Death picks a candidate

A "passionate" plea...

for all campaign surrogates to please, please, please stop referring to voters as being "passionate" about their candidate.

Sorry, doesn't cut it. I just heard the term used about 10 times in a row on one of those interminable MSNBC afternoon campaign-soaked orgies of baseless speculation. It seems to be the term-of-the-season, and it just DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Voters can be enthusiastic - even wildly enthusiastic - about their candidate of choice. But can we just keep passion out of it? Passion for a cause - okay, I suppose. But not for a candidate. Seems like just one more way to make the voters appear out-of-control idiotic.

I'm guilty of this too.

One of the most insidious dangers of watching the talking head shows is the way they make you complicit in their premise.

I admit I've been seduced back into watching Hardball - against my better judgment - but tonight's show brought me up short. In order to watch Hardball you have to accept Pat Buchanan as crazy bigoted old Uncle Pat, your occasionally lucid but kind of embarrassing relative. He's always at the table, and he always has plenty to say, and it's considered rude to call him out.

When you make Chris Matthews that uncomfortable, you've lunged way over the line. Why is Pat Buchanan always welcome to sit at the MSNBC table? To quote Jed,

When is MSNBC going to fire this guy?

Just when I was ready to cut loose with a primal scream,

Camille Paglia pops up on Salon with a bracingly opinionated new column.

If you're even close to as sick as I am of the Clintons' folie à deux, it's a must read. Paglia does the best slash-and-burn dissection of Hillary's candidacy that I've read anywhere. But I'm going to stay positive tonight.

As I recently told Mark Simone on his New York WABC radio show, the Rev. Wright controversy actually solidified my support of Obama (though Wright himself, on the basis of his performance at the National Press Club, seems to have become a buffoon). I was steadily impressed by Obama's idealism and deliberativeness; his refusal to spout the rote demagogic formulas that pour so freely from Hillary's lips; and his patient forbearance in debates, where (like an aikido master) he warily sidestepped Hillary's blatant provocations, meant to goad him into errors. He has a judicious, reflective, authentically presidential temperament.

My one nagging question about Obama, given his Kenyan lineage and broad background in Indonesia and Hawaii as well as his Ivy League education, was how well he knew the history, passions and aspirations of African-American culture. But Obama's 20-year membership in Rev. Wright's Chicago megachurch completely reassured me on this score. First of all, sermons constitute only one small part of any congregation's rich religious and social life. Second, not for a moment do I believe -- as talk radio shows are tirelessly alleging -- that Obama's political views are secretly identical to Wright's. On the contrary, it was through listening to Wright, who was reciting a black liberationist theology that has been standard issue for a half-century, that Obama honed his desire to bridge the gap between racial and ethnic communities in the United States. This is one reason I believe Obama is the right person at the right time for the presidency. Where Hillary divides and sows bitterness, Obama wants to unite and heal. It is a project that all Americans of good will should wish to succeed.

This just in,

from the latest TPM Election Central email:

MOST POPULAR

1) Hillary Campaign Emails Out "Electability" Power-Point To All House Dems
Super-delegates are suckers for colorful slides. (Election Central)

2) Obama's Super-Delegates Keep on Coming
Obama racks up 8 super-delegates, despite his decision not to make a Power-Point presentation. (Election Central)

Delegate counter

Via Marc Ambinder, who got it from CBS News.

The enemy of my friend is...?

The question of whether Obama will agree to help retire Hillary Clinton's campaign debt is an interesting one, as Karen Tumulty writes. It's also fraught.

And then there's the nature of the Obama fundraising machine. Unlike a traditional operation, this is not one where you go to a relatively small group of jaded fat cats and ask them to open their wallets one more time. Will Obama's legions of small donors really be eager to send in another $20, $50 or $100 to make sure that Clinton's high-priced consultants are paid? Or will they consider it a betrayal of what the Obama campaign has convinced them it stands for?

I have a slightly different angle on the subject, and speak here as someone who has sporadically contributed to Obama throughout the campaign season. Would such a deal between Obama and Clinton affect his own fundraising? I may be willing to kick in money on a regular basis to help Obama get elected, but if I knew some of the money I'm sending his way was to be diverted to, say, Mark Penn, would I keep on giving?

Surely this same thought has crossed other much more politically savvy minds than mine.

Marc Maron returns to AAR

For three days, this week only (Tuesday, today, and tomorrow), you can hear for yourself what we Maron fanatics have been talking about. And if you like what you hear, please drop The Powers That Be a note advising them how great it would be for their bottom line to sign him on permanently in Randi's old slot.

I have nothing personally against the array of subs they've been putting in the slot, but with the exception of Sam Seder, they don't do radio very well, and are more or less lightweights (some much, much lighter than others). Seder's okay, but I personally prefer Maron.

Engaging his audience as a storyteller, Marc is known for his incisive cultural and political commentary, mystical ruminations, and neurotic insights into human nature.

Sums it up nicely. He's in a league all his own, and I like the way listening to him stretches my brain.

A sample, Maron interviewing Robert Reich:

McCain as nutty old coot

Probably one of the best anti-McCain campaign memes to appear so far this year comes courtesy of the Stephanie Miller Show. Steph and her mooks refer to the republican nominee as "Grampy McCain" and play - over and over again - quotes such as this one from the Simpsons:

"We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell them stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I took the fairy to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe so I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. Give me five bees for a quarter you'd say. Now where were we, oh ya. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because if the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones."

Or this relevant item:

Grampa: "Ehh, why didn't you get something useful, like storm windows, or a nice pipe organ? I'm thirsty. Ew, what smells like mustard? There're sure a lot of ugly people in your neighborhood. Oh! Look at that one. Ow, my glaucoma just got worse. The president is a Demmycrat. Hello? I can't unbuckle my seat belt. Hello?

Funny, yes. Also insidiously damaging. If the show isn't carried in your area (used to be in Boston, but alas, no more...) you can find a station streaming it here.

Thank you, Ed Schultz!

In response to the accusation leveled ad nauseam at Barack Obama that he is "unable to close the deal" with working class voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Ed Schultz just gave the response that I've been dying to hear, in conversation with the hideously perky Terry McAuliffe:

"It's because the Clintons have a twelve-year head start in name recognition and local politics."

Bless you, Ed, for your sheer common sense.

Ed O'Reilly mocks small business

Here's a quote from Ed O'Reilly, putative Democratic challenger to John Kerry, from his interview with Jon Keller, on the subject of John Kerry's chairmanship of the Senate Small Business Committee:

“It’s not an important committee – it’s small business.”

Okay. Does Ed O'Reilly really want himself on record insulting the state's (and since this is a federal post he's seeking, the country's) entrepreneurs and small business owners?

I hardly know where to start, but let's try this. While Ed O'Reilly was trying to make political points by mocking the SBC and John Kerry, it turns out that Carolyn Kirk, Mayor of Gloucester, which is, by the way, Ed O'Reilly's own city, was appearing before the SBC at the invitation of Kerry to discuss the ways in which the credit crunch is impacting the small businesses of Gloucester.

Kirk said she had received a phone call while on route to Washington for her date with the Senate committee that informed her that Kerry and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, both D-Mass., had just won a great concession from the federal bureaucrats in charge of the New England groundfish fishery.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had dropped its effort to convince the state of Massachusetts to limit direct payment to fishermen. The bureaucrats had wanted to use the money to buy fishermen out of their vessels and fishing permits as a means of reducing pressure on the rebounding stocks.

Kerry, Kennedy, Gov. Deval Patrick, the fishermen themselves and city officials had the idea of infusing capital into the surviving small businessmen still dedicated to fishing, to help them weather the shortage of fish and improve their assets.

Kirk had greeted Kerry with a "thank you" for managing the high pressure negotiatons on fishing.

That the nation's entire class of small cap-entrepreneurs shared many of the frustrations bedeviling the fishing boat owners wasn't lost on Kerry either.

In an e-mail message to the Times yesterday, Kerry said, "We've seen our state's struggling fishermen go without promised help for months while relief was tangled in red tape." He contrasted that impasse with the lightening-fast salvation of Wall Street. "We've seen Bear Sterns get bailed out while everyday people face foreclosure."

By the way, Ed, in case you hadn't found this yet, the Senate bills Kerry has sponsored and co-sponsored can be found here. Kerry is also on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in charge of the crucial subcommittee in charge of Near East South and Central Asian Affairs. More information on his committee assignments can be found here.

It's true that the impact of a senator's accomplishments is probably not best measured by seniority. But being willfully reductive about John Kerry's work in the Senate doesn't make you look good - it makes you look ignorant.

A thousand apologies

to my (two or three, at least) readers for the long gap between posts. I won't insult you with lame excuses, but I've been on vacation for a week of that time, and as for the rest, well, as I said this morning in an email to a friend, this election has made me spend a fair amount of time pondering the relevance of blogs. I used to read them with such enjoyment, but lately not so much. I hardly ever visit the large ones anymore - for me it's mostly Al Giordano and Salon. So much of what is written is either kneejerk emotionalism, or just plain boring. And the self-imposed mandate to be original and interesting is a very effective form of self-censorship.

A note as well to two very original thinkers whose writing I have been enjoying a lot, even as I disagree with a lot of what they say: Andrew Sullivan and Camille Paglia.

At least they are never boring.

I remember a time...

Yes, kids, way back in the mists of time, I remember turning to the op-ed pages of the Boston Globe with a sense of anticipation. Elias posts this plaintive thought:

Which raises the question when is the Globe gonna get a real fighting liberal on it's editorial page? The current route is either boring or else marks for the myth of moderate republicanism.

True, true. And reading those words reminded me of the olden days - when there was something to read there. I particularly miss the voice of Tom Oliphant, but the fact is, Joan Vennochi hasn't had an original thought in years. Jeff Jacoby is a republican apologist nitwit. Seriously, is this the best the Globe can do?

These days I check the op-ed pages just to be sure I'm not missing anything - and I rarely am. The lack of wit and creativity is marking the Globe a second-rate paper. Yeah, I'm sure funds have something to do with it, but there are plenty of good writers out there in the intertubes who I'm sure would be delighted to work for just part of Vennochi's salary, and whose presence would give us a reason to turn to those pages with anticipation once again.

not a big David Brooks fan,

but "the audacity of hopelessness" is a pretty good line.

Maron speaks

Transcribed (with an attempt at accuracy) from today's webcast:

"Politicians are cagey...[some], like Hillary, can create a sentence that erases itself as it's spoken."

Obama's taxes, 2000-2006

Get 'em here.

Personally, the fact that he's put them out there is enough for me. I'll leave it to others (i.e. Clinton and McCain staffers) to comb through them for usable ammo nuggets. I'm bleary-eyed enough from dealing with my own taxes.

the Clintons and the race card

Dan Payne nails it:

Race and the campaign

The Clintons - who believe their hearts are pure - have been playing the race card for months.

It started in Iowa. A Clinton staffer fired off a statewide e-mail saying that Obama was Muslim (false) and had attended a radical Islam school, a madrassa (false). The aide was fired, an apology was issued, but the damage had been done.

Kerrey on

Former senator Bob Kerrey, a Clinton ally, recycled the madrassa myth on CNN and said Obama's middle name (Hussein) gave him entree to a billion Muslims. Apology issued, damage done.

Selling drugs?

Bill Shaheen, Clinton's New Hampshire cochairman, said that Obama's admittance of teenage drug use would damage him in the general election. Granted. But Shaheen also predicted what the press would ask Obama: "Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?" Sell them? Would these questions be asked of a white candidate? Apology issued, damage done.

A black primary

After South Carolina, Bill Clinton compared Obama to Jesse Jackson in a lame attempt to make it a black thing. Hillary Clinton recently said she was sorry if anyone was offended. Apology issued, damage done.

That first black president thing

President Clinton was called "the first black president" by Toni Morrison, the black Nobel laureate and Pulitzer Prize-winning author. But the context of her sobriquet wasn't affectionate.

"In the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black president. . . . Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas." She then condemned him for jettisoning blacks from his administration. "The message was clear, 'No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place.' "

Driving Miss Hillary?

Obama leads in pledged delegates and popular vote, and has won twice as many states as Clinton. He beats McCain, my friends, in nearly all national polls. But Clinton has suggested that Obama would be a good number two on her ticket, an offer Obama promptly refused.

A 1,000-word picture

The Drudge Report, the right-wing news and gossip website, was sent that photo of Obama in Somali garb. It exploded across the nation's media just days before the Ohio primary. Drudge said the picture came from aides to Clinton, which her campaign denied. No apology, damage done.

Double dealing

First, Governor Ed Rendell, leading Clinton's campaign in Pennsylvania, said there are white people in his state who won't vote for Obama because he's black. Then, Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton fund-raiser, said if Obama were white, he wouldn't be leading. Apology issued, damage done. Again.

Hillary owes Rush,

big time:

Now, it turns out she won at least one of those delegates because of crossover Republicans. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has exit data on crossover voters in CD10:


A staggering 16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga County switched parties when they voted in last week's primary.

That includes 931 in Rocky River, 1,027 in Westlake and 1,142 in Strongsville. More than a third of the Republicans in Solon and Bay Village switched. Pepper Pike had the most dramatic change: just under half of its Republicans became Democrats.


Subtract 16,000 from Hillary's vote total and she gets 57.4% of the vote in CD10--Dennis Kucinich's district--as opposed to the 62.4% she actually received. Plug that into the Ohio delegate calculator and you'll find Republican crossovers pushed her over the threshold, delivering her a 4-2 victory instead of a 3-3 tie.

While the Plain Dealer doesn't have data for other districts, it gives evidence of heavy crossover voting statewide. Considering the vote totals in Republican-leaning CD14 (which Hillary also won 4-2) were very similar, it's not a stretch to suspect a comparable pattern caused her win there.

An estimated 24% of Hillary's support in the Mississippi primary came from Republicans. In light of the evidence, it's probably safe to say Hillary's expectation-defying victory in Ohio benefited from a similar dynamic.

I know, I know,

it's Camille Paglia, the scourge of the Salon liberals, but this is exactly how I feel about the Hillary@3am ad:

Would I want Hillary answering the red phone in the middle of the night? No, bloody not. The White House first responder should be a person of steady, consistent character and mood -- which describes Obama more than Hillary. And that scare ad was produced with amazing ineptitude. If it's 3 a.m., why is the male-seeming mother fully dressed as she comes in to check on her sleeping children? Is she a bar crawler or insomniac? An obsessive-compulsive housecleaner, like Joan Crawford in "Mommie Dearest"? And why is Hillary sitting at her desk in full drag and jewelry at that ungodly hour? A president should not be a monomaniac incapable of rest and perched on guard all night like Poe's baleful raven. People at the top need a relaxed perspective, which gives judgment and balance. Workaholism is an introspection-killing disease, the anxious disability of tunnel-vision middle managers.

For the record, I see Paglia as an opinionated-as-hell truthteller. I don't agree with her on everything, but I find it bracing to listen to the forthright musings of an intelligent person who doesn't give a damn what Salon liberals (including myself) think of her.

If you believe, as I do, that the Clinton campaign has been an embarrassing reminder of the worst feminist excesses of the 60's, then you owe it to yourself to read Paglia's essay in full.

Back to feminism: I recently stumbled on a fascinating book at the public library, Peter Kurth's "American Cassandra: The Life of Dorothy Thompson," published in 1990. Thompson was the world-famous journalist satirized in "Woman of the Year," the 1942 film where she was played by a lordly Katharine Hepburn. Both Thompson and Hepburn were brilliant examples of the many high-achieving women of the 1920s and '30s. In the early 1960s, as an adolescent in the throes of my Amelia Earhart craze, I madly researched that exhilarating period of feminism in old newspapers and magazines in the bowels of the Syracuse library. (This was before Betty Friedan, who may have given birth to Gloria Steinem but who sure didn't produce Germaine Greer or me.)

[snip]

The boldness of that generation of women, who were facing obstacles and prejudices far greater than today's, makes me impatient with the reactionary whining one hears from establishment feminists, including Steinem, about the supposedly still-crippling pervasiveness of sexism. As an equity feminist, I demand equal opportunities for women, but I strongly oppose intrusive special protections for women, which I regard as counterproductive and infantilizing.

Gracelessness under pressure

New York Observer:

Rest assured, if the tables were turned and it was Clinton—and not Obama—leading the Democratic charge, we wouldn’t be hearing a peep from the Clintons about Obama’s desirability as a No. 2. Sure, Hillary might ultimately be pressured by the party’s heavyweights into tapping her rival for the V.P. slot, but she wouldn’t be out there stoking such talk. Recall that Bill, back in ‘92, never gave a serious look to his vanquished rival, Paul Tsongas—even though Tsongas won numerous contests and was still drawing significant support in primaries months after dropping out.

But in 2008, the Clintons are not dealing from that same position of strength. There is now no conceivable scenario under which Hillary will end the primary and caucus season with more pledged delegates than Obama, and the possibility that she might catch him in cumulative popular votes is remote.

That means that Obama, and not Clinton, will hold the two trump cards with the uncommitted superdelegates who will ultimately put one of the candidates over the top. And that, in turn, means that Hillary has to dig ever deeper in search of some kind of game-changing inducement that might prompt those superdelgates to pull the rug out from under Obama.