« May 11, 2008 - May 17, 2008 | Main | May 25, 2008 - May 31, 2008 »
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Face Of The Day
24 May 2008 06:40 pm
A boy stands in the FEMA Diamond travel trailer park May 23, 2008 in Port Sulphur, Louisiana. FEMA federal trailer parks that house many Hurricane Katrina victims are set to close May 31, prompting fears that people will be forced into residences they can't afford or will be left homeless. Most residents will receive a federal subsidy to move to apartments, but affordable rental housing is scarce in some areas like New Orleans and Baton Rouge. By Mario Tama/Getty Images.
Quote For The Day
24 May 2008 05:47 pm
"No disrespect to the other candidates, but if anyone else had been nominated we’d be toast," - GOP pollster Glen Bolger.
Joke Research
24 May 2008 04:59 pm
Gregory McNamee on the world's funniest joke:
...according to research conducted a few years back at the University of Hertfordshire, the funniest joke in the world, the one that most easily travels across cultures, is about death. It goes something like this:
Two hunters are out hunting. One of them falls over and seems not to be breathing. His friend calls 911* and cries, “What do I do?” “Well, first, let’s make sure he’s dead,” says the operator. There is silence, and then a shot rings out. The hunter returns to the phone and says, “Okay, now what?”
It’s a good joke, to be sure. But curiously, the jokes that seemed to work the best on the cross-cultural charts were just over 100 words long, with the optimum number being 103. The full version of the hunters joke tips in at 102 words, lending credence to the notion that a strange numerology is at play. Couple that with linguistic studies that suggest that velar consonants are funnier than alveodentals and sibilants and such (thus “kayak” is a funny word, “yellow” and “sassy” not so much), and we have the beginnings of a formula. Back to the drawing board, then….
A good enough reason to link to this Monty Python classic.
Mental Health Break
24 May 2008 04:23 pm
Ten optical illusions in two minutes:
Competitive Conservation
24 May 2008 03:21 pm
A nifty idea from an editorial in TNR on conservation:
...we're pleased by the recent trend in the automobile industry, in which it's become increasingly common for carmakers to include fuel-efficiency gauges that display prominently the number of miles per gallon a car is getting at each instant. Toyota's Prius, among other models, comes with such a gauge, and Nissan announced last year that all new vehicles will be equipped with one. In trials, the gauge has prompted smoother and more efficient driving, which can increase fuel efficiency by 10 percent or more. Conservation, which was once, in the words of Vice President Cheney, merely a "sign of personal virtue, " becomes something far more appealing: a sign of personal superiority. It would be even better if the gauges displayed one's fuel-efficiency percentile, putting Americans in direct competition with each other for gas-sipping bragging rights.
Stu Taylor On California
24 May 2008 02:07 pm
Enraged. Ben Wittes replies to me here:
Thanks for your thoughtful post in response to my column. Allow me to address the question you pose: "on what grounds should we call a same-sex marriage a civil union and not a civil marriage? What does it mean to have a different name?" Or, to be more precise, let me say that I think you have asked somewhat the wrong question. For as you've framed it, my answer is simple: We shouldn't call it anything different. That's why I support same-sex marriage, as opposed to civil unions or domestic partnerships. But the right question, for a court anyway, is not what voters should do. It is what voters in a democratic polity may do--in this case whether they may use a different name for the substantive contents of marriage or whether some constitutional principle forbids the polity that choice.
I can engage this question at the level of doctrine if you like, but I actually think the doctrinal discussion risks missing the forest for the trees. The forest here is the point that you acknowledge when you say in your first paragraph, "I see where he's coming from. I certainly don't want to alienate or insult those who want substantive state (but not federal) equality for gay couples in a separate and nearly-equal box." Now you would never say this about something that you truly regarded as a segregationist "separate but equal" institution.
Continue reading "Stu Taylor On California" »
What If Michigan Had Voted Within The Rules?
24 May 2008 02:04 pm
Poblano uses his very powerful demographic model to hazard a guess about how the delegates would have spread if Michigan hadn't broken the rules and had a regular primary:
Overall, we project that Obama would have carried Michigan by a narrow margin -- about 4.0 percentage points or 80,000 votes. After accounting for delegates awarded at the statewide level, we project him to win 65 Michigan delegates to Clinton's 63. Certainly, there is some margin for error in these calculations, and Clinton could certainly have won the state herself. But it would undoubtedly have been very close. Interestingly, if you take the average of the winning margins in Indiana (Clinton by 1.2 points), Ohio (Clinton by 8.7) and Wisconsin (Obama by 17.3), you come up with an average of Obama by 2.5 points, which is very close to our estimate.
The idea that Obama should get zero delegates from Michigan - and that this represent a triumph of democracy - is cuckoo for cocopuffs.
The View From Your Window
24 May 2008 01:58 pm
Aleman, Texas, 6.30 pm.
Where The Racism Is
24 May 2008 01:45 pm
A Newsweek poll homes in:
Who exactly are these high Racial Resentment Index voters? A majority, 61 percent, have less than a four-year college education, many are older (44 percent were over the age of 60 compared to just 18 percent under the age of 40) and nearly half (46 percent) live in the South.
Bowl me over with a feather. And we wonder why Clinton won Appalachia.
Extreme Pacifism
24 May 2008 01:12 pm
Hitch reviews Human Smoke, Nicholson Baker's book on how World War II was wrong and avoidable:
Follow Baker's logic just a little further, and it becomes possible to imply that the war might actually have helped facilitate the Holocaust. This in turn would help make all participants in the Second World War into morally equivalent forces. And that in fact is Baker's view, as is the view, not just that all wars are essentially the same, but that they are also all essentially part of the same war. What we call the Second World War was only an extension of the long struggle for mastery between the various European powers, all of which were all the time also wreaking indiscriminate cruelty on colonial peoples. That there is some truth to all this is what gives pacifism its enduring appeal.
By The Way ...
24 May 2008 01:07 pm
... aren't you as psyched by all these new ads as I am? Well, maybe not. But the business side of the Atlantic.com is taking off. Which is good news for all of us.
Who Does She Think She Is?
24 May 2008 11:51 am
Hilzoy writes:
People are writing about [Clinton] as though she were a bomb that needed to be expertly defused, as opposed to a person who can govern her own life, and is responsible for her own choices.
I am aware that it must be hard to face the fact that you've lost. But it became clear that she was not going to win the nomination months ago -- I would say after Wisconsin, but certainly after Texas. Moreover, this is not unprecedented. People lose the nomination every four years. Most of the time, they do not stay on until it is mathematically impossible for them to win; they leave when it has become clear that they will not win. They do not complain about disenfranchising all the states with later primaries, they do not threaten to keep their supporters home, and they certainly do not threaten "open civil war" if they don't get nominated for Vice President. On those rare occasions when some candidate does this in the absence of some truly monumental issue, we normally think that that candidate is a narcissistic and unprincipled person who has just shown why s/he should never, ever be President.
There is absolutely no reason not to apply these same standards to Hillary Clinton.
Continue reading "Who Does She Think She Is?" »
Litigant Or Sociopath?
24 May 2008 10:31 am
Ann Althouse, seconded by the Passive-Aggressive one, poo-pooed the notion that the Clintons are sociopaths in their Florida and Michigan grandstanding. They're just being lawyers - preparing to litigate. There is one obvious problem with that argument, as a reader explains:
Althouse is right to an extent. Often in ligitation, if the rules help you, they are iron clad, and if they don't, you look for reasons why they shouldn't apply. But that's not what's going on here.
To use the ligitation analogy, if you walk in to court espousing the exact opposite position of an earlier stated position, you lose, plain and simple. Your opponent calls it an admission, throws it in your face, and probably moves for sanctions. The judge accepts the earlier position as the truth and the later position an obvious attempt to impose a different standard of liability than what everyone agreed to before the litigation (or at an earlier point in the litigation). Worst of all, you lose all credibility with the judge, which any litigator will tell you is the most important weapon in your arsenal. By Ann's analogy, Clinton loses (and gets sanctioned).Lord knows I'd like to litigate that case.
Solving Obesity
24 May 2008 10:24 am
Rauch's "modest proposal" from the Atlantic archives:
It seems to me that the only honest and effective way to confront this issue is to tax not fattening foods or fattening companies but fat people. It is they, after all, who drive up the government's health-care costs, so it is they who should pay. What I propose, then, is to tax people by the pound.
This needn't be very complicated.
Continue reading "Solving Obesity" »
You Only Use 10% Of Your Brain
24 May 2008 10:12 am
The six most commonly quoted bogus statistics.
Libertarian Happenings
24 May 2008 08:05 am
Weigel reports from the Libertarian convention:
"I want us to broaden the base," says one Texas delegate and reform caucus stalwart. "I've been a Ruwart fan for a long time but she can't do that. But Barr can get 3 to 5 percent of the vote and make McCain rue the day he stopped being a conservative."
It appears Tucker isn't going to make a run after all. Bummer.
Fareed Obama?
24 May 2008 06:56 am
A match made in India, Indonesia ... and America.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Another Version of "Hallalujah"
23 May 2008 10:36 pm
Jeff Buckley's haunting cover can be seen and heard here. k.d. lang's is here.
The Coolness Of The Obama Campaign
23 May 2008 09:11 pm
A reader notes:
I think the Obama campaign has chosen wisely the past week or so, to let Senator Clinton "implode" on her own. And it's obviously beginning to happen. Senator Obama and his campaign have been very hands-off lately with the Clinton campaign, instead focusing their energy on McCain and not letting him or his campaign get away with baseless attacks. So far, he has responded with force, dignity, intelligence, and calmness, and turned from defense to offense admirably and fairly. He is looking more and more presidential every day, and Senator Clinton is looking less so each day. I think the Obama campaign statement today was perfect: it didn't use Wolfson-like venom, but simply used the words "unfortunate" and "has no place in this campaign". Laser-like precision!
Face Of The Day
23 May 2008 07:44 pm
A father mourns the loss of his daughter who died along with 127 other students at the Fuxin Primary school May 23, 2008 in Wufu, Sichuan province, China. Nearly 7,000 classrooms collapsed in the earthquake last week, killing thousands of students. You can donate here. By Paula Bronstein/Getty Images.
Over?
23 May 2008 07:42 pm
A reader hopes:
I'm a Democrat, an Obama supporter who would gladly have pulled the lever for Clinton if she had won the nomination (which she did not). And until this afternoon, I even would have accepted her as Obama's veep. But after that idiotic statement about Bobby Kennedy, no more. I say that not because the statement is offensive (which it is), but because it is so monumentally tone deaf.
If she was trying to bolster her own case, she failed miserably. If she was trying to live up to every negative image that you or other Hilary-adversaries could gin up in your most hallucinatory fever dreams, well, mission accomplished. And I for one am tired of Dem presidential candidates who seem most skilled at rhetorically shooting themselves in the foot. Hopefully this gaffe will continue the rolling of superdelegates away from her camp, and end this parade of ignominy.
For the record, I think she meant it as a reference that people would remember about a June primary. She's not crazy enough to air wishes about Obama's early demise. But her actual point is nonetheless fallacious because a) that 1968 primary campaign did not last six months as this one has; b) Johnson's withdrawal scrambled the race in ways not applicable today. And 1992 doesn't help her case either. In short: wrong, dumb and unintentionally offensive, especially to already alienated African-Americans and to a Kennedy family still reeling from Ted's illness.
The Obama 40
23 May 2008 07:20 pm
Al Giordano reports that a super delegate flood is coming.
Wrong About 1992 As Well
23 May 2008 07:00 pm
From the New York Times in March of that year:
Mr. Clinton is already close to the halfway mark in the number of delegates needed to win the nomination and has a 7-to-1 edge over Mr. Brown, who is running a maverick, anti-establishment campaign. Many Democrats said that barring an unexpected collapse by Mr. Clinton's campaign, it is difficult to see how Mr. Brown can overtake the Governor.
"It certainly brings it much closer to a conclusion," said Ronald H. Brown, the Democratic national chairman. "You could argue that it's theoretically possible for Jerry Brown to mount a come-from-behind challenge, but the math and the reality of Bill Clinton's momentum certainly work against him."
Yes, the Clintons once used the math argument against an opponent - as early as March 20, only a couple of weeks after New Hampshire. Brown could have rallied in his home state of California, but it was effectively over long before then. The Clintons will say anything, deny anything, refute themselves, contradict themselves - as long as it helps them gain power. They have no other point of reference.
Not The First Time
23 May 2008 06:57 pm
Here's Clinton on March 6, again remembering the assassination of RFK:
I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.
Weird.
RFK-HRC Reax
23 May 2008 06:47 pm
Powerline excuses:
For those of us who remember RFK's assassination, it's easy to understand why, speaking off-the-cuff, Clinton would refer to the event that made the 1968 California primary memorable. In short, there's nothing here, and the New York Post's headline that "Clinton Raises Assassination Issue" is grossly misleading.
This is the gaffe of gaffes, the Mother of all campaign faux pas. There’s no taking it back at this point. The statement is out there, hanging like a rapidly decomposing side of beef in the hot sun. To suggest that you should hang around and stay in the campaign “just in case” the unthinkable occurs is beyond anything yet seen in this campaign. And considering all the race and gender cards that have been flying around, the assassination card tops them all.
Clinton's statement today reveals our collective fatigue and was unbelievably unfortunate. Looking at her make her statement of regret you can see her pain and that she is devastated by what she said, which is clear in the statement below from the Clinton camp.
But anyone believing Clinton was suggesting that an assassination could vault her into... never mind, I can't even finish the statement. It's just too ludicrous. But that's where we are today.
For those who contend that Clinton was referring to competitive contests or example, why didn't she bring up Ted Kennedy in 1980? Or Gary Hart in 1984? I think she was pointing to primary races where the eventual nominee was unknown at this point in the cycle.... But 1984 would apply more, her husband was the de-facto nominee at this point, and the compressed calender really renders such comparisons null and void.
This may finally kill talk of a fusion ticket. God forbid anything happen to Obama now.
No!
23 May 2008 06:47 pm
More dissents:
I, too, loved "Team of Rivals," but I don't think the comparison works. Obama's accepting Hillary as vice-president would not be like Lincoln's choice of Seward, Bates, and Chase. It would be more like selecting Jefferson Davis.
Paging Dr Freud
23 May 2008 06:32 pm
I was on the stairmaster when the news came through. And I saw the apology as well - an apology to the Kennedy family, I might note, not to Senator Obama. Since some seem unwilling to point out why this remark was more than unfortunate, it is worth remembering that we have the first black candidate for president. You only have to spend a few minutes talking with African-Americans about this campaign to discover that the fear that Obama could be assassinated is very much on their minds. It is in everyone's subconscious, especially Michelle Obama's. To refer to the June assassination of Bobby Kennedy in the context of reasons to stay in this interminable race against Barack Obama is therefore catastrophically inappropriate. Coming after her pitch for "white votes", it is reckless.
As for her argument that June primaries are nothing new, she is correct. But in no previous primary election did the voting start just after New Years' Day. The New Hampshire primary in 1968 was on March 12, two months later than this year. For June, therefore, read August. Yes, this season has gone on for ever. And for Senator Clinton, it has now obviously gone on too long.
She's been waiting for Obama to implode. Instead, she just has.
It's Eurovision Time!
23 May 2008 06:10 pm
Blogger SuperFrenchie wrings his hands. Nuls points! Here's the frog entry this year en anglais. I don't think it's Mike Myers:
We Are All Sinners
23 May 2008 05:55 pm
The military eases its ban on sex between the unmarried.
The Conservatism Debate
23 May 2008 05:29 pm
Ross replies:
"I think this is a good example of why arguments about what "true conservatives" will do often don't tell us very much. Sure, a conservative might support a carbon tax for the reasons Andrew lays out - but then again, a conservative might instead agree with Jim Manzi that any carbon tax will perforce be both onerous and overly-ambitious. Moreoever, a conservative might also disagree with premise that climate change is the most pressing "emergent question" that our government ought to "ameliorate" and favor reform on other fronts instead.
I don't deny that on questions having to do with the scope of government action Andrew may be marginally to my right. (Though not far enough to prevent him from supporting Barack Obama.) But overall, I think our disagreements have more to do with differing assessments of the big problems the U.S. is facing - he's primarily worried about global warming and the looming entitlement crunch, so far as I can tell, and I'm more concerned about issues related to family structure, mobility and inequality - than with deep-seated ideological differences that make him a "true conservative" and me something else. Not that Andrew and I don't have deep-seated ideological differences, mind you - I just don't think the question of whether government should try to "solve" every problem or merely "ameliorate" the most pressing ones is one of them."
I agree. The trouble with a political philosophy that is not ideological and that relies on a prudential judgment of emergent problems ... is that it is resolved by prudence. And there is no eternal, external guide to what such prudence will dictate in any given moment. So we can all call ourselves conservatives and come up with different priorities. The way this thread started has confused that. But it's clearer now.
So what are our primary, emergent problems? I agree with Ross that social and cultural inequality is one of them - not because inequality is inherently bad. Just because we know that overly-polarized societies tend to have trouble remaining healthy liberal democracies (see your Aristotle).
Continue reading "The Conservatism Debate" »
The Cost Of Edward Said
23 May 2008 05:12 pm
A critique in the TLS:
So many academics want the arguments presented in Edward Said's "Orientalism" to be true. It encourages the reading of novels at an oblique angle in order to discover hidden colonialist subtexts. It promotes a hypercritical version of British and, more generally, of Western achievements. It discourages any kind of critical approach to Islam in Middle Eastern studies. Above all, "Orientalism" licenses those academics who are so minded to think of their research and teaching as political activities. The drudgery of teaching is thus transformed into something much more exciting, namely "speaking truth to power".
No!
23 May 2008 05:03 pm
A reader writes:
Having been bitter opponents in the Primary, there is definitely a perception of rivalry between Clinton and Obama. However, that rivalry is really only on one specific front: politics. I.e. this is not a rivalry based on policy.
Obama's core message is to change the nature of politics in Washington. There simply is no room for compromise on this specific message. Clinton does not feel that the current political system is broken. She only believes that the wrong party is in power. These are not stances on which there can be common ground. And if there were common ground, it would only serve to erode Obama's rationale.
Is there room for Obama to bring in rivals? Of course. But I think those rivals should be picked for policy differences. Picking policy rivals would be the way for Obama to fulfill his central promise in this campaign. Picking purely political rivals would prevent this fulfillment.
But policy rivals suggests incoherence. Maybe Hagel works?
Blogging As Therapy
23 May 2008 04:49 pm
I'm busted again:
"Self-medication may be the reason the blogosphere has taken off. Scientists (and writers) have long known about the therapeutic benefits of writing about personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. But besides serving as a stress-coping mechanism, expressive writing produces many physiological benefits. Research shows that it improves memory and sleep, boosts immune cell activity and reduces viral load in AIDS patients, and even speeds healing after surgery. A study in the February issue of the Oncologist reports that cancer patients who engaged in expressive writing just before treatment felt markedly better, mentally and physically, as compared with patients who did not."
Mental Health Break
23 May 2008 04:27 pm
K.D. Lang sings Leonard Cohen's astonishing "Halleluja."
Now I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Continue reading "Mental Health Break" »
Down-Ticket Dems
23 May 2008 04:08 pm
Josh Green reports on efforts to replicate Obama's money machine.
Tortured Political Analogy Of The Decade II
23 May 2008 04:05 pm
Hanna sees David Cook's triumph as a good harbinger for the Democrats.
State Gas Prices
23 May 2008 03:44 pm
A map of gas prices nationwide. Alexis Madrigal comments:
Note how similar gas prices are within individual states and how much they vary between states. Using just gas price data, you could practically draw the state lines, if they weren't already inked in for you. Look at that Illinois-Missouri border!
This county-by-county highlights the importance of energy policy at the state level in driving prices, at least at the relatively small variations in price they are mapping here. At the big picture level, of course, all of these prices are several times higher than they were back in 1999.
The First California Poll
23 May 2008 03:30 pm
Disappointing to me, but not so much to others:
The poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level.
"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," said Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus.
No!
23 May 2008 03:28 pm
Another one:
Given the strong-arm tactics used in Hillary's quest to be the VP nominee, it would be impossible for naming her not to be seen as appeasement. If he cannot stand up to Bill and Hillary, how can we be confident that he can negotiate from a position of strength with Kim Jong-il?
Barack has one option here: To rebuff her.
Webb's Opening Shot
23 May 2008 03:10 pm
Kelley Vlahos considers Webb's GI bill:
Webb, who is a Vietnam vet and whose son served in Iraq, made sure the bill was bullet-proof before shopping it around the Hill and in the media for the last several weeks. Its passage – thanks to the help of 26 Republicans – marks one of the biggest Democratic legislative victories this year, and gives them a healthy talking point in the November election, thanks to opposition from the White House, Pentagon and one senator by the name of John McCain.
President Bush wants to veto the measure, and his case is helped, if only because the Democrats attached $10 billion in additional domestic spending to the package. Ironically, the spending, which includes the extension of unemployment benefits and aid to the Gulf States, is what helped to bring some of the Republican stragglers like Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., on board at the last minute, in part because of their vulnerabilities in the fall elections.
But the real opposition from Bush and McCain and the defense brass is that they believe one stint in the active duty isn’t enough time to give to one’s country, that a full college tuition after three years might discourage servicemen and women from making the military a career. Webb and others say hogwash, if a guy or a gal spends three years – and we all know that amounts to at least one, or two years in the warzone today – they deserve whatever we can give ‘em. Remember, even the draftees during Vietnam only spent a year overseas before they were let off the hook and they got a GI Bill that at the time paid for something. The old GI Bill, not adjusted for today’s skyrocketing tuition costs, won’t even get a vet through a four-year state school today.
I'm a little staggered that McCain allowed himself to be outmaneuvered on this by Webb and Obama.
Quote For The Day
23 May 2008 02:58 pm
"Well, in 2004, I expect to be campaigning for the reelection of President George W. Bush, and by 2008, I think I might be ready to go down to the old soldiers home and await the cavalry charge there." - John McCain, eight years ago. Look: life is long.
Who Wants The Team Of Rivals?
23 May 2008 02:28 pm
Matt on Clinton as veep:
...you don't need Clinton on the ticket to unify the party unless Clinton wants to make it the case that you need Clinton on the ticket to unify the party but if she does want to do that, I think she probably has it in her power...But I remain skeptical that Clinton actually does want to be Vice President. My take is that a substantial swathe of her staff wants her to be Vice President because they think a "unity ticket" is now their best realistic shot at getting jobs in the executive branch. As I've observed before, Bill and Hillary have great fallback jobs -- as multimillionaires, and the head of an important foundation and a U.S. Senator respectively -- but that's not at all true of lots of their campaign staffers.
The Clintons have no fallback jobs. This is their entire life. Losing is simply unimaginable to them. It's been decades since it happened, and it was traumatic for them even then.
No!
23 May 2008 02:27 pm
A reader writes:
I am a conservative leaning independent, who has long supported John McCain. Over the past twelve months I have been captivated and inspired by the rise of Barack Obama. When the primary process began, I assumed if either of these men could possibly (they were both such long shots) win their respective party’s nominations, I would vote for them. Now I am truly torn between the two, as each embodies various aspects of what I expect from a commander in chief.
That said, if Obama adds Clinton to the ticket as VP, the choice is clear and I vote McCain. I know many friends who feel this same way. Hillary must not be a heart-beat away from the Oval Office.
The California Court
23 May 2008 02:11 pm
Greenwald takes on Ben Wittes. My response to Wittes is here.
The View From Your Window
23 May 2008 01:57 pm
Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, 2 pm.
Obama In Ohio
23 May 2008 01:45 pm
Up by nine over McCain.
Republicanism And Conservatism
23 May 2008 01:37 pm
After the Packer piece, James Joyner responds to Drum and Jonah Goldberg.
The Health Issue
23 May 2008 01:34 pm
Matt Welch writes about McCain's polyps. By the way, peniciilin is younger than John McCain.
Team Of Rivals, Ctd
23 May 2008 01:26 pm
One of many, many readers writes:
No! First of all, there's a real chance that the VP would become president. So if you think she wouldn't be a good president, you can't support her for VP for political purposes.
Second of all, she's been totally and thoroughly dishonest during the campaign.
Third of all, she's trying to blackmail Obama.
Continue reading "Team Of Rivals, Ctd" »
McCain "Releases" His Medical Records
23 May 2008 01:17 pm
Jonathan Cohn on the McCain medical record release:
By the time you read this, a select group of reporters--apparently numbering about a dozen--may be inside a conference room at a Phoenix resort hotel, going over some 400 pages of Senator John McCain's medical records....rather than make all the records public, the campaign has chosen to make them available to the pool reporters for a three-hour window. According to this account in the New York Times, the reporters can take notes but not make photocopies. The campaign is also making McCain's doctors, from the Mayo Clinic, available for interviews.
This is absurd. Release all of it online. When a man is a cancer and torture survivor at 71, the health question is sadly relevant. I wouldn't want this for almost anyone else - but he's running for president of the US. You give up your medical privacy under those conditions. And any attempt to conceal anything will only fuel worries, not allay them.
Don't Do It!
23 May 2008 12:59 pm
Heh:
Obama insisted on a campaign with a low-drama quotient, and that's basically what he's gotten. If he wants to see a flurry of outrageous memos, suicidal bullying of the press, and prolific backbiting, he should pick Clinton.
Just To Make Hitch's Day
23 May 2008 12:54 pm
A story from the antipodes:
When two New Zealand pilots ran out of fuel in a microlight airplane they offered prayers and were able to make an emergency landing in a field — coming to rest right next to a sign reading, "Jesus is Lord."
Team Of Rivals Gaining Traction?
23 May 2008 12:20 pm
Clinton's leading fundraising chair:
"There's a risk that if she isn't invited on the ticket, Hillary's political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he'll need to prevail in November."
So it gets clearer that they're bargaining for the veep slot. More straws in the wind here. But the money angle is an absurd lever. Obama's money machine doesn't need Clinton in any way. And the Democrats would be suicidal to turn off that spigot by handing the nomination to Clinton.
Nonetheless, the logic I laid out a few weeks ago still holds. The upside of an Obama-Clinton ticket would be considerable. I know I've been all over the place on this. My fear of an Obama-Clinton ticket is because of what I think of the Clintons. My interest in an Obama-Clinton ticket is because of what I think of the Clintons. They're dangerous to Obama - the overthrown dynasts who are pulling a Richard II right now. But they're just as dangerous in the tent and out of it. Obama needs to figure out which is the greater danger. I don't envy him.
But when you think about it, the Clintons' popular vote argument is not an argument for winning the nomination. You can't change the rules in the fourth quarter. But it is an argument for the veep slot. Put this way, the dead-ender act is not so psycho. The Clintons, like it or not, do have a base in their party. They've been beaten but not destroyed. Obama has to do something about it.
Continue reading "Team Of Rivals Gaining Traction?" »
Toxic II
23 May 2008 12:08 pm
A candidate creates an atmosphere, no? A round-up of pro-Clinton bloggers. Taylor Marsh:
Tumulty, like so many others, are ignoring Clinton's only goal, which is to make the case to SuperDs that she would be the best nominee against John McCain, the traditional media, as well as the Obama blogs, are missing one of the greatest political dramas ever to unfold, second only to the 2000 election.
Clinton is campaigning on counting every single vote. But also that every Democratic delegate should be focused on who can win in November.
Obama is campaigning on disenfranchising voters so he can win, regardless of whether he's got the strongest case for November, which he does not.
While the Obama blogs are having a conniption because Hillary Clinton is talking about counting the votes in Florida and Michigan, it remains striking to me that these same blogs have never expressed much concern about the Media's disgraceful behavior in this campaign. Indeed, any mention of the sexism and misogyny in the Media and elsewhere makes them look down at their shoes, or worse, even defend the perpetrators.
Here's a writer at No Quarter going after Josh Marshall:
One is immediately stumped when searching for words that aptly describe the bilge sinking the increasingly cumbersome and tedious vessels that comprise the patently venal fleet of Obamablogs. According to one writer who has a predilection for reinscribing misogynistic tropes in almost every essay he pens, Hillary Clinton is “[t]oxic,” for she has the temerity to situate the controversy surrounding the seating of the delegates of Florida and Michigan within the august traditions of Voting Rights and Civil Rights that define the modern Democratic Party
I'm still for Hillary, though I recognize that the flag flapping above the fort is tattered and the time is drawing near for the bugler to sound the blue notes of valedictory.
Internet Rumors
23 May 2008 11:52 am
Is Tucker going to make a run at the libertarian ticket? Go Tucker.
"We All Have A Piece Of Each Other"
23 May 2008 11:35 am
Obama in Florida:
McCain's Anger Management
23 May 2008 11:32 am
Yesterday was not a good day.
Malkin Award Nominee
23 May 2008 11:29 am
"Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.
Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it," - John Hawkins, RightWingNews. La Malkin herself seconds:
They’ve learned nothing. Nada. Zippo. How about you?
The Next Conservative Idea?
23 May 2008 11:05 am
I can’t think of anything more contrary to the spirit of Burkean conservatism than a search for the “next big thing.” Indeed, I would argue that a large part of the problem with modern conservatism is that Bush and the K Street Gang were more concerned with finding something big to do than with standing athwart history shouting stop.
Megan's response:
...as a policy matter, conservatives need to figure out how they're going to stop the juggernaut. Reagan did it with tax cuts, big increases in defense spending, and deregulation. The first two are pretty much out of the picture, and no one's mounted a serious drive at deregulation for more than a decade. It would be nice if one could win an election on "Don't just do something--stand there!" This would quite warm my little heart. But it doesn't work. Conservatives need to figure out how they are going to roll back the bad ideas and prevent new bad ones from getting through. For that, they need a proposal a bit more eloquent than "Stop!"
My related thoughts here. At a deeper level, the betrayal of so many conservative principles by the Republicans under Bush and Rove means that whatever emerges from the ashes of conservatism will probably not emerge quickly. Obama's redistributionist approach to taxes is galling; his insouciance toward the welfare state unappetising.
Continue reading "The Next Conservative Idea?" »
California's War Dead
23 May 2008 10:38 am
A census of some of the best of America. And how moving that so many were immigrants:
At 7, Victor H. Toledo-Pulido was smuggled across the border from Mexico through rugged mountains into California. He and another soldier were killed in May 2007 when a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicle southeast of Baghdad.
"They judge us, and they say we just come to take their jobs and positions, but we also make sacrifices. Victor worked since he was little, in the fields and in restaurants," his mother, Maria Gaspar, said after the 22-year-old Mexican was killed in Iraq. "He was Mexican, but he thought like an American. And he gave his life for this country."
Dozens more were the children of immigrants, including Bunny Long, 22, a Marine lance corporal whose parents came from Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge imprisoned them for four years in a labor camp.
"This is our home," his father, Sim Long, said after his son died. "I'm very proud that Bunny was able to give back to his country. Our country."
Could Gordon Brown Be Dumped?
23 May 2008 10:08 am
James Forsyth, perhaps a little excitably, reacts to last night's Tory by-election landslide:
A few weeks ago, the idea that Gordon Brown would be challenged for the Labour leadership would have sounded as, if not more, absurd as the idea that the Tories would win Crewe and Nantwich with a majority of nearly 8,000. But now it seems possible if not yet probable. The number of Labour MPs who now look almost certain to lose their seat is more than the number needed to trigger a leadership contest.
Labour is now in freefall; it is hard to remember the last good week for the government and the public seem to have taken against Brown with a passion. Brown was hidden in this contest—his image was on everyone but Labour’s leaflets. That, obviously, could not be done in a general.
The Guardian panics:
In scenes reminiscent of New Labour's byelection successes in the 90s, jubilant Tories in Crewe and Nantwich celebrated as their candidate, Edward Timpson, won with 20,539 votes, 49%. The result, on a high byelection turnout of 58.2%, was particularly sweet for the public school-educated Timpson, who brushed off Labour's "anti-toff" campaign to secure the Tories' first byelection gain since 1982.
By "anti-toff", read "anti-elitist." If this swing were duplicated in the next general election (which it won't), the Tories would have five times the seats as Labour.
(Photo: Peter MacDiarmid/Getty.)
Tortured Political Analogy Of The Decade
23 May 2008 10:02 am
McCain is David Cook. Not the hair.
(Hat tip: Galley Slaves)
McCarthyism As Farce
23 May 2008 09:53 am
And did the Obama rally begin with the Soviet National Anthem?
No I didn't make that up.
Hillary-Induced Madness
23 May 2008 09:52 am
John Cole is at his breaking point:
It is mind-numbing. This isn’t an election anymore. This is a secret bet between Bill and Hillary ala Trading Places in which they bet how much bullshit they can make the electorate swallow.
Burma Is Dying
23 May 2008 09:25 am
The human catastrophe continues:
"Why not move the bodies out of the water?" I wonder. Well, where is it dry? Ah, nowhere. The grounds are saturated and now the rains have hit again and are predicted to drop another 12 centimeters of punishing water in the next five days. The UN spokesperson predicted that these rains will collapse those fragile, life-protecting shelters. But wait — weren’t we told earlier that people were congregating in the monasteries where the floors were more stable even if the roofs had fallen in? Yes. But the situation is fluid. The military has sent them home. What home? There is no home. If people congregate with those conniving monks, they might drum up some plans. And so they must go out into the open air.
Rove's Map
23 May 2008 09:10 am
Noah Millman questions a few of the electoral maps floating around. I'm still befuddled why anyone would want to listen to the worst political strategist of our time.
That Farm Bill
23 May 2008 08:43 am
I think farm bill opponents need a new political strategy. Most of the opposition focused on how the bill was wasteful pork. And it truly was — reading about it makes you want to take a long shower. But that said, the pork argument doesn’t really resonate all that well...Instead, farm bill opponents should have spent more time arguing that it’s a substantively bad bill — more precisely, it’s a bill that jeopardizes health and increases hunger. For one, the subsidies of corn, sugar, and meat play a huge role in our nation’s obesity problem (not to mention in the broader lack of nutrition).
The GOP's Job
23 May 2008 08:29 am
In the minority, our job is to 1) make the majority’s life miserable, grinding the House and Senate floors to a halt, and building a narrative of the Democrats as broken and incompetent, and 2) offer big, bold alternatives to this mess like the Contract did in 1994.
Whatever you do, don't cooperate for the common good.
Nightmare Ticket
23 May 2008 08:21 am
The Onion proposes.
Sistani Shifts
23 May 2008 07:58 am
It's another fascinating development:
Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad...
But — unlike al-Sadr's anti-American broadsides — the Iranian-born al-Sistani has displayed extreme caution with anything that could imperil the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The two met Thursday at the elderly cleric's base in the city of Najaf south of Baghdad.
If Maliki continues to isolate Sadr and Sistani backs him, we could have a moment when a Shiite government in Baghdad asks the US to leave. Then what will Bush do? Or McCain?
On Burke, Etc.
23 May 2008 07:13 am
Another view and worth reading. Yes, Burke was a sentimentalist; but he was also a Whig. We should indeed be careful when ascribing issues such as marriage reform to a man who lived centuries before such an idea would become mainstream. But an essay that does not include Burke's support for, say, the American Revolution in its account of his view of political change is incomplete, it seems to me. I might add that my own preference for a skeptical conservative approach to the modern liberal order is much more indebted to Oakeshott than to Burke.
As for Yuval Levin's backing for a Sam's Club conservatism, all I can say is that I admired Ross's and Reihan's contribution (although it isn't out yet), but I don't see government redistribution of taxes and welfare to the wor