogate will address in the future, but these suffice for now, they are connected inasmuch as they point to Obama as an Empty Suit.

Shred away!

Barack Obama on Good Morning America

Barack Obama appeared on Good Morning America this morning. In the interview, he attacked Bill Clinton for his use of "facts" and stated he was running against both Clintons.

I am not sure that this strategy will work for a few reasons. However, this is what it seems he is doing:

(1) Attack the authority of Hillary Clinton by implying that one of the reasons people are voting for her is because they like Bill. This means that her Presidency will be about him and not her.

(2) Attack the credibility of Bill Clinton. We know that Bill Clinton has had a problem with the facts and the truth while in office and Obama wants to make sure that people remember this and its effect on the Democratic Party in the minds of independent voters.

(3) Make the connection that Hillary endorses Bill, which means Hillary endorses the lying. From this vantage point, it is hard to argue for change, which Hillary does, because it is no different than the current administration.

(4) Attack the notion that a former President and former leader of the party is providing an unfounded attack on a member of the party, showing that the Clintons will not be concerned about the party itself just its interest in the party.

Yet, the problem with this strategy is that people, especially Democrats of the establishment, like Bill Clinton. This is very important when comparing the Clinton and Bush administrations. While focusing the election on Bill rather than Hillary may effect the pride of Hillary, it may help her by gaining votes from people that may vote against her.

update: Top Democrats will ask President Clinton to tone down his remarks while campaigning for his wife because it is hurting his (Clinton's) image and doign a disservice to the party in the campaign. This may be a problem for free speech (social coercion) and further divide the party.

UFO CaPiTaL of the WoRlD

How I miss living in Texas.

MLK Jr., Letter, Dream

In honor of today, here are links to Martin Luther King Jr.'s most know works, "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," and "I Have A Dream."

If you read anything today, please read King's "Letter." One of my favorite passages, especially because of the form (the use of anaphora and copia) and the content:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more that 340 years for our constitutional and Godgiven rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking, "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored" when your first name becomes "Nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when your are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

Call her Clinton

I want to initiate a conversation here that I began at Separation of Spheres. All political preferences aside, I'm having a really hard time with the media's tendency to call Hillary Rodham Clinton by her first name. Our own Megs even does it in one of her recent posts. I'm sorry to use you as an example, Megs, but you have, unfortunately, illustrated it beautifully. People from Maureen Dowd to Chris Matthews to the other candidates have routinely referred to Clinton by her first name. Calling her "Hillary" rather than "Clinton" is sexist and disrespectful. No one ever (at least not as far as I can tell and I have been looking) refers to Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain, or Mike Huckabee by their first names--not even the people they are running against. And to reiterate the point I made here, no one is calling Senator Clinton by her first name to differentiate between her and former-President Clinton. In the appropriate context, I think the average American realizes what Clinton is running for president in 2008. I also don't buy the argument that the media and political pundits call her by her first name because they are familiar with her from her time as First Lady. Last time I checked no one was calling Laura Bush by her first name; she was being respectfully addressed as Mrs. Bush or as the First Lady. Calling Senator Clinton by her first name implicitly questions her ability to do the job and , her viability as a candidate, disrespects the work she has done for the country, and directly undermines her authority as a U.S. Senator. While I certainly don't think the average person consciously does any of these things, I do think that Clinton's opponents and the Republicans are conscious of what it means to refer to a woman in power by her first name. Further Calling her "Hillary" rather than "Clinton" is the equivalent of calling adult women girls while calling adult men men.