Awesome Picture and Quick First Night Democratic Convention Thoughts (JM)

In all seriousness please ignore the picture of McCain. Just look at the picture of Biden. It's hilarious, maybe even beyond hilarious. It's like he's a 70's blacksploitation film. I don't think I am the only one who sincerely believes that he needs to bring that look back for his speech Wednesday night. Okay McCain looks pretty darn earnest in that picture to be fair (though I am pretty sure that he was at the helm of the Monitor). Anyway, just a fun moment of Biden-related fashion talk. Also Michelle Obama's speech was phenomenal last night, the video montage was also quite impressive, I think the campaign hit all the right notes towards the end of the evening. No one will forget the return of Ted Kennedy, a well crafted night all around.

A Tactical Mistake? Why Obama Should Face Clinggate Head On. (JM)

Greg Sargent over at TPM has a recording a robocall going out in PA, from the mayor of York. Essentially it is a push back over the bitterness comments, which you can read in the post below. However, the tactic seems to focus on the "bitter" portion of his remarks, rather than the idea of "clinging to religion and guns". This seems like a really poor decision on the part of the Obama camp. Obama supporters seem to be getting indignant and dismissive, saying that Obama misspoke but the "bitterness" is real. This is just not going to fly.

No one, no one in the world thinks that rural Pennsylvanians are not bitter. Of course they are. The question the Obama raised, and the one that is going to be constantly repeated by the GOP, is how Obama really sees both religious belief and gun-ownership. I think it is rather unambiguous that these comments tied their belief-systems to their social position and desperation and no amount of spin is going to make this disappear. Mickey Kaus, at Slate, had a very effective explanation of the real issues behind these remarks. What this leaves me with is the fear that at this point it won't be enough to turn things around for Hillary, but it'll be just enough to help McCain drub Obama in the general.

Let's take a quick look at a few key swing states:

1. Florida- Obama is already polling poorly against McCain here. McCain has strength amongst older voters, Jewish voters and Hispanic voters. These are all groups amongst which Obama runs quite weakly. But let's not forget Obama's weakness doesn't end here, because of the debacle with not allowing a revote in Florida. I am not excited to rehash the "Who Killed the Florida Relection Debate", though I suppose if you really want to do this throw it down in the comment section and bring it on, but either way Obama is clearly perceived as one of the key figures in preventing a revote. All of this spells a lot of bad news for the Dems in Florida.

2. Michigan- Obama appears to be running even with McCain here, though the fall out of not seating the delegates may impact him at some point in the future. Regarding his recent comments he is probably okay here. If the Dems are going to win Michigan it will be on the back of economic progress, not social issues.

3. Ohio- Very similar demographics to Pennsylvania with a little bit of Michigan on the side. This is not a disaster scenario for the Democrats, but this certainly hurts Obama amongst the Huckabee populists, a group he had hopes of courting before this debacle occurred. This is yet another state in which Hillary is running much stronger than Obama.

4. Pennsylvania- I honestly think that if things stand as they do now, this literally kills any chance Obama had of taking PA. We'll need to wait to see new polls, but there was already a dearth of support amongst the working class in Pennsylvania. Obama's PA base will stay with the party regardless of the nominee, Hillary's is far less likely to do so. It's hard to imagine Obama winning PA, but impossible if he doesn't address this issue head on, instead of pretend there is much ado about nothing.

5. The New Map- One of the cornerstone arguments amongst friends of mine regarding the ascendancy of Barack Obama, is that he redraws the electoral map for the Democrats. I very much look forward to this day, but I am more skeptical than others. Let's take one example of this kind of state, perhaps the most favorable one, Virginia. Certainly the demographics of Virginia have become more and more conduced to electing a Democratic candidate. As the northern suburbs fill out with D.C. commuters and traditional liberal households, Democrats gain strength. However, these very comments, ones that can easily be perceived as denigrating those that believe in both religion and guns, are likely to provoke resentment in the very swing voters we'd require to win the state. Religion and guns are not just core beliefs, but part of a fundamental identity of many of these individuals. If this is true, and these comments stick, there will be no new map and we will be listening to States of the Union from President McCain while Wilford Brimley stares sternly out at the television audience from his seat next to Nancy Pelosi (that's right, Vice President Brimley, you heard it here first).

This is not to say that I think superdelegates need to take a second look at Hillary. Well, I mean, I do, but I think it is pointless at this time. I think the Dems (the ones who are not me at least) are about to reap what they've sewed. If Obama's team and supporters continue to just pretend that this was no big deal this will never die. If this never dies then the Rascal Scooter ready for the White House, because John McCain is coming to stay.

McCampaign Promises (JM)

It’s my birthday, therefore I have decided that it is perfectly acceptable to indulge myself. Thus all morning, while working, I have in passing listed every issue on the McCain campaign roster. So without further ado, McCain for President Campaign Promises:

1) A nickel’s allowance for every kid under 12; good, hard work in a cannery for those over 12.

2) A cure for polio.

3) Government investment in building the first ever steam-based rocketship.

4) Werther’s Original subsidies.

5) Wilford Brimley, Postmaster General.

6) 5 PM=mandatory Wheel of Fortune; 6 PM=bedtime.

7) More cod liver oil; Less of those frightening automatic doors at supermarkets.

8) Save the Dauphin!

9) A promise to fight the Kaiser to the ends of the Earth (which is flat) for sinking the Lusitania.

10) A remake of Encino Man, starring the incomparable Barbara Mandrell.

11) Where’d I put that damned remote?

12) Let anyone who wants in to America, in and then bomb the rest.

13) A commission to determine new synonyms for the word “crotchety” because the “crotch” part kind of makes us feel uncomfortable (much like Daniel Finkelstein and his “youth bulge”.

14) New flag colors: argyle.

15) A promise to solve our energy crisis by investing in alternative energy, like coal and lumber.

Alright, this is really just about enough of this nonsense. It’s not even particularly funny, but really when it comes to things like this does it matter. Let’s just all revel in the fact that John McCain is about 987 years old, is crazy militarist and knows almost nothing about economics. Also, you may not laugh now, but when 47 year old English teacher Edna Johnston of Des Moines, IA who lives mainly with her cats and pretty friendly television from 1989 forwards this to her 279 closest friends and then your Uncle Lenny gets it and forwards it to you with the subject line RE: FUNNY JOKE, well then who will be laughing then…

Great Moments in Campaign History (JM)

In an interview that is a worthwhile read unto itself, Meagan McCain points out the turning point in her father's campaign:

Meghan recalls the day when actor Wilford Brimley, he of the Quaker Oats ads, called to offer his support. An operative got off the phone and grandly announced to the room, “We’ve got Brimley!” The phrase, she says, became a rallying cry for the campaign.

I am just unsure what to say about this. It is another opportunity to throw up a picture of the Brim, and another opportunity to reflect on just how old John McCain is, but really it also an opportunity to imagine McCain's political team standing around and chanting, "We've got Brimley, yes we do, we've got Brimley how 'bout you?!" Mitt must be so sad he lost to this...

The Mets Should Sign Barry Bonds (JM)

Welcome to baseball season folks, the political hegemony of this blog is at an end, I suspect there will be baseball posts galore soon. Don't worry, still mostly politics and pop culture, but definitely a lot of Mets and Red Sox from me and Dennis. Anyway, the Mets should just so clearly sign Barry Bonds. Why? This:

2007: OPS: 1.045, OBP: .480, SLG: .565

Seriously, it's like a coin flip determines if the man gets on base. I know... STEROIDS, BOOING... who really cares. I guarantee you, the second the man hits a game winning home run, no more booing. He'll cost relatively little and creates this lineup:

1. Reyes
2. Castillo
3. Beltran
4. Bonds
5. Wright
6. Delgado
7. Church
8. Schneider
9. Santana (I could put generic pitcher in there, but look Johan Santana, Mets lineup... look!)

Anyway, that is an absurd, cheating on MLB 2007 type lineup. Everyone has questionable ethics at this point. Bonds didn't allegedly beat his wife like certain Phillies starting pitchers. So quite honestly, I just don't care. With Alou out the Mets should absolutely sign Bonds. When he's back then you platoon Alou/Church/Bonds. It's an infallible plan.

By the by, for those of you who think Bonds is old just remember he is only about half as old John McCain, and we're contemplating giving him the keys the nukes.

Bizarre Celebrity Endorsements (JM)

So on the subway this morning I was thinking and realized I have one mission: find out who "Weird" Al Yankovic endorsed for president. I mean forget the Oprah factor... "Weird" Al could write bad parodies of songs you haven't heard in 15 years about John McCain (or perhaps the John Mayer song "Bold As Love" would become "Old As Glove). Anyyyyyyyway... I couldn't find anything about the man and his interest in politics. I did, however, find a few choice celebrity endorsements.

Ralph Macchio: The original Karate Kid is supporting Barack Obama. It's possible that he believes Hopementum will revive is his career. It is equally possible that he just wants to meet Scarlett Johansson.

Rip Torn: The man with the greatest name in Hollywood (seriously, his first name is a verb and his second an adjective describing an object upon which that verb has taken place) has endorsed John McCain. Say what you will about Huck's crowd, McCain's got Brimley and the man who played Z in Men in Black. Not too shabby.

Pat Sajak: Wheel of Fortune host has endorsed Sen. Fred Thompson. Somehow this is totally perfect. I imagine Fred, sitting in a big ole' comfy chair watching Wheel thinking, "I endorse you too Pat Sajak, I endorse you too."

Arlo Guthrie: The truth is the man is still pissed about getting arrested for littering one Thanksgiving Day. His hatred of the police state is so high that he has chosen to endorse Ron Paul.

Anyway, these are just a few of the many wacky endorsements I have found. But seriously, if any of you find out who got the "Weird" Al nod, please let me know.

Maureen Dowd is an Incredibly Deep Splinter (JM)

In the year 2115, the trash compacting robot, Garbageotron 3000 came across the following column in the trash. Even given the 265 petabytes of stored information in his robot brain he was still confused.

Duel of Historical Guilts

By MAUREEN DOWD

SAN ANTONIO

Some women in their 30s, 40s and early-50s who favor Barack Obama have a phrase to describe what they don’t like about Hillary Clinton: Shoulder-pad feminism.

They feel that women have moved past that men-are-pigs, woe-is-me, sisters-must-stick-together, pantsuits-are-powerful era that Hillary’s campaign has lately revived with a vengeance.

I do not know this term, “shoulder pad feminism”. Also according to historical records Hillary Clinton never ran on the “men-are-pigs” platform. Perhaps, she was thinking of Bea Arthur’s 2016 campaign for the Senate?

And they don’t like Gloria Steinem and other old-school feminists trying to impose gender discipline and a call to order on the sisters.

As a woman I know put it: “Hillary doesn’t make it look like fun to be a woman. And her ‘I-have-been-victimized’ campaign is depressing.”

Accessing rules of journalistic ethics and standards. According to these files random quotes from random people do not meet sufficient standards of journalistic proof. Also, the Garbageotron 3000 is pretty sure that this quote was just fabricated by the author to begin with.

But Hillary — carried on the padded shoulders of the older women in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island who loved her “I Will Survive” rallying cry that “I am a little older and I have earned every wrinkle on my face” — has been saved to fight another day.

Why does Maureen Dowd hate old women so much? Also this primary took place after Obama was caught lying about NAFTA and an attack ad about military strength. Maybe causal logic hasn’t been invented yet. Remember, Garbageotron, these people are primitive. In our day robots are capable of both using contractions and self-reference. They didn’t even have robots.

Exit polls have showed that fans of Hillary — who once said they would be happy with Obama if Hillary dropped out — were hardening in their opposition to him, while Obama voters were not so harsh about her.

Three Hillary volunteers, older women from Boston, approached a New York Times reporter in an Austin, Tex., parking lot on Tuesday to vent that Hillary hasn’t gotten a fair shake from the press. They said that they used to like Obama but now can’t stand him because they think he has been cocky and disrespectful to Hillary.

As Hillary, remarkably and cleverly, put Obama on the defensive about a real estate deal, health care and Nafta, her campaign ratcheted up the retro battle of the sexes when they sent Dianne Feinstein onto the Fox News Sunday-morning talk show to promote the idea that Hillary should not be forced out, regardless of the results of Tuesday’s primaries, simply because she’s a woman.

Not so fast, Garbageotron has access to archives of all Fox News transcripts. Ever since President O’Reilly signed in to law the Mandatory Fox News Education Act. This claim was two sentences of a long interview. I believe this is what you humans would call “cherry-picking”.

“For those of us that are part of ‘a woman need not apply’ generation that goes back to the time I went out to get my first job following college and a year of graduate work, this is an extraordinarily critical race,” the senator said.

With Obama saying the hour is upon us to elect a black man and Hillary saying the hour is upon us to elect a woman, the Democratic primary has become the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts.

People will have to choose which of America’s sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?

Neither side was just arguing they should be elected because of their race or gender. But seriously, she should have tried living in our time. We have over 89 genders including superfemale and golf bag. Also forget about race, we have species issues. I remember when the Galacticans boycotted the 2098 Imperial Elections when the head of Howard Dean refused to seat their delegation due to the fact that the secrete a gas so deadly to most sentient beings that to be with in a mile of them is a death sentence.

As it turns out, making history is actually a way of being imprisoned by history. It’s all about the past. Will America’s racial past be expunged or America’s sexist past be expunged?

DOES NOT COMPUTE, DOES NOT COMPUTE!

As Ali Gallagher, a white Hillary volunteer in Austin told The Washington Post’s Krissah Williams: “A friend of mine, a black man, said to me, ‘My ancestors came to this country in chains; I’m voting for Barack.’ I told him, ‘Well, my sisters came here in chains and on their periods; I’m voting for Hillary.’ ”

Do you get paid to use your primitive search engines and steal other people’s quotes?

And meanwhile, the conventional white man sits on the Republican side and enjoys the spectacle of the Democrats’ identity pileup and victim lock.

Just as Michelle Obama urged blacks to support her husband, many shoulder-pad feminists are growing more fierce in charging that women who let Obama leapfrog over Hillary are traitors.

Julie Acevedo, a precinct captain for Obama in Austin, noticed that things were getting uglier on Friday, during the early voting, when she “saw some very angry women just stomping by us to go vote for Hillary. They cut us off when we tried to talk about Barack.

Oh noes! They didn’t want to hear about hope?! How dare they!

Ahem, Jonathan, this is Garbageotron’s post, thank you very much. Don’t make me tell you about your future, you won’t be happy.

“I’m 46,” Ms. Acevedo, a fund-raiser for state politicians, said Tuesday night. “Maybe I missed it by a few years, but I don’t know why these women are so fueled by such hostility and think other women are misogynists if they don’t vote for Hillary. It’s insulting and disturbing.”

She said that if Obama definitively outpaces Hillary, she will work to “heal the wounds” and woo back women who are now angry at him.

Watching Bill Clinton greet but not address — the Big Dog has been muzzled — an excited group of students at Texas State University in San Marcos on Tuesday, 19-year-old Allison Krolczyk said she was leaning toward Obama and felt no gender guilt about voting for him. “Not at all,” she said. “I think they’re both pretty amazing.”

I’m just a simple garbage collecting robot. Maybe I don’t understand your world of journalism. But it seems to me like most of this article has nothing to do with the gender/race choice and is instead about how it’s totally crazy of women to have supported Hillary Clinton. This seems in contradiction to the stated purpose of Maureen’s column. If this gets back to the year 2008, perhaps someone could let her know so she can fix this.

The crowd held up their camera phones to capture the former president, in his bright orange tie and orange-brown ostrich cowboy boots.

“We love you, Bill!” yelled one boy. “You did a good job, except for Monica.”

This is also has nothing to do with the column and seems to be just a reference to a sexual scandal during the Clinton administration. Of course, all of these scandals will soon be blown away by the McCain administration. Perhaps, Garbageotron has said too much. I will leave it at this, if Intrade is offering the following bet, “White House Holds Classical Roman Orgy, Starring Wilford Brimley”, Garbageotron suggests you take those odds. Finally, Garbageotron would like to extend birthday wishes to former President McCain who just turn 1026 today.

Weird Sketchiness from Rush (JM)

Alright, so I guess sketchiness from Rush is not terribly weird at all. Unless, of course, it was Mega Man's dog Rush, that was one stand up robotic dog. Anyway, it is sketchiness nonetheless. He is advocating that his listeners go out and vote for Hillary in the open primary in order to keep the Democratic contest going. Not only is this unethical, it's really really stupid.

First of all, this is a key problem with open primaries. I recognize that independents deserve a voice in the nomination process, but this level of political gamesmanship just leads to weird outcomes. The saving grace here is that it is terribly, terribly rare for tactical voting of this sort to have any effect on an election. Generally speaking just not enough people do it to make any sort of real substantial impact. However, if it will in this primary is an open and potentially unanswerable question. The truth is, we've seen so much strange stuff go down at this point that I am unwilling to predict anything any more. Chances are though that if Hillary wins it is because Hillary won, not Rush Limbaugh.

Secondly, this is a terrible plan because it really harms local GOP issues. There are apparently several contested down ballot GOP primaries that the Republican voters are shut out of as a result of voting on the Democratic ballot. Of course, the worst case scenario for the GOP would be to siphon off enough McCain support towards Hillary as to give Huck a victory in Texas. If I suspect Rush of anything untoward, it is this motivation. McCain's got the nomination, Rush and the "voices of conservatism" would love McCain to be completely dependent upon them for the support of the base. A loss in Texas will make McCain all the more desperate to shore up the base and may force him to take more extreme policy positions and nominate an establishment conservative as VP.

Finally, I am not so sure an extension of this race is all that bad for the Democrats. Obama is finally starting to get hit by the press. It's better that these contrasts are coming out compared to Hillary than compared to McCain. The fact is the media is paying very little attention to McCain with this race going on. This plays out as ideal for the Dems. No matter who the Democratic nominee is will have been pretty vetted come the general election. It will be time for the media to turn to focus on McCain after all of this is over. The closer to the actual election we are before the media slices and dices McCain the better. Put another way, there is only a certain amount of bloodied a candidate can get, to my mind it doesn't matter how it happens. Better get it out of the way now and keep the public's eye off McCain until it's too late.

Also John McCain is 982, the more names we force him to remember, the better.

What Lies in Wait or Bill Kristol is Hiding in Your Bushes (JM)

It’s All About Him

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Normally I wouldn’t touch William Kristol with a ten-foot pole. It’s like shooting proverbial terrible conservative writers in a barrel. However, I am going to make an exception for this piece, because is emblematic of the type of bombardment Barack Obama is about to face in the general election, should Hillary not pull out the miracle.*

Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why he had stopped wearing the American flag lapel pin that he, like many other public officials, had been sporting since soon after Sept. 11. Obama could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.

Way to start us off with a William Howard Taft-sized lie. If Obama has proclaimed he removed the flag pin because of fashion minimalism, you would be skewering him for that as well. This article would have started: “No big deal, Barack Obama said choosing not to be patriotic is no big deal.”

But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

This a bit pompous, I grant you that. But the sentiment is totally fair.

Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

I agree that the explanation was a bit… err… high-minded, but the sentiment is totally legitimate. I mean seriously Bill, may I call you Bill… do you really not think that dissent and courage is amongst the most patriotic of virtues? You can feel free to question whether Obama really has spoken out on controversial issues, but not the principle itself.

Fast forward to last Monday in Wisconsin. Michelle Obama, in the course of a stump speech, remarked, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Michelle Obama’s adult life goes back to the mid-1980s. Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since then has made her proud? Apparently. For, as she said later in the same appearance: “Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn’t gotten much better.”

It’s pretty clear that this is not what she meant. Was it a politically stupid thing to say? Yes. Why? Because people like you will continually repeat it without reference to clarification and content.

Now in almost every empirical respect, American lives have in fact gotten better over the last quarter-century. And most Americans — and most Democrats — don’t think those years were one vast wasteland. So Barack Obama hastened to clarify his wife’s remarks. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said, “because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone.” Later in the week, Michelle Obama further explained, “What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud of how Americans are engaging in the political process.”

You know, if you’re going to use a phrase like, “almost every empirical aspect”, perhaps you ought to provide some empirical evidence. It’s true, there are certainly things that were pretty good over the last fifteen years. However, it is crazy to claim that in all respects we’re better off when the rich/poor divide has gotten more and more extreme over the last fifteen years. People continue to assume that an increase in total wealth is the only relevant measurement of economic health, but there are two other factors to consider that do not speak well for this nation in the last fifteen years. The first is distribution of wealth and the second is the buying power of the limited wealth the working class has. Both of these are ways in which the U.S. hasn’t been great empirically over the last fifteen years.

But that clearly isn’t what she was talking about. For as she had argued in the Wisconsin speech, America’s illness goes far beyond a flawed political process: “Barack knows that at some level there’s a hole in our souls.” This was a variation of language she had used earlier on the campaign trail: “Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

Okay, that quote is, in no way, evidence that Michelle Obama didn’t mean what she said she meant. In fact, it kind of lends credence to the theory of new politics. That said, if this is a real quote that’s really super disturbing and kind of makes me want to vomit.

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, in Los Angeles: “Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

Alright, seriously? I have to wonder what’s hiding behind that ellipsis. But if this is basically the quote, I am again kind of disturbed. It makes me wonder why you didn’t lead with this. This is crazy, this is like some hopped-up aerobic instructor/cult leader running for President. Weird…

So we don’t have to work to improve our souls. Our broken souls can be fixed — by our voting for Barack Obama. We don’t have to fight or sacrifice to help our country. Our uninvolved and uninformed lives can be changed — by our choosing Barack Obama. America can become a nation to be proud of — by letting ourselves be led by Barack Obama.

You were sooooo on the cusp of a good point and just overdid it by a lot. This is precisely the opposite of Obama’s general message, which is he can’t do this alone, that he needs the people with him to create a movement for change. I am cynical about this, but can easily spy the opposite of the truth which is your above paragraph.

John Kennedy, to whom Obama is sometimes compared, challenged the American people to acts of citizenship and patriotism. Barack Obama allows us to feel better about ourselves.

This is also part of the Obama scheme. This is sad Billy, may I call you Billy… we were on the same page for a minute there, but now you’re just flat out lying. Obama called for national service and has claimed he is going to demand sacrifices of the American people. It’d be nice to know what sacrifices, but still… it’s not just a cult of him.

Obama likes to say, “we are the change that we seek” and “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Obama’s rhetorical skill makes his candidacy appear almost collective rather than individual. That’s a democratic courtesy on his part, and one flattering to his followers. But the effectual truth of what Obama is saying is that he is the one we’ve been waiting for.

What is it about NYT columnist and their ability to just assert things as true. Here is a lot of evidence for X, but of course we all know the truth is negation X. I mean I suppose that is the only way to survive as a neocon, but still: wretch.

Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

What are all people who were or would be waaaaaaaaay better presidents than GWB or eleventy billion year old John McCain.

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

Oh Billiam, may I call you Billiam… I agree, McCain has done way more good for this country. I would totally vote for John McCain if I wasn’t convinced he might invade Mexico. Seriously, McCain has been for and against tax cuts, has a spotty record on the environment despite rhetoric to the otherwise and has espoused socially conservative opinions that make it more likely he’ll about more Scalias to the bench.

This type of argument; quotes out of context, questioning of patriotism and attacks on experience is what await us in the general. I have no doubt we can win, no matter who the candidate is, but it simply not going to be easy. Too many Obama supporters I know think that his numbers in red states and lovability will make Barack almost impossible to beat in the general. This is foolish, and this is how we lose the general. We will lose many of the states Obama has won in the primaries and McCain is a very different sort of competition amongst independents. He has this bizarro outsider appeal, while still having tons of experience and nearly unassailable character credentials (despite evidence to the otherwise). We as Democrats need to be ready for this, and should start with a couple of important things: 1) Both Obamas and their surrogates have to be very very careful with their language over the coming months, maybe add some traditional patriotic rhetoric to their stump. A sort of “only in America, could I have gained this opportunity” kind of speech would be a winning effort; 2) resist the call of picking a fresh-faced VP. The Obama camp seems to be in love with newer red state Democratics. It would be a mistake to add some one like Governor Sebelius to the ticket, instead he needs to balance with experience and strength (also she is the least compelling speaker I have seen in a long time, even if she gets reelected in Kansas). The best choices for Obama would be Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, or even Hillary should she be willing to accept (probably not though).

Anyway, prepare to be ill, prepare to hear all about Barack Hussein Obama, prepare to hear about drugs, prepare to hear about Rezko. For all y’all who had a problem with the way Clinton campaigned, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Not even the tip of the iceberg. It’s going to get way worse before it gets better.

*This author is fully cognizant of the fact that some people, perhaps certain co-bloggers of mine, would not consider this a miracle.

Straight Talk About Straight Talk (JM)

Nicholas Kristof has a pretty interesting article today about McCain and pandering. He argues that McCain is generally honest and a terrible panderer. His discussion is a bit bright-eyed, but compared to say Mittmentum, sure John McCain is honesty personified. He also claims that Obama has vaulted to the lead in the Democratic primary by being the most honest with voters (a claim I take a bit of exception with, but an argument I am tired of having). Here's the paragraph I find most interesting:

His most famous pander came in 2000, when, after earlier denouncing the Confederate flag as a “symbol of racism,” he embraced it as “a symbol of heritage.” To his credit, Mr. McCain later acknowledged, “I feared that if I answered honestly I could not win the South Carolina primary, so I chose to compromise my principles.”

I am surprised I have never heard this before, but totally less surprised that even someone I really respect, Nicholas Kristof, is using it as a badge of honor. Look, I am glad McCain admitted he pandered in this case, politicians rarely do such things. But it some very real way this is kind of about allowing McCain to have his cake and eat it too. The press is so interested in maintain a positive McCain image, that this admission is seen as positive sign coming out of Camp GOP. Here's the problem, if this were ethanol or free trade I would be much more forgiving. But it's not. It's pandering to racism, basically McCain admitted that he was desperate enough to win South Carolina that he was willing to cater to basest elements of our society.

I simply don't think admitting this makes McCain a better man. The truth is that we now know what McCain is like when the chips are down. We are seeing it again, when McCain was down and out, "Bye, bye immigration reform, hello protecting our borders first!" John McCain is the conductor of the Straight Talk Express until there's a roadblock, then he's willing to guide the STE down to the level where he pledged, "No New Taxes" this morning on This Week.

Look, I am certain John McCain is one of the better men in the Republican party. I actually like him a lot, in a crazy, old uncle kind of way. But the press has, as a legion, decided to give certain people a free ride, and McCain is one of them. In fact, it's a shame because really the most robust attacks and criticisms of McCain come from the rightist news sources (which of course hate him for not being crazier).

This is a general problem the press has, they are hard to get on your side, but once you convince them that you're not "really a politician" it's very hard to get them out of that paradigm. The press corps would be doing us a world of service if they were to recognize that John McCain and Barack Obama are just as political as Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. We lose out on valuable critiques when even pandering to racist elements of society is seen as a mark of good character if you admit it. Instead McCain gets it both ways and we have no idea what to expect from a McCain presidency.

Take the Money and Run (JM)

So I am baffled, I am puzzled. Obama is currently debating whether or not to take public financing for the general. Of course, I think that it is still a bit too early to be having this debate (clearly the Obama camp wants to engage it, in order to create an air of inevitability). However, it's a debate worth having and I think the answer is pretty clear: public financing.

It's strange, out in the liberal blogosphere people seem to think that this is a pretty big mistake. For instance, Oliver Willis argues that we in the Democratic party finally have the advantage in fundraising and we should beat McCain in to the ground with it. Now, I agree that the McCain offer to mutually take public funding is probably a bit strategic, but the fact is that if campaign finance reform is at all an important issue this is the time we can cease on it.

Obama has made much of the fact that he is all about campaign reform, for him to refuse public funding here would look hypocritical. The fact is if he is our nominee all the good will he has towards him now (you know: Barack Obama is sunshine and rainbows and all that is good) will evaporate. The press loves loves loves Juan McCain, he's a doddering old man who once was tortured because he refused to betray America. Obama cannot be the better person in this election, and must do all he can to maintain his, "I'm not politics as usual" image.

Refusing to take the funding is similar to the kind of move the pro-immunity FISA democrats take. It's cowardly and craven and directed towards the end of getting elected at all costs. The problem is that when the GOP sticks to their principles they can still take advantage of these opportunities, but if we really want this to be a game changing election we need to stick to good, liberal principles. Remember, that in the long run the GOP had innate advantages amongst the corporate money set. Setting the trend of publically financed elections now is only to our long term advantage.

Finally, we are NOT going to lose this election. Either candidate will be able to beat McCain. All they need to do is hit him on economics and Iraq and this should be a landslide. Remember polling does not account for the absurd turnout advantage we've seen in these primaries. By all accounts this is a Democratic year, let's do this right for a change.

How Old Is He? (JM)

People talk about how postracial and postgender this campaign has been. I actually think it has, perhaps been the most strikingly postmodern campaign we've ever seen as well. Reality seems to have no boundaries in this election. Oprah is bringing people out in droves and Bob Vila is well reputed to have have won New Hampshire for Hillary. But throughout all of that did anyone really expect we'd ever see the following headline: Chuck Norris Thinks John McCain is Too Old to Be President.

I mean this is literally the craziest headline I have ever seen. I mean this only a half an order of magnitude from: Alf Sued For Embezzling Money From The Convertible Arbitrage Hedge Fund At Which He Was MP. The point is that I have no clue why people vote for the people they do anymore. Seriously, the fact that campaigns seem to believe that Oprah, Chuck and Bob are useful is a good indication that they actually are. There is something nearly devastating about the politics of pop culture, but it is unclear if this decline is completely inevitable. Is there anyway to uncouple the world of celebrity from the world of politics. Ever since the initial television debates between JFK and Nixon, image has become increasingly important in political campaigns. The truth is that substance no longer seems as important as style; though to be fair some of the style is kind of fun.

To wit: The McCain Camp's response to Chuck Norris: Wilford Brimley. My god, I just love that picture. Seriously, since Dennis is gone I am actively considering abandoning AOTG and starting the blog sternpicturesofwilford.blogspot.com. So keep you eyes out for SPOW at some point in the near future. So in all, Chuck Norris is probably right, John McCain is pretty old. I am sorry, I just can't write anymore, that picture of Wilford makes me feel guilty.

Why Michigan and Florida Should Absolutely Count (JM)

In Florida 1.5 million people cast ballots to help choose their candidate for the presidency. In Michigan, 600,000 people have spoken. Now the time had come and people are calling for compromise on these states between the Obama Camp and the Clinton Camp. This is absolutely the wrong way to look at this, in fact the interests of the respective candidates are secondary to the only interest that ought to matter: the voters in Michigan and Florida.

Florida is the much clearer picture. All the candidates were on the ballot and Obama had commercials running in the state, while HRC did not. 1.5 million people came out to vote, made their votes clear and had an ample chance to hear from both of these megacandidates. The complaint from the Obama side is that they didn't get to go in and meet with people, which is his candidate's strength. This would be a marginally valid argument if it weren't for two things: 1) Hillary's strength (and probably a far more important presidential strength) is debating, a platform Obama seems quite keen to deny Hillary as more and more states come up; 2) Obama's concerns about how he gets to present himself are not nearly paramount in this discussion. Given the information they had the people of Florida went out to vote and deserve to have a say in our next president. This is particularly true given that it is an important swing state.

Michigan is a bit murkier. Hillary being the only candidate on the ballot kind of muddies the water a bit until you ask yourself this question: Why was Obama still on the Florida ballot? The answer is that he thought he had a chance to do well there. Largely speaking pulling off the Michigan ballot was a tactical move Obama and Edwards got behind, because Michigan happened to have been a very favorable climate for Hillary. Here's a video of Chuck Todd discussing this very possibility. Again 600,000 people came out to vote for the president and should not be disenfranchised because their party leaders were arrogant and silly. I would, however, offer a compromise in the case of Michigan. Grant Obama the delegates that would be attributed to Undecided. The truth is that his campaign was largely behind the Undecided movement and he takes a great advantage out of getting all undecided delegates because assuredly Edwards would have strongly cut in to his numbers with his ties to labor.

The only other compromise I've heard discussed is holding caucuses, which is a terrible idea for a number of reasons. I have often, in this space, discussed how wretched the caucus system is: it distorts voting opinions, it's proportioned bizarrely and it is often representative of population size so small that the results would be statistically insignificant if this were a laboratory experiment. But how much worse is it when you count the fact that over two million people have already voted. Imagine the outrage if we hold caucuses and 200,000 people invalidate the results of two million. This is essentially what Obama supporters are arguing for, and it's absurd. Finally, it's just too expensive, both states have said they cannot afford to run an additional caucus (now I recognize that this could be political hardball, but still it's a factor).

Is this a perfect situation? No. But the distortions that currently exist in the Florida and Michigan voting is nothing compared to the distortion that would exist in the national voting if we left their voices out altogether. I would suggest that the first goal of a democratic system of voting is to count as many voices as possible. I would further suggest if the party chooses not to count them that we might see some real blowback in the general election. These are states McCain can compete in, particularly Florida where the Wilford Brimley endorsement will play large. For the sake of the party and the people, Michigan and Florida must be counted.

A Slightly Modest Proposal (JM)

Some have suggested that the fairest way for superdelegates (the 700-plus unpledged Democratic Party functionaries who will be the difference in this election) to determine their vote is to go based on what their state decided or vote for the person with the delegate lead. I think these are both poor solutions, as they merely mimic the weirdness inherent the terrible primary (and excruciatingly horrific caucus) process. Instead, I would propose that we schedule a national primary. This would have a couple of benefits:

1) It would be a total fair and smart way to gain closure on this process. By now no one can complain that name recognition ruled the day and it would be a true mandate of the people.

2) It would avoid the incredible acrimony from either side should this be decided by superdelegates. Moreover, it would probably avoid the vicious floor fight about Michigan and Florida receiving credit for their delegates.

3) It will overwhelm John McCain in the media. The truth is that the more I think about this close race the better it is for the Dems. Every headline is about the Democrats (except for the McCain's party hates him stuff). You will not see coverage of McCain in a positive light because it will be totally obscured by the spectacle of this final, winner-takes-all primary. Also McCain won't know who to hit or to whom he should draw a contrast. Also it can't hurt to make a 979 year old man remember two different policy slates.

It think logistically this might be difficult to achieve, as well it is not clear that both camps would agree to this (though I am not sure which one would object), but this seems like the fairest and best compromise to solve a seemingly intractable problem. Thoughts? Better suggestions? Ad hominem attacks?