The Consequence of MoveOn's ad

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, developed a new ad in the style of MoveOn.org's Iraq ad. This is a small ad buy but it will most likely be targeted to Evangelicals who may think about supporting Senator Obama in the fall. Here is the ad:



The ad relies on the same appeal to pity, straw argument, and reductio ad absurdum found within the ad by MoveOn.org..

Just as James Dobson attacked Senator Obama earlier this week, Perkins will as well. The fear that Dobson and Perkins face is not that Obama will win over the Evangelical vote but neutralize them in the election. Slate has an excellent piece on how Senator Obama is doing a much better job that Kerry or Gore at appearing human rather than a straw argument to these voters. If he closes the gap with Evangelical voters or at least neutralizes them, then that may be the difference between winning and losing a state like Ohio.

Because American Elections are Disgusting, and Get People Killed to Boot; or, a Homage to Pat Buchanan

Everyone's favorite isolationist, nativist, and old-school American exceptionalist. A man especially loved, it turned out, despite decades of criticisms of the United States' alliance with Israel, by really, really old Jewish people living Palm Beach County, Florida.

Worst of all, he works for NBC.

That's right, ladies and gents, Harrogate gives you none other than Patrick J. Buchanan. Harrogate reads his column religiously. This, despite the fact that, to paraphrase Ben Stiller in Dodgeball:

Buchanan loves the red-meat white supremacists, the red-meat white supremacists love the GOP, so ipso facto, Buchanan loves the GOP.

Query: Does Buchanan read the Dictionary to "break a mental sweat"?

But we digress. A blind groundhog will find an acorn every now and then, and Buchanan opposes American military adventurism; on these grounds at least, the man merits commendation. Seeing as how American elections kill people and all.

The current article by Buchanan asks a simple question:

"Who's Planning Our Next War?"


This is a fascinating read, not just for those who, like Harrogate, loathe American politics more and more with each passing day, but also for those who simply think that the question of going to war, the question of mass slaughter, is something of a big deal. Near the beginning of his column Buchanan states:

William Kristol of The Weekly Standard said Sunday a U.S. attack on Iran after the election is more likely should Barack Obama win. Presumably, Bush would trust John McCain to keep Iran nuclear free.

Yet, to start a third war in the Middle East against a nation three times as large as Iraq, and leave it to a new president to fight, would be a daylight hijacking of the congressional war power and a criminally irresponsible act. For Congress alone has the power to authorize war.

Hmmmmm. At the end of the column Buchanan asks an important question. But all things considered, it is also a pretty laughable question.

Is it not time the American people were consulted on the next war that is being planned for us?

For the supporter that never stop

The Washington Post has an interesting article on the Clinton supports who refuse to accept Senator Obama as the nominee. It provides many groups and many reasons. It is well worth the read.

Unity, Oh Unity. Has Harrogate seen unity?

Unity the tattooed lady (Marx Brothers or The Muppets is the question...)

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton had their first date tonight, before the big date tomorrow. Awkward....., especially when you fight over who pays for whom, who will work for whom, who gets to speak when and where, and who will be the Vice-Presidential nominee in 2008.

In Washington, D.C. Senator Obama met with the big money donors of Senator Clinton and it was "emotional and upbeat." Or, according to ABC, the mood was "strained but supportive." Two other unnamed sources stated that the event seemed like "an Irish Wake" and Obama "better go back to the internet." A few mentioned that he did well at the event and warmed over some fundraisers but why go there but the general consensus is that the tension between the two, and their fundraisers, will make relations almost unworkable.

Such warmth and happiness....

Let us, all night and all day, join together spiritually and symbolically as Senators Obama and Clinton join together near-physically in Hope,... er, I mean, Unity, N.H. where the two combatants tied during the primary back in January.

Senator Obama received his biggest cheer when he stated he would step down as the nominee.... er... I mean would help Senator Clinton pay off her campaign debt from the Democratic primary. During the remainder of the event, he faced, as he expected, the Spanish Inquisition, and he did not even receive the comfy chair. (Or, if you don't care for the Brits, here is the Mel Brooks song and dance.)

Like everything else between these star-crossed, er, sword-crossed politicians, the discussion of campaign debt has been contentious as the Clinton camp was not happy Obama did not offer to help sooner and the Obama camp was not happy that she continued in the primary even as she conducted a deficit-spending campaign, knowing he would help pay off her debt when he received the support of Supers Ds (Oh do I miss them). Further, as Howard Fineman notes when discussing the first date last night, back when the primary began, Democratic donors and potential Obama supporters, were told very early in the primary that is they did not support Clinton they would be shut out of Washington. Besides, there is the whole issue of the general where the DNC has not raised a lot of money compared to the RNC and other Democratic candidates need support in tough economic times. But I digress....

According to Politico, at tonight's meeting the Clinton donors want to know how he will help her pay of her political mortgage since she will not use her own small fortune. Senator Obama will not enlist his grassroots support (read email list) but one of his best fundraisers at developing infrastructure will be in charge. Both Barack and Michelle contributed the maximum amount of $2300 for Senator Clinton's campaign this evening. They had been criticized since they did not donate sooner.... like back in February when it could have helped her compete in the post-Super Tuesday states.

After each Senator addressed the crowd, after the press left, and before the donors, well, donated, the donors asked Senator Obama a few unloaded questions..

Question One: Will Senator Clinton be added to the ticket as VP. Both appeared uncomfortable and Senator Clinton gestured for him to move on.... (Hah). But seriously, that is what the report says Clinton did.

The second question concerned whether or not there would be a roll call vote at the convention (to make the votes official and so history can record the fact that Senator Clinton received x number of delegates)? There is a battle between the candidates over this as some Clinton supporters (but maybe not Clinton, I am not sure) want the roll call to record the votes. However, Senator Obama wants Clinton to release, officially, her delegates to him before the convention. It is a better sign of unity if the nominee has a unanimous total as it reduces any ambiguity. Obama responded with:

"Hillary and I are going to negotiate this thing and talk about it, and obviously we're going to do what is right for the party. We're all going to make sure we agree."

Of course, part of the negotiation, which, according to The New York Times, is being conducted by a lawyer, will concern speaking time and speech length at the convention in Denver as Senator Obama gets to play a prominent role in determining both, which can be very important if you have higher aspirations. (See part One and Two here.)

Also being negotiated are such topics as whether or not Senator Obama will provide staff and transportation for Senator Clinton if she campaigns for him, whether or not Senator Obama will hire more of Senator Clinton's staff (oh, because the Patti Solis Doyle was well-received by the Clinton camp), and whether or not they will allow former President Clinton to undermine, er, I mean campaign as well. President Clinton, who is still sulking in the corner of the woodshed, is, well, still sulking over the primary because people had the audacity to take seriously his comments. While Hillary has moved on, someone else has not.

Back to the inquisition.... at one point, The Washington Post reports that Senator Obama was told if he wanted to be a "true leader" he needed to "acknowledge that sexism had played a role in the demise of Clinton's campaign. Obama agreed and said that the issue should be addressed." A concern was raised that by her supporters that he did not properly address this, well, he did not address it at all during the campaign.

There was no follow up as to support how sexism made people vote against her or why the Clinton team did not speak out against the tactics of ra.... oh why bother. It is not the "ism," it is the result that matters most to this group and this group did not receive the result it desired, hence the tension.

Both campaigns have uttered, and yes the passive voice is necessary, either "Time is needed" or "Time heals all wounds." A complete healing is quite unlikely but enough for a Democratic to win is quite possible.

Now would be an interesting time, if this were to occur at all, for Senator Obama to choose Senator Clinton as his running mate. Again, as I have argued here over and over and over again, the probability of this occurring is very, very, very low as it counters Obama's message and the rift between the two is insurmountable. And, even if it could be bridged, it would not be a functional bridge; decorative, but not functional-- no one would want to walk let alone drive across it.

However, that being said, it seems that since Obama has a sizable lead in important state polls, which of course could change after an October surprise, but since he has that lead, he could select Senator Clinton from a position of power, not of weakness. Time has demonstrated that now, unlike the end of May, he does not need her to win in the fall. This may change, but if it does, he would not be the nominee or a functioning president....

And I leave you with this: "Time" by Pink Floyd (live).

D.C. v. Heller: Acknowledging Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court just released its 5 -4 decision in D.C. v. Heller. Speaking for the majority of the Supremes, Justice Scalia strikes down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and requirement that shotguns and rifles be disassembled, declaring that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

More importantly, the decision states that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is an individual right and not a group right, making the militia portion of the clause rather meaningless in relation to the bear arms part of the clause. Preamble, Smeamble I guess.

The syllabus of the decision states:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

This does not mean that all gun bans would be unconstitutional. I have not heard what what level of scrutiny will be required to review whether or not a gun ban is or is not constitutional.

There is more than enough historical evidence to support the majority's claim that the second amendment is an individual's right. For example, before the states ratified the second amendment, Pennsylvania possessed a similar amendment and the state did not have a militia, which would mean that the right was an individual right.

But the conflict here exists between principle and consequence: what can communities do when gun violence plagues society as was the case in D.C. though I am unsure if the D.C. law in question reduced the amount of violence in the District.

Update: Last week in the Guantanamo case, Justice Scalia declared that the Court's decision would "cause more Americans to be killed." Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick, via professor Stephen Wermiel from American University, wonders why the dissenting Justices in Heller did not use the same argument and declare that striking down the ban in D.C. will "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

The Sopranos: The Movie

The cast of The Sopranos appeared at a charity event for breast cancer in Soho last night. A reporter from NY1 asked Tony Sinco aka Paulie Gualtieri aka Paulie Walnuts about the chances of a Sopranos movie and he replied the the movie was in the head of David Chase and James Gandolfini and we should look for it in 2010ish.

In a related note, the owner of Satin Dolls Club aka the Bada Bing in Northern Jersey received a call (from whom is not known) in which someone from HBO told him not to renovate his club because HBO would be filming there.

Some random website has a discussion of a few possible plots. None seem appealing for me because, if anything, I want to see Meadow Soprano take the family over from Tony. I thought that in the last season the show would head in this direction. But, alas, I was wrong...

If there were to be a movie, what would you want to see?

Electoral Picture Pages

From the Politico: Republican Senator Gordon Smith (Oregon) produced a new television ad with the following line:

"Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment? Barack Obama."

The ad shows Senator Obama's face and an image from Obama's website. Further, the ad closes with Senator Smith saying, "I approve working together across party lines and this ad." You can watch the ad here.

Senator Smith was an early supporter of Senator John McCain. However, his present lack of support means Oregon will be blue in November. This ad also undercuts the Republican argument that Obama has no bipartisan accomplishments.

Dobson, Pot & Kettle

According to the AP, James Dobson accuses Senator Barack Obama of "distorting the Bible and pushing a 'fruitcake interpretation' of the Constitution." Since "fruitcake" is not a metaphor associated with constitutional interpretation at all, I wonder what Dobson is implying in this comment. Hmph. But i digress.

In June of 2006, Senator Obama delivered a speech to the liberal Christian group Call o Renewal to discuss the connection of religion and politics. In his speech, he discusses the need to address social problems through moral lessons learned from religion but not to base policy decisions on specific religions. This seems to be a return to the ideals of the Social Gospel whereby religion helped to fight social problems but did not codify those efforts into law. There is a major difference between using religion and religious movements to help the poor, improve education, etc., and relying on religious interpretation to criminalize homosexuality or prohibiting same-sex marriage.

In our pluralistic society, Obama argues that there is a need to bridge the religious and secular to provide presence for plurality and not subordinate the secular to the religious and enact a specific orthodoxy (for whose orthodoxy would it be?). According to Obama, it is appropriate for people to use religion to speak in universal values but demand decisions based on religion-specific values. To view religion this way avoids the undemocratic command this must occur because G-d or the Bible says so.

While I know many people who object to the use of religious discourse is the public realm, Obama's distinction reflects the pluralism present within our society. Religion would not be the only type of discourse used to discuss an issue as there are other foundations of law, morality, and justice such as the law, science, or philosophical morality. However, because people identify as being religious it in society, it should not be excluded outright just as Plato or John Rawls should not be excluded.

I admit that there is the danger of a slippery slope here as the use of religion may lead to the establishment of one religion. There is also the concern that secular discourse may be better. For example, the civil rights movement progressed through the legal system at a faster rate than through the use of MLKs religious inspired discourse though it is unclear if the first could have occurred without the second.

Yet, Obama's view of religion counters the Christianist view that mixes religion and politics as a specific religion forms the basis for policy decision ,which is why Dobson must speak out against him. In the AP article, Dobson argues that Obama's position means that Dobson would need to conform his beliefs to that of Senator Obama's: "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe." Dobson added :

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology...He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter".... and trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality."

Dobson has yet to comment on the irony of his statement and the contradiction between his statement and his approach to religion or theology. While he criticizes Obama for the way in which Obama makes people "conform," Dobson is not concerned that others would need to conform their beliefs and values to his.

Yet, since Dobson's political organization... er, I mean religious organization... and he does not have candidate in the upcoming election, as he stated he would not vote for McCain for President, he needs to create a "devil" for his worshipers to hate so they will get out to vote in the fall and not fall for the outreach by the Obama campaign.

I must admit: I am a very big believer in the separation of Church and State and see a problem with the undemocratic claims from religion. However, the position that religion can inform morality and that it is wrong to base policy decisions on a specific religion seems like a reasonable bridge in our society.

Update: The timing of this is intriguing. Obama delivered his speech in June of 2006. Dobson initiated his attack, an attack that attempts to diminish the knowledge of Obama's Christianity and calls into question his authenticity as a Christian, especially in his ability to speak for others. Why now?

I'm Getting Pissed

After last week's discovery that low-level staffers moved two Muslim women out of the television shot during an Obama speech, the New York Times ran a story about how Obama has visited numerous churches and synagogues, but not a single mosque. I'm getting pissed, for two reasons and at two groups:

1. To my true love, Barack Obama: grow a set, buddy. I know it sucks that the internet is buzzing with Muslim rumors and I know that you're Christian and that being a Muslim national candidate is political suicide. But to distance yourself from a constituency like this? Come on. You've taken on racism, homophobia in the black community, deadbeat dads... Don't remain silent on this one.

2. To the media, whose reputation as liberal is clearly unfounded: being a Muslim isn't bad. To perpetuate the idea that being labeled Muslim is a "smear" (and, yes, I know this is Obama's web site, but it doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim question) is offensive. And to those few reporters who make a footnoted disclaimer (think: "He's not a Muslim, but it would be okay if he were")--and I don't even think that I've heard anyone take this baby step, but I'm being optimistic--rethink your righteousness.

We're dangerously close to entering the "I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are black" stage of religious discrimination. Nice. Really nice.

Relying on Google for Community Standards?

The New York Times reports that in the defense to an obscenity trial in Florida, the defendant will rely on a Google meta-search to show that the residents around him possess broader standards than they may claim in public.

In the trial of a pornographic Web site operator, the defense plans to show that residents of Pensacola are more likely to use Google to search for terms like “orgy” than for “apple pie” or “watermelon.” The publicly accessible data is vague in that it does not specify how many people are searching for the terms, just their relative popularity over time. But the defense lawyer, Lawrence Walters, is arguing that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that interest in the sexual subjects exceeds that of more mainstream topics — and that by extension, the sexual material distributed by his client is not outside the norm.
Mr. Walters is defending Clinton Raymond McCowen, who is facing charges that he created and distributed obscene material through a Web site based in Florida. The charges include racketeering and prostitution, but Mr. Walters said the prosecution’s case fundamentally relies on proving that the material on the site is obscene.

The argument is that "private actions" contradict our "public values," and the information found through Google Trends may support this claim. While this may work for the obscenity portions of the trial, it may not for racketeering and prostitution.

The current legal standard by the Supreme Court is from Miller v. California and involves a three-tier test by former Chief Justice Warren Burger:

(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This test leaves a lot to the imagination, especially in regards to defining the community in "contemporary community standards" or the "literary," "artistic," "political" or "scientific." Though most people would consider it unreadable, James Joyce's Ulysses was considered obscene because a few passages. In the 1933 court case, United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, a District Court in New York ruled that literature should be excluded from obscenity, even if it contained some foul language and some discussions of sex and sexuality.

I am not sure if the Google Trends argument will work but at least it is creative in the way in which it may reveal the actual rather than the ideal vision of a community.

Playground Etiquette

This afternoon, Sweet Baby J. and I ventured off to the park so she could escape modern life in an apartment. While at the park, I hoped that she would run herself to exhaustion; instead, she only "played" on the swings for 10 minutes and then tired of the park altogether. Rather then playing, she desired to be charioteered down through the neighborhood to see the people in our shopping district. It worked out well for both of us as she played wallflower (or stroller flower) and I shopped for a book, Slavery by Another Name.

While at the park, there was a "park etiquette moment." There are eight swings at the park. Sweet Baby J. was on one and there was one empty one next to us. Another father and daughter pair played under a cement formation (a higher level to the park) while a third child (a boy), who's father was not around, ran to the empty swing and draped himself on it, calling for his father to put him. After three minutes of crying and clinging to the swing with no father in sight, the other little girl walked over to the swings and desired to swing; however, there was no open swing. After another three minutes, the boy's father arrived to place his kid in the swing and then swing him while the other little girl and her father waited for their turn.

This brings to mind a series of playground etiquette questions: First, how long should you and your child play on the swing? five minutes? Ten? fifteen? Until your child wants out?

Second, when making a "claim" to the swing, what matters more: having a kid or parent "hold" the swing or making sure that both the parent and the child are present i.e.

Third, what are the boundaries to the equipment? Should the father of the girl have persuaded the clinging boy to give up the swing because the father was not immediately available? Or would that have cause more problems between the fathers?

It seemed like the father of the girl who was waiting for the swing desired me to give up the swing because I had been there for a while, (though we only got on the swings a few minutes before he arrived as two other children played around with the swings with no father around to push them as well-- and yes, there were a disproportionate number of fathers at the park today). The reason I claim this is because I and the father of the boy received a self-righteous and moralistic parenting tip: "I am teaching my daughter how to share and how important it is to wait your turn" as if we were teaching our children to be self-interested jack-boot park thugs. My initial thought was to say, "Well, I refuse to provide any moral foundation for my daughter and I plan on teaching my daughter to take your daughter's lunch money in elementary, middle, and high school."

But rather than assert this, Sweet Baby J decided the swings were no longer fun, as she tends to get shy when others show up in numbers, and wanted to watch pigeons walk about on the sidewalk. As we left, I pondered this situation.

What is proper park etiquette? Or, even better, does anyone have any stories where someone breaks a perceived park etiquette? How do we communication this etiquette? Or, what is the best way to communicate it?

Mom to McCain: If You were Counting on My Baby to Fight Your Wars, "You Can't Have Him"

Great wailing and gnashing of teeth has arisen, in response to the above MoveOn.org Ad, which engages the centerpiece of John McCain's politics.

Papa Bear O'Reilly, for example, had this to say about it.

In his own mind, O'Reilly really nails it here:

My question is this: Who on earth would take that message seriously? What kind of voter is that supposed to reach?

Good point indeed, Papa Bear. Harrogate has stressed his brain to the outermost limits, and he has yet to come up with a relevant or identifiable audience for such an ad. Nothing to see here. Keep 'moving on.'


UPDATE: Just found this little entry on the Ad by Townhall blogger Carol Platt Liebau.

Her condemnation is almost as indisputable as Papa Bear's:

no mother wants to think of her son (or daughter) going off to war. But has it occurred to Alex's mommy that -- if other mothers had adopted her "not my baby" attitude -- little Alex might be in much more jeopardy from terrorist attacks right here in the United States of America? Or for that matter, he might be speaking German . . . or even be an English subject?

Too pathetic for words.

Weeellllll. There's no arguing with that logic. The Ever-Mounting body counts are Noble, Necessary to American Safety.

The Ad is too pathetic for Words.

When the Culture Wars and the Free market Collide

Over at The Washington Post, Rob Stein discusses the development of Pro-Life Pharmacies, i.e. no condoms, birth control pills, or Plan B emergency contraceptives. This type of pharmacy protects the rights of workers, especially their "right of conscience" to refuse to engage in an activity to which they morally oppose.

In defense of these pharmacies, pharmacies may have the right to attempt to protect the rights of their workers, if you agree that this constitutes right, and to tailor their business to a particular audience. Further, this seems seems similar to pharmacies that refuse to sell cigarettes, alcohol, or pornography.

Of course, these locations seems to exceed their authority as pharmacists. It seems that the pharmacists at these locations act as "doctor" and "pharmacist," where they know what is best for their "patient." It would be a problem in other industries if individuals put their beliefs ahead of their profession. Just ask conservatives students about their "liberal" professors. Further, like the insurance industry, there may be another double-standard here whereby these pharmacies allow for Viagra but not for contraceptive for women, regardless as to whether or not it is for reproductive freedom.

Finally, there may be a concern over the way in which the stores treat individuals when they enter the pharmacies seeking specific products. It is probably not best for business to ask for contraceptives and told you are a baby-killer. It could be much worse is the person went in the store for Plan B.

The main concern would be if these pharmacies becomes successful, especially in rural areas where there are fewer or no alternatives. If there are no alternatives to these pharmacies, then these locations infringe on the medical rights of citizens. This is just a slippery slope argument right now though...

A New Special Interest Group

Children Against Universal Health Care. Factually, it may be the most accurate argument I've come across in quite some time.


Study: Most Children Strongly Opposed To Children�s Healthcare

All things Canadian

In about 7 weeks, C, Wild Man, and I will be moving to Canada, as C has accepted a tenure track position at a Canadian University. I know surprisingly little about Canadian politics or government, so I've been taking a few minutes every day to read up on such things. This morning I decided to look at the Prime Minister's web page. I know from a few things I've read and from the members of C's department I've spoken to that Stephen Harper is known in Ontario, the province we're moving to, as "Little Bush"--not exactly a compliment in my book. Imagine my surprise to discover that Mr. Harper looks a bit like G.W. himself! What are we getting ourselves into?

Oh well, at least Harper occasionally apologize for his blunders. . .

Yes We Have No Bananas...or Maybe We Shouldn't

My daughter loves bananas. She eats a lot of bananas: bananas in the morning; bananas in the afternoon; bananas in the evening. Sometimes she eats bananas before dinner to ease the pain while dinner is cooking; and, sometimes, she eats a banana after dinner if she dislikes what she received.

Usually, by 6am, she has already consumed her first banana of the day, even before Morning Joe is on the air. Every morning she walks into the kitchen, mutters an "Ummmmmm" or "Uhhhhhhhhh" or "Ughhhhhhhh" right in front of where the bananas hang. If she does not receive one in the first five seconds that she asks, it becomes a gentle scream... well, no scream is gentle at 5:45am. Even if she cannot see the bananas or if we move them to another location, she finds them and requires one for her dinning pleasure. Needless to say, we must stock bananas in our apartment. Always.

In case your wondering about the purpose of the post, an Op-Ed in The New York Times discusses the price increase we will face for our cheapest fruit, as well as discussing the role of bananas in our markets, in developing the infrastructures of Central American nations, in shaping and overthrowing governments, and in diminishing the rights of workers under those governments. The end of the article suggests that we may not have bananas as a regular fruit for very long....and, if that day comes, I do not know what I will do each morning...

And for your listening pleasure, The Velvet Underground:
"Sunday Morning"
"I'm Waiting for the Man"
"Venus in Furs"
"Run Run Run"
"Sweet Jane (Live)"

Conservative Identity Politics

While we have discussed identity politics in relation to the Democrats, here is another reminder of how Conservatives attempt to engage voters with identity politics and employ the Southern Strategy. (You can read another example from M. a few days back.) According to Politico, Texas Republicans have this on sale for its state convention. This button reflects the Republicans desire to brand Republicans as being white (and Christian).

This is nothing new, especially for Texas. In Lines in the Sand, Steve Bickerstaff argues that when the Texas State Republicans redistricted the state in 2003 - 2004, they attempted to brand the Democrats as being the party that represents minorities,

And for those Clinton supporters who feel that Senator McCain and the Republicans will be a better choice in the fall and this button is still not enough, I suggest you read Senator John McCain's 1998 joke about Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, and Janet Reno, or the comments by a prominent McCain fundraiser (and Aggie Alum.), Clayton Williams. While I do not think that any readers here are in this category, these comments need exposure.

John McCain and the Conservative Elite

In today's The Washington Post, George Will belittles John McCain's understanding of the US Constitution. In his column today, Will not only attacks McCain for the Senator's support of campaign finance, but for the Senator's stance on the Supreme Court's recent decision on the rights of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay to petition the federal courts for a hearing.

After the Court released its decision, McCain called the decision one of the worst ever. In response, George Will attacked McCain for his lack of foresight and understanding of the Constitution:

"Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue."

Will's larger purpose is to defend the writ of habeas corpus and, in doing so, defends the ability of the people, and the judiciary, to constrain the power of government. Also, Will provides a conservative position to reject Senator McCain for president. This significance is that if the conservative elite divides itself over the election of John McCain then the conservative electorate may also divide itself.

Protesting Same-Sex Marriage in California

From CNN: a group of protesters crash a same-sex marriage and reception in California. This speaks tells a lot of the protesters as it reveals how they desire to combine church and state in an illiberal way.

Update: According to an ABC affiliate in San Francisco, there seems to be another form of protest in California as three counties in California stopped performing weddings because of the California Supreme Court's decision to allow for same-sex marriages. I am not sure for long this will occur but "family values" groups are doing what they can to protect the family.

How cool is this?

Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, both of whom are long time Lesbian activists, were married today by the mayor of San Francisco. Several other couples, including a couple who has been together for 26 years, were also married today.

Herethetics in the Campaign: Arranging the Vice-Presidency

Senator Obama announced that Patti Solis Doyle, the former Clinton campaign manager, will play a role in the Obama campaign, serving as the chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate. Senator Clinton fired Doyle from her campaign on February 10th after Super Tuesday (the February 5th Super Tuesday and not every Tuesday according to MSNBC).

This is not necessarily a new development as Ben Smith of Politico reported back in May that Patti Smith Doyle was mulling an offer, especially since she has known David Axlerod for over twenty years and is a native to Chicago.

However, it is very suggestive of how Senator Obama is trying to arrange the situation around the Vice Presidential pick. Knowing that there is tension between Patti Smith Doyle and Hillary Clinton, as they have not talked since Clinton fired her, this creates tension between Clinton and Doyle, reducing Clinton's ability to accept the position if offered. Even if Obama were to offer the position to Clinton, Doyle will stand above Clinton and will serve as an awkward liaison between the two Senators. Hence, heresthetics-- altering situational factors to achieve a desired result.

The Clinton campaign is not happy with this move and have called it a "slap in the face." (For a history of Senator Clinton and being "Slapped in the Face" read an article from The New Republic.) Yet, publicly, they approve of the move. This is a very interesting move to attempt to recapture ground to obtain the Vice Presidency. According to Politico, here is the response by the Clinton campaign:

“Patti will be an asset and good addition to the Obama campaign. After nearly two decades in political life, she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Senator Obama. As Senator Clinton has said, we’re all going to do our part to help elect Senator Obama as the next President of the United States," said spokesman Mo Elleithee.

If nothing else, the Clinton campaign is playing the game here. it is a fun guve and take going on within the Democratic Party.

John McCain, Mr. Economy

To his credit, John McCain did admit that he was "not well versed" on economic issues. However, this seems to be a real bad, and I mean real bad, sign: According to The Hill, the potential first family of John and Cindy McCain reported over $100,000 in credit card debt.

The presidential candidate and his wife Cindy reported piling up debt on a charge card between $10,000 and $15,000. His wife’s solo charge card has between $100,000 and $250,000 in debt to American Express.

McCain's wife also has a second American Express charge card listed on the senator's financial disclosure that was carrying $100,000 to $250,000 in debt.

Another charge card with American Express, this one for a “dependent child,” is carrying debt in the range of $15,000 and $50,000.

Aristotle argued that managing a personal household is one of the most important tasks for a person. If you can't manage a household, then...

Of course, this just reflects the ability of current Republicans to manage the economy.

Rest in Peace Mr Russert

Tim Russert, moderator of Meet the Press, passed away this afternoon. He was 58.

This is a sad day for the Russert family, people in Buffalo, and for lovers of politics.

File this under: Who is in charge over there?

I logged on-line this morning to check out the weather in Boston, and I was greeted by this headline: "Fox refers to Michelle Obama as 'baby mama.'" The article questions whether this is just clueless on the part of Fox News, as it is an inaccurate use of the term, or racist (it doesn't question whether or not it is sexist, which I find a bit odd, as I would argue the term is both sexist and racist). I don't think stupidity can be an excuse for a major new network, but I'm sure that is what Fox News will plead.

Kiki is His Homegirl

This is for solon, who we've lost recently to the Liberty City crime brigade.

Cuddly Critters are Victims of Racism too?

I ran across this story on MSNBC.com and found it both humorous and disturbing. First of all, the campaign seems obviously tongue-in-cheek to me--perhaps I am insensitive. Second, I didn't realize that people were less likely to adopt black-coated animals. As the puppy parent to "Chocolate Thunder," who, while technically dark brown, looks black, I am particularly surprised. When we adopted Miss Chocolate, we were told that she hadn't been in any one foster home for longer than 8 weeks. I now know that this is because she is a high-maintenance little bitch (and I don't mean that in the "female dog" sense). As for her face: it's gorgeous. Her fur is always shiny, and she has giant dark brown eyes that make you forget (for a moment) that she just peed on your pillow.

Maybe racism has made her bitter. Maybe she was extra sweet and obliging young pup until she encountered the predjudices against dark-furred dogs. Maybe this is why she gets so mad when our lovely blonde lab mix and our light brown doxie are having fun tussling with each other. Maybe she barks to tell them that not all dogs have such cozy little lives. Maybe Miss Chocolate is an activist. Fight the power, girl!

Thank Goodness for J.Lo!

Jennifer Lopez met with Obama staffers recently "to discuss issues she is interested in, such as health care and education." Does anyone else find this story annoying?

A Tricky Situation

I was just heading to The Situation, and I accidentally forgot the "the" in the URL--and I stumbled upon a blog called "Rhetorical Situation." They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...;)

The meaning of the end or the end of meaning...

Every Monday morning during the last season of The Sopranos, I remember frequently, and quite compulsively, clicking every five (read 2, maybe 1.5) minutes at The House Next Door just to see if the writer would post the recap from the previous night's episode. Since the end of one of the best shows on television, I have not read the blog at all though the writing and criticism was very good. I suppose you can find recaps for all of the episodes in the blog's archives. But, I digress...

After a year of debate, another Sopranos' blog attempts to provide the definitive-- and I mean definitive-- coherence to our final moments with the Sopranos family. Here is the overview of the piece:

Part I will also discuss (and debunk) the other theories about the end including the “Tony always looking over his shoulder” interpretation. Part II, will concentrate on what Tony’s death means and how his death was thematically constructed throughout the final season. Part III will focus on the use of symbolism in Holsten’s. Part IV will focus on “The Godfather” influence on the final season and Tony’s death. Part V will focus on how the final episode and final scene are linked to America’s war on terrorism. Part VI will concentrate on the “fun stuff” created by Chase and his creative team to foreshadow Tony’s death. Finally Part VII will discuss the possible inspiration of two films on the ending of “The Sopranos”.

You can read the essay in full here. Enjoy as it helps ease the pain in our post-Sopranos world.

The McCain watch: Vetoing Beer?

Senator McCain will not be winning the working class white vote with comments like these:



Rumor has it that Chicken Wings, Pizza, and Bowling are also on his list. If you listen closely, the people in Buffalo are arming for a revolution.... what else will people do on Friday (and Saturday and Sunday and Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday) nights in the Nickel City.

Sunday Song of the Day: "Missing the War"

A favorite song and a favorite performance of mine from Ben Folds Five. The clip is from Sessions at West 54th, which is available on DVD. I highly recommend it, especially if you like, as Ben Folds would say, "Punk Rock for Sissies."

No Crown for Big Brown

Tip of the hat to Jockey Kent Desormeaux, who felt that something was amiss with Big Brown and pulled him up to finish dead last in Belmont today. By all accounts (so far, at least), Big Brown isn't seriously injured--he does have a cracked hoof, but it seems not to have affected his race--just tired and, it seemed during the race, a little pissed off. But Desormeaux, when he realized that a Triple Crown wasn't going to happen, decided to take care of his horse. That decision is the first step in restoring my faith in the existence of responsible horse racing.

Senator Clinton's Concession Speech

Hillary Clinton delivered the last words of the primary campaign today, addressing her supporters at the National Building Museum in Washington and providing her supporters with the best aesthetics of her campaign. In her speech, she concentrated on four themes: thanking her supporters, endorsing Senator Obama, calling for Democratic unity, and addressing the historic nature of a woman running for president i.e. the gender elements of the campaign.

Like other concession speeches, such as Al Gore's in 2000, it was well written and well delivered. Unfortunately for Gore in 2000 and Clinton today, both candidates delivered their speech after the election was settled. For some reason, maybe because the pressure is off, candidates can deliver outstanding concession speeches when they were not as good on the stump during the campaign. If only the candidates could deliver that type of speech on the stump, the campaign may have done better.

The strength of the speech occurs in the final two sections where Clinton calls for unity and addresses the gender aspects of her campaign. When discussing unity, she did a very good job of standing up for her principles of the Democratic party and Senator Obama while not compromising her beliefs. Unfortunately, during the speech, it is not clear if her supporters desire the unity Senator Clinton addressed. Besides the tension in the race and how close Senator Clinton finished to Senator Obama, it must have been tough for her to deliver this section since she did not want to leave the race and, according to Politico, her supporters forced her hand about the endorsement. Yet, through all of this, even Senator Clinton declared, "Yes We Can."

As for the gender aspect of the speech, she discussed cracking the glass ceiling but not cracking it. The speech features the Democratic idea of progress where her candidacy is another step (abolition, suffrage) expanding the right and ability of people to participate in political life. She attempts to connect this progress with unity as she argues:

So I want to say to my supporters, when you hear people saying – or think to yourself – “if only” or “what if,” I say, “please don’t go there.” Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.

Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next President and I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort.

This quote is reminiscent of RFK's remarks, "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

For Senator Clinton, it was a very good speech, one of her best. It has been very well received and may help to mend the divisions within the party.

Born Again

A less political post:

Here's a story (a happy one) that gives new meaning to the term "born again."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24999650/

"Responsible War" and "Aggressive Diplomacy"

P-duck is not as celebratory…
I wish I could share in The Rhetorical Situation’s overall happiness at Obama’s nomination; however, I am concerned with his inexperience and with his stance towards the Iraq war.

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.” http://www.barakobama.com/

Obama’s plan to “responsibly end the war” (can one “responsibly” end war?) includes the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and the launching of an “aggressive diplomatic efforts” in the region. “Aggressive diplomatic efforts” seems like an oxymoron to me, and I’m curious as to how effective diplomatic efforts will be in a region where life is currently defined by physical violence, not diplomacy.

If “al Qaeda attempts to build a base,’ THEN he’ll keep troops in Iraq? Things will have gotten pretty bad if al Qaeda is able to build a base.

I like that Obama recognizes that there is a “humanitarian crisis” in Iraq happening in the present, but his solutions focus on refugees, not current citizens trying to eke out a living in a war-torn country. Al Qaeda continues to wreak havoc on the day-to-day lives of average Iraqis, and, as Mr. P-Duck and I have discussed many times, a weak economy and faltering infrastructure make it difficult to stabilize the country. Many of the US military’s responsibilities have involved protecting major highways so that food and supplies can reach Iraqi towns, rebuilding schools and hospitals, etc. Terrible poverty and desperation have driven many Iraqis to join the insurgency, thus undermining much of the progress made by humanitarian and military efforts. If the US pulls out completely, who will continue to protect the transportation of goods? The diplomats?

As many of you know, Iraq is a personal subject in the Duck household. Mr. P-Duck and I don’t feel that an immediate withdrawal of the troops will do much good for Iraq. It will, however, make the president (or president-to-be) look good in the eyes of the American public.

I am a Democrat, so Obama will get my vote, reluctantly. Hawkish McCain scares me more than Obama’s naiveté about war.

By Way of The Kinks: An Ode To Obama's True Demographic

The first rock band Harrogate ever truly fell in love with, and they will forever remain a favorite. And, this may be the first song that did it for Harrogate, too:



"Take a good look around," Ray croons in the beautiful closing lines. "The Misfits Are Everywhere." In the phenomenon known as the Obama stump speech, some truth has indeed been put to Davies' argument.

Much Congratulations for Obama

There has been great wailing and gnashing of teeth, as they say, on all sides throughout this Democratic Primary. The foundational Talking Point through it all has been, the Democrats will unite behind the winner when this mess is finally settled. Now, we get a chance to test this meme.

One thing about Unity. It doesn't mean you have to love, or even really like, those with whom and behind whom you are unifying. What it means, simply and beautifully from the perspective of our republican institutions, is that there is common ground which all have an interest in staking out.

At present, the tracts of common ground are enormous. So what, for example, if Clinton and Obama's health care plans are almost the same, a little different, or widely different? So what if Obama's Health Care plan doesn't fix the whole shabang at once? The point is, if Health Care was a selling point of HRC's in a voter's mind, then they now can cheerfully vote Obama, because of common ground. In short, at least the man acknowledges there is a problem and seeks solutions to it. This puts him in a different category altogether from any prominent Republican.

Similar arguments can and should be made for the gamut of issues foreign and domestic. Because of common ground, HRC supporters ought not withold their votes from Obama come this fall. It really ought not affect things for her die-hards one way or the other, whether she is chosen to be his running mate. In fact, the only argument Harrogate can think of for Obama offering her the Veep spot, is simply as a gesture of genuine respect for someone who garnered so very many votes, who pushed him so hard (and thus arguably at least, made him a better politician), and who in these last few months seems finally to have learned how to give a real political speech. Such, probably, won't constitute enough of an argument, with so much metaphorical blood on the wall.

Obama is going to want to go in a different direction, and that is of course his right, and must be respected as such by all parties involved.

So congratulations, Senator Obama. You practically owned, this season, a demographic of voters that many politicians in both parties have persistently refused to recognize: No, Harrogate is not alluding to race, though that will be all the rage for the next several months. Harrogate instead refers to the burned-out, the bitter, the apathetic. The non-voter, in short, has been pursued this season, and pursued vigorously. Adding this suddenly viable block to the aready substantial block of Democratic loyalists, Obama thinks he's got a shot at winning the White House.

Time will tell if Repubs' Death Grip can be loosed this November, O Readers. Harrogate is deeply skeptical, but with lives in the balance, it would be unethical not to hold out a shred of hope.

An End to the Long and Winding Road

The NY Times reports that Senator Clinton will suspend her campaign and endorse Senator Obama on Saturday, five days after Senator Obama won the Democratic Primary. Yesterday, Senator Clinton received feedback but not support from her key backers, telling her it was time to end her campaign and support the Democratic nominee.

And M, you are correct: I do not believe there will be a joint ticket. Clinton's RFK comments, her lack of concession on Tuesday, and the pressure from her camp to secure the VP slot are recent examples to suggest why she won't be number two. Besides the fact Bill Clinton won't pass the vetting process and the Clinton's are a direct contradiction to Obama's message, there seems to be one other problem. In her speech on Tuesday, Senator Clinton stated that what she wanted was respect for herself and her supporters. Of course, throughout the primary, she has shown very little respect for the process and for the fact that someone beat her. Even when she adressed AIPAC yesterday, after she lost the nomination, she used the chance to take aim at Senator Obama.

If she believes that Senator Obama is not the legitimate nominee or that he will not win in November save having her on the ticket-- both of which her speeches suggests she believes and both of which are incorrect-- there is little need to have her on the ticket. These will only hinder a Democratic administration that does not have Senator Clinton on the top of the ticket and there is little chance she will be on the top of the ticket in 2008. Of course, if she were on the top of a ticket now, the division will be too great for her to win.

The long and winding road continues

Unlike Solon, I'm not going to wax poetic over the "end" of the Democratic primaries. Yes, I am glad this part of the election cycle is over. That said, I think those of us who support a democratic candidate have along fight ahead of us. Mark my words (and those of Paperweight, who has said is far louder and far more often than I have) this election is going to be ugly. Further, there are a few things that the democrats need to take car of right away.

First and foremost, HRC needs to pull her head out of her ass and withdraw. I am a longtime supporter of HRC and part of me is very sad that she isn't the nominee; that said, she needs to do what is best for the party and end her run. Second, Obama needs to determine the best strategy to win, and frankly if that means choosing HRC as his running mate (she's recently made statements suggesting she is very open to a VP position) he and his ardent supporters need to make this decision and make it fast. Frankly, I'm not at all convinced either Obama or HRC can beat McCain on their own. Together, I would argue they are almost unbeatable. (And, yes, Solon, I am fully aware that you disagree with everything I've just written, so you don't need to feel compelled to remind me why Obama shouldn't choose HRC as a running mate.) If Obama chooses another running mate (and there are a lot of other good choices out there), HRC needs to be given a fairly public role in his administration and at the Democratic National Convention. In short the democrats need to unify themselves very, very quickly if they are going to win in November.

The Long and Winding Road

The Democratic Primary is over, and Senator Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

If you are still uncertain about Senator Obama, read his victory speech from tonight. It is a speech that the Democratic nominee needs to deliver and it stands in stark contrast to the speeches of Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.

Megs, Sweet Baby J, and I are on vacation. We could not watch the coverage or the speeches though we found all three om the radio, living Megs romantic ideal.

Tonight, it is a beautiful world....

About that study: Geraldine Ferraro, Wise Sage II

In an op-ed yesterday, Geraldine Ferraro suggested that the Shorenstein Center examine the media coverage of the 2008 primary, to expose the unfairness of the media.

Guess what? The group did release a study, yesterday in fact-- the same day Ferraro asked for one. But why did Mrs. Ferraro ask for a study when one has been conducted. Oh, it did not provide the result she desired.

CHARACTER AND THE MEDIA 2008:

What Were the Media Master Narratives about the Candidates During the Primary Season?

Thursday, May 29—Barack Obama did not enjoy more positive press coverage than Hillary Clinton at the height of the primary season, at least when it came to the candidates’ personal narratives. And as early as February, coverage began to turn even less positive toward Obama than toward his rival, according to a joint study released today by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

In contrast to accusations of the media being easier on the senator from Illinois, the dominant personal narratives about Obama and Clinton – their character, history, leadership and appeal—were almost identical in tone. Overall, they were twice as positive as negative narratives for both candidates. But the trajectory of that coverage about Obama got progressively more skeptical, immediately after Clinton herself accused the media of showing preference during a February debate.

As for John McCain, he has had a harder time controlling his message in the press. Fully 57% of the narratives studied about him were critical in nature, though a look back through the entire campaign, including 2007, reveals the storyline about the Republican nominee has steadily improved with time.

This coverage, however, did not necessarily always correlate with the views of potential voters. Opinion surveys conducted in conjunction with the content study found that public perceptions of McCain and Obama largely—but not entirely—tracked with the tenor of the major narrative themes in the press. With Hillary Clinton, however, the public seemed to have developed opinions about her that ran counter to the media coverage, perhaps based on other factors or views which had solidified before the primary season.

You can read the report here if you choose. I wait for a correction by Ferraro but I won't hold my breath.

Wise Sage, Geraldine Ferraro

The Clinton supporter has an op-ed in The Boston Globe about the role of sexism in the Democratic Primary Race between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. For a statement by Ferraro, it seems worse than her other arguments, especially for the way in which it stereotypes voters and absolves the Clinton campaign of any guilt. Here is here argument:

After a long election between two extraordinary candidates (well, one extraordinary candidate and Senator Obama), the democratic party is not united right now because of the role of sexism and reverse racism against Senator Clinton and her supporters. Neither the Obama campaign nor the media (get it, they are working together, an essential component to her argument and the Clinton's conspiracy argument), understand that women feel Clinton was treated unfairly because of sexism and that white working class voters feel they have been treated unfairly because of reverse racism. The obvious implication, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, is that the Obama campaign (who in the campaign exactly?) and the media (who in particular?) is responsible. In the opening two paragraphs, Ferraro shifts the burden of proof (fallacy of ignorance) to show sexism occurred (without evidence) and the Obama campaign & the media is responsible whereby the acts of one stand for the entire group (fallacy of composition).

If you are going to make your case, then make it with evidence not an assertion. Don't scream out emotive words (sexism, reverse racism) and fail to provide definitions or examples. In regards to sexism, communicative acts need no interpretation as sexist claims and acts "exist" as being self-evident.

But it gets better:

In response, a group of women - from corporate executives to academics to members of the media - have requested that the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University and others conduct a study, which we will pay for if necessary, to determine three things.

First, whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism; second, whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly; and third whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate. And if they did to suggest ethical guidelines which the industry might adopt.

Well, this is a "fair court" as Monty Python would suggest. A group of women conducting a study to determine if there is bias. I wonder what they will find... If you already conclude that sexism existed in the campaign, they why do you need a study to prove your point when, under the circumstances of the study, it would hard to conclude that this group is impartial. The clear suggestion throughout is that there are individuals and corporations against Senator Clinton and an impartial group, from a major constituency of Senator Clinton, will be able to provide impartial evidence.

As for the questions, well what does sexism and racism look like? Tell us about the interpretive process or what the definitions will be? How often does it have to occur? Will context or intent matter? What does it mean to be treated fair or unfair? Will you be concerned as to whether or not other candidates were treated unfairly? What is bias? How ought we interpret the actions of the candidates in the past? How does experience fit in your mathematical equation, especially if Senator Obama cut in Senator Clinton's line before her, regardless of the fact that the voters selected him over her? (Or if this were true, since Senator Biden declared his candidacy shouldn't Senator Clinton abstained from running?) How can we include or exclude sexism and racism from the zero sum game of elections? Can this study group, under the guide of impartiality, give us an account of bias that would be fair? It doesn't seem like it.

Unfortunately, Ferraro's argument continues. Senator Clinton was treated unfairly because of sexism and it may have cost her the election, though no where does it suggest Senator Clinton was wrong to rely on gender to advance her campaign or Senator Obama was treated unfairly (by the Clinton campaign) because of his race. Further, there is no consideration how sexism may have helped her, especially rally her base. It is wrong for Senator Obama and his campaign to use the race card but reciprocity does not exist to Ferraro.

This is my problem with her argument. Guilt only exists on the part of one party. Her attempts to fix this overlooks the role of agency and interpretation and imposes one set of speech norms as it separates speech from its context. It seems that while sexism exists, without interpretation, claims that involve race must be scrutinized closely because claims of racism cut of debate, which in this case, concerns criticism of Senator Obama.

Ferraro leaves us with a discussion of Reagan Democrats who feel, like herself, that they cannot criticize Senator Obama without being called a racist. To Ferraro, these voters (and she stereo-types all of these voters as having the same view, removing agency from them and denying them the chance for interpretation, but I digress):

They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.

Two things: first, Ferraro's original complaint was that she was attacked for suggestion Obama received special treatment because of race and that he did not possess the experience of Senator Clinton, which is a subjective claim at best.

Second, it appears that, to Ferraro, Obama ran on identity politics, contrary to what he argued throughout the campaign. It seems she knows him so well that his intent does not matter, only hers. Further, because of his identity politics and his elitism, he will not be able to identify with voters (pay attention Super Delegates, there is nothing that can be done about this:

Whom he chooses for his vice president makes no difference to them. That he is pro-choice means little. Learning more about his bio doesn't do it. They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate. His experience with an educated single mother and being raised by middle class grandparents is not something they can empathize with. They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid. What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind.

It appears that Senator Obama cannot understand these voters and their problems because he attended Columbia and Harvard and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Lawyer. Even though Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale and her husband attended Georgetown, received a Fullbright scholarship, won a Rhodes Scholarship, attended Yale, and skipped out on Vietnam, the Clintons can relate to these voters. However, since Obama attended Columbia and Harvard, and his wife (why this is in here, I have no idea, really, no really, I couldn't guess), Harvard-Princeton, he cannot relate to them. Make your argument about elite sensibilities but making it on education makes you look foolish. Further, these voters can not relate to Obama's family experience because even his middle-class upbringing is elitist even though he was raised by grand parents and a single mother for a time. That is a great generalization. Finally, he doesn't advocate policies for them, which is a reference to the gas holiday policy since most of the policies are similar. But the GTH is just a terrible policy. At one point, the Clinton campaign attacked Obama because of elite sensibilities. But elite materialism does not work when your candidate attended prestigious schools and made $100 million in the past eight years.

Geraldine, we get it. You do not like the Obamas for the way in which you perceive they treated the Clintons. Fine, they attacked your friends and heroes. Make your case against them and do not hide behind "sexism" or "elitism" when doing so because, when you do, you deflect and purify the actions of the Clinton campaign, who have not been innocent throughout this election. Neither party is innocent, don't pretend they are.

Same-Sex Marriages in New York

Gov. David Patterson announced that same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries will be legally recognized in New York. While the Empire state will not allow for the performance in state, those who marry in other states will receive full rights from the state and agencies that do not comply will be subject to liability. You can read the text of the official announcement and see his statement here.

In New York, same-sex marriages have moved slowly. In 2006, the state courts refused to create a right, deferring to the legislature for this act, though the Court's decision did not prevent the recognition of this right in New York. Because of Republicans in the state senate, the legislature has not passed legislation to recognize same-sex marriages. Yet, with elections in 2008, Democrats may pick up some seats in the state senate. If this were to occur, then same-sex marriage may pass through the legislature and the act will not be subject to a Governor's undemocratic veto, as in the case of California.

The practical effect may be "marriage tourism," where citizens of New York visit California or Canada for marriage and then return to living in New York. This would not happen in Massachusetts though because of the state's residency requirement.

Those opposed to this measure still possess the chance to persuade voters that this is wrong. Whether or not this occurs is another story.

The Ethos of Democracy, or, This is What Democracy Looks Like

Only three primaries, one legal-like meeting, and one protest left remains in this epic battle!!!

On Saturday, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss the Florida and Michigan situations. There have been many proposals as how to seat the delegates from the two delinquent states, from awarding the full delegate and popular vote totals for Senator Clinton and giving Senator Obama his totals from Florida but not Michigan (thank you Grand Inquisitor of Democracy Lanny Davis); to awarding the full vote in both and giving Senator Obama the uncommitted delegates in Michigan, which leaves us the problem with illegitimate elections though we expect that in the US; to counting the full vote in Florida and providing a 69 - 59 delegate split in Michigan sans popular vote, which carries an assumption of an illegitimate election but does not state it explicitly and makes little sense; to cutting the delegations in half but hopefully not the people themselves; to allowing Harrogate to decide the outcome after a pick-up game of hoops-- he better choose Obama first, or maybe his assistant, Reggie Love; or Oxymoron reforming the listening room to hear oral arguments and then contemplating this mess over The Beatles White Album, (the only record I ever heard in the listening room....)

MSNBC has a good review of the possible scenarios. I would argue the fight is not over the delegate totals but rather the popular vote. Even if Senator Clinton receives her delegate "result" from the original "vote" then she is still far, far behind. However, if she can claim the vote totals (through illegitimate elections) then she can make her case to the Super Delegates on the basis of winning the popular vote (minus Obama votes from caucus states and Michigan or any one else she sees fit). Look for the delegate to be seated (no surprise there) and be awarded 50% of their original strength. American Idol, er, MSNBC Political Analyst Chuck Todd (Viva Chuck Todd) reports that the rumor of the day is that the popular vote in Florida would count & their delegate total would be cut in half while Michigan's delegates would split 50-50 and the popular vote would be excluded, making the nomination mark 2,118. Great only half or three fourths the illegitimacy.... way to go Democrats!!! And if they campaigns & the DNC reach a deal here, who trusts both parties to keep to their word.

The irony would be if these states planned to hold their primaries in June then they would have been seated in full, would carry enormous influence over the process, and would have received bonus delegates----It's just like bonus democracy!!! Hat's off for the states that wait.

Even better than the fight inside will be the protests outside--- Brooks Brothers Riot anyone? Outside the main event, Clinton supporters, such as Women Count PAC, will be protesting in an attempt to get the original vote seated as is (see their blackmail poster here). During the protest, Clinton fundraiser Elizabeth Bagley, Reps. Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio and Corrine Brown of Florida, and Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, will address the protesters. However, in keeping with Senator Clinton's campaign slogans, the speakers will not give speeches or engage in rhetoric; they will only provide solutions or act. It will be as if a bunch of philosophers walked into a room, contemplated, and reached "the truth" without discussion. Performance art for everyone. (For a list of non-speakers, er, I mean speakers, click here.)

If there were ever a time for a dastardly act by the Republicans, Saturday would be the opportune time. All the networks plan on covering this spectacle. Why riot just at the convention when you can riot in DC and the convention.

On a totally, related and unrelated note, we finally watched HBO's Recount. After watching the movie, I walked away with three conclusions: (1) Political parties possess way to much influence in the electoral process and the judiciary offers little sanctuary; (2) Kevin's Spacey's character, Ron Klain, showed that the real travesty was that a political party could purge over 20,000 voters from participating in the election without anyone knowing, making the election result predictable and tainted; (3) this is why you cannot solve a problem with an election after the election. Once the vote is in and the winner has a chance to define the situation, fairness becomes an after thought.

These lessons apply to the 2008 primary as well.

Oh Well. Viva Chuck Todd

Anti-Abortion Amendment in Colorado

CBS News reports that in November the citizens of Colorado will vote on an anti-abortion ballot initiative that would alter the state's constitution. The measure would require that the state constitution define personhood as "any human being from the moment of fertilization." Here is the text of the initiative:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

The measure developed through a grass roots campaign by Colorado for Equal Rights, not to be confused with the group Equal Rights Colorado.

Colorado should be a swing state this year. This may help to increase the turnout for social conservatives who may have stayed home this election.

The law is an obvious attempt to limit abortions though the implications of this amendment are quite vague. Would it be murder if a mother had a miscarriage,? What if the egg were fertilized but there was no implantation? Where do we draw the line?

I am not sure if this initiative will pass, but it raises some questions about how social conservatives will fight the election.

Sign of the Immient Apocalypse

Dunkin' Donuts pulled a television advertisement that featured Rachel Ray because the television food guru wore a black and white scarf that looks like a, "keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men."

When Michelle Malkin saw the ad, she threatened a boycott because the ‘‘The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad."

When Dunkin' Donuts pulled the ad, Michelle Malkin stated, ‘‘It’s refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists.’’

By my apartment there are a few Dunkin Donuts locations. By each Dunkin Donuts store, there is a Mom and Pop Bagel joint. Picking which one to consume from became a lot easier when the company capitulates to right wing paranoia.

Until the votes are cast....

On Morning Joe, Clinton Surrogate Lanny Davis-- the same Lanny Davis that supported the stripping of the delegates in Michigan and Florida as an official member of the DNC and who now believes that those vote should count in full regardless of the fictitious elections in both states-- argued that Senator Clinton would continue until "all the votes are cast...." Since Super Delegates cannot officially cast their votes until the DNC Convention in August....This will be a long summer.

The Clinton argument is that polls in May show her winning in November, giving her reason to stay in the race. They must figure that if this trend continues then the Super Delegates will support her in August even though they have not supported her since Super Tuesday.

Of course, Rep. Nancy Pelosi stated the race would be over next week. Who to believe?

Update: after thinking about this more, this could be an attempt to negotiate the VP slot for Senator Clinton. In addition to Lanny Davis, James Carville and Wes Clark have argued, ambiguously, that Clinton may take it to the convention or until things are settled, while Ed Rendell argues that Clinton ought to be the VP. If it is not an attempt to secure the VP, it may be an attempt to persuade the Super Ds to support her & take it to the convention, to beat Obama and run in 2012 (which 1/2 the party will be against her, making it very tough for her), or running third party, which would mean a McCain victory in the fall and a Clinton loss.

Scott McClellan and The Cult of the Kill

After listening to the remarks of Scott McClellan's new book, What Happened, I can only think of Kenneth Burke's poem "The Cult of the Kill," which examines the psychological process over the disruption and the return to order:

Here are the steps
In the Iron Law of History
That welds Order and Sacrifice:

Order leads to Guilt
(for who can keep commandments!)
Guilt needs Redemption
(for who would not be cleansed!)
Redemption needs Redeemer
which is to say, a Victim!).

Order
Through Guilt
To Victimage
(hence: Cult of the Kill). . . .

The Last Female Candidate...?

A few weeks back, we Situationers debated the characteristics of the first female president, a discussion first began by The New York Times. One of the implications of this article is that there would not be another female candidate in our generation. Think that no more....

Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick examines the issue and is not impressed with the arguments that suggest Senator Clinton is the last, great hope and, as Marie Cocco argued in The Washington Post, if she cannot do it, no one can. Lithwick's response:

No more women candidates in our lifetimes? Not for a whole generation? Can we at least make Sex and the City a box-office success? Do we dare to eat a peach?

Lithick is more optimistic in the success of Clinton's campaign than others have been. Rather than look at Clinton's failure as a prima facie case that no woman can win, which implicitly lionizes the junior Senator from New York, Lithwick would rather examine the success of the Clinton campaign to show that it is possible for a woman to win in the future.

By advancing the argument that no woman will ever win the presidency without the advantages of a Hillary Clinton because only those advantages account for her success, we do more to disrespect her enormous talents than all of the oily misogynists on Fox News. All across the country, in the most unlikely ways and places, Hillary Clinton kicked ass as a woman. Why take that away from her now?

For Lithwick, a stronger candidate may have won the primary and, if you read the article, she implicitly argues that there are and will be stronger candidates in terms of experience, which was never clear with HRC, and campaigning, which was not her strong suit until March. After discussing a few potential candidates, Lithwick asks:

Why diminish all these women with claims that whatever qualities of Clinton's they lack are precisely those qualities needed to become president someday? What possible evidence do we have for that?

The final refutation for Lithwick concerns the treatment of women as candidates, especially in terms of sexism. Again, the conventional wisdom is that if Senator Clinton could not win (and notice the synecdoche), why would any other female candidate put herself through this?:

A suggestion: Women will put themselves through this because most of us will have been more inspired by the Clinton run than scared off by it. They'll put themselves through it because—for the first time in history—they'll know what it looks like when a woman almost scores the presidency, and it looks amazing. And some of them will also put themselves through it because having been well and truly sickened by the "iron my shirts" moments, they'll do what women did in 1992 after watching Anita Hill endure outrageous nuts-and-sluts treatment at the hands of an all-male Senate judiciary committee. They'll swarm government.

If Hillary Clinton has taught the women of America anything this year, it's never to say never. Which is why it would be lamentable if the only lesson we take from her candidacy were that nothing like it will ever happen again.

Lithwick's argument is optimistic and, while respecting the success of Senator Clinton, the argument refuses to enshrine Senator Clinton and make her the symbolic representative of all women. It is an argument based on empowerment and not victimage. If only HRC learned this lesson...