A Little Reminder

Lies, Lies, Lies

John McCain is liar. Let's all say it together now: JOHN MCCAIN IS A LIAR!

The Bush Doctrine

Saw this on the tube tonight. Goodness gracious...this woman could be a heartbeat away from the presidency and she doesn't know shit about foreign policy (except that the Islamic extremist are hellbent on destroying America.) On the other hand her complete ignorance on the Bush doctrine might mean she wouldn't adopt it.

More War?

Saw this on Andrew Sullivan's blog today. It caused me stop and remind myself that presidential elections do matter, and that there are significant differences between the major parties.

Paris Strikes Back

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

The Audacity of Certainty

One of the qualities that always bugs me when I see it in other people is certainty. Some people are so sure they are right. They are absolutely sure that they are right. They are certain they are right. The corollary of this is these same people's certainty that people who disagree with them are completely wrong. They are sure about this too. Can't be any other way, they say. I do not agree with such certainty.

One of the strange things about myself is that I like to be proven wrong. Oh, I did not always use to be this way. But one day I had a little epiphany (epiphanies come in small sizes too) that allowed me to see that if I am going to continue to be wrong about so much in life then I might as well have some fun with my mistakes. Looking back at the many mistakes I have made in my life has provided me many, many laughs. One of my most consistent laugh lines is when I say, "Remember when I (insert some stupid incident here)? How silly was I?" That I can admit mistakes and laugh at them later has ingratiated me to many (now) good friends over the years.

Yet admitting mistakes is seen as a bad thing in certain circles. It shows weakness. It shows a lack of intelligence. It shows cowardice. You know what else admitting a mistake shows? Humility. The ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The lack of ego. The ability to walk in the shoes of someone completely different than you. Also qualities worth having.

I am disheartened by politics now because our political leaders are so damn certain that they are right. I used to be really certain about my beliefs when I was a kid. As I got older, I realized that the world is a very complicated place where grave problems don't have just one solution. There might be many possible solutions or no solution at all. That politicians try to act simply in a complicated world means either of two different things to me - either they think they can b.s. us or they really see the world in their stated simple terms.

I don't know which one is worse.

George W. Bush Superstar

George and Laura - the new Spencer and Heidi.

One of the sure signs that I am a bleeding-heart liberal is my pure fascination with movies directed by Oliver Stone. I have always thought of Stone as someone who just did not care what people thought of his movies. He wasn't going to try to please you. If you like his movies, that is just incidental. Stone just makes movies about stuff that is interesting to him.

But I was a little blown away to hear that Stone is making a movie about George W. Bush, called simply W. And isn't it ballsy that he cast the stepson of Barbra Streisand, Josh Brolin, as Dubya? Yes it is. At the time this post was published, I could not confirm nor deny rumors that Stone was casting Gollum in the role of Vice-President Dick Cheney. ("My precious, precious waterboarding techniques.") I will keep checking with my sources in Hollywood though.

Next spring will allow us to revisit Bush versus Gore when W. tries to pick up more Academy Awards than that Al Gore movie on global warming.

Create the Hate

If you listen to the political experts out there, you would think the primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was the worst primary battle ever. People are depressed because the differences between the Barack camp and the Hillary camp are sooooo irreconcilable. I think people tend to exaggerate the tensions between people running against each other in the primaries. I don't think the primary race betweeen Barack and Hillary is any better or worse than any other primary race. In fact, I can see President Barack Obama working together with one of his strongest allies in the Senate, Hillary Clinton, many times over the next eight years.

The George W. Bush-John McCain primary fight of 2000 was much more brutal and malicious than anything we have seen this year. In South Carolina, McCain was accused of having a black daughter born out of wedlock. Cindy McCain had visited an orphanage in Bangladesh run by Mother Teresa in 1991 and returned to the United States with a three-month old baby. The McCains adopted this baby and named her Bridget. Bridget was 9 years old in 2000 when George W. Bush's henchmen labeled her a "black bastard" because of her dark skin. Around the same time, McCain was labeled a "Manchurian Candidate" because of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war. Of course, the topic of what George W. Bush was doing during this time was dismissed as old news.

One of the reasons why I do not mind that Hillary Clinton is still in the race is because it keeps a conversation going. Political parties need to be constantly adjusting to the changing times. On some issues, Hillary Clinton probably has some really good ideas. And Barack Obama would benefit from running with some of them. Pundits out there seem to think that a political party will just break apart because people are running against each other. But they forget that political parties have always been made up of different sets of ideas and beliefs. If you think you are a better candidate, run as hard as you can. If the belief that competition in primaries is bad then that would have precluded Obama from running for president this year since Hillary Clinton was seen as the presumed candidate in 2008.

I am pretty sure that idea wouldn't have flown with Obama's millions of supporters back then as we are seeing that that idea doesn't fly with Clinton's millions of supporters now.

The Demographic Question

So, for the last month we've been hearing non-stop reporting on Obama's demographic problem, his problem with white,working class voters.

We've heard how he can only get 30-40% of these voters and that he is perceived as elitist and that this represents a major weakness in the general election.

Fine, I get it. These Reagan Democrats are needed to win in the fall and if Obama can't connect with them in the primary, he won't be able to in the general.

Here's my question though:

What about Hillary's demographic problem?

You know the one with African-Americans and the one with middle and upper-middle class white Americans.

She's can't get more than 10% of the African-American vote and only gets about 30% of the middle and upper-middle class white Americans.

If we make the same assumption about her chances with them in the fall as we do with Obama and his problem, it seems to me the democrats would still lose.

And what's worse, many down ticket dems would lose too.

I get that this was spin by a desperate campaign but why did the media buy it hook line and sinker?

Seems like an obvious question to ask.

Bring It On

They Paved the Way

Heroes.

My parents were not of the same race. My dad is a white man from Houston, Texas. My mom was a Filipino woman from Zamboanga, The Philippines. They got married in 1970 in the Philippines. If they had gotten married a few years earlier, their marriage would not have been recognized by at least 17 states. The United States Supreme Court eventually overruled laws across the country that stated racially mixed marriages were illegal. The person who brought the suit was a lady named Mildred Loving. She died last Friday, May 2nd.

Mildred Loving was a black women who had the audacity to marry a white man named Richard Loving in Washington D.C. They then decided to upset the "peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Virginia" by daring to live their lives in their native state. Well I never...! Mildred and Richard were forced to leave Virginia to avoid jail time. They returned to Washington D.C., from where they launched their case against the Commonwealth of Virginia. The case that vindicated them was to be called Loving v. Virginia.

I have admired Mildred and Richard Loving from a distance ever since I heard their story. It is easy to see parallels with my own parents' story. People who married people from other races were taking a great chance back in the 1960s. I am sure that these people were aware that they were choosing a much harder road to travel down. But they did it because they did not want the state to abscond with what should be the most precious and private of decisions - the right to marry the person you loved.

The human race in my eyes is greatly flawed. There is a lot of greed out there. Lot of hatred too. Not enough of caring for your fellow humans. But I have hope in humanity. We can get better. One of the reasons that I loved my parents (and admired people like the Lovings) is that they showed the rest of us that people can get along in the most important unit of all, the family. My family has had problems over the years, sure. But it was just the normal family stuff. None of our problems were based on my parents coming from two different continents and two different cultures. Their marriage had the affect of making a racially mixed marriage ordinary. A marriage of this sort is not unnaturally or strange or weird or illegal. It is a marriage like any another.

It was real.

Stranger Than Fiction

I am about to turn in, as I should since it is 3:00 in the morning. But I had to make a post about two political movies coming out in the next few months. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to guess which of the movies depicts real events and which one depicts events totally made up.

Go!

Now!

Guess!

Beware the Terrible Simplifiers

I know it's been too long since I've chimed in...however the whole Wright thing has really gotten up in my craw.

I'm a lifelong church goer. Probably have missed fewer than 50 Sundays in my life. That means I've heard (and slept through) a lot of sermons from a lot of preachers. I've talked with them at the potlucks, eaten at their houses, been on mission trips with them, played games and prayed with them.

In fact, I spent my first eighteen years living with a pastor, my father. He was a minister, a man of the cloth, and of course he was my dad.

Which is why it strikes me as ridiculous when people play up the Wright controversy to be a portend of something that Obama is hiding. That he is some, off the hinge, angry black man, who lives and breathes the words of his Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

To me this is an utterly ridiculous thought.

I've spent a lot of my life disagreeing with pastors, including, and especially my dad.

There is so much I admired about my dad but there were also plenty of things I was embarrassed by, disagreed with and would've disowned had I needed too. He was a big fan of Rush Limbaugh (though I don't really hold that against him...I understand why...but that's another post) and, even though he went to great lengths to help the poor, he ultimately believed that the government shouldn't be in the business of helping out poor people (an arguable position but one I whole heartedly disagree with.)

The thing is this though, my dad never told me I had to believe what he believes. In fact, the day I told him that I had decided I wanted to follow Christ, he was pretty much silent, didn't tell me what to do next. I never took my marching orders from him (I mean there were times I kind of had to, since he was my father and all, I wanted to eat you know...) and, most importantly, I learned to think for myself, to find out for myself and to question authority (we're protestants after all.)

I not only heard this from my dad but from just about every pastor I've ever had.

I think this idea of discovering God on one's own terms is especially strong in the protestant tradition, and not as well understood in other faith traditions.

Not only have I disagreed (often to their faces) with pastors, but I've seen pastors make personal mistakes that have cost them their careers. There was always a side of the church that wanted to throw them under the bus but there was also side that had compassion, that understood these men and women were not and are not infallible (another protestant tradition.)

So when people got all up in arms about the things Wright was saying, I was able to shrug my shoulders, and say 'so what? What does that have to do with Obama?' After all, disagreeing with one's pastor was an integral part of the faith experience from my view. I didn't and still don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. Why is the assumption that what Wright spouts is what Obama really believes? Are the people who stayed in the Catholic church all really for child molestation? Aren't we all products of many different people and experiences?

Some, including Clinton, have wondered why he didn't leave if he disagreed. Again, this is a point I fail to understand logically. Maybe if you go to church simply to advance your political career this makes sense (I'm just saying) but if, as Obama writes in his stirring book, one's faith is central to one's being, and when one feels called to a community, they become family, then leaving isn't any easier than the choice to leave one's spouse. People who think it is so easy don't undertand the complexities of faith or of human nature .

Finally, and ultimately this is what it all boils down to, who are we to judge whether or not Obama should have left? We've never walked in his shoes, never known what it is like to be saved by someone then later betrayed by that person. Do politicians really want to play the game of guilt by association?

The answer, unfortunately, is that when political expediency and desparation dictate it, things do get this simplified and suddenly, we are all able to judge another man's heart.

I'm going to let Bill Moyer's take it from here:

"Which means it is all about race, isn't it? Wright's offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn't fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone's neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school. What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettles some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship. Politics often exposes us to the corroding acid of the politics of personal destruction, but I've never seen anything like this — this wrenching break between pastor and parishioner. Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves. All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America, where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race. It is the price we are paying for failing to heed the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, who said "beware the terrible simplifiers"."

I couldn't say it any better.

Which brings us back to my dad. He would've been outraged by what the Reverned Wright said but he also would've have defended him and his right to say it. And most importantly, he never would've thought that Obama believed those things just because he went to Wright's church or condemned him for staying.

In fact, he would've lauded and admired Obama for that choice.

That's something he and I would've agreed on.

Obama on Letterman

Barack does the "Top 10" List on David Letterman:

10. My first act as President will be to stop the fighting between Lauren and Heidi on “The Hills.”

9. In the Illinois primary, I accidentally voted for Kucinich.

8. When I tell my kids to clean their room, I finish with, “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.”

7. Throughout high school, I was consistently voted “Barackiest.”

6. Earlier today I bowled a 39.

5. I have cancelled all my appearances the day the “Sex and the City” movie opens.

4. It’s the birthplace of Fred Astaire. (Sorry, that’s a surprising fact about Omaha)

3. We are tirelessly working to get the endorsement of Kentucky Derby favorite Colonel John.

2. This has nothing to do with the Top Ten, but what the heck is up with Paula Abdul?

1. I have not slept since October.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Jeremiah?

The simple answer is that you cannot. Barack Obama needs to concede that Reverend Jeremiah Wright will pop up every month or so between now and November 4, 2008. It won't be the Republicans bringing up Reverend Wright either. Reverend Wright will bring up the topic of "Reverend Wright" himself by giving high-profile speeches all across the nation at the most inopportune times for Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama will be forced to work around this unfortunate turn of events for his campaign.

Reverend Wright is analogous to a star athlete or star musician or star actor. Stars receive (and get used to) massive amounts of adulation from their fans. They are constantly reminded how wonderful they are. They rarely encounter people who tell them the word "no." (I imagine when George Lucas was making the first "Star Wars" prequel that everybody he was surrounded by, told him everyday how wonderful Jar Jar Binks was and how audiences around the world were going to love cute ol' Jar Jar.) Reverend Wright is the star of his church. He has achieved great success and visibility in his field of work. He is used to his world being ordered a certain way - with him on top. That world does not exist anymore for him anymore. Sports fans out there all know the stories of washed-up athletes who crack up because the expected adulation is not there anymore. That is Rev. Wright today.

Reverend Wright is playing the classic role of the veteran who doesn't like feeling upstaged by the young protege/upstart. We all know of Barack Obama as a polished and intellectually gifted speaker we see today on television, a man who knows he is good at what he does. But Reverend Wright met Mr. Obama twenty-something years ago when Mr. Obama was probably just as confused as most of us were when we were in our twenties. Reverend Wright might still equate Mr. Obama with the young man he met all those years ago. To see this young guy not give Reverend Wright the respect he thinks he deserves means the gloves are coming off. This is not about Reverend Wright trying to prevent Mr. Obama from becoming president. It is much more personal than that.

I think the "Reverend Wright situation" will continue to be a problem for Senator Obama even as John McCain smartly condemns "Reverend Wright ads." The Republicans won't have to raise a finger to raise Reverend Wright as an issue. They now know Reverend Wright will raise himself as an issue. Reverend Wright will pop up in the media from here on to November. And many people will think, "Sure, Obama says he disowns Reverend Wright. But he is only saying that because he is running for president. Before it was painful for Obama to be associated with Wright, he didn't denounce what Wright was saying." Obama's denouncement of Reverend Wright means less than people think.

Greed is Good

There was an editorial by Elizabeth Edwards in The New York Times yesterday, entitled "Bowling 1, Health Care 0," where she criticized the press for focusing on Barack Obama's bowling score instead of more worthwhile subjects like Joe Biden's health care plan. She seems to be saying that the press is more inclined to chase stories that it deems exciting rather than stories that are more substantive. An example of press-think: Barack Obama is much more interesting than "just another old white guy" Chris Dodd so we will act like Chris Dodd doesn't even exist. I agree with Mrs. Edwards' observations completely except for one thing. She thinks this is a bad thing and I think it is inevitable.

Should we be surprised that newspaper companies want to sell more newspapers? We shouldn't be. Newspaper companies want to make money first. Of course they will tell us stuff like they are in it for the public good. If they think this line of b.s. will sell a few more newspapers, why not say it? By all accounts, fewer and fewer newspapers are sold every year. I kind of feel like every newspaper I read will be the last one I will ever read. Just like people a hundred years ago took one last ride in a horse-drawn carriage before they disappeared forever. If Barack Obama's picture on the front page sells a few more newspapers, can you blame the newspaper companies for highlighting him over other so-called "boring" presidential candidates like Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter and Mike Gravel?

We hear conservatives constantly bemoan the "liberal mainstream media" and "liberal elites out of Hollywood." The strange thing about this argument is that the media and Hollywood are both pretty pure "supply and demand" institutions. (I remember a day when conservatives talked about "supply and demand" and "free markets" and it was almost believable. Now they make me laugh when they talk about such things.) The media and Hollywood don't create a product and hope the public likes them. They aren't pushing any kind of agenda. The media and Hollywood think about what the public wants and then tries to create a product to satisfy them. If this is done right, there is a whole lot of money to be made. Money is it. That is what media companies and Hollywood studios care about. They aren't trying to push a liberal agenda. If pushing a conservative agenda sold, I think they would sell that too. But that just doesn't sell these days. They are looking out for their bank accounts. Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money, I guess.

Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Most of us are doing the same thing on a smaller scale. Heck, I daydream about how much money I am going to make as a lawyer so that I can retire to Italy. Elizabeth Edwards is criticizing the press for not being serious about covering the presidential campaign. I wish I existed in a world where the press existed to inform a public wanting to be informed in a substantive way. But that ship has sailed. Maybe the press never existed to serve the greater good.

I also doubt if the public wants to know much more than Mr. Obama's bowling score or which campaign volunteer Hillary Clinton chewed out today. Sadly we are a nation of Jaywalkers. Have we become a country led by elites? Yes we have.

Family Guy

I find the term "family values," as appropriated by Republicans, to be highly, highly offensive. Because what it is really saying is if you are not with the Republican program 100% of the time then what could you possibly know about family values? I highly, highly disagree with this statement.

Let's talk about social issues for a moment. In my own family, in many instances, people are on different sides of the same issues. Does that mean that some of us have family values and some of us don't? Does that mean that I am better than my sister because I hold the correct opinion on an issue? Does that mean I should stop talking to my sister because, obviously, she has no family values? Does that mean that my niece and my nephew are fated to have a sucky life because my sister might have a wrong opinion here and there?

The answers to all of the above questions are no, no, no and no. Families can be beautiful and heartwarming but also complex and complicated. Families fight and make up and then fight again. We disagree about stuff but, you know what, that is okay with me. I love talking to my relatives who I don't agree with. In a way, I like talking to them more because I already know how I think and I might not necessarily know how they think.

I have relatives who love Rush Limbaugh and I have relatives who worship Hillary Clinton. What I do know is that all my relatives are good family people. I have seen my conservative relatives go out of their way to help me out personally. But my liberal relatives have done the same too. I love my family and I wouldn't change a thing about them.

When Mitt Romney comes out and talks about his "family values," I do not recognize any of my family in what he is saying. He is talking about drawing a line in the sand with acceptable people on one side and the unacceptable on the other. White people, okay. Brown people, not so much. Rich people, we like you. Poor people, don't even notice you.

I consider myself half-immigrant. My mom came to the United States for the first time when she was 30 years old. She did not know a single person here other than my dad. The year was 1970. As I was growing up, I was ambivalent about where I lived. It was just a place I was born. But my mom would have none of that. She loved the United States. She was a patriot. And I think she was happy with the life she made here.

My mom was from the Philippines. You know what? Them Filipinos have some good values and I should know because I would hear about them when I strayed a little. (I got a C in science once.) I know the United States was just a bit better for having had my mom live here from 1970 to 1993, the year she died. Her legacy is three pretty good kids, two really cool grandkids, and the countless time she spent helping new immigrants from the Philippines get used to their new country.

My mom loved to help people immigrating to the United States. She would help them find places to live. She would tell them where the Catholic churches were. (Most Filipinos are Catholics.) She would have parties to introduce new immigrants to the ever-growing Filipino community in Houston. A big part of the reason I became a teacher in an inner-city school in a poor Hispanic neighborhood in Houston was to model myself after my mom a bit. (My mom was also a teacher back in the Philippines.) She was a welcoming face for many people moving to the United States for the first time from the Philippines. I was the same face for many people moving to the United States for the first time from places like Mexico and Guatemala and Costa Rica.

The arrival of my mom to her new family probably shook things up a bit back in 1970. But the family was the better for it. In fact, America is a better place for having had my mom live here for a short time as well. My family really is a diverse lot. We bitch and moan a lot. Sure. But there have been countless instances in my life where they stood up to help me out. I totally trust my family and their values. We are a different version of American than the version Mitt Romney talks about.

And you know what? His loss, not mine.

Sweet Little Nothings About Tom DeLay

When I was a little kid, I noticed that my mom was really into politics. She read both of Houston's local papers. (Back then we still had The Houston Post. Give me a second to compose myself, okay? I loved The Houston Post.) She watched the local news and the national news. Sometimes she would bring a small television into our den and place it by our big television so she could watched Dan Rather alongside Peter Jennings. ("That Peter Jennings...so handsome," she would say from time to time.) She read National Geographic and Reader's Digest. I didn't know the term at the time but she is what we would now call a "political junkie."

My mom died in 1993. A year or so later, we got our first internet connection at our house. One of those mostly text-based things. I remember loading a single picture overnight and thinking, "Man, that's awesome!" The internet connection at our house became faster and faster and eventually we got high-speed. After I became interested in following politics and other current events around 2000, I saw that there was just so much stuff out there. I don't think my mom would have ever got off the computer.

In the early days of my politics addiction, I would be on the computer constantly. I knew there was always just a little bit more to read about the George W. Bush-Al Gore election. I would be reading stuff during my off-periods from teaching high school history. And during lunch. And during the detentions I held after school. ("You know what real detention is? Four years of a President George W. Bush, that's what!") The Gore v. Bush decision made me realize that if yahoos like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas could graduate from law school then it couldn't be that difficult. Thus I was off to law school.

The Bush-John Kerry election in 2004 was a replay for me. I really got into that election too. That was when I started blogging. (I think my anti-Bush blogging helped explain why John Kerry lost Texas by a smaller margin than one would expect.) I loved those little delegate maps that you would find on the websites of The Washington Post or The New York Times. I was also all about NPR and The New Yorker as well. Did my law school grades suffer a bit? Probably. But I considered myself a student of life. And I had the best teacher anyone could hope for. Myself.

After the disappointment of the 2004 election, I dropped out of following politics for awhile. Oh sure, I took secret joy in President Bush's incredibly shrinking approval ratings. (I had a t-shirt that said, "I don't like to tell people 'I told you so.' I'd rather just imply it.") Another thing that made me lose interest in the news was the departure from the scene of some of my favorite enemies: Tom DeLay, George Allen, Bill Frist, and Karl Rove. I saw that most of my interest in politics was in seeing the personal destruction of people I detested. Did I want to be that person? I can't say that I didn't like who I was because I did. But to think about people I hated all the time did get to be a bit much. I mean I talked about Tom DeLay on dates. Whispering sweet little nothings about Tom DeLay into a potential paramour's ear definitely does not work. I would not recommend you trying this at home, aight?

What drew me back to politics was the purchase of an iPod I made last year. There were a lot of political podcasts that I listened to occasionally through my computer. But I didn't really like listening to stuff while I was doing stuff on my computer. I found I liked listening to political podcast when I was going for a walk or going to the gym or driving around in my car. I got addicted to the Slate Political Gabfest podcast and the Bloggingheads.tv podcast in particular. I guess I can thank Steve Jobs for restoring my interest in politics.

The upshot of all this is I can get overwhelmed with all the sources of political news out there. I sample a lot of sites. I go through phases where I am all into The New Republic then I don't read it for months. I wonder sometimes how other political junkies get their news. If you are reading this modest blog, you likely are a fellow political junkie. Where do you get your political news hits, yo?

The Case Against McCain...and Obama...and Clinton

The Wind Beneath Hillary's Wings

Hillary Clinton has been criticized for her decision to continue to run for the Democratic presidential nomination. I don't know if her decision is the right decision or the wrong decision. But if it is the wrong decision, she is not the only party guilty for keeping this nomination fight going. Other people to blame include undecided superdelegates and voters in primary states (like Pennsylvania) who continue to vote for Mrs. Clinton. These sets of people have kept hope alive in the Clinton campaign. Mrs. Clinton would have quit a long time ago but for the continuing support of voters in the so-called big states (Ohio, Texas, California, and Pennsylvania) and the seemingly inability of superdelegates to make up their minds.

I suspect that Barack Obama has deemed it impolite (and probably stupid from a political point of view) to criticize voters for dragging out the primary battle he is engaged in. He will need these same voters in the fall if he wants to have a chance of beating John McCain. But a case can be made that Mrs. Clinton has millions of people supporting her candidacy. Heck, near 2.5 million voted for her yesterday in Pennsylvania. I wonder how these people would feel if they felt that their ability to choose a candidate was taken away from them just because a long drawn out primary season is bad for the party. I suspect they would think a lack of choice is bad for the party too.

Millions of people in these primary states have at least some reservations about Mr. Obama. His scolding them for keeping the primary race going would just feed into the image of Mr. Obama thinking he is better than the average voter. Mr. Obama needs to think of the remaining primary states as small laboratories when he can continue to strengthen his message. Most people agree that he is getting better and better as a candidate. That is because he has been forced to by continuing competition from Mrs. Clinton. But much work remains on his part. Some weaknesses have emerged. Mr. Obama's so-called elitism needs to be debunked. I rather we work on this problem now rather than in October. But a problem that doesn't exist is that this primary season is going on way too long. Mr. Obama should just let it ride. Concentrate on fixing any perceived problems his campaign have. If anything, stop talking about Hillary Clinton and start talking about John McCain. John McCain never really talked about Mike Huckabee. He acted like a front-runner when he became the front-runner. Mr. Obama has been the front-runner for awhile now. He should start acting that role.

As things stand now, we have the constructed fiction that Hillary Clinton is alone in wanting her campaign to continue. This is obviously false. People in the upcoming primary states haven't got the memo saying this race is over. Mrs. Clinton is at least getting a look-see from voters in those states. Mr. Obama does control his own destiny though. If he would just beat Mrs. Clinton in one state that she is supposed to win, this race would be over. He hasn't done that yet. He will need to beat Mrs. Clinton to prove that he is a strong candidate for the fall. Her just dropping out could have the effect of showing that he could not beat someone who has proven to be a rather ineffective national candidate.

On a related note, since a long and drawn out primary season is supposedly such a terrible thing for the Democrats, why do we even have all these primaries and caucuses scheduled for after Super Tuesday? Super Tuesday was supposed to be the day that decided who the winner would be, either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. That didn't happen. Why wouldn't the Democrats put all these primaries and caucuses early, early, early if they were so worried about a primary battle "taking forever"?

Lawyers Are People Too

I will admit to not only being a lawyer but knowing lots of lawyers. I think I am an okay guy and most of the other lawyers I know (dad, sister, family friends, cousin, friends from law school) are okay people too. I don't feel like an elitist. Also, my bank account definitely shows I am not an elitist.

I think the point of this video is just plain wrong. This video basically says, "You shouldn't get an education because that means you stop being a real American and start being an American elitist." I sure didn't feel like an elitist last year when law firms didn't even bother to send me rejection letters when I applied for jobs.

This video says that Michelle Obama is an elitist because she said she knew a lot of lawyers. But being a lawyer just means you went to school for a few more years. Every year people in our country become more and more educated. More and more people have graduate degrees. This is a great thing for our country. In 1972, only twelve percent of Americans had college degrees. Today, that number is about twenty-nine percent. A college degree on average doubles a person's annual income. A good thing, I think. The more money a person makes, the less government has to worry about taking care of this person.

So the common argument out there is that Michelle Obama and Barack Obama are elitists. I bet if Michelle Obama had taken a different path and dropped out of school, gotten pregnant, and started collecting welfare checks, these same people calling her an elitist now would be complaining about just another welfare queen on the rolls.

Darfur/Iraq

Something I do not really understand is why us liberals are so willing to support Darfur and so not willing to support Iraq. My opinion is that both places are in dire needs of help. I do not really see the difference between the two situations. But allow me to posit a guess or two as to what is going on here.

My guess is that liberals so equate Iraq with President Bush. That is almost a fair statement. He has made a royal mess of the place. And I think they think being in support of American intervention in Iraq means being in support of President Bush. I can mean this but it doesn't have to. There are ways to get around this big liberal hangup.

Obviously President Bush and his followers do not know how to handle the situation in Iraq. They never did. They did not have a plan for what to do after Saddam's government fell. I always thought that that part would be easy, especially since we have the most powerful military machine ever. What was to come after would require more nuance. A nuance that is still lacking all these years later.

But the choices available should not be limited to either "we stay in Iraq and follow President Bush's plan" or "we leave." Life is way more complicated than that. What about "staying in Iraq but not following President Bush's plan"? What about "coming up with a whole new plan"? This is also a choice. A choice that I don't ever hear people mentioning.

As to what this plan should be, I have no idea. But what about getting Iraqi experts and Iraqis themselves in a room together and not letting them leave until they have something that we can work with? Seriously, it can't be worse than the incompetents we currently have running the show.

The upshot here? Darfur definitely needs our help. But so does Iraq. We are Americans. Let us think big again.

The First Lady of Hotness

"What can I do to get you to vote for my husband for president?"

On a post I wrote on November 3rd of last year, I relayed the story of how a disastrous case of food poisoning stranded me in Albany for a week which led to me canceling a planned trip to New York City. As luck would have it, the 2000 Republican National Convention was on the telly that week. As you probably can guess, I cried myself to sleep every day of that drea

I was staying with my fraternity brother C in Albany. C is a great guy. He never complained about having a weak-stomached friend around for a week. He even watched the Republican National Convention with me. Our commentary of the events turned out to be pretty entertaining. Whenever Governor George W. Bush was shown, I was like, "Whaaaaat an idiot!" Some of the resulting commentary, while surprising at the time, turned out to be quite prescient. When Laura Bush made her first appearance, my friend C said, "I bet she was a hot piece of ass in her time. No way is she a conservative."

Fast forward seven years later. We all know about the George W. Bush presidency and its "effectiveness." Filmmaker extraordinaire Oliver Stone is going to weigh in sometime later this year with his movie "W.," about the life and times of George W. Bush. In the role of Laura Bush, Stone has cast Elizabeth Banks. You probably know her from "Scrubs" and "Fred Claus" and "The Forty Year Old Virgin" and "Spiderman 3." I phoned my friend C up before I wrote this and asked if Banks has the right amount of hotness to play his old paramour Laura Bush. He said, "Hell yes!"

Don't worry, ladies. Oliver Stone is thinking about y'all as well. To play George W. Bush, he has cast that most rugged of men, Josh Brolin. And Ioan Gruffudd will play the dreamy Tony Blair.

Suppose You Started a War and Screwed Everything Up

One of the things that gets me about the Iraq war is that the reason justifying us being over there is ever changing. The one reason that bothers me the most is this one: "If we leave now, then all the soldiers who have died would have died in vain." Following this line of reasoning, we can never leave Iraq. Because unless things are "just so," then soldiers would have died in vain. Following this line of reasoning, Napoleon should still be invading Russia. Because, otherwise, his soldiers have died in vain.

If you are down to using this excuse, that says to me, "Hey, all our other excuses aren't working. Let's trot out ol' reliable." President Lyndon B. Johnson, aka my least favorite president ever, used this excuse during Vietnam. The thing with this excuse is that it does not make sense. It don't work. That dog don't hunt, my friends. If we are down to using this excuse, we are all but admitting that our soldiers are dying in vain. If this is our reason for fighting in Iraq, why did we start fighting in the first place? There was a time when not one soldier had died.

The subtext of all this is that President George W. Bush wants to push this war until January 2009. Whatever happens after that can be blamed on the next guy. Or gal. He thinks this whole "kicking the can down the road" routine will salvage his legacy. Wrong, friendo. We all know this is President Bush's War. It is no one else's.

You're so vain, Mr. President. If you think this post is about you, you'd be right.

Step Up

Since the war started, Iraqis who have worked for the Americans are in an extremely precarious position in their own country. Many Iraqis who work in the Green Zone have had to lie about what they are doing entering or exiting the Green Zone when asked by their "fellow" Iraqis. "I am just looking for my brother who disappeared," is a common refrain. These people are risking their lives to support us and yet when they need help from us, nothing.

Many Republicans continue to support the war because otherwise would be a "betrayal of the Iraqi people." Yet how many of these same Republicans are willing to let Iraqis immigrate to our country? The attitude among some Republicans appears to be, "Whoa, hold on there a minute, buddy. I know you acted as a translator for us in Baghdad at great risk to yourself and your family but, see, you are a little too dark to be allowed into these here United States. Plus, we really can't be sure you are not a terrorist in disguise."

A Democratic congressman from Oregon is sponsoring a bill that would allow more Iraqi immigrants to enter the United States. Damn those Democrats, supporting even more immigration! (Um, sorry, I guess I was channeling my inner-Rush Limbaugh there for a second. Won't happen again.) Currently, an Iraqi seeking to come to the United States has no chance of making it over here without a strong personal advocate.

Wouldn't it show enormous goodwill on our part to allow Iraqis to access our health care and our universities and just the rest of our society? Wouldn't that help win some hearts and minds?

Also, do we really want to be known as a country that fenced Iraqis out in their time of great need?

No Country for Old White Men

Here is an email I just received from my brother-in-law Hector. I assume he is joking:

Regardless of who wins the general election in 2008, this year promises to be of historical significance.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, we will have our first female President.

If Barack Obama wins the Presidency, we will have our first Kenyan-Hawaiian-American President.

But if John McCain wins, we will have the 44th consecutive white man as President!!! It will be a record-breaking, unprecedented streak for white men holding office in the United States. In fact, never before in the history of the United States have we had 44 white men in a row be President!

Personally I think everyone should vote for the White Man this year. After all, consider this country's progress under White Power. Over 95% of companies in the US are owned and managed by white men. A super-majority of congressmen, governors, cabinet members and military leaders are white, and continue to be so.

You may say "But what about the Iraq war? A white male President brought us into this mess!" Well, you could scapegoat the White Man for this disaster, but if you take a more nuanced view, you would realize that this war started under the watch of the first non-white Secretary of State. (I know its confusing, but Colin Powell is technically not white). And what happened under the watch of the first non-white, non-male National Security Advisor? 9/11, that's what.

Let's look at other examples of white greatness:
White bread continues to outsell wheat, or any other variety.
White appliances hold over 95% of the market
Milk... white
Elmer's Glue... white
Santa Claus... white
Bob Barker... white
Whiteboards... white
Lab coats... white
the paper cup holding my coffee... white
sugar in my coffee... white
person serving me coffee... white
Walmart... white
Disneyworld... white
the Devil... red! not white, red!
The first man on the moon was white... the rocket that took him to the moon was white... hell, the moon is white!
And Jesus Christ himself... white man!
Also, look at the success of the Roman Catholic Church... and they have had even more consecutive white guys... 267!

We could take our chances with a White Not-Man President or a Not-White Man President, or we could continue to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with a White Man President!

Don't change horses in mid-stream. VOTE WHITE MAN IN 2008!

Storm Cloud

"I feel like raining on some people's parades."

Uh-oh. It seems like Bill Maher is going to talk about world religions in a movie called "Religulous." I don't know too much about Mr. Maher but I do know that he deals in controversy. I also know that many of our religious right leaders feel like they have ownership over religion and that any interpretations that differ from their views are seen as anti-religious. Is it safe to say that sparks will fly when this movie comes out? I just hope that Pat Robertson does not send a hurricane to Bill Maher's house. Maher might want to see if he has hurricane insurance. I'm just saying.

I see Larry Charles directed this movie. It says it right there. See, right there. I loved the last movie he directed, "Borat." Yet I also know Larry Charles directed that Bob Dylan movie "Masked and Anonymous." A movie I hated, hated, hated. I feel like I will never back my $8.50 back even though I attended a free press screening. If you have ever wondered why I don't go ga-ga over Dylan, "Masked and Anonymous" is the reason why.

"Masked and Anonymous." Oh, the horror...the horror...

There They Go Again

I am a big fan of the Atlantic Monthly magazine. I just feel so damn cultured after I get done reading each month's issue. (You should have seen how upset I got when my sister lost last month's copy before I had the chance to read it. Darn her!) I am also a big fan of the Atlantic's cadre of bloggers - Marc Ambinder, Matthew Yglesias, Megan McArdle, and Ross Douthat. These are the bloggers I read first most mornings. They all have unique points of view which makes me think about ideas that I normally wouldn't think about on my own. Which is always a good thing.

Today Marc Ambinder reported that an iPetition appeared on a website called "No Mitt VP." My first question - an iPetition, what's that? The website was created by people who don't want John McCain to pick Mitt Romney as his vice-president choice because Mitt is insufficiently dedicated to social issues such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage and YouTube. Nothing new here as one of the reasons that Mitt Romney cratered as a candidate was because his conservative credentials were always suspect. Reading through the comments of Marc Ambinder's post seemed to favor Romney 3 to 1 however. The message of most of these commenters - if you don't like Mitt Romney, you are a religious bigot.

I think Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate. Many times before the primaries even started, I would tell my friends, "Mitt would be a worse candidate than George W. Bush." Seriously. I said that. George W. Bush was enough of his own man to go against generally accepted conservative beliefs. For example, George W. Bush has been rather welcoming of immigrants to this country. For that, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh raked him over the coals. Could you imagine President Mitt Romney ever going against Rush Limbaugh? I can't. George W. Bush believes he is a conservative which allows him to pick and choose battles with the conservative base. His comfort with them (because he is one of them) means he can try to push them into the direction he wants. Family squabbling is okay. We all do it.

Mitt Romney is the equivalent of someone marrying into the family. Most of us guys would not argue with the mother of our fiancée right before the wedding. We would probably go along with whatever our future mother-in-law wanted. This would be the prudent course. Why make waves? Mitt is this person. He knows he is not a conservative but he wants all the benefits that he thinks being a conservative would get him. Heck, he is pretending he is a conservative already so he might as well go all the way into Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly Land. The ironic thing is that 2008 just wasn't the year to be a conservative. Romney gambled and lost. Yet his followers can't see that.

Romney's supporters can't accept the real reason he lost (the reason stated above) so they come up with the "religious prejudice" excuse. There are always going to be people who don't like Mormons. But then there are people who don't like blacks or Catholics or Jews. Barack Obama seems to be doing fine. Joseph Lieberman was seen as a decent vice-presidential candidate in 2000. And John F. Kennedy is still regarded by many as a good president. People sometimes can't admit that the candidate they picked was seen by many people as insincere and wooden and politically clumsy. To see things this way impugns the judgment of Romney supporters. To impugn the judgment of phantom religious bigots means that Romney supporters won't have to go to sleep at night wondering how they picked such a weak candidate.

The Simplification of Barack Obama

I don't like it when I hear Barack Obama referred to as "black." To me he is a black person and a white person at the same time. As a person who has a Filipino mother and a white father, I find it very difficult to think of myself as one race or another. Race is more than how you look to another person. If anything, race should be more about how you look to yourself. When a person thinks of their life experiences, they can think about the relatives they grew up with and the foods they ate and the places they visited and the values cherished in their culture. These things make up race as well.

Growing up in a mixed-race household can be confusing for different reasons. I never had the problem (though I have heard about it) of not being "white enough" or "Filipino enough" to others. My relatives on both sides have always been very loving and accepting. But as a kid, I didn't really know how to explain "what I was" to other kids. They expect a simple answer and my answer wasn't that. ("You see, my dad met my mom when he was in the Peace Corps in the 60s...") As a kid, I did want a simple answer too. I would ask my mom, "What race am I? I don't want to be 'other.' I just don't." She had no simple answer for me either.

Eventually as I got older, I realized some things. I was especially specialized - half-white, half-Filipino; Catholic mom, Jewish dad. I didn't have a natural cohort of people who were just like me. A different strategy emerged - I would walk around comfortably among many different kinds of people. This came easy because, due to my diverse background, I spent time among many different kinds of people. My inherent differences made me different to other people but it also made them different to me. My unending curiosity made other people so interesting to me. And I know one thing that breaks the ice with strangers is to show an interest in them.

I relate to Barack Obama in that he seemed to have the confusion as a kid that I had. His parents came from vastly different backgrounds like my parents did. Mr. Obama said his grandmother opened up to him to say that prejudice still lingered in her thoughts. It must be jarring when a person from a previously unknown country (his dad from Kenya, my mom from the Philippines) is introduced into the family. I do know that whatever reservations existed when my mom entered my dad's family were gone as soon as they got to know my mom. (And definitely by the time they tasted her cooking.) I will not say I am a Barack Obama supporter yet but I do like how he seems to fit in everywhere. Probably because he comes from everywhere.

Barack and I have benefited from having many different kinds of relatives. We both have traveled to our respective ancestral homelanda. We ate different kinds of foods and learned about various religions. All these things define our race. I am Filipino and white. He is black and white.

Regular Human Emotions Invade the Sterile Emotionless World of NPR

I was shocked, shocked I tell you, to hear some actual anger expressed on NPR yesterday afternoon. At issue was whether a boycott of some sort should be undertaken against the Chinese Olympic Games due to China's terrible human rights violations. In one corner was Anita DeFrantz, an U.S. rower who couldn't participate in the 1980 Olympic Games because the United States boycotted the Games in Moscow that year. And in the other corner is Canadian human rights lawyer David Kilgour.

Sit back, listen to the story and hear the sparks fly.

Reason #116 the Democrats Need to Choose a Nominee (and Soon)

Not a lot to say here.....

Dumb and Dumber

I came across this video on YouTube not five minutes ago. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) seems to have made it his mission in life to criticize Senator Barack Obama for not wearing an American flag pin on his lapel. Mr. Kingston made this profound argument while not wearing an American flag pin on his lapel. How stupid can one person be?

But wait. There is more. After I watched this video, I realized I had heard the name "Jack Kingston" before. In fact, I had blogged about him over at "American Sweatpants." In a post dated December 6, 2006, I wrote about how some Republicans were angry that the new Democratic leadership wanted to impose a, heaven forbid, 5-day work week. Rep. Kingston said at the time, "Keeping us up here eats away at families. Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

Uh, okay, Rep. Kingston. Try not to think too much because you might hurt yourself. Why don't you go take a nap or something?

Mike Huckabee Stands Up for Barack Obama

Barack Obama has gotten in some trouble due to the comments of his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Video of Reverend Wright emerged last week that showed him making what could be construed as anti-white and anti-American remarks. While I disagree with some of Reverend Wright's sweeping statements, Mike Huckabee has placed Reverend Jeremiah Wright's comments in some historical context. Here is a quote from Huckabee:

And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..."

And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

The One Example of a George W. Bush Profile in Courage

In an admission that will surprise no one, I admit that I have a lot of liberal friends. And not just since I moved to Seattle. When I lived in Houston, most of my friends were liberals. Most of them were so liberal that I came off looking like Rush Limbaugh in comparison. To be compared to Rush, man, them fighting words to me. I mean, my worse enemies can't accuse me of being a rich dilettante with a recreational drug habit, what with the thousands of dollars I owe in student loans.

Let me preface what I am about to say by saying I have been against George W. Bush since at least 1997. (I will also admit I voted for him in 1994, when he first ran for governor. Fool me once, that whole spiel.) There have been times when I have defended things George W. Bush has done. I like that he tries to treat immigrants fairly. He has gotten a lot of static from his own party because of "his support for the wetbacks." But what do I get for pointing out that, in this single instance, President Bush was a profile in courage? My liberal friends say that there must be this hidden agenda. They don't know what it is but it is there. Being a native Texan, I feel like I have my finger on the pulse of how people in Texas regard immigrants. Especially those from Mexico.

Our policy in Texas? We live right by each other. The white community and the Hispanic community are so intertwined that to begrudge one group means you are begrudging yourself. The two groups are intertwined by marriage, work, school, church and just plain friendship. The stories I have heard of George W. Bush being raised among Hispanics reminds me of myself. My elementary school had three white kids. Me. My brother. And my sister. Did I ever feel like a minority? No, because the friendships I had there never allowed that thought to form in my head.

When Republicans demonize Hispanics, I become a bit discombobulated. Hispanic people have been a big part of my social and professional life. My years as a teacher in a mostly Hispanic high school in inner-city Houston are very precious to me. I suspect George W. Bush knows what I am talking about here. I bet he wonders just like me how Republicans can be so hateful. And so politically stupid.

Going the Distance

Over the last few weeks, it has become quite clear that in order to run for president you are not only responsible for what do and say but what anybody you've ever been associated with does and says.

As a result of all this , I've learned that if I ever want to run for president or the school board, I need to distance myself from the people in my life that have said or thought something racist, sexist, unpatriotic or offensive. I want this to be clear and unequivocal so that the MSM can not search into my past and knock any future candidacy of mine off message due to these shady associations. So in addition to distancing myself from anybody that has ever said or thought something racist, sexist, unpatriotic or offensive, I'm going to distance myself from anybody that has ever witnessed somebody else say something racist, sexist, unpatriotic or offensive.

So here goes....

I officially renounce, denounce and reject:

Everyone.

Moore for President 2016.

I'm Josh Moore and I approve this message.

The Florida Question

The Democrats face a tricky situation regarding the Florida and Michigan primary results. Both states decided to jump ahead of their assigned slots in the primary schedule as determined by the Democratic national party. As punishment, both states were stripped of their delegates.

Back when these primaries were held and their delegates subsequently stripped, there was some thought that these two states wouldn't matter much because it was assumed that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be the clear winner in the race to win the Democratic nominee. That has not happened. Michigan and Florida may be the tipping points to put one of these two over the top.

So we see people down in Florida trying to solve this problem.

Why does the input of the Obama and Clinton campaigns matter in how Florida Democrats decide how to solve their primary problem? It seems to me that both of these campaigns could have motives that would go against the interest of the people in Florida. For example, Barack Obama would be happy to split the Florida delegates half-half even though this isn't necessarily how Floridians would vote. (Hillary Clinton, at this point, would be favored to win the Florida primary if another one was held.)

I would think Florida Democrats would just decide how they want to run their own primary, the opinions of the Obama and Clinton campaigns be damned.

Reversal of Fortune

I remember the campaign where I first started following politics as intensely as I do now. I picked my candidate for a variety of reasons but mostly because I admired his competence and his ability to work really hard. A few of my former graduate school buddies and I had peculiarly discovered all at the same time an interest in politics. We all started having frequent jam sessions about this particular presidential race. I tried making the case for my candidate but due to my inexperience with politics and because of my candidate's low-key personality, my arguments never really won any converts.

My candidate lost that November. I was a little sad but had learned that candidates seen as "boring" or "pedantic" or "stiff" had an extra burden they had to overcome. I was able to admit at the time that I didn't find my candidate all that likeable. But he wasn't going to be my friend. I wasn't ever going to drink a beer with my candidate. But I knew my candidate would intensely think about the problems facing our country. That was a quality I was looking for when I decided who I was going to vote for.

My candidate's name was Al Gore.

Today he is seen as the greatest guy ever. I saw him give a speech in Houston in 2006. Everyone sitting by me laughed loudly at every joke Gore said. When he was talking about something serious, they listened intently. When he ended his speech, there was a minutes-long standing ovation. "Boring" and "pedantic" and "stiff" weren't going to be words thrown around to describe this speech. Al Gore had been reborn as Justin Timberlake. He was bringing wonky back.

My, how times have changed.

We are all so willing to make snap judgments about a person. We hold these judgments to be self-evident. But sometimes, we are proven to be spectacularly wrong. Al Gore is proof of this. I am happy for Gore. I liked him back in 2000 when it wasn't yet cool. He was a good person back then too. Nice to see some people jump on the bandwagon after the fact.

Hillary Clinton will undergo a Gore-like transformation too, I think. Now it is held that she is a shady character who helped preside over that terrible decade known as the 1990s. She is seen as promising "more of the same" of the Bush/Cheney years. (Strange since I thought the Clintons and the Bushes were rivals.) Clinton seemingly doesn't even know the definition of the word "change." (Ironic since if she was elected, she would bring the most "change" to the all-boy's club known as the United States Presidents.)

Clinton's place in history, whatever happens with her run for the presidency, will be to stand on the pedestal of great women leaders like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul and Victoria Woodhull and Rosa Parks.

Some of us are "Hillary Clinton" early adapters. We get what she is saying. And what she is trying to do. The others? They will come around.

Anthony Palmer for President

Long before this blog came into being, I had been thinking about starting a blog focused on politics with my friend Josh Moore. Josh and I both followed politics rather closely and had thrown it out there that a political blog is something we should do together. (Plus readers at my regular blog, "American Sweatpants," were getting annoyed by all the political stories getting in the way of my humorous anecdotes about life and stuff.) Whenever Josh and I would get together, one of us would ask the other, "Weren't we talking about doing a blog together?" But we weren't doing it. We needed some kind of impetus to get us started on gitting r done.

That impetus arrived a day, a few months back, that I read a blog called "The 7-10" for the first time. It was written by a fellow named Anthony Palmer. How I found this blog is something that has been lost to history. Though I do remember being impressed from the very first post I read. The blog was simple, really. All Anthony was doing was offering really insightful stuff about the people running for president. He had opinions and then explained how he came to these opinions. Anthony's insights stayed with me. (Quite an accomplishment considering my legendary bad memory.) There have been occasions when I would quote him to other people when my clarity of thought wasn't quite there. To sum up, Anthony was offering newspaper-quality editorials without any of the self-aggrandizement we can associate with many members of the media.

Today I came across a post on Anthony's blog that mentioned he was trying to win political blogging scholarship. Anthony is a doctoral student in journalism with a concentration in political communications. I am a big believer in collecting college degrees, having three of them myself. I also know how expensive school is. (If I ever have kids, I hope they support me in my old age by helping me pay down my student loans.) To win this scholarship, Anthony must win an online poll pitting him against two other political blogs. You can vote for Anthony and his blog at this here website.

Good luck, Anthony. Let us know how things turn out, my friend.

The "Agony" and the Ecstasy of Rush Limbaugh

Last week featured the imbroglio with John McCain and the New York Times and and, my personal favorite, an extramarital affair with a blond lobbyist. (In my honest opinion, I think blond lobbyists are just the pits. So full of themselves they are.) Like clockwork, Rush Limbaugh got all upset about how the liberal media is going tough on Republicans while taking it easy on Democrats such as Barack Obama and, especially, Hillary Clinton.

Um, excuse me, Rush? Rush also explained last week how the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media would never do a tough story on Hillary Clinton. Once again, excuse me, Rush? It seems to me that Hillary Clinton is has been scrutinized by the press to an extreme degree. Granted, you should invite a lot of press scrutiny when you decide to run for public office. But do y'all remember all the "headband" stories about Clinton from the 90s? Remember the political agenda of Hillary's headband? How she was trying to disguise herself as a regular working mom so that she could gain the support of women everywhere which would allow her to push her socialistic message? She can't even dress herself without people questioning her motives.

The press coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign for the president has also been pretty tough. The media seems to think that everything she does in her campaign emerges whole cloth out of some sinister reason. I concede that Hillary Clinton has pulled some shady tactics against her opponent, Barack Obama. (South Carolina was just sad.) But the narrative that emerges if you read the press is that mean lady Hillary is always trying to pick on that innocent choirboy Barack Obama. A narrative that has some truth but only some. It is way easier for the press to pick out a narrative that sells a lot of papers and just keep running with it ad nauseum. They are a business like any other.

It is the best of times and the worst of times for Rush Limbaugh. He is a man without any proactive ideas to push. We know this because Rush is so full of himself that he would totally brag about 'em if he had 'em. But, sadly, he is an empty void, bereft of any ideas that could be useful to us Americans. Thus, he needs stories of malfeasance that feed into his normal tropes. Oh, woe is me, the New York Times is so evil, says Rush. How I hate those university professors because of their fancy book learnin'. Damn ACLU and their trial lawyer buddies. And don't get me started on those feminazis. Somebody go tell them to please shave their legs.

Oh sure, Rush Limbaugh will feign anger and agony when the New York Times does something wrong. But I am not fooled. Rush is ecstatic because a negative story that fits into El Rushbo's world view buys him another day of relevance. Another day to collect a big paycheck. One day, a day that can't get here soon enough, the world according to Rush Limbaugh will be seen as realistic as something written by J.R.R. Tolkien. With Rush Limbaugh starring as Saruman.

Operation Hail Mary

"Saturday Night Live" dropped a bombshell last night, coincidentally a Saturday, when they reported that former Governor Mike Huckabee was launching a top secret and last-ditch effort to overtake John McCain to win the Republican presidential nomination. Huckabee's plan, codenamed Operation Hail Mary, was to steal superdelegates out from underneath Senator Barack Obama. Governor Huckabee has reportedly promised some sort of quid pro quo if a superdelegate was willing to switch his or her vote from Obama to Huckabee. What is Governor Huckabee promising in return for this? His band will cover Bob Dylan songs at your wedding, kid's birthday party, or whatever office parties you have coming up.

If all this fails, Governor Huckabee has promised to implement a sinister and insidious Plan B, codenamed Operation Chuck Norris Will Whip Your Ass, All While Not Even Breaking a Sweat.

And in the unlikely event that even Chuck Norris fails, Governor Huckabee will implement a much more moderate, and potentially much more entertaining, Plan C - he will star in the movie version of Bill Clinton's autobiography "My Life" in the title role of "Bill Clinton." Emma Thompson is slated to play a character named "Hillary Clinton." Hollywood Liberal Rob Reiner will direct.

Chuck Norris will play all the rest of the roles (Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, George Stephanopoulos) because, well, he wanted to.

So What Have They Done?

So an important meme out there is that Hillary is oh so accomplished and gets results, while Obama is oh so green and is nothing but words.

I have to admit, that for the last couple of months, I've had the feeling that both memes were wrong but never looked into it, so I didn't have any proof for my words. Well, finally, I got off my lazy bottom and did do some research...

For those of you who are lazy like me the long and short of what I found is this:

Barack Obama actually has accomplished some things, and crossed the aisle to do so.

Hillary Clinton also has a record of accomplishment, but not that much greater than Obama's.

So here's what I found.

We'll begin by looking at their respective records while in the U.S. Senate. By the way I decided to list the bills that they sponsored by themselves. I listed rather than described them...that way you, our faithful readers (both of you) don't have to go anywhere else...however, I've cited my sources at the end. Finally, I didn't include bills that did more 'pedestrian' things such as naming Post Offices and giving out other kinds of recognition.

Bills sponsored by Hillary Clinton alone that actually became law:

1.) S.1425 : A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed Protection Program.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 7/17/2003)
Note: For further action, see H.R.2771, which became Public Law 108-328 on 10/16/2004.

2.) S.1622 : A bill to extend the period of availability of unemployment assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the case of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 11/1/2001) 
Note: For further action, see H.R. 3986, which became Public Law 107-154 on 3/25/2002.

3.) S.2496 : A bill to provide for the establishment of investigative teams to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 5/9/2002) Note: For further action, see H.R. 4687, which became Public Law 107-231 on 10/1/2002.

Bills sponsored by Obama that actually became law:

S.2125 : A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/16/2005) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-456

It is hard to get a bill through the senate sponsored only by a singular senator. As a result it probably is more revealing to look at bills that were co-sponsored. Co-sponsoring a bill is a bit confusing. Often, a senator will sign on as a co-sponsor without having done any work. As a result, I've highlighted co-sponsored bills here, rather than listing like above.

Hillary has co-sponsored numerous bills but, as is common practice, has often not spoke on them or done much work on them. The bills on which she has taken an active role include a bill to achieve emission reductions and cost savings through accelerated use of cost-effective lighting technologies in public buildings, and for other purposes, and a number of revisions to laws, including issues related to environmental concerns, consumer protections. She is also consistently involved in bills related to improving things for veterans. I will say that there is a nice range of issues to which she has at least attached her name.

Obama, also co-sponsored numerous bills that were sponsored by numerous senators. However, Obama, who campaigned in 2004 on the issues of ethics reform and nuclear non-proliferation work, actually crossed the aisle for work related to both. His biggest accomplishment came last year when he joined with Richard Lugar (R-Ind) to update the Nunn-Lugar Framework for securing loose nukes. It also extended the scope of the act to include conventional weapons such as RPG's.

As for ethics reform he was appointed by Senator Reid as the senate's point person on the ethics reform and co-sponsored a number of the bills that made up the package that passed in 2006, called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 .

I don't think either of these is insignificant. As for his promise to get past the political divisions of the past 30 years, he has shown an ability to work with members of the Republican party while in the U.S. Senate. He also demonstrated this ability while in the Illinois Senate. The most famous example is his work on a bill that made videotaping mandatory for police interrogations in Illinois. When he proposed this bill, he had little support on his side of the aisle. In addition, the police unions opposed it as did the Illinois governor. Through real legislating, working with other members in the Illinois senate, working with the police unions and eventually the Illinois governor, he was able to get the bill signed into law.

My conclusion is that both have experience. Reading through Hillary's record I realize she is not quite as calculating as is sometimes portrayed, she has worked hard on issues that she cares about. Reading through Obama's record also confirmed that he works hard on issues he cares about and confirmed (at least to me) his assertion that he has the abilities to change (not end but make some change) the partisan atmosphere in Washington politics. Who knows though, I can only think of one way to find out.

Finally, one other thing, while searching for info about, I found that Obama has introduced a bill that is on the Senate Calendar for this year (and Hillary has co-sponsored it.) So there you go Thomas, he's trying...technically it was introduced in late 2007 but I think it counts for something.

Sources:
Thomas, the LOC resource for all things legislatively related.

I also got a lot of information from the blog Obsidian Wings, which is a very interesting read.

The Practical Obama

I am not on the Barack Obama bandwagon but I do understand it. (I hear about Obama pretty often as it seems that 90% of my friends have been swept up in its momentum.) That I am not on this particular bandwagon doesn't mean I am against Barack Obama. I am just doing more research on him and his positions. I like some things and dislike other things. I am one of those deliberate dudes who takes his time deciding stuff. We have until November so I think I will manage.

What I would like to see Obama do (as I suspect some of his hardcore fans would like too) is to see Barack Obama in action. I don't mean another speech or another debate. I mean, I would like to see Barack Obama in action as a United States senator. Ever since Obama started running for president over a year ago, I don't recall him performing many senatorial duties of note. At the very least, running for president should increase one's visibility and likely one's power. Obama should have been taking advantage of this "power bump" to push issues that he cares about. And Obama's campaign has done waaaay more than increase his visibility a little. He is now one of the most famous people on the planet. That should have given him the power and the influence to push legislation that he favors.

There are some problems when a senator runs for the presidency. You can appear to vote against a popular bill because you are holding out for a stronger version of the same bill. There can be technical votes where you vote against something you believe in because you know the votes aren't there at that time and you need to go back and regroup. Pushing for legislation while running for president is inherently risky. Supporting a piece of legislation means you are getting people against your legislation angry. But if a piece of legislation is right, it is right. That a vote on a piece of legislation will make you a little less popular is not something that should enter one's thought process. Chief Justice Earl Warren held out for a 9-0 decision in the Brown v. Board of Education decision because he knew it was such a game-changer that even a little dissent would be picked up and run with by some people. Chief Justice Warren was worried about doing what was right. He wasn't about small steps or waiting for the time when such steps would be more politically expedient.

Obama has been asked why he is running now by many people. He is only 46. He has only been a senator for a couple of years. Obama references Martin Luther King, Jr. when he talks about the "fierce urgency of now." Why is now not the time, Obama asks. The same is true for the responsibilities he controls now as a United States senator. There are pieces of legislation that demand the "fierce urgency of now," well, now. Why hasn't Obama been pushing these pieces of legislation? I would hope he is not acting out of political expediency.

Being a native Texan, I knew quite a bit about George W. Bush when he ran for the presidency in 2000. I knew enough about his years as our governor to know that I would never vote for him for president. It may be hard to remember now but back in the day then-Governor Bush was seen as an easygoing and friendly guy who was easily able to crack jokes. I remember liking Governor Bush as a person. I also liked that he made many attempts to reach out to the Black and Hispanic communities in Texas. But I had seen his governing style and I didn't like it. After the election, I thought to myself, "Well, some of us Texans knew just a little more than the rest of the country. But the rest of the country will soon catch up, I hope."

Barack Obama is not George W. Bush, by any means. But who is he exactly? I don't know yet. With George W. Bush, millions of people got caught up in what a great guy he seemed to be. Being a student of his governorship, I knew that there wasn't much "there" there. Barack Obama is truly a phenomenon. But I need a little more. Obama should have spent part of the last year just being a senator. Get some important legislation passed. Or at least work to get it passed. This would have served Obama in so many ways. People couldn't say that he wasn't substantive enough to be president. And also, his followers who are all caught up in the "Obama wave" would have been brought down to earth a little bit by seeing their guy in the give-and-take (and practical world) of politics. Obama's biggest worry now should be the expectations of his supporters who think he will be a miracle worker. He won't be. And when this fact emerges, there might be some hell to pay.

Hillary's Inspirational Power

Sorry it's been a while since I posted or commented...I've been busy scouring all the political blogs as I follow this presidential nominating contest way too closely.

In fact, I've become quite obsessed with following the races on both sides...I will have more to say about that in the coming days...

For today, all I have is this (thanks to a tip from my friend Scott...) It is clear, unequivocal evidence of the fact that Hillary can inspire as well, and boy does she get results.

No Soldier Left Behind

The other day, I read a story about how the average soldier, when leaving the military, only received enough money to attend the average two-year junior college. While the GI Bill previously covered full tuition for returning veterans, today the bill only provides $9,600 a year for four years, which is basically chump change when it comes to college today. I would have thought that one of the benefits of us living in wartime would be that we as a country would appreciate our soldiers by taking care of them when they came home. They took care of us abroad so we could take of them here, right? Um, wrong.

It seems that part of the reason the GI Bill is not being funded is because the government fears that too many people would leave the military to go to college if they received halfway decent benefits. The reasoning being that if the benefits only get you a place at a junior college, why even bother? Two things get me about this argument. First, it is just wrong. Veterans deserve whatever we can do for them. They need health care. Done. They need an education. Done. They need help buying a house. Done. They need help starting a business. Done.

Second thing, knowing that you will get a real education after you leave the military, instead of an illusory promise of one, will draw more people into the military. Of course people will leave the military if more educational benefits are waiting for them. But people can leave the military for all sorts of reasons. The government needs to make it more attractive to join the military. I bet an all-expense paid trip to the four-year state university of somebody's choice would bring in a whole lot of recruits. A whole new generation of people just looking to make their lives better and more full. The American Dream, if you will.

Conservatives always deny it but they expect all these things from government. They want us to fight all these wars. They want us to build all these walls to keep out those hordes of illegal immigrants. Yet when it comes time to do something about all this, they only get around to talking about tax cuts. Talking about that or their man-crush Ronald Reagan. When the reality differs from their hopes and dreams, they blame gay marriage. The bad news for conservatives? Due to the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," gay marriage can't be blamed for soldiers not being taken care of once they come home. Since gays aren't allowed anywhere near the military, they can't possibly be the ones messing it up, right?

The Lonely Beacon

I live in Seattle, Washington. We just had our presidential caucuses here last weekend as reported on by my fellow co-blogger, that intrepid reporter Josh Moore. Barack Obama won in what can only be described as a major league landslide, besting Hillary Clinton by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Hillary Clinton, to me, seems to be quickly fading from the presidential landscape, likely forever.

Alas, the Clintons will remain highly visible politicians. Hillary Clinton will remain the most famous senator in the United States. Bill Clinton will see his stumbles in South Carolina fade from memory when Obama assumes the presidency because no lasting harm was done. Bill will become what he was before, kind of a traveling ambassador for the United States. But the Clintons will be slightly diminished because there is no potential for growth there anymore. This was Hillary Clinton's chance to become president and it just didn't happen.

Rush Limbaugh's dream has finally come true. The Clintons are through with presidential politics. Rush won't have the Clintons to kick around anymore. The right wing of the Republican Party will have to create new objects of their "affection," I guess. But that is what they do and they are good at it. Still, I am betting that the right wingers are embarrassed. They tried and tried and tried to take down the Clintons for years and they couldn't. They were taken down by a first-term United States senator from Illinois.

I don't agree that Obama was that much of an underdog when he started his presidential campaign in February of 2007. He was probably the second most famous senator in the United States partially due to his unique (for politics) life story. (His dad was from Kenya and his mom was from Kansas.) He had given a now near-legendary speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. At a time when most people had turned against the Iraq War, Obama was against it from the beginning. And in a time of lethargy in our country, Obama was a beacon of hope and reconciliation.

All this aside, I haven't caught the Obama wave yet. I love being inspired. But I gather my inspiration from books or movies or music or good deeds done for one's neighbor or stories on NPR. I don't really expect to gather inspiration from our political leaders. I like to consider myself a student of history and I have spent a fair amount of time looking for inspirational political leaders. I haven't found many. Even my favorite presidents (Truman, Lincoln, FDR) showed wide streaks of cunning and duplicity and political expediency. And you know why? Because they had to. The world is so complex and confusing and difficult to navigate. Sure, presidents will give speeches that aim to "inspire." But that is a tool to further their agendas. A tool by itself does not tell me anything about a person. An agenda is something different. Barack Obama is inspirational to millions of people. But what is his message underneath the way he is pitching himself? I am not sure yet.

I know Barack Obama must be an immensely intelligent man. I am a fellow lawyer so I know what kind of people made law review. (I am not one.) And he was president of the law review of probably the most prestigious law school in the country. But I think he is overly relying on his inspirational pitch. I mean, it must be hard to not overly rely on this pitch because it is working so well. Millions of people are starting to believe that Barack Obama is some kind of miracle worker. I hope Obama is able to please them by doing a good job as president. He will need to do some work to be able to get to the level he will need to be at to satisfy the enormous expectations people have for him.

In a little postscript, I wanted to say a few things about Hillary Clinton. I have always liked her. I think she is an extremely smart woman and, even more importantly, a very hard worker. She seems to be fighting the right battles. I cannot imagine what it must be like to wake up every morning knowing that people just hate you. Hillary is doing what she was supposed to do - she worked hard in school, she got into good schools, she fought to make the lives of children better. And, to millions of people, she is evil. (Witness Mitt Romney's tasteless speech when he dropped his bid for the presidency. He said that if either Hillary or Barack won the White House, they would just "surrender to terror." Can I see a future where Mitt Romney's picture will be found in the dictionary next to the term "sore loser"? Yes I can.)

The origin of "Clinton hate" spewed by Republican right wingers sprouts from a rather mundane explanation. The Clintons were successful against the Republican machine. They angered the Rush Limbaughs and the Tom DeLays and the Mitt Romneys of the world because they pushed back against the Republican machine successfully at times. Would Rush and Tom and Mitt care about the Clintons if they were losers? No.

Showing some political expediency of his own, Barack Obama has used polarization of the Clintons against them. He says he is not as hated as the Clintons. That is true of Obama. But the very success he is experiencing now means that the Republicans are sharpening their knives and dreaming up their attack ads. These knives and ads won't be enough to stop Obama this election. The Obamamania now sweeping the land is just too great. But Republicans are anything if not patient. They will have Obama's whole presidency to tear him down. By the end of eight years, "Obama hate" will rival the "Clinton hate" all of us are familiar with now.