Dean, Delegates, and Doom...?

On NY1, Howard Dean stated that there will not be a brokered convention. The issue will be resolved before Denver, even if he needs to ask one of the two candidates to drop out. Here is what Dean said:

“The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario. So, after the primaries are over, the last primary is June 8th in Puerto Rico - Puerto Rico I think, there may be another state with there - and after that if we don’t have a nominee, I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don’t, then we’re going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention, that would not be good news for either party."

If you are in this situation, what do you do? Here are the facts as of February 5th:

Obama has a lead with pledged delegates.
Clinton has a lead with pledged delegates and super delegates.
Obama has won more states.
Clinton has won the popular vote.

There is no likelihood that there will be a joint ticket. These candidates do not like one another. And, with Bill Clinton there, it would cause a stir.

Between now and the beginning of June, there are 1738 delegates available through primaries, caucuses, and Super Duper Delegates.

Obama will win Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, D.C. Virgina, Maryland, Washington, and Hawaii. By win, I do not mean a decisive victory, but proportional victory of 599 votes.

Texas is a partial primary, mostly caucus beast of a hybrid and I have no idea what will happen.

Clinton will run well in, and possibly win Pennsylvania, and Ohio. But again, the win will be proportional and Obama will do very well. I say this tentatively because of Obama's victories in February and because of Clinton's financial problems. Even the Clinton camp is conceding that Obama will win the other states in Feb, though this may be political posturing. There are 680 delegates available in this mess.

After April, there will be 459 delegates remaining before the convention. This means:

• No one candidate will have the nomination based on delegates alone.
  
• Obama may be in the lead with delegates and Clinton with Super Delegates and Population, though by that time, Obama may gain on the Super Delegate count.

If you are DNC Chief Dean, what do you do? What matters more: delegates? Super Delegates? The voice of the people? The traditional electoral establishment? Who can beat the Republicans? Who will keep the base and independents? The Young or Old?

How do you prevent a split?

How much is your candidate worth?

According to Kate Phillips at The New York Times, Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million during the month of January. Since, as the article reports, Clinton has maxed out her primary donors (individuals can contribute up to $2300 per election-- and the primary is separate from the general), and may consider another loan to help with the February and March primaries. This tactic helped Senator Kerry to win the nomination in 2004.

While reading about this, I found the net worth of the Presidential Candidates. From Salon and Think on These Things:

Candidate	Net Worth
Mitt and Ann Romney	$202 million
John and Elizabeth Edwards	$54.7 million
Rudy Giuliani	$52.2 million
John and Cindy McCain	$40.4 million
Hillary and Bill Clinton	$34.9 million
Fred Thompson	$8.1 million
Barack and Michelle Obama	$1.3 million

A Post-Super Tuesday Vocabulary Lesson

The Top Five Words/ Phrases after Super Tuesday by Anna Marie Cox.

Let's not forget about the current administration

This story on waterboarding prompts me to ask "Is anyone really surprised by anything the current administration does anymore?" I say let's line up all the politicians, George Bush included, who say that waterboarding isn't torture, and let them experience it for themselves. If after experiencing it for 15 minutes (which, I daresay, is a much shorter period than any of the 3 individuals whom the CIA now admits they used this "legal" form of questioning), they can still say it isn't torture, we can talk.

Here's a tip to the CIA, the FBI, the Republicans, and President Bush: if the tactic you favor was also used by the Spanish Inquisition, it probably is torture.

The Morning After

For the Democrats:

According to The Washington Post:
Obama won 13 states and received 539 delegates from the 22 states (+14 from New Mexico)
Clinton won 8 states and received 540 delegates (+12 from New Mexico)

New Mexico has not been decided, though Obama leads lead 49% to 48% with 92% of the vote count. Yet, at this point in time, Missouri switched from Clinton to Obama. Last night, MSNBC stated Obama would win the delegate count 14 - 12.

I do not have any numbers on the popular vote; however, I imagine that Clinton won this. I will try to get this later in the day. Along with Michigan and Florida, the popular vote v. delegate count is the 800lbs gorilla(s) in the room. This is not good for the Democratic Party.

The main objective for both campaigns is to be able to claim the argument of the inevitable: I will be the nominee, so vote for me.

Overall Delegate Lead:
Clinton: 12 States, 803 delegates (Plus 12). CNN has Clinton with 783 delegates.
Obama: 15 States, 742 (Plus 14). CNN has Obama 709 delegates.
Edwards has 26 delegates.

Clinton has the lead in "Super Delegates" but these are not committed, yet. According to CNN, Obama has a 603 - 590 lead in pledge delegates.

Obama may win Maine, Nebraska, and Louisiana (caucus states), as well as D.C., Maryland, Virgina, and Wisconsin. But remember Clinton fans, with proportional representation Obama victories will not shut Clinton out. She will still receive her share.

I am not sure about Washington and Hawaii.

Fundraising is key, and Obama will win that in February.

The key is which candidate can position him/herself for March 4th: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont. Also, what about Tuesday, April 22 when the Keystone state gets its opportunity.

Ohio and Texas will be interesting because the winner there will claim that they can win that state in the general election, which may or may not be true. Maybe Ohio, probably not Texas. Hence, the argument of inevitability.

As for the Republicans::
The Republican Elites are suffering with McCain, but this is the house that they built. When you make Terrorism and Iraq the most important issue for seven years, you get McCain. While you rely on a CEO type (Bush) to run the country and he fails, you rule out Romney. When you make everything about religion, you get Huckabee.

Conservatives that demand ideological purity are cringing with McCain. Yet, Rush, what do you expect? You argued for "strength" and disregarded "economic responsibility" hence McCain.

Thoughts?

Last Democrats Standing and Fox News

Yesterday Solon pointed out that Hillary Clinton has challenged Barack Obama to more debates, and he rightly suggested that if Obama found himself behind, he might well take her up on an entire round of them. At this point Harrogate predicts that is exactly what will happen, which is arguably very good for the country except....

Last night Harrogate was watching A Daily Show, and Jon Stewart's guest was Chris Wallace. Wallace revealed that if Obama agrees to debate, that the first one is scheduled to be held by Fox News. Hmmmm, said Stewart, does this mean the Dems' boycott of Fox is over? There was never a boycott, Wallace informed us all, it was just John Edwards, who Wallace went on to describe, in his characteristic Fair and Balanced manner, as a panderer and a demogogue.

So, with Edwards out of the way Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama jump right in with Fox as though it's a legitimate format for them to be debating in? How disappointed Harrogate will be in both candidates when they stoop this low in hopes on conquering.

One more reason to be proud of John Edwards. He was a pretty bad Senator, but he's been speaking a hell of a lot of truth for the last few years. And the need for Dems to boycott Fox, which does everything in its power to hatchet them 24/7, is part of that truth.

Romney Couldn't Buy Super Duper Tsunami Biggie-Sized Tuesday

Yesterday, Huckabee friend and supporter Chuck Norris released a column provocatively entitled, "Will Romney Buy The White House?"

It is worth the read.

It is estimated that he already has used $35 million of his roughly $250 million personal fortune. And if Mitt makes the cut to be the Republican nominee, during the next 10 months, he surely will surpass Ross Perot's $60 million infusion into his own 1992 candidacy. To me, such excessive self-financing of one's campaign is not only a competitive injustice that rivals the use of steroids by athletes but also a fundamental flaw in the general race for president, which requires better campaign finance reform.

Yea, Harrogate has long felt Publicly Financed Federal Campaigns would be the way to go. Note the great line in the great movie Bulworth, when Warren Beatty says: "If you want a Senator who's not on the take, give him free air time so we won't have to fake." Now, some might argue that since Romney is spending so much of his own money, it actually opens the possibility of him being less on the take. But to invert a formula recently deployed by Hillary Clinton, this quibble might address the prose-governance of Beatty's argument, but not the poetic spirit of it, which reminds us that there needs to be an economically level playing field in the area of elections. Will there ever be a totally level playing field? Of course not, but it is always something worth striving for.

Just before moving into a Rhetorically clever tie-in with the sub-prime housing crisis, Norris also writes:

The truth is, for Mitt, that his presidential run is the biggest investment gamble of his life. And with the White House appraising at roughly $106 million, he's betting his largest wager on owning the Oval Office.

Well, stuff to chew on at any rate. Of course, Norris's Huckabee bias is out there for all to see. But the issue he addresses is rendered nonetheless serious thereby. Fortunately, last night's results sent a signal that,even among Republicans, money alone cannot be translated directly into votes.

A Couple of Final Thoughts on the Night

Wow, Huckabee won several states. And he may have had the line of the night, when he told a crowd "They keep saying this is a two person race--they're right, and we're in it."

That said it would be very shocking at this point if either Huckabee or Romney overcame McCain's Raw Numbers, not to mention his Momentum. Harrogate's calling it now. It's going to be John "My Friends" McCain for the GOP nomination.

Suck it, Rush Limbaugh.

California numbers still rolling in, but it looks like no major upsets anywhere for either of the Democrats. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had good nights. Hillary Clinton has an edge, but Obama is in the thick of it, and white men are apparently flocking to him.

Will Texas and Ohio decide this thang? Could it be that Harrogate and Mrs. Harrogate will cast deciding votes for the Democratic nomination, all from the heart of Bush Country? Harrogate has made it no secret he prefers Hillary Clinton.

But let him say this. He just watched Obama's speech in Chicago, and all that can be said is WOW.

It was a goosebump inspiring oration. The line that really riled Harrogate up was when Obama said (he's said it before, but still): "We are who we've been waiting for." Barack Obama is without question the most gifted political speaker, at least in Presidential Politics, that Harrogate has ever seen.

Hey Harrogate...

Did you notice the rhetorical shift in Hillary's speech?

According to Politico:

Hillary's victory speech this evening didn't say much new, but it sounded different from almost everything else she's said this year.

It's a little hard to pin down, but the rhetoric was flowerier, more rhythmic:

She said she'd work for "people on the day shift, the night shift, the late shift with the crying baby," and for "all those who aren’t in the headlines but have always written America’s story."

And the final flourish was, well, Obama-esque.

"Give us this nation to heal, this world to lead, this moment to seize," she said. "I know we’re ready."

Obama's memorable, similar promise: "A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Hey, are you going to criticize Hillary's "Unity Schtick???"

Do you think she knows she is in trouble? Obama won close to 100 delegates in New York and is cleaning up in caucus states, you know, states where there is deliberation....

Orange Underground Sayeth: "If Noone Sees It, It Never Really Happened"

To begin with his face is Oranged Out. His identity is top secret. He is part of a movement. Something is happening here.

He says, for example, that when you commit the obligatory random act of Cheetos, you must always commit said act against The Man: Never the innocent. This is an initiation process. He is waiting for your videos.

Harrogate, downthread, has already linked to the subversive Cheetos Cookbook. So if there is disenfrancheesement at play here, it will not be because Harrogate hoarded information for himself and a close circle.

Particularly stimulating for our Rhetorical purposes is the Orange Agent's claim, "Remember: if noone sees it, it never really happened." Herein lies the warrant of this entire campaign.

As the hour draws near....

It is almost 9pm on the east coast. Have there been many surprises so far?

Huckabee seems to be doing much better than expected. The same with McCain.

On the Democratic side, it is too early to tell much of anything. Even the polls that closed at 8pm est have not revealed much.

Any thoughts?

More Primary Debates?

Over at Swampland, it seems the the Clinton camp has challenged the Obama camp to a series of debates (four in total- one in Ohio and one in Texas) and one may be on Fox. This strategy is an attempt to play on Clinton's strengths as she is better is smaller settings rather than speaking engagements while Obama has been better with speeches than debates, though both did very well in the last debate.

This suggests three consequences of Super Tuesday and beyond:
1) Nothing will be decided as tonight will be close.
2) Clinton is attempting to make up for fund-raising problems as a debate would be free advertising.
3) If this is not about fundraising, then Clinton is challenging from a point of weakness. Maybe the Clinton camp is covering all basis, however, typically you challenge an opponent to debate when you perceive that you are behind in the race.

The Obama camp has not accepted the offer. If he is behind after tonight, then he has every opportunity, especially since it would look bad if Clinton changes her mind. If he wins, he can state that the people "know their positions"and may only agree to one or two if any at all.

Howard Dean Wavering on Michigan and Florida

Howard Dean is on Hardball right now and is wavering as to whether or not Michigan or Florida ought to count. It seems that, at first, he said the votes would not count. Now, he states that the people should decide the nominee and that an electoral commission made up by Democrats across the country will decide.

The Democratic Party- Finding Ways to Lose Elections Since 1968.

Who made Huckabee?

O'Brien v. Stewart v. Colbert.



Of course, Fox and Friends made the same claim.

Let the games begin...

Huckabee wins West Virginia. Romney is pissed....

In a state that is part caucus, part primary, the winning candidate needs to receive 50% of the vote. In the first round of voting, Romney received over 40% of the vote, while the remaining 60% was divided between the Huckster, McCain, and Paul,. In the second round, all of the McCain support transfered to Huckabee, meaning the Huckster received 52%, Romney 47%, and McCain 1%.

The Romney campaign responded to Huckabee with the following press release:

"Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change.

"Governor Romney had enough respect for the Republican voters of West Virginia to make an appeal to them about the future of the party based on issues. This is why he led on today's first ballot. Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party."

A Little Radiohead for the Soul

Similar, in ways, to Robert Browning's insane poem "Porphyria's Lover." How can a song built around the line, "We hope that you choke" be so damned gorgeous?

From Droughts to Miracles: What a Great Question!!!

Slate's review of the National, Virtual, Super-Spectacular, Town-Hall Meeting.

A Response to Stanley Fish (And, by Proxy, Solon)

Good ole Stanley Fish. His literary criticism can be tedious, but he does a good job here of boiling the issue down to its most basic elements. The invocation of Dick Morris is especially appropriate.

One thing that is weak about Fish's argument though, is his comparing hatred of Hillary Clinton to hatred of George W. Bush: a 'Reader-Response' pouring of one's own "angst" into an empty vessel.

"BDS" is one of the most Rhetorically Destructive memes floating around out there (Word is Bill O'Reilly coined it). If all people hated about George W. Bush was that he is from Texas, affects machismo, and smirks a lot, then you would have a slightly better comparison to the treatment Hillary Clinton has received.

The 'BDS' myth trivializes, even obliterates, two important truths that Harrogate will here articulate:


1)We understand it is fun to make fun of Bush as an individual, but we also understand he is perfectly representative of the GOP Platform overall; and far more importantly

2)The actual things this Republican Administration has done, not Bush's smirks nor his affected machismo nor the shots of clearing brush etc., is the cause of concern, and has been from the beginning. "BDS" explicitly charged critics with irrationality, but what people are pissed off about is stuff like the stoopid Tax Cuts, Iraq, Nepotism, Institutionalized American Torture, the internal gutting of government agencies like FEMA and the Department of Education, etc.

Anywho.

Harrogate wonders about the veracity of his friend Solon's claim, "some supporters of Hillary would say any criticism falls under the irrational category." Harrogate was initially tempted to say, he has actually seen this tendency evinced broadly by Obama supporters, but Harrogate decided not to say that. :-)

In all seriousness, Stanley, let us not insult one another's intelligence through the proliferation of straw men. Harrogate has yet to meet a Hillary Clinton supporter, or see one on television or the blogosphere, who dismisses as irrational any and all criticisms of the candidate.

Of course there are likely a handful of true believers out there for her, as with all candidates, who will brook no criticism.

Ron Paul has the most of these by far.

The Irrationality of Hillary Haters

From The New York Times, Stanley Fish on those who hate Hillary. It attempts to distinguish between good and bad attacks on Hillary (good = attacks on policy, attacks on judgment; bad = hating her because she is a feminist and not a feminist). It is interesting as it attempts to dissociate between rational criticisms and irrational hatred though, some supporters of Hillary would say any criticism falls under the irrational category just as detractors of Hillary would say that their dislike is perfectly rational.

It is worth the few minutes though.

More Patriot Bashing

How the Giants beat the Patriots: a cartoon by Kurt Snibbe.

Thoughts on Orange Underground: "Chester Is Serious As Hell"

If you click on this all the way to You Tube you will notice that a commenter very early on wrote, "Chester is serious as hell." Now there's a prospective Board member for The Rhetorical Situation!



Anyway, Harrogate absolutely loves this commercial. It is impelled with multiple issues. First off, what exactly is it that Felicia did to upset the blonde woman? And what word, or combination of words, would Faithful Readers use to describe the emotion Felicia is expressing when she puts her hand on her hip and drops her head to the side, immediately after being told, 'other people are trying to do their laundry too'? Exasperation? Resignation? Melancholy?

And then by contrast, how would we describe her emotions on heeding Chester's advice and Oranging up the antagonist's whites? Elation? Satisfaction? The thrill of having crossed the point of no return?

And finally, O Readers, who in the hell is that old guy hanging out with Chester? And why does Chester disappear after Felicia gives in to her Poe-esque "Imp of the Perverse"? Perhaps, at the end of the proverbial day, Chester the Talking Cheetah is not meant to be taken as an objectively real entity but simply Felicia's Imp--or rather, the Imp in us all, the Imp that Cheetos feeds so amply.

Here is the link to Orange Underground: the subversive cookbook.

Why polls do not matter...

According to Talking Points Memo: Zogby has his final California number as Obama 49%, Clinton 36%. SurveyUSA has Obama 42%, Clinton 52%.

More Gloating

In Rochester's Democrat and Chronicle, columnist Bob Matthews has a few titles from the naitonal media on the Giant's improbable win:

He's a Super Mann. ... Giant Piece of History. ... 18 wins, 1 Giant loss. ... Patriots Dream Year Left With Giant Hole. ... 18-1 and Done. ... Giants are the 1. ... A perfect, Giant surprise. ... Eli in Peyton Place.

I like 18 wins, 1 Giant loss and Eli in Peyton Place...

Why Spy-Gate will not end...

Greg Easterbrook, who writes the best weekly column on the NFL-- Tuesday Morning Quarterback--, has a very interesting article on why the New England Patriot's scandal of Spy-Gate will not end....

It is a very interesting piece, one that calls into question the Patriot's first SuperBowl victory against the St. Louis Rams. If the recent reports are true (IF TRUE), that a cameraman by the name of Matt Walsh recorded the St. Louis Rams' last practice before the SuperBowl, then the NFL has a major black eye:

Mike Fish reported on ESPN that St. Louis' walk-through was devoted to red zone plays -- all new plays and new formations the Rams had not shown during the season. Going into that Super Bowl, the Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf" was the league's highest-scoring team. In that game, St. Louis was held to a field goal in the first half. The Rams kept getting bogged down, as if New England knew what plays were coming. If the Patriots secretly taped the Rams' walk-through, then stopped the red zone plays the Rams showed in that walk-through, then won that Super Bowl by three points, then logic says New England materially benefited from cheating in the Super Bowl. If true, this would be the worst sports scandal since the Black Sox.

Congress will begin to investigate Spy-Gate. According to Easterbrook:

Most NFL teams play in publicly subsidized stadiums, and NFL games are aired over public airwaves controlled by federal licenses. The licenses, among other things, prohibit any pre-arrangement or artifice in what is presented as live competition. If a Super Bowl were affected by cheating, that would be a legitimate matter of concern to Congress. Plus, the recent lesson learned via baseball and steroids was that Major League Baseball did not clean up its own house until Congress put some pressure on.

Ticker-Tape Parades and Elections?

In the heels of their SuperBowl Victory, the New England Patriots.... wait I mean The New York Football Giants will have a ticker-tape parade in Manhattan this morning. It is expected that One Million people will be there.

Of course, the ticker-tape parade is altering voting as people cannot get to the polling places. Voters are being told to go to other areas to vote.

Let the conspiracies begin.... who will this help?

I do wonder if anyone is trying to get the crowd to vote. In the old days, politicians would get people out to vote through bribery. Vote for me and get some food and drinks... alcoholic beverages of course. Why do we not do this today?

Fundraising, Again

According to MSNBC, the Clinton Campaign $13.5 million in January. The Obama Campaign raised $32 million. This difference is important for two reasons:

(1) Obama has the funds to run ads through February and the beginning of March. He is planning on an ad blitz for 2/12. His ads have been running all night in NYC, where he needs some help.

(2) Obama may have possibly tapped out his resources early. His push in January may mean that people will not have funds in February to give, especially in the economy is not good. This may burt both candidates though.

(3) If Clinton does not win big tomorrow, potential support may go to Obama. Clinton is best described by having a "high floor, low ceiling." People like her and she has support, but there is a limit to that support. With limited funds, the ceiling may get lower.

Fun With Mitt Romney: Caption This Photo

The Paranoid Style of Talk Left's Postings

I tried to avoid this. However, while writing my last piece, I saw a draft in progress by Harrogate and it needed a response.

Recently, because of Harrogate's love of all things Talk Left, I started to read the web site. To be kind about the site, I think that the arguments are not well developed; the comments, worse. The arguments and the comments remind me of Richard Hofstadter's article "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" as everything that Obama does is a threat to the Clintons, progressive ideas in America, and the Democratic Party. Further, the media is complicit in this campaign. But I digress..

The three most striking features of the arguments and the comments on Talk Left are that they (1) rely on conspiracy or a paranoid style, (2) provide insufficient evidence, and (3) demand Ideological Purity.

(1) The Nature of the Conspiracy: Since Obama's victory in Iowa, one of the Most cited claims against Obama is that he is the "Media's darling." (It is interesting to note how "Media" is the
vague term normally used by the Right, especially on Fox News and the National Review, to attack the liberal media. I mean, no media ever supports Hillary, and certainly not The New York Times and the countless other papers when they endorsed her. But again, I digress.)

Yet, the claim that the media favors Obama and not Clinton presents itself as a conspiracy in the compaign. Hillary is the force of good; however, the media favors Obama and threatens the democratic process of people choosing their leaders. The positive media coverage, according to the Clinton advocates, means that more people like Obama. While you can bring forth the Marxist claim of false consciousness or the Platonic view of "Truth," let's examine the characterization of persuasion in this claim.

Talk Left's claim of "Media Darling" relies on the "Hypodermic Needle" model of persuasion, which has been discredited long ago. Media messages do not cause people to accept views. The communication research suggests an agenda setting function of the press, where the press does not tell people how to think but what to think about. While the media may show Obama in a positive way, making people think that they should reconsider who they should vote for, positive coverage of Obama does not mean that he is gaining votes.

Further, it contains a very low characterization of the American citizen and hostility toward those that favor Obama-- you are a dupe of the media if you support him. Of Course, if this were the case, then how did the wise Clinton supporters break the chains and escape the cave to see the "truth" about the candidates? The logical implications of Talk Left's position is that almost everyone who watches the news would favor Obama; yet, since the site is full of Clinton supporters, we can see this argument does not stand.

Second, maybe the claims on Talk Left do not stand tests of evidence that high school students ought to learn. Further, this line of argument rests of a dangerous "Either/ Or" fallacy.

For example, one claim by "Big Tent Democrat," who ironically seems to demand ideological purity for the progressive cause within the Democratic Party, relies on this claim as evidence: [Citing Paul Krugman] "By my count, 3 of my last 10 columns have criticized Barack Obama."
Well, let's examine the claim: Here is Paul Krugman's archive. Four of his last Five articles, "Clinton, Obama, Insurance," "The Edwards Effect," "Lessons of 1992," and "Debunking the Reagan Myth," criticize Barack Obama and contain Hillary Clinton Talking Points. Since January 21st, 80% of his articles attack Obama. And if this piece of evidence does not stand to the tests of evidence (reliability, bias), it is safe to say that the other pieces of evidence do not either.

By closely examining this claim, we see a dangerous "Either/Or" Fallacy as well as no criterion to judge whether or not a candidate receives criticism in the press. The count on Maureen Dowd may be correct if you think that every positive comment on Obama is a negative comment for Hillary, which is oddly similar to the way in which Conservatives state that the Equal Time Provision will censor them. The same may be true with Frank Rich. Though he is more openly against Hillary, there is a "you are either with us or against us" nature to these claims. You are either for Hillary or think she is evil. If you like Obama, you think Hillary is evil, right talk left?

Also, Harrogate finds rich the idea that Dowd and Rich attack Hillary on personal grounds; Krugman on policy. First, does Harrogate remember that Ethos, Logos, and Pathos are connected? For example, an attack on health care means that Obama is political naive and does not remember the past. It also means he is inexperienced and knows little. As Krugman attacks Obama on supporting Reagan, he suggests the same. While Krugman may implicitly attack Obama's character, he still attacks his character. Second, claims against character are perfectly reasonable when they are important. I am sure Harrogate would attack Bush for incompetence, would he not, which is an attack on character. When the candidates have very similar positions, then attacks on character, especially POLITICAL JUDGMENT, becomes necessary. This of course, refers to Iraq, where Obama had sense to speak out against it while Hillary supported the Draconian measures of the Bush Administration. To argue that we should exclude character is to attempt to avoid making Hillary's poor judgment important to the election.

Finally, the writers and comments rest on the idea of ideological purity. In the second portion of Harrogate's post, there is a video clip of Michelle Obama. In response of whether or not Michelle Obama would actively campaign for Hillary Clinton, Obama stated, "I would have to think about it. I would have to think about policies, who are pro-cho..... [THERE IS A BREAK IN THE CLIP HERE], her tone."

In response, Big Tent Democrat wrote:

This is what we do NOT need. Imagine if Bill Clinton had said that? Michelle Obama needs to straighten this out immediately. Really bad stuff from the Obama campaign.

First, there is an obvious break in the tape. It goes from "Pro-Cho..." to "Her Tone." It is interesting to note that it sounds like Michelle Obama is stating Pro-Choice, but that portioned is edited. I mean, it is not as is the Clinton campaign has tried to argue that an Obama administration would not look after the rights of women. Oh wait. The Clinton campaign has distorted Obama's record here. And here. Okay. we get it. Only Hillary can speak for women; no one else.

Second, this quote chastises Michelle Obama for not adhering to Party Line. Michelle Obama must "straighten out" her position? The Clinton campaign attacks her husband for using drugs and suggesting, because he is black, that he may have been a drug dealer, but no matter. It does not matter that blacks should have a voice in the party; Jessie Jackson won South Carolina. Blacks, and gays, need to follow party line (but don't question DOMA). Michelle Obama must follow party line. It does not matter what your interests are; it only matters what the interests of the Clintons, I mean the Democrats, are. How different is this comment from Sean Hannity's, Mark Levin's, or Rush Limbaugh's attacks on McCain as to whether or not McCain is a conservative. "When you look into the abyss..." But I digress....

Third, and finally, Big Tent Dem. wrote: "imagine if Bill Clinton did this." While this implies the media conspiracy, it also makes me wonder. Imagine if Bill Clinton swallowed his pride and advocated for Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004. Oh wait, that would threaten the Clinton Legacy in 2000 and Hillary's rise to power in 2008. When the party needed Bill Clinton to avoid President Bush, Clinton was no where to be found. But, now Big Tent Democrat expects every Democrat to get in line with Clinton?

Odd, but appropriate

After finding the Hallmark Channel, I watched some of the Hillary Clinton's National Town-Hall
(ugh... the irony seems so silly)....Debate, er, I'm sorry, conversation....She is half-way through the Super Tuesday States and is taking a question from Illinois....

The theatrics of this is just silly... Clinton is watching a room full of people clapping for her and she is making silly comments about knowing everyone in the room... and answering a question about Iran and Women's Rights..... both foreign policy and gender....

But, the reason I posted is due to the fact the program description for the Hallmark Channel between 9 - 11 pm est is for "A Season for Miracles" which is about how "A Woman tries to care for her sister's children." Think about it as an apt description of her policy goals.

Oh. And her answer on Iran is about opening negotiations, which I believed she rebuked Obama on in one of the debates. And, well, then women are important for foreign policy because, "where women are free, have full participation in those countries, we are more likely to have a better relationship." Two things: (1) the same could be said for "freedom of speech" but that would be outside of her scope of her campaign about making gender a bug issue... oh wait... she said she would not play the gender card...and (2) What is our policy on Saudi Arabia?

The next question is (by a woman) about ending the war and bringing the peace to the US.... Harrogate-- how does one "win the peace" without establishing that "Unity Schtick?"

Also... she stated that she would have to Ask the Dept. of Defense to draw up a withdrawal plan, citing that the Bush administration would not have created one because the Bush admin. does not plan well... But this is very disingenuously since there are multiple plans about invasion and withdrawal...

Third question (asked by a woman) about immigration.... I will stop now.... The transparency seems lacking.

In Lieu of Super Tuesday, A Few Words on Media Darlinghood

Since both of these Media Darlinghood stories have been brought to Harrogate's attention through the efforts of the same blogger, a word of credit is in order. More and more Harrogate finds himself enjoying Big Tent Democrat's Posts over at TalkLeft. Certainly, BTD hasn't been nearly the Hillary Clinton partisan that Jeralyn has been, but unlike many others sympathetic to Obama's campaign, he has at least maintained a degree of objectivity.

That being said,Darlinghood Story #1: Ezra Klein is responding to this simple observation by Paul Krugman:

By my count, 3 of my last 10 columns have criticized Barack Obama.
7 of Frank Rich’s 10 last columns, and 6 of Maureen Dowd’s last 10 columns, have criticized Hillary Clinton. But, of course, that’s different: Hillary is eeevil, and deserves it.

Ezra Writes

I think Paul Krugman's got a point when he says that he gets a lot more flack for repeatedly criticizing Barack Obama than his colleagues do for continually lashing Hillary Clinton. Rich and Dowd go after Hillary largely on personality grounds -- she's cold, and calculating, and entitled, and overreaching. Krugman, by contrast, keeps slamming Obama on health care. The sense I get from some of those critiquing him is that they're tired of hearing about this disagreement and think Paul should get over it already. And that's a fair point. But while there are a lot of folks who accurately diagnose the illegitimacy of Dowd and Rich's critiques of Clinton, very few seem to notice or care that these attacks on her personal comportment are repetitive. Continual Hillary-bashing is somehow far less jarring than continual Obama-bashing. Maybe that's a strength of his.

This is such a rich piece of literature. First of all, it's hard to tell the difference between Maureen Dowd and Robert Novack in terms of subject matter: both are political gossips first and foremost. Second, the undeniable fact is that Hillary Clinton has been hammered by the Punditocracy from the beginning, and what's worse, the substance of the critique always revolves around broad, unsustainable claims about her personality. And then, Paul Krugman is one of the only high profile people to have been consistently critical of Media Darling Obama, and people are acting like he's being irrational? Krugman's complaint about Obama is substantive, but he's supposed to get over it? Yes, substantive criticism of what Obama actually stands for might deflect time away from talking about how "grasping" and "conniving" Hillary Clinton is.

And finally, the line, "Maybe that's a strength of his." Wow what a way to close out, Ezra. The point is not that people are behaving badly, it is that this bad behavior works to Obama's advantage.

Darlinghood Story #2. Look at Michelle Obama saying this:



BTD wisely noted in response to Michelle Obama's Bill Belichick-like behavior

This is what we do NOT need. Imagine if Bill Clinton had said that? Michelle Obama needs to straighten this out immediately. Really bad stuff from the Obama campaign.

This thread attracted an amazing 300 comments before Jeralyn finally closed the thread.

Why Super Tuesday Won't Matter

From Slate: Proportional Representation in the states will mean that Hillary and Barack will come very close to a tie.

Democrats and Health Care

In The New York Times, Paul Krugman discusses the differences between Hillary's and Obama's plans for health care. I have always wondered:

(1) What is the reason why health care needs to be universal?
(2) Why is a mandate necessary?
(3) What is the best way to argue for the mandates?
(4) What are the constraints to Health Care and how do your overcome those constraints?
(5) On what grounds can you penalize those that do not want health care or chose to seek other means to attain it?
(6) What role should the president, congress, and the American public play in formulating the country's policy on health care?

This post is not to differentiate between the two candidates and to favor one. However, it is to check the premises of the argument.

Hillary & Experience

Fareed Zakaria on Hillary's (wrong kind of) experience.

Making Plays, Making Plays, Making Plays. Making Plays! How the Giants Won, as Explained by Vince Vaughn

Clearly, while Belichick's guys were "out partying" during the leadup to the Super Bowl, celebrating their inevitable path to History, Tom Coughlin's guys were "running routes."

So sayeth Vince Vaugh.

It's only a perfect season if....

You win every game. Sorry New England, try again next year.

And Coach Belichick showed what a jackass he truly is... he walked off the field before the game ended....

And one wierd state: the team that finished first is passing and with the quarterback that threw for the most yards during the season is 0 - 42 in terms of winning a Superbowl.

Sorry Tom. Well, not really since you are going home with a super model. Literally.

John McCain: Pro-Life, Pro-Cloning

Curious word choice for McCain at a Birmingham stump speech yesterday, during which he sought to reassure the GOP base of his pro-life credentials. "I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts," said McCain to a pundit from the National Review.

Also from the news story:

Tonight at a packed rally in Atlanta, McCain repeated the call for clones.

My friends [does anyone else join Harrogate in being sick and tired of hearing this windbag intone "My friends" before every Talking Point?], I want to tell you, I will try to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I will try to find people just like them."

Will stem cell research opponents take offense?

Hmmm. A good question by one (speaking of Freudian wordplay) Jack Tapper.

How can a Senator explicitly in favor of cloning be the GOP frontrunner?

Is the Senator's persistent use of the word "clone," when reaching out to social conservatives, a Freudian slip signalling his awkwardness with that demographic?

And BTW: Mormons are weird.

Super Tuesday, Not Super Sunday

I do not care about the game tonight. In the long run, it does not matter. But Tuesday, on the other hand...

Here are 10 things to think about for Tuesday.

(1) Because of the "winner takes all" approach for the Republicans, McCain win be on his way to win the Republican nomination. This is not surprise. Yet, what Reagan began, McCain will end.

(2) McCain's success will mean that Michael Bloomburg will not run. This means that Ron Paul may be the only third party candidate. Sigh.

(3) No democrat will win the nomination. In fact, a victory will not even be close. Texas, and more importantly, Ohio will play a larger role in picking the nomination.

(4) The key numbers are 60% - 40% or 55% - 45%. If Hillary gets closer or passes the 60% threshold on Tuesday, she will be the nominee. If Obama hits 40% and moves closer to 50%, he will be the nominee. He has deeper pockets and his momentum is gaining. If Super Tuesday were February 12th, Obama would win the aggregate. But, you play the game when scheduled.

(5) The key states on Tuesday will be California and Missouri. California may be close; Missouri picks winners (the state has picked 25 out of the last 26 presidents). from what I know, New York is a lot closer than people think because of Brooklyn and the Bronx.

(6) If Super Tuesday is closer to the 50% mark, then the Super Delegates will play a very large role. (Other than being completely ironic since the party of the people will not be chosen by the people), the Super Delegates will pick who they think will win the general election and not just the primary. This means that those the Super Delegates who have "pledged" may change their pledge.

(7) The role of independents. In some states independents cannot vote (closed primaries); in some states they participate in Democratic primaries and not Republican.

(8) A 100 delegate lead after Super Tuesday may be too hard to overcome with proportional representation in the Democratic primaries. The longer the race continues, the harder it will be for Clinton to win the nomination.

(9) Both Clinton and Obama will declare a victory. The public will not know who to believe.

(10) Mitt will still be a schmuck and Huckabee will take votes away from him. Today, on one of the talk shows, he argued against McCain-Feingold (campaign finance) because it is unconstitutional (which is it) and it hurts the Republican party (which makes him look like a schmuck for insisting that the Constitution serves one party). I would like to see him argue on what grounds the executive can hold people indefinitely in Cuba (he stated, in one debate, that they should double the size of the prison there.) Nice method of Constitutional interpretation-- rely on what ever methods that helps my party. No wonder why conservatives don't vote for you. Good Grief.

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.