A VISION OF AMERICA

One thing that has struck me throughout this season, including at the RNC and DNC, and during the respective candidate speeches tonight is the remarkable contrast in the crowds that each drew. Obama's crowd in Grant Park looks like America, at least the America I see everyday. It's diverse. Compare that with the portrait of America gathered in Arizona. I think that says volumes about one factor that made this Obama victory possible.

"In the last two presidential elections, the American people divided down the middle, producing a both a geographical and a demographic divide that seemed increasingly set in stone. Blue Democratic America consisted of the west and the east coasts plus the upper Midwest. Red Republican America covered the swaths in between. Women, minorities, the poor and the highly educated voted Democratic. Men, white people, the rich and the religious delivered for the Republicans. In the mind of Mr Bush's strategist Karl Rove this division was the template of 21st century American politics, a base for a conservative counter-attack against 20th-century liberalism.

Rove's America was not just turned on its head yesterday. It was broken up and recast in a very different mould. One of Mr Obama's many achievements has been his refusal to accept the permanence of the blue-red divide. He has reached out across the divide to states and voters that the embattled Democratic party of the Reagan-Bush years had forgotten about, places like the South and the Rockies, voters like farmers and small business people."

--UK's The Guardian

--O.W.

11/4/2008

Hello to President-Elect Barack Obama.


So long to the nightmare of the last eight years. Hello to the next four (at least) of trying to clean it all up.

So long to PUMAs and their ridiculous split-ticket, gov't paralysis strategy. So long to their deluded visions of demographic grandeur; never has "statistically insignificant" been so apt. Hello to Palin/Clinton '12 predictions.

So long to paranoid lefties and hopeful righties who thought a hidden Bradley Effect was going to end this all. Hello to paranoid lefties whispering about assassination.

So long to 24 hour, cable news insanity, hologram punditry. Hello to TMZ and Perez Hilton coming back as our leading news sources.

So long to terrorist pals, atheists and Joe the Plumber. Hello to whatever new mud-slinging the next political cycle brings.

So long to the idea that a Black person can't be President in our lifetime. Hello to crazy talk that "racism is over in America."


Hello to the millions who waited in line to cast a ballot today.

Hello to those who waited their entire lives. And their parents' lives. And their parents' lives...to be able to cast a vote for someone besides a White man.

Hello to the humbling sense of hope and belief that so many Americans have taken to their heart the last few months, especially those for whom "hope" and "belief" have seemed like cruel jokes for so many years.

Hello America. Welcome the new dawn.

--O.W.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH CNN?

wolf blitzer goes undercover

I was vaguely tolerant of all their useless bells and whistles for most of the evening but when they hologrammed in Will.I.Am, I knew it was time to change the channel. Even the barking frat boys at MSNBC (poor Rachel "Sidelined" Maddows) seemed preferable.

--O.W.

THIS IS KIND OF AWESOME, HOWEVER POSSIBLY PREMATURE

"Bush Street in S.F. renamed"

--O.W.

YOUR ELECTORAL COLLEGE PREDICTIONS?

Diebold wins!

Poplicks readers:

1. Go to the Yahoo! Political Dashboard (http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard) and click on the "Create Your Own Scenario" tab.


2. Create the electoral college map scenario that you predict will come to pass this November 4th, 2008.


3. Click "LINK TO THIS" and choose the first option so your scenario cannot and doesn't change.


4. Leave your name and the link in the comments below.


5. Winner gets mad props (and possibly more).


6. In the event of identical submissions, the tie goes to the person who submitted a link first.

Good luck!

--Junichi

ELECTORAL MADNESS

we got this from the Australians. really.
I'll cop to being one of those *cough cough* "coastal elites" who reads The New Yorker - with pride. For those who don't read the magazine, just known that historian Jill Lepore's essays are worth the price of purchase alone and recently, she wrote a wonderfully insightful and informative essay on the history of voting in America that I highly recommend to anyone interested in how our democratic process has worked (or failed to).

It's an oddly uplifting story in a way because if you realize how incredibly convoluted our voting history has been, all the way to present, you'll realize that 1) we've come a long way and 2) change and improvement is possible, even in an age of ACORN hysteria and Diebold paranoia.

One part of this that gave me a very long pause was reading how the "modern" standardization of a secret ballot, distributed by the gov't, had a very dark side which was its use to disenfranchise Black voters in the Jim Crow south South (a drive, lest we forget, lead by Southern Democrats against a then-Black Republican voting bloc) by establishing literacy requirements. In fact, Lepore argues that the wide adoption of this voting standard was driven, nationally, by a desire to prevent the poor, the illiterate and immigrants from having access to the ballot.

This should also serve as a reminder for why it's so important to vote next week. It's not the ultimate expression of one's civic duty or the drive towards social justice - but it is a starting point.

--O.W.

THE NEW SUSAN SMITH THROWS THE LATEST McCAIN CAMPAIGN'S HAIL MARY PASS

Crazy woman or sane McCain supporter who understands McCain's desperation?

It's easy to dismiss Ashley Todd as mentally ill.

Todd is the infamous McCain campaign volunteer who fabricated a story about being sexually assaulted by a Barack Obama supporter after he saw a McCain bumper sticker on her car.

But I don't think she needs mental health treatment at all.

On the contrary, she appears to be a sane woman who had enough marbles to mastermind a story that she knew could hand the McCain campaign the momentum it needed to win the election. Unfortunately, like her predecessor Susan Smith, she was too stupid to concoct a believable story.

For those who haven't been following the story, here's what Todd initially claimed:

Todd initially told investigators she was attempting to use a bank branch ATM on Wednesday night when a 6-foot-4 black man approached her from behind, put a knife blade to her throat and demanded money. She told police she handed the assailant $60 and walked away.

Todd, who is white, told investigators she suspected the man then noticed a John McCain sticker on her car. She said the man punched her in the back of the head, knocked her to the ground and scratched a backward letter "B" into her face with a dull knife.

Police said Todd claimed the man told her that he was going to "teach her a lesson" for supporting the Republican presidential candidate, and that she was going to become a supporter of Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

After later adding allegations of sexual assault, forgetting crucial details, providing inconsistent accounts, and failing a lie detector test, Todd confessed to making the whole thing up.

What I don't understand is why anybody is wondering why a woman would do such a thing.

Isn't it obvious?

If the story were true, Ashley Todd would have provided the ultimate October Surprise that ignited enough of a race war to tilt the election. With McCain over ten points down, she decided it was her duty to throw the necessary Hail Mary pass.

While undoubtedly ignorant, Ashley Todd is sane and smart enough to understand that some white (and non-white) voters can't get past the idea that our next president will be a black man. Ashley Todd wanted to appeal to those who have no difficulty believing a story about a black man who is a violent savage that preys upon young white women near ATM machines.

Now that the story has been debunked, this story would normally deserve no more national attention.

Except that the McCain campaign in Pennsylvania pushed the more partisan and incendiary elements of the story before the media got a hold of it.

This says far more about the state of the McCain campaign than anything else.

Perhaps Fox News Executive VP John Moody said it best (before the lie was exposed):

This incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election.
If Ms. Todd's allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain's quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.

For Pittsburgh, a city that has done so much to shape American history over the centuries, another moment of truth is at hand.

Thanks, Ashley Todd, for ending Senator McCain's quest for the presidency.

--Junichi

AT LEAST THEY'RE NOT HAWKING BEER ANYMORE

--O.W.

WHO GOT SERVED?

--O.W.

SCARF THIS UP

hermes goes dem?

Either this is a grand ol' Photoshop job or the person spending $150,000 on Palin's outfits should really check the tags better.

Oh, by the way, does this mean John Edwards $400 haircuts are now redeemed?

--O.W.

THEY EXIST: MUSLIM McCAIN SUPPORTERS

This video captures an interesting confrontation between two anti-Islam McCain supporters and at least two Muslim McCain supporters.

Of course, this all begs the question of why any self-respecting Muslim American would vote with the current GOP.

Credit: CousCous Ramirez

--Junichi

POWELL BACKS OBAMA; DEFENDS MUSLIM AMERICANS

The most remarkable part of this speech, to me at least, is not Powell's reasoned explanation for why he's backing Obama; it's the back half, where he directly criticizes people for their paranoia of Islam and talks about the personal sacrifices Muslim Americans have made - in defense of their country. It goes much, much further than I've heard any other prominent public figure make, including Obama himself (which is kind of sad, however politically predictable).

Powell also shows a lot more class in crossing the partisan line than Lieberman has but we'll save that for the pundits to hash out.

--O.W.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK #139

This Week's Question:


Who's the funnier presidential candidate?

--Junichi

COLIN POWELL MUST BE ON THE VERGE OF ENDORSING OBAMA CUZ HE'S ACTING KINDA BLACK

I realize that calling out Fox News for being ludicrous is as pointless as trying to diagram a Sarah Palin sentence.

But I challenge anyone to find a more asburd Fox News headline and tagline than this one:

Hip-Hop-Dancing Colin Powell Fuels Speculation He'll Endorse Obama: Colin Powell showed off his hip-hop moves at an 'Africa Rising' celebration in London Tuesday, fueling speculation that the former secretary of state is about to endorse Barack Obama for president.

(I put a screen capture of the article at the top of this post, in case you don't want to actually visit the Fox News site.)

What did Colin Powell need to do to fuel speculation that he is about to endorse John McCain? Do the Viennese Waltz at the Hazzard County Convalescent Home's Bingo Night?

Plus, if busting out some sick tongue-wagging, ass-grabbing, b-boy dance move is the equivalent of endorsing Obama, then I think John McCain just endorsed Barack Obama at tonight's debate ...

--Junichi

JOE THE PLUMBER

The most powerful man in America.

--Junichi

RACE AND POLLING: DECONSTRUCTING THE "BRADLEY" EFFECT

truer colors behind closed curtains?
One of the things that has really surprised me is that talking to my university colleagues -professors trained in sociology, political science, psychology, etc. - is how many of them, despite whatever data is out there, seem to think that latent, closet racism will ultimately swing the election for McCain.

It seems that paranoia - however well-founded - trumps the empirical. And sure, race is part of this election no matter how many people (cough cough, Obama) avoid talking about it but there's abundant evidence and analysis to suggest that the assumed racial bias that will only show up on Nov. 4 is unfounded.

Today, the NY Times tackles this issue, debunking the idea that there may be an Bradley Effect waiting to spring on Obama.

Some highlights:

"Among the non-Bradley factors at the intersection of race and polling is something called the reverse Bradley (perhaps more prevalent than the Bradley), in which polls understate support for a black candidate, particularly in regions where it is socially acceptable to express distrust of blacks."

"Research shows that those who refuse to participate in surveys tend to be less likely to vote for a black candidate... Pollsters had a harder time reaching voters with lower levels of education. Less-educated whites are the kind Mr. Obama has had trouble winning over. Conversely, young people are more likely to answer surveys, and they tend to favor Mr. Obama."

"The Bradley gap seems to be disappearing. In this year’s Democratic primaries, University of Washington researchers found a Bradley effect in three states, but a reverse Bradley effect in 12 (in the other 17, polls were within a seven-point margin of error)."

"The Bradley effect, Mr. Greenwald concluded, “has conceptually mutated.” “It’s not something that’s an absolute that we should generally expect, but something that will vary with the cultural context and the desirability of expressing pro-black attitudes.”

All of which is to say: the paranoia is neither justified nor unjustified but it's nowhere near as simple as saying, "a bunch of politically correct White liberals say they're pro-Obama but won't be in November" (which is how the Bradley Effect boils down).

Instead, the point here is that how race plays out can go in many different directions, some which result in a net gain, some in a net loss. It's impossible to fully decipher polling data to know what's what since there's no way to empirically verify that individuals actually vote the way they say they're going to vote.

More important, I think one of the central things to remember is this:

My own feeling is that people are largely being honest about which way they're going to vote and I've yet to see how, by way of empirical data, to suggest otherwise. That's not to say there aren't those who are publicly saying one thing yet voting another; I'm just not remotely convinced those folks represent a sizable demographic. To put it another way: there's plenty of legitimate reasons not to vote for Obama that have nothing to do with race and I think most Americans have no qualms about being upfront with their political choices.

I mean, hell, that's a badge of honor these days, like the jackass wearing a "No-bama"" t-shirt (with the Islamic crescent moon next to the slogan, no less) at the Brentwood Farmer's Market the other day.

The other half of the article is equally interesting: trying to weigh how much Obama may be benefitting in poll numbers by people willing to be polled to begin with.

Again, we'll sort all this out in about 20 days. And then can argue over the results for the next 20 years...

--O.W.

MORE SIGNS THAT THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR

Dow Jowned

While your parents' retirement evaporates, here's some news that will help you sniff the end of civilization around the corner:

• Anarrrrrrchy! Those Somali pirates are actually going to score an $8 million booty.

• You also just made $8 million bucks because you took the 8,234,957-to-1 odds and bet a dollar that the Bush Administration would nationalize our banks and bring socialism to the United States.

• The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on the phone sex conversations of American soldiers overseas. Those of you who insisted that wiretapping would not infringe on the privacy of innocent Americans can apologize now.

• Cocaine dealers are charging a fuel surcharge to customers because of high gas prices. Lesson: save money and save the environment by riding your bike to your coke dealer's house.
  

• Maryland police put nonviolent anti-Iraq War and anti-death penalty activists on their list of suspected terrorists. Apparently, the real Baltimore police are not half as sophisticated as the fake Baltimore police on The Wire.
  

• Beverly Hills Chihuahua grosses $29 million in this economy and tops box office.

• Actual news article headline: "Three dead following quarrel over penis size"

• McCain stops calling us "my friends" and instead opts for the more appropriate phrase "my fellow prisoners":

--Junichi

DON'T IT MAKE MY RED STATES BLUE

Above is what the electoral map would look like if the election were today.

(Source: Yahoo! Political Dashboard / Real Clear Politics)

--Junichi

THE MOMENT I SPEWED CHUNKS

=

The moment she said, "I love to answer these questions without the filter of the mainstream media."

*

Congratulations to those who had "Golly," "You Betcha," "Energy Independence," "Darn It," and "Maverick" in one row of their Palin Bingo card. You won within the first three minutes of the debate.

*

Did she really just argue for the expansion of the Vice President's powers? Or was my Nyquil kicking in?

*

And speaking of drugs, who sedated Senator Joe Biden? He was solid, but uncharacteristically restrained. Did he buy into the ludicrous notion that a gentleman shouldn't attack a lady?

Why didn't he pounce on her for saying that the toxic mess on Main Street was hurting Wall Street? Or when he referred to Nato Commander Gen. McKiernan as McClellan, the former White House Press Secretary? Or when she gave an incoherent non-answer for the umpteenth time?

*

To her credit, Governor Palin beat the spread. She didn't give that moose-in-headlights look that she has showed in situations when reporters are allowed to ask follow-up questions. She didn't refer to affirmative action as a military maneuver. She didn't equate Most Favored Nation status with being America's BFF.

This is too bad, since I would have liked more tracks added to her greatest hits compilation, which TPM compiled in the video below:

*

Of course, it's easy to beat the spread when you were expected to lose by seven touchdowns.

--Junichi

DOH!BOLD

--O.W.

WHO IS SERIOUSLY VOUCHING FOR PALIN?

Watch CBS Videos Online

I know I said I was going to fallback on the Palin coverage since the race isn't about her but seriously, this is just depressing when you think this could be someone expected to lead our country.

No wonder McCain's staff won't let the press talk to her.

--O.W.

WHAT IS AMERICA MORE CURIOUS ABOUT: CLAY AIKEN OR THE $700 BILLION BAILOUT?

I ran a Google trends search for five terms: bailout, cheerleaders, pasta, Clay Aiken, and Star Wars.

I limited the results to searches conducted this month in the United States.

As you can see from the graph above, interest in "bailout" rose quite a bit in the last 48 hours.

However, the potential collapse of our capital markets is apparently not nearly as interesting as Clay Aiken or Star Wars.

--Junichi

BAILOUTS AND BAILING OUT

Somebody just read the latest polls

The last 48 hours have been some of the most fascinating of any news cycle. Let's review.

McCain has allegedly "suspended" his campaign to work on the bailout, even though the fundamentals of our economy is strong and even though Republicans and Democrats already have reached a compromise.

McCain also wants to postpone Friday's debate in order to devote time in the Senate chamber toward staging a photo opportunity building a bipartisan consensus. This is surprising, since he has been absent for more votes in the Senate than any other current senator.

His potential pullout from the debate is all the more suspicious when considering that he wants to reschedule it for the date of the Vice Presidential debate, which would be indefinitely bumped.

Meanwhile, Palin, who apparently didn't get the message that McCain suspended the campaign, went trolling for votes at Ground Zero today and was actually allowed by the non-sexists at the McCain campaign to take four questions from the press. Four! Wow!

One can understand why the GOP is nervous about her talking to any reporter outside of Fox News, given last night's train wreck of an interview with Katie Couric:

One conclusion you can reach from the interview: Katie Couric is not a witch. Because Palin was recently protected from witchcraft at her hometown church.

Her interview, however, wasn't half as bad as McCain's non-interview with David Letterman, who might have single-handedly tilted public opinion about McCain's campaign suspension and debate bailout:

McCain may not be happy with Letterman, but he's probably even less thrilled with his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who -- Newsweek just uncovered -- is still an officer with the lobbying firm that represents Freddie Mac. I see no conflicts there in the same way that I do not see my widening posterior when I look in the mirror.

As for Obama? He's finally up in the polls, which is a miracle given how many Democrats have negative views about black people.

As if that race survey was not depressing enough, somebody at George Fox University wanted to really hammer home the point that this election really might come down to whether America is ready for a black president. That's why he or she decided to hang a life-size depiction of Obama in effigy from a tree.

Just in case you were starting to get optimistic that the bailout and Clay Aiken's refreshing honesty might cure our economic woes, the Congressional Budget Office director just said the proposed bailout might worsen the current financial crisis.

Good times!

--Junichi

YOU KNOW IT'S A STRANGE ELECTION WHEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE HOPING FOR A LOW TURNOUT IN THE BLACK COMMUNITIES

Not Loving the Next Loving v. Virginia?

Question: Why might some progressive forces in California be secretly hoping for a low black and brown voter turnout in this upcoming November election?

Answer: Because they believe that the African American and Latino communities are more likely to vote to outlaw gay marriages and, therefore, could tilt the balance in favor of Proposition 8, which would overturn the California Supreme Court's recent ruling recognizing gay marriages.

So says this New York Times article, which assumes the truth of the underlying assumption that African American and Latino voters are more homophobic.

But I question whether that assumption is still correct today.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was true twenty years ago.

I also have no doubt that homophobia remains a rampant problem in those communities.

But it's also a problem in Asian American circles. And Native American circles. And Arab American circles. And white circles. And Democratic circles. And triangles. And quadrilaterals.

Back in 2000, the exit polls for California's Proposition 22 (which banned gay marriage) didn't reveal significant discrepancies between racial groups. Admittedly, Latinos were slightly more inclined to vote for Prop 22 than blacks, who were slightly more inclined to vote for it than Asians and whites. But the differences were minute and the majority of all groups supported the initiative.

Moreover, exit polls from similar state initiatives in 2004 and 2006 didn't reveal any racial disparities in gay marriage-related voting patterns, except in Georgia.

(This LAT op-ed even points out that "blacks in Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio and Oklahoma were at least one percentage point less likely than whites to vote for them, according to CNN exit polls.)

So where is the proof that black and Latino voters in California are more likely to support anti-gay initiatives like Proposition 8? Has anybody seen a survey or poll that confirms that?

Are the MSM and electoral pundits merely assuming that, say, Busta Rhymes' (in)tolerance for gays and lesbians reflects the outlook of the entire black community?

I'd obviously like to believe that people of color now recognize the common link between the anti-miscegenation laws of yesterday with the anti-gay marriage laws of today.

--Junichi

KING MOST: THE OBAMIX

"The intent of this mix was to try and capture what WE'VE all been feeling these past months: hope, struggle, and the importance of facing a challenge. It also serves as a reminder, and perhaps an introduction to what OUR candidate is all about. With that being said enjoy, register, & get involved.

History, Change, & Victory In November" -King Most

The Obamix

Intro/Smoked Sugar: I'm A Winner
Roy Davis Jr.: People Get Ready
Jackson 5: We're Almost There (DJ Spinna Remix)
Erykah Badu: Solider (Sasaac Remix)
Masta Ace: Beautifull
Black Spade: We Need A Revolution
Skull Snaps: It's A New Day
Marvin Gaye & The Mizzel Brothers: We Are We Going?
James Brown: Mind Power
Antibals: Si Se Puede
Grandmaster Flash: The Message (Next Message Blend Version)
Dj Day: A Place To Go
Double Exposure: Everyman For Himself
Donald Byrd: Change Makes Ya Wanna Hustle
Stevie Wonder: Blackman (Kay Sputnik Re-Edit)
L.T.D.: Love To The World
Cymande: Bra
Pitbull: American War
The Dynamics: Move On Up

--O.W.

WHAT TO READ: GLOBAL CALAMITY EDITION

No caption necessary

• John Aravosis has the transcript of the interview in which McCain suggests that Spain is in Latin America

• Rosa Brooks on the U.S. becoming a Third World country

• Adam Liptak on the U.S. Supreme Court's waning influence over the rest of the world

• Robert Scheer on McCain's role in Wall Street's meltdown
  

• Tim Wise on McCain and Palin's Privileges

--Junichi

PIG-GATE WAS SO LAST WEEK

what, not "drink a beer with" enough?
Funny how NOT photo-shopping someone is now an accusation of bias.

The party of Willie Horton ads are playing themselves over this but hey, better more false outrage at the *yawn* liberal media than talking about the economy, what with its strong fundamentals and all. (I'm still waiting to hear how the party of anti-regulation proposes to fix a problem caused by...lack of regulation. Paging Phil Gramm, i.e. McCain's former chief economic advisor.)

--O.W.

FLIP-FLOPPING ON HUMAN RIGHTS

A tortured POW tortures POWs

I oppose the use of torture. I have no idea why any politician would be hesitant to say the same.

Supporting the troops should include respecting and complying with the Geneva Convention, especially to maximize the chances that our soldiers -- if captured by enemy forces -- are treated in a manner that is neither degrading nor cruel.

Similarly, maintaining a strong national defense should include minimizing unnecessary efforts that isolate, offend, or provoke others in the international community -- efforts like, say, waterboarding captives who have yet to even be accused of any crime.

I supported John McCain on this issue until John McCain stopped supporting John McCain on this issue. I lost all respect for him when he changed his mind in 2005 on this vital issue and caved into the sadistic, inhuman forces of the Republican party.

To wit, a valuable timeline courtesy of David Swanson:

1788 - United States ratifies Constitution, ordaining that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.

1791 - United States ratifies the Bill of Rights, banning cruel and unusual punishment.

1948 - United States ratifies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights banning torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

1949 - United States ratifies Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, banning violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, as well as outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.

1968 - John McCain is tortured.

1992 - United States ratifies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), banning torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

1994 - United States ratifies the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), requiring that the United States work to prevent all forms of torture.

2002 - On February 7, President George W. Bush signs a directive purporting to authorize torture.

2005 - John McCain champions the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for 2005, which passes the Congress and is signed into law by Bush, adding one more redundant ban on torture to existing U.S. law, despite Vice President Cheney having lobbied hard against it. But McCain allows a major loophole for the CIA and then keeps quiet when Bush throws out the whole thing with a "signing statement." Bush and Cheney's administration continues to torture.

2006 - Time Magazine recognizes McCain's efforts to supposedly ban torture in naming him one of America's 10 Best Senators. Time makes no mention of the fact that torture had always been illegal, the fact that Bush had thrown out the new law with a "signing statement," or the fact that the United States was continuing to torture people on a large scale.

2006 - McCain votes in favor of the Military Commissions Act which supposedly leaves torture decisions up to the president.

2008 - In February, McCain votes against a bill that would supposedly ban torture, and then applauds Bush for vetoing the bill.

2008 - McCain runs for president, and almost nobody mentions his positions on torture, not even his fiercest critics. ... And yet McCain and his campaign rarely open their mouths without taking us back to 1968 when McCain was tortured. McCain critics even make lists and videos of his "flip-flops" and never mention the most frightening reversal of position imaginable.

One of the many reasons I support Senator Obama is because he has consistently opposed the use of torture.

I do wish, however, that his camp would use this as a talking point in its efforts to demonstrate why Senator McCain is not fit to be commander in chief.

Isn't it time that the compassionate, law-abiding wing of the political spectrum start calling out McCain on his moral failure and flip-flopitude?

--Junichi

PROJECT OSAMA BY 11/4

"All Things Considered, September 12, 2008 · NPR has learned that the Bush administration is pushing for increased military action along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The plan is part of an effort to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaida leaders before Election Day on Nov. 4."

Uh...why didn't they do this Nov 4, 2007? Or Nov 4, 2006? Or Nov 4, 2005? Or...

I'd never root for Osama but Bush isn't winning bonus points for such a transparent, partisan play.

--O.W.

TAKING IT TO THE STREETS

Let's do this:

"The story of the organizer and volunteer effort is one that needs to be told. It was much underreported in 2004 just how potently the Bush ground campaign organized. Say what you want about his governance – and we all have – but his competitive fire was lit for the election race. Republicans turned their voters out. Who’s got more heart this time? Missouri boys say: Show-Me.

This year, all available evidence suggests the Obama campaign is doing something unprecedented with its organizing efforts. Is it this: 29’2.5”?"

"Finally, an appeal to all Americans, regardless of voting age or partisan bent: do something tangible. It is now or never. Fifty-four days. Do something that will make the face you see in the mirror on November 5 proud. Push yourself. Suck it up. Work for it. Make a sacrifice you would not otherwise make. Leave the confusion and nonsense behind and perform your one and only noble function of the time – move."

This is what it comes down to. Not the bad tabloid story that is Sarah Palin. Not sucking at the teat of polling data. Not even Matt Damon (but we still luh you).

As the 538 dudes recognize, Bush didn't win in 2004 because Americans are stupid. He won because the GOP turned out their base and did it impressively. Mathematically, it should be the Democrats turn but only if they turn out their base.

And that's especially important to readers out in Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia and Indiana. Work a phone bank. Walk a precinct. Do whatever you can do to get people to exercise their right as a citizen to have a say in their government.

--O.W.

CHRIS MATTHEWS DEMOTES HIMSELF

Maybe it's not fair to accuse Americans of being stupid but are media pundits fair game?

You cannot imagine the pained look on my face in relation to this clip.


The upside is that if Matthews logic actually holds weight, this could give the Dems a counter slogan: "Vote Obama/Biden - we don't look like a creepy old man dating a woman young enough to be his daughter."

And, oh yeah, in case you missed it, Matthews implied that "traditional Americans" don't like looking at Black couples.

--O.W.

FORGET THE NATIONAL ELECTION, MINNESOTA = OFF THE CHAIN

--O.W.

BREATHE AND STOP

It's really fascinating how quickly political storylines can change in the blink of a day (or less!) Most of the Obama-backers I know are now in full panic mode - no doubt preconditioned by watching the Democratic implosions of 2000 and 2004 and their pessimism that this is all going to play out the same way again.

Collectively, I think the nation needs a deep breath. Retune. Refocus.

With this year's election though, my friend Hua suggested there's two things going on, emotionally - many people are so caught up with their candidates that they can't bear the idea of Obama losing. Then there's the side that simply can't bear the idea of having the GOP in power another four years, especially after the disaster they've created the last eight. Personally, I can feel both sides. I've always had an easier time rooting for underdogs - no doubt conditioned by years of frustration following Cal football and the (pre-94) Red Sox in the post-season. So when Obama was up up up in the polls, but then started to lose ground, my anxiety level began to skyrocket; no doubt, last week's flurry of posts was reflective of some of that. Yet, strangely, now that he's down in the race, I feel far less frenzied about it...possibly because I'm steeling myself for the worse, but I also think - in this current media climate - it helps to be the underdog. See the narrative around Hillary after Ohio, leading through New Hampshire, see Huckabee early in the GOP race, and now see McCain/Palin. Everyone loves the come from behind story and now it's Obama's turn (again) with the GOP ticket dominating the daily news cycle.

Some have argued that the RNC was McCain's highwater mark in this campaign and I think that may be completely true, barring some epic sonning of Obama in the debates. Once that honeymoon, post-conventional glow fades, what is he left with?

Here's the main things that continually jump out to me regarding McCain.

1) His economic plan more or less follows George Bush's. I cannot see how any middle class voter can find this appealing. Especially in this climate, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac having to be rescued and unemployment peaking over 6%, McCain should be very , very vulnerable amongst working class and middle class voters.

2) Much of the punditry is arguing that this election isn't over issues though, but over personality and character. Assuming that's true, then McCain definitely comes up incredibly short. He's one of the biggest flip-floppers I can remember in recent political history. The bills HE BACKED are now policies that he says he'd vote against. To borrow from Amy: what kind of fu**ery is this? How is he allowed to not simply retreat but actually turn on his own policies/legislation? That's not character, that's political cowardice - it's pandering, it's abandoning your integrity for the sake of shoring up a base that you, in the past, have basically stated you don't like. It's certainly not being maverick, it's being disingenuous.

Any election race surely creates compromises that candidates have to make, the McCain of 2008 is a hollow shell of the McCain of even a few years ago, let alone the McCain of 2000 that everyone seemed so taken by (myself included). .

And for the life of me, I don't understand why the Dems aren't making a bigger issue of this and hammering it home. Kerry's "Candidate McCain vs. Senator McCain" was a perfect distillation of this contradiction that could easily be translated into print and TV ads. Friends of mine think it's because McCain's character is bulletproof and a non-starter - his history as a POW means he's unassailable on this front and maybe that is the case. But to me, part of what we want from a leader is the idea that they don't pander. Compromise? Sure. Play well with others? Sure. But go back on their own legislation? Go from anti-torture to well-torture-is-ok-depending-on-the-circumstances? Go from semi-intelligent-immigration policy to mostly-hysterical-immigration-paranoia?

The fact that he has such strong support amongst the right only tells me that this whole "character" argument is really bunk. People are backing him because he's the GOP candidate - period. It has nothing to do with character because they could have put anyone up in there, and they'd still get at least 80% of the base. The other explanation is the more popular one: American voters (at least on the right side of the aisle) really are shallow and stupid. Who'd want to vote for a candidate that can't be trusted to keep their word or hold onto their ideals? Who will McCain be tomorrow?

--O.W.

McCAIN IS NEVER GOING TO TELL A LIE

If you haven't seen the video clip of John McCain insanely suggesting that Bristol Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama to be president because she "has executive experience in the form of overseeing the production of a human being," click here.

--Junichi

60 DAYS

This comment was from the previous post but I thought it tied in nicely with some points I was going to make in a new thread anyway:

"The last 12 or so posts on this blog are a good example of why the Democrats are in trouble.

Any momentum Obama had earlier in the summer has been killed, partly due to the dead cat bounce after the naming of Biden and the DNC convention but also because of Palin's entry into the race.

The dems are expending vast amounts of time, money, and energy attacking Palin and not sticking to the positive "Obama for Change" message that was working for them earlier this year.

Meanwhile Mccain is sitting back with a $200 million warchest and preparing for the debates where he will shine as the most experienced, moderate, and presidential looking candidate. --Jay"

I don't know how NOT to use a cliche to start this off but from here on out, post conventions, it really looks to be a whole new race and I think part of what Jay is nodding at is a reflection of that. In just eight days, there's been a political climate more charged than any other time I can remember (and that includes following things like 9/11 and the start of either Gulf War 1 or 2).

That said, I think Jay makes several spurious leaps in logic, which I'll use to dovetail into some main points:

1) Dead cat bounce? (I've never heard the term before, though it's oddly compelling, I must admit). Obama did enjoy a bounce over the last week, a pretty decent one considering the Palin nomination and back-to-back DNC/RNCs. By Monday, we'll have a better sense of how much the GOP's counter-bounce (live cat?) will be. But if the argument here is that the RNC's stole all of Obama's momentum, there's no data to support that since, if it were true, Obama should have been trailing McCain over this week and that simply hasn't been the case.

I do agree however: Palin gave the GOP tremendous momentum at a time where they sorely needed it. Whether this lasts into the next two months is harder to say; the GOP's strategy was to keep Palin on the low, like Quayle in 1988 since they're not certain if more or less media attention on her will be of benefit or not. The polling data that does exist re: Palin suggests that she's big with the GOP base but isn't pulling heavy independent or Dem numbers. She needs to do both if her nomination is going to pay off as a gamble. Shoring up the GOP base, mathematically, isn't enough.

2) What "vast amounts of time, money and energy" have the Democrats expended going after Palin? I've seen vast amounts of media time, money and energy into pursuing Palin as a story (and that makes sense given that the vast majority of people knew zero about her before last Friday). The DNC, as a party, hasn't actually done much regarding her, probably partially out of caution, partially out of realizing: they don't need to when the media is doing all the work already.

The downside though is that their message isn't getting broadcast as much now because of the RNC and Palin. So it's not that the Dems have shifted course - if you really think that's true, show me where that's manifested - it's that their course is now muddled in the fog of Palin-mania.

3) "he will shine as the most experienced, moderate, and presidential looking candidate."

Let's see...Palin proves that even to the GOP, experience doesn't matter so they just gave up that argument.

Second, I'm not clear on how McCain can sell a "moderate" image given his very clear right-ward shift over the last two years, including away from his own policies. I don't know why the Dems aren't playing this up more since the flip-flop thing seemed to have helped undermine Kerry. Moreover, the appointing of such a hard right candidate like Palin doesn't help McCain look like he's reaching for the middle. I think the abortion debate may prove to be very powerful in this election and all the survey data out there suggests a strong pro-choice sentiment except in those states that are already expected to go red (and therefore, aren't going to count against Obama any more than they do already).[1]

As for Presidential-looking...that's truly in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it was the technical glitches on Thursday, maybe it's just that McCain is not a very good orator but to me, he seemed stiff and weary whereas Obama, in front of 70,000, looked very presidential. Obviously, perspectives on that will differ. However, as speakers go, even the GOP acknowledges Obama is more gifted on that front than McCain. What McCain has going for him is the war hero gravitas but as Kerry's failure shows, even that can have its limits.

There's one thing I agree with you though: if McCain wins in the fall, it will be as much a failure of the Democratic party as it will be a victory by the GOP. The Dems have it relatively easy this year - just turn out the same % of your base for Obama as they came out for Kerry and it's a wrap. There are more Democratic voters this year than in 2004, the war is still going on, the economy is tanking, blah blah blah. So the question is: why isn't this thing on lock? And I think one can point to any number of factors that have very little to do with direct GOP machinations. The first was the splitting of the Dem party by the primary fight and the lingering bad blood that - it seems - is finally dissipating with a reunification of the party (but Obama still doesn't have Kerry's % yet). The second is the hard-to-quantify-but-you-know-it's-there factor of racism and that there's going to be a % of voters who simply won't go for Obama on skin color alone, no matter what happens.

And this brings it back to the much-aligned community organizers. If they have any role to play in this election, it's to help secure the Democratic voter base through registration and getting people to go on election day. As noted, after Wed, their inventive level just went way up. It's always bad form to mock people in a position to harm you.

One last thing: Jay's right though - Palin-mania (however expected and kind of entertaining in a rooting-against-the-antagonist way) - isn't a useful strategy post-RNC. The media, no doubt, will continue to look into her history for a few more news cycles but the better Democratic strategy is to put this back on McCain and his perceived weaknesses (of which there are legion).

To wit, I give you:



[1] Culture war as election year tactics is a tricky thing though - it's not always clear if they even work (national security trumped gay marriage in 2004 and I think, this year, economic concerns will still come out as more relevant than abortion).

--O.W.

UNSPINNING PALIN'S FACTS AND FICTIONS

pro-salmon, anti-polar bear
Slate.com came up with a handy Palin FAQ.

Conclusions:

*Pro-ethics reform.
*Anti-choice. Really, really, really anti-choice.
*Pro-earmarks, both as mayor and governor.
*Anti-environment. Very.
*Pro-drilling. Very.
*Anti-Ted Stevens after being pro-Ted Stevens.
*Pro-book banning (allegedly).
*Anti-Bridge to Nowhere after being pro-Bridge to Nowhere.

Apparently plays a mean flute. No, that's not a double entendre.

--O.W.

TREATING AMERICANS LIKE THEY'RE STUPID PT. 2

From The Hill:

"Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, "Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror.""

We should note that King is known for saying completely asinine things but this has to be one of the better ones. GTFOOHWTBS.

Note: in the same article, Georgia congressperson Lynn Westmoreland is quoted as calling Obama "uppity." Why not just finish the sentence? Everyone - especially in Georgia - knows how that phrase ends anyway.

--O.W.

HOW TO UNSPIN: DAILY SHOW DEBUNKING PT. 301312

By the way, let me tell you why, after months of avoiding much election content, I've gotten so geared up this past week or so:

It's one thing if people disagree over political ideology or policy. That's healthy for a society. And in an election, it makes sense to me that part of what you're appealing to within respective constituencies is that shared ideological or at least policy positions and perspectives. And I think it's more than fair to point out what you may see as their shortcomings in that department.

But what angers me is when politicians and pundits treat Americans like they are stupid and that is precisely what I've seen rolled out over the last year, with a fever pitch having been reached this past week with Palin's nomination, the RNC and all the media clusterf--- that has followed.

It's one thing to have overblown rhetoric dumped on you over and over (how many times did Obama say "American dream" in his speech?). It's another thing to insult the collective intelligence of America and that's what's inspiring such focused anger.

Just take two of the most egregious examples (besides the one that Jon Stewart exposes above):

1) Mitt Romeny, trying to call out people for being "East Coast elitists." Mitt: you are a billionaire and former governor of Massachusetts. You are the epitome of an East Coast elitist unless being unfathomably rich, powerful and a Baker Scholar from Harvard some how makes you "one of the working guys."

2) Alaskan proximity to Russia = foreign relations experience. I cannot believe how often this has been trotted out. I live under the flight path of the Santa Monica Airport. Does that give me knowledge of aviation? The fact that people are even pushing this when Palin got her first passport last year is even more insulting to people's intelligence.

This doesn't even address the laundry list of other lies and misrepresentations. I don't have a problem if they want to paint the differences between the candidates and their positions but so long as their spin cycle is going to assume that the rest of us are certifiable morons, I really think this is going to backfire on swing voters (let alone traditionally Democratic voters) who have just a little more sense than what the current GOP strategists are giving them credit for.

--O.W.

EXPERIENCE MATTERS

This is the current Wordle, or "word cloud," from the text currently on the main page of this blog. The more a word appears on the Poplicks index, the more the Wordle highlights it.



Shame on us for not using the words "Victory" and "Islamic Terrorism" more often.

UPDATE: What a difference a few days make. Here's the most recent Poplicks word cloud.

--Junichi

HOW TO UNSPIN: EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE + PALIN'S FLIP-FLIP ON OBAMA

This bears repeating. So I'll repeat it:

JOHN MCCAIN HAS ZERO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE.

Seriously, he doesn't. Of course, no one in the GOP is mentioning this in their talking points. You know why?

Because "executive experience" as defined by their rhetoric refers exclusively to people who've been a mayor or governor (or president). So it doesn't matter how much leadership experience you have, or economic experience or foreign policy/relations experience, et. al. In a desperate grab to make Palin seem more qualified than she is, the GOP has created this ridiculous talking point about "executive experience" that's pure semantics and no substance. If executive experience is what matters why is McCain on this bill? He has no executive experience. (Just keep saying this to any McCain backer you meet. It's fun.)

And this is just marvelous.Here's Palin, two weeks ago, giving Obama some respect without any hint of sarcasm or disingenuity.

"Something’s kind of changing here in Alaska, too, for being such a red state on the Presidential level. Obama’s doing just fine in polls up here, which is kind of wigging people out, because they’re saying, ‘This hasn’t happened for decades that in polls the D’ ”—the Democratic candidate—“ ‘is doing just fine.’ To me, that’s indicative, too. It’s the no-more-status-quo, it’s change.”

They need to run this speech as a pro-Obama ad, stat!

--O.W.

PALIN: SUCK IT, COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS!

Not as important as a small town mayor

America's Mayor and Wasilla's Mayor reached new lows when they used their primetime speeches last night to heartily mock community organizers.

In no uncertain terms, they told Dr. King, A. Philip Randolph, Dolores Huerta, Cesar Chavez, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, and countless other social workers, labor activists, religious leaders (on all ends of the political spectrum), and champions for the underprivileged that their work was meaningless and worthless.

So much for helping voters forget that John McCain voted against a holiday honoring MLK.

As if grassroots organizing was not already the key to Obama's success, Sarah Palin just stoked the fires of the wrong base.

I hear another hurricane coming.

--Junichi

HOW TO UNSPIN: PALINGUAGE

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/your-pocket-guide-to-spea_b_123606.html

"If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "token hire." If you're a conservative and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "game changer."

If you live in an Urban area and you get a girl pregnant you're a "baby daddy." If you're the same in Alaska you're a "teen father." (Actually, according to your own MySpace page you're an F'n redneck that don't want any kids, but that's too long a phrase for the evil liberal media to take out of context and flog morning noon and night).

Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America. White teen pregnancies? A "blessed event."

If you grow up in Hawaii you're "exotic." Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you're the quintessential "American story."

Similarly, if you name you kid Barack you're "unpatriotic." Name your kid Track, you're "colorful."

If you're a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you're "reckless." A Republican who doesn't fully vet is a "maverick."

If you say that for the "first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of my country" it makes you "unfit" to be First Lady. If you are a registered member of a fringe political group that advocates secession that makes you "First Dude."

And, finally, if you're a man and you decide to run for office despite your wife's recurrence of cancer you're a "questionable spouse." If you're a woman and you decide to run for office despite having five kids including a newborn... Well, we don't know what that is 'cause THAT'S NOT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK."

Seriously, the moxie of Republicans to start calling other people "sexist" is incredible given their record on women's rights. Audre Lorde must be shaking a fist from heaven.

--O.W.

HOW TO UNSPIN: OPEN MIC STYLE

What political "candor" actually sounds like:



The voices you hear are Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy, GOP strategists.

More on this story.

--O.W.

THE GOOD PROGRESSIVE'S GUIDE TO CRITICIZING (AND NOT CRITICIZING) SARAH PALIN

Be careful before you shoot

As much as I am enjoying the implosion and meltdown surrounding Senator McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin, some of the criticisms of her make me cringe.

The most problematic are those being lobbed against her simply because she is a woman. (E.g., "How is she going to take care of her baby and work?" "What kind of VP wears go-go boots?")

Some of the unfavorable reviews also seem entirely hypocritical and/or destined to haunt Democrats/Obama-supporters/progressives/feminists in the future. Suggesting that her few years in office make her ineligible for high office may sound legitimate. But those criticisms hurt Sen. Obama and would also disqualify promising future leaders like Virginia Gov. Time Kaine or Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer -- who were elected around the same time as Gov. Palin -- from being appointed to high federal positions. Why aim for your own feet?

The discomforting critiques of Gov. Palin are especially curious in light of all the other arguments against her that are consistent with liberal principles of compassion, tolerance, liberty, equality, justice, and fairness.

So here's a working guide I put together to sort out what I consider bad Palin talking points from the good talking points:

Inappropriate Criticisms of Governor Sarah Palin:

1. She is a woman.
2. She is a mother of five.
3. She is a mother of a newborn child.
4. She chose to have a baby with Down's Syndrome.
5. She chose to work soon after having her fifth child.
   
6. She has an unwed pregnant teenage daughter.
7. She is from Alaska.
8. She is from a very small town in Alaska.
9. She has only been in elected office for a few years.
10. She is relatively young.
11. She is a devout Christian.
12. She is sassy.
13. She looks like Tina Fey.
    

Appropriate Criticisms of Governor Sarah Palin:

1. She believes that a woman who has been impregnated and raped by her own father should be forced to have the child.
   


2. She believes that the state should incarcerate any doctor who aborts a fetus that is the byproduct of rape and incest.


3. She slashed funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers who need shelter.


4. She opposes hate-crime laws.


5. She sued the federal government to stop it from listing the polar bear as an endangered species.


6. She believes that climate change is not man-made.


7. She said that the Iraq war is "a task that is from God" and part of "God's plan."


8. She was in the pews of her church two weeks ago when a speaker described attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.


9. She wants creationism taught in schools.
   


10. She wanted to ban books from the public library.


11. As governor, she asked for $198 million -- $295 per person -- in earmark requests for pet projects, which is more than any other state received, per person, from Congress for the current fiscal year.


12. She supported the Bridge to Nowhere in Ketchikan (before she opposed it).
    


13. She repeatedly attended the political convention of the Alaskan Independent Party, which supports secession from the United States and whose founder has expressed "hatred for the American government."


14. She is under investigation by the Alaska Legislature for firing the state public safety commissioner for refusing to dismiss a state trooper who was in an ugly divorce and custody dispute from Palin's sister.


15. To tout her foreign policy experience, she lied about visiting Ireland; in reality, she only stopped in Ireland for a refueling stop.
    


16. She opposes any school-based sexual education program that isn't abstinence-based.


17. She is an aerial wolf hunter.


18. She can't even run a car wash.
    

Feel free to suggest additions or amendments in the comments.

--Junichi

MCCAIN AND EXECUTIVE JUDGMENT

I was just writing about how all these pretty little narratives that candidates script for themselves sometimes hold up to withering attacks and sometimes fold like the house of cards they may be. The more info that comes out regarding McCain's judgment in nominating Palin, the more it becomes clear that there was evidently little time put into creating a cover story that could sustain even basic interrogation.

Today's revelation - and you have to love this - McCain criticized earmarks that Palin asked for when she was mayor. Once again: did no one vet this?

And while we're on the subject of vetting...in recent days, McCain has defended that process:

"McCain said Tuesday that "the vetting process was completely thorough." Advisers said Palin went through a rigorous process that included a three-hour interview and a survey with some 70 questions, including: Have you ever paid for sex? Have you been faithful in your marriage? Have you ever used or purchased drugs? Have you ever downloaded pornography?

70 questions? Like those? I'd make a joke about it looking like an e-harmony application...except e-harmony apps are much longer than 70 questions.

By the way, one of the more amusing bite backs I've heard from Dems this week is that if Palin has more executive experience than Obama...doesn't that also mean she has more executive experience than...McCain (who was never a mayor or governor)? Shouldn't they flip the ticket?

--O.W.

WELCOME TO THE PALINDROME*

she gets skewered by the tabloids, just like us!
(if by "us" you mean insta-celebrity politicians)
Not to get all Lakoff-ian about this but one of the things this current Palin fiasco/distraction/circus reveals is how important a grounded, public narrative has been for political leaders...and how manufactured those narratives tend to be.

What we're seeing in 2008 is nothing new, of course. One of the most incredible touch-up jobs in modern history was Bush in 2000 where the Yale-attending, Vietnam War-skipping, multimillionaire scion of a Maine-based political family was able to remake himself into a good ol' (cow)boy, turning what was once a liability (he doesn't sound so smart) into an asset (he's like one of us!). If it weren't for how horrendous his administration has been for Americans and others around the world, you'd almost have to admire just the sheer moxie of it all (and wish either Gore or Kerry had some sharper handlers on their side but I guess Karl Rove doesn't clone well. Thankfully).

With the current election, both presidential candidates have been subject to considerable narrativizing, to distill their public essence into a simple one-line pitch. Obama = the history-making, biracial next JFK. McCain = former P.O.W. turned straight-shooting maverick.

Let's be real about a few things - there's a lot to both narratives that's complete and utter bull. Any kind of political image is a mixture of careful manipulation, information suppression and whatever else is necessary to preserve the narrative no matter the mountain of evidence otherwise.

But the Palin Problem is precisely that there's been no time in ingrain a narrative for her. Sure, the one we were given on Friday was "hockey mom of five who likes to hunt and eat moose burgers" and you know,- there is something compelling about that narrative in terms of establishing character and right now, that's the main thing Palin has going for her. To that extent, Palin - despite her liabilities - still seems like a savvy choice. Palin is inimitably likable in a way that, say, Mitt Romney never was.[1]

However, as many have noted, none of this establishes qualifications and confusing the two is risky business - not just for the GOP but also for the Dems. I like Obama well enough that I'll vote for him in November but let's be honest - he doesn't have a dense track record and his policies are not exactly progressive left. However, the difference here is that Obama's narrative was begun in 2004, during his speech at that year's DNC and he's managed to parlay that introductory moment into an extraordinary political career that we're seeing rise to (maybe) its zenith this fall. Likewise, McCain has flip-flopped with the best but his narrative was scripted in 2000 and incredibly, he's been able to play that out for eight years since.

So back to Palin: the problem with her narrative isn't that it's not a good one on paper...it's that she's such a blank slate for everyone (Republicans included) that it was unreasonable (if not deluded) to think her story would stick once anyone bothered to start digging. In other words, it's one thing to offer a script but it takes a lot more than just repeating bullet points to make it believable for people.

The level of sheer desperation to make up that difference is evident in the ways in which people are somehow claiming that Palin's qualifications partially rest on how "she's the governor of the biggest state in the Union" (also one of the most isolated and least populated but hey, apparently square mileage = governance) and the ever-popular, "she has foreign relations experience because Alaska is next to Russia." That anyone can speak this with a straight face is a testament to how well-trained political operatives have become.

And the thing is: they're not useful. When you put out such obviously weak claims, they beg to be questioned and undermined as CNN did of Tucker Bounds (see "How to Unspin" below). And the MSM - who, if you recall, were more than happy to play up the Jeremiah Wright story against Obama - are basically taking a similar tack with Palin: scrutinizing and interrogating and trying to suss out what about her narrative rings true vs. what rings false.

The problem for McCain's campaign is that too much rings false. Much too much. McCain's vetting team obviously did not research enough or overestimated public support too much.

I've enjoyed Slate.com's analysis of these issues, especially Jack Shafer's column today on how the delay in announcing Palin's nomination has backfired:

"The press is merely doing on short notice what the McCain campaign's vetting team should have done between March—when he clinched the nomination—and now: properly vetting his vice-presidential candidate.

Like the Democrats, the Republicans created a news vacuum into which they hoped to insert a mock convention that would rubber-stamp the nominee's agenda and send happy vibes to the electorate. The Democrats got away with it in Denver, but luck has shone on the news beasts in St. Paul. Even if an asteroid were to blot out New Orleans today, a giant squid were to topple the Golden Gate Bridge tomorrow, and fire ants were to kill every human on Fire Island by the end of Thursday, the biggest story of the week would still be McCain's cockeyed selection of Palin."

So, five days post-nom, Palin still remains an enigma - an enigma with character perhaps, but by more or less hiding from the press, she's allowing her narrative to get written by others and given the spin cycle tizzy operating now, I highly doubt she'll be able to capture it back. You can bet, tens of thousands of journalists and bloggers are going to be hanging on her speech at the RNC and then meticulously deconstructing it moments after. Right now, they can't help themselves because 1) there's so many blanks that need to be filled given the holes in her narrative and 2) frankly, the media clearly seem to be enjoying themselves doing it.

One second-to-last thing and I promise, I won't use the term "narrative" again for at least, um, until morning...that US Weekly cover is astonishing. I knew once this pregnancy story busted out, the gossip sites and tabloids would be jumping all over this and while I don't know if anyone's ever calculated what impact they can have on a race (note: check with Gary Hart), you can't imagine the GOP can be happy about this kind of coverage in a magazine that mythical Middle America reads. Seriously: "Babies, Lies and Scandal"? In one fell swoop, US Weekly (for whom I have no real love) managed to accomplish what an army of Democratic operatives could never have hoped to.

Speaking of Slate, their recent column on "Questions for a Superhuman Mom" is dead on about what Palin's candidacy says about the challenges facing working moms and how Palin's seeming D.I.Y. attitude is actually a massive step back since it puts the onus of child care on the mother rather than a societal solution. And as the Washington Post reported today, Palin, as governor of the biggest (in square mileage) state in the Union, cut funding for a shelter that works with pregnant teens. Oops, there's another crack in the...(say it with me now...) narrative.

*In all fairness, I stole this title from the Sarah Palin typepad blog.

[1] Lest I seem too taken by Palin's charisma, let's just point out that her politics are completely to the extreme of mainstream America - on the right and left. The new information coming out about her trying to ban books (this needs better confirmation) and trying to fire people for disloyalty (did she used to work at the Justice Dept?) and of course, her extreme, anti-abortion stances, plus creationist views, plus disbelief of global warming as man-made, etc. etc. is beyond the pale. It's no wonder that she's polling real low with Hillary's former supporters, no matter what the more stringent PUMAs claim.

And this actually goes to my point - because Palin was such a cipher, the Left was very easily able to create a counter-narr...um, script for Palin that's become quite easy to pass along to others: "Palin's the crazy anti-choice, pro-creationism, anti-science, pro-abstinence governor with the pregnant teen daughter." It's been far, far easier to stick that on Palin than it has been to create a compelling counter-script for McCain except for "that crazy candidate who picked Palin to be his running mate." The most I've seen accomplished has been to label McCain as "out of touch" but that's not the most damning of scripts compared to Mr. POW (and anyone who saw the RNC tonight knows that they're playing that story up over and over). That's why Palin's nom is such an albatross for him right now - it's creating a really viable, new storyline: "what was McCain thinking?"

--O.W.

CHILDREN OF MEN? OR RNC?

you decide

(Hint: RNC).

--O.W.

HOW TO UNSPIN

This raises the question of why the media isn't this disbelieving all the time.

--O.W.

SLOW NEWS DAY

nothing to see here, move along
I'm not a political scientist nor study the history of presidential elections but I do follow the media and I really cannot think of another presidential race in my adult lifetime as surreal as this one.

As many of you may have heard, in order to rebut the rumor that Palin's fifth pregnancy was a cover for the pregnancy of her then 16 year old daughter, Bristol, Palin announced today that Bristol is five months pregnant (and hence, wouldn't have been pregnant when her son was born four months ago).

Let this soak for a moment because, truly, this is political theater at its most bewildering (and entertaining). Some thoughts:

1) I thought the "fake pregnancy" rumors were some of the most baseless (and kind of tasteless) smear campaigns I've seen this side of the "secret Muslim school" nonsense (or McCain's fake, half-Black love child for those who remember that Rovian doozy from 2000). If it were true, I wouldn't argue against the newsworthiness of it - it's just so bizarre - but the "facts" compiled for the "internet sites" propagating it (and I won't even deign to link to them) were so short of anything resembling responsible journalism, they made the Dan Rather, fake National Guard memo scandal look like All the President's Men.

YET, it's precisely because those rumors were so ridiculous as to be beyond the pale that I question why Palin, in her announcement of Bristol's pregnancy, felt it necessary to use them as the reason why she's disclosing now. Even the site that originally published it was backing way off - no responsible MSM site bothered to reprint the story because, frankly, it was stinking of b.s. from jump.

I'm not claiming some deep conspiracy theory here but seriously, I don't know why they even bothered to lend credit to some nutty story to begin with.

2) Since we're going to put out unsubstantiated rumors into public discourse, here's my prediction: the baby's father is really John Edwards and this mystery guy Levi is just a front.

(This is a joke for those unsure).

3) As many have pointed out, there is something massively ironic, if not hypocritical, about a fervent anti-choice politician trying to ask for "privacy for my family" when your own policies directly violate family privacy sanctity.

Not to mention: it is rich that someone who believes in abstinence-only as public policy can't even seem to make the idea stick in her own family. More proof the cosmos has a sense of humor not to mention the absolutely paucity of the abstinence-only idea. The fact that this fraud of an idea has been put into place in various parts of the U.S. (and in our foreign policy) is one of many embarrassments of the last eight years.

Some think this may weaken Palin's popularity with social conservatives but I doubt it. Personal behavior can have its consequences - see Giuliani's non-campaign - but in this case, so long as Palin's public policies are in line with the "family values" lobby, this pregnancy issue won't rank high. Among moderates they were hoping to swing however, I can't see this making the McCain/Palin ticket more attractive.

McCain's hail mary pass just got tipped at the line of scrimmage by one of his players. (And that will be the only football analogy here today).

4) One of the discomforting tangents of this whole situation is how many people I've heard openly question Palin's fitness to be a mom. Let's make this clear: no one ever puts this to politicians who are fathers. It's one of those ridiculous, sexist double-standards that female politicians have to deal wit. Unless we're talking felony neglect or abuse, people who supposedly value civil liberties (including privacy) should really check themselves lest you want the government to the turn the tables and peer into how you raise your own family.

I care far less about what Palin is like as a mother vs. caring what her policies are around things like maternity leave and social safety nets for children. Let those be the sites of criticism as opposed to this incessant, intrusive behavior around people's private lives. Left-leaning folks seem to have forgotten the lessons of Clinton impeachment circus. Or maybe they learned those lessons all too well and are now applying the tactics of ad hominem attacks.

5) Speaking of legitimate areas of criticism: you have to love how one of Palin's big selling points is that "she was against the Bridge to Nowhere" but as it turns out now...nope, she was all for it until it became so politically toxic, she had to turn against it. I believe that's what you call a ...

McCain's people did vet Palin, right? Right? Or at least, did they vet the talking points of her nomination?

--O.W.

HURRICANE WATCH IN NOLA

I know it's hurricane season but it is rather eerie that almost exactly three years after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, another hurricane (this time, Gustav) is a Category 4, headed towards the same region, expected to make landfall early next week. (Evacuation orders are now in effect).

The timing is also ironic given that it coincides with the RNC and there are few more embarrassing reminders of the government's incompetence during the current GOP admin than the bungling of Katrina-related relief efforts. There's talk of them post-poning the RNC if things look really bad (which would be sound both ethically as well as politically) but either way, I wouldn't want to be Bush or Cheney trying to give a RNC keynote with the memory of 2005 haunting the proceedings.

It should remind us what's at stake here and why I am so confounded by the desire of people willing to vote for McCain/Palin as a way of "punishing" the Democratic party. To be honest, I'm not a huge Obama backer but I'd vote for any viable candidate that will deny the Republicans another term in office. It is morally unfathomable to me how anyone could stomach the idea of 4-8 more years of Bush/Cheney-style policies, politics and legislation. That is the toxic combination that failed the Gulf Coast so drastically three years ago and one can only hope that if the worst should happen with Gustav, at least the lessons of Katrina will push the response to be much more competent this time around.

BUT WAIT...

According to this story, if the storm does hit, McCain plans to give his keynote speech from the "devastation zone" in New Orleans:

"McCain made plans to travel to a threatened area of the Gulf Coast on Sunday, accompanied by his wife, Cindy, and running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. They planned to meet Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) in Jackson, Miss., aides said.

McCain was scheduled to deliver his acceptance speech Thursday but now>may do so from the devastation zone if the storm hits the U.S. coast with the ferocity feared by forecasters."

I'm a cynical guy but even I can't believe McCain would be this opportunistic (would he?) I'm inclined to think politico.com might be misstating this. Either that or McCain really is deciding to self-destruct his own campaign, blow-by-blow.

Our thoughts are with the residents of the Gulf and hoping that the only government officials who show up there are there to help rather than grandstanding.

--O.W.

POST POSTNESS?

A minor, follow-up thought and believe me, this is not anything I'd deign to try to pass off as an "insight" but remember how liberals and conservatives alike have been trying to convince all of us that we're living in a colorblind, post-identity politics era, where we're supposed to judge people by the content of their character, blah blah blah?

Is that where we're at?

Forget retro-soul - it's retro-America. The '60s are back, baby!

Seriously though, does this mean we can roll back Prop 209 while we're at it?

Note to self: resurrect Movement fashion staples such as rice bag vests, berets and manly mustaches, straight up Richard Aoki style.

--O.W.

WOMEN: PUTTING THE "WILD" IN WILD CARD?

Palin's got the Viking demo sewn
It's 1:30am and something is nagging at me enough that I can't sleep.

There's been a lot said about identity politics with the election, specifically around the mentality of voters eager to see either 1) a Black person in the White House or 2) a woman. And we've all seen how analysts and pundits have tried to break down voting trends and polling data by looking at how identity politics may be showing its hand here.

Now...with the Palin nom, I think we can all agree: this is a gamble by McCain to try to grab at disaffected women voters (as well as shore up his standing amongst conservatives). Leaving the latter behind (i.e. conservatives who like Palin's voting record on key social issues) and just focusing on the former...whether you want to call them Pumas or not, there's no shortage of media hype about their wild-card factor.

And so what's keeping me up is this...

Symbolically, I can understand the appeal of wanting a Black person - male or female - in the White House. But assuming Hillary (who I didn't back) had won the nom and McCain, instead of choosing Palin, had gone with Colin or Condi, I wouldn't have had an inkling to want to reconsider voting for someone besides Hillary (even if, again, I didn't back her in the primaries). The reason is simple, and to quote the great Chuck D: every brother (or sister) ain't a brother (or sister). In other words, while a charismatic candidate like Obama gains identity politics enhancement points for being Black, his Blackness is not the overriding reason I'd back him. I'd actually have to, well, like him as a candidate. Hence, I'm not about to back a GOP ticket just because they're promising to integrate the Oval Office.

So goes it with Palin, shouldn't it? Right now, the punditry seems to think that McCain's choice is savvy because enough Democratic women will flock to the McCain/Palin ticket simply because she's a woman and there's something kind of, well, patronizing in that assumption...and as this astute Slate piece points out, it certainly plays on stereotypes people have about hysterical, irrational women.

How can we suss this out? Is there an actual demographic of Democratic female voters who'd vote for Palin simply out of misguided identity politics? Or is this the pundit class displaying a dismissive attitude towards the rationality of female voters?

And actually, what I really, really want to know, are PUMAs like these 1) real vs. some Rove-esque creation, 2) an actual voting bloc vs. media-hyped fringe?

--O.W.

DNC CONVENTION: NIGHT 4

In the shadow of history

There has never been a greater speech in the history of political conventions in America.

Discuss.

---

O-Dub hijack!

(OW concept improved upon by R. Strew)

--Junichi

JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT

Just stare at this for a while. It's mesmerizing.

--O.W.

DNC CONVENTION: NIGHT 3

Lower the roof!

Most of today's headlines focus on how Bill Clinton offered Obama a strong push in his speech last night. Undoubtedly, the words were all supportive.

But while watching the speech, I never got the vibe that Bill Clinton has purged himself of the bitterness brooding since Hillary was denied the coronation. Bubba clearly loves Hillary, loves Joe Biden, and loves himself, but merely supports Obama because he's the best of the available choices.

Most of his speech could have been said about any other Democrat. For example, he said:

Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world. Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be President of the United States.

But if some sub-par Democrat like Sam Nunn were the nominee, Bill could have said:

Sam Nunn is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world. Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Sam Nunn is ready to be President of the United States.

Plus, what kind of an endorsement is it to say that somebody is "ready" to defend the Constitution? Larry Craig is probably "ready" to defend the Constitution. That doesn't mean he will do a great job of doing it.

I've heard rumors that Bill Clinton isn't going to be at Invesco Field to watch Obama accept the nomination. I hope it ain't true.

*

I really was impressed by Biden's speech. Beau Biden, that is.

Joe's son -- the current Delaware AG and future Iraqi war veteran -- did a better job of selling Joe Biden as VP than Joe Biden himself.

(Aside: am I the only one whose brain immediately hears "Bo Bice" when somebody starts to say "Beau Biden"? It's even more confusing since he looks like Steve Carell. Also, what kind of name is Beau? That's a bold move when a politician decides to go by a name that means boyfriend in French.)

Joe Biden wasn't bringing his A-game, although I still think he was a great choice for veep. I really can't wait until the VP debate when he takes on Pawlenty, Romney, or Lieberman. I imagine he'll have them looking like those shark-chewed bodies that just washed up the Florida coast.

*

I would never wish another hurricane upon New Orleans (or anywhere else).

But some reports say Hurricane Gustav might hit New Orleans soon, just in time for the Republican National Convention.

Oh my Lord, the irony.

--Junichi

DNC CONVENTION: NIGHT 2

Orange Pantsuit Alert!

I still am not a fan of Senator Clinton's delivery, but her speech was on-point, well-crafted, and a blow to the GOP, which was clearly hoping for a Democratic implosion this week.

During her speech, MSNBC kept panning to Bill, in the audience, who was clearly gushing with pride whenever Hillary spoke. This would have been a heart-warming image but for the fact that every time I saw him, I also thought about the spunk stain that he left on Monica Lewinsky's blue Gap dress.

Her best moment was when she was speaking directly to some of her supporters, who ignorantly have been threatening to vote for McCain instead of Obama:

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

I hope the PUMAs were listening.

Not that it matters since these PUMAs are clearly Republican COINTELPRO-type covert operatives hired by Karl Rove to destroy the unity coalition that George Bush's legacy is destined to create.

After all, I cannot imagine that any intelligent feminist who supported Hillary would actually vote for McCain -- a man who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade -- over Obama, who holds nearly identical positions to Clinton.

*

Many DNC speakers have noted how Hillary is a trailblazer for women and how her campaign made history.

In contrast, it's curious and sad how few people have made any mention of how Obama is a trailblazer for both African Americans and people of color.

Clearly, there is an internal DNC memo to speakers that says, "Don't remind voters that Obama is black."

*

Best line of the night goes to NY Gov. Paterson, who said of McCain:

"If he's the answer, then the question must be ridiculous."

--Junichi

DNC CONVENTION: NIGHT 1

Nailed it!

Given that Ted Kennedy might have been too sick to even make it to Denver, his speech was stirring and forceful, beyond my wildest expectations. I was prepared to be happy with just a wave. It was almost like watching the end of every cliche sports movie in which the athlete who everyone counted out shows up to score the winning point.

And yet, even after that, Michelle Obama totally stole the show.

I've been watching Democratic Convention speeches since 1984 and I don't remember being this moved since Jesse Jackson's speech in 1988. My wife and I were tearing up.

I suppose it was amazing enough to simply live to see a prospective African American first lady. And even more impressive that she was billed as the headliner of the first day of the convention.

But her speech was masterful in comparison to all political speeches by all politicians of all genders and races. It is one for the history books, in my opinion.

This is all in sharp contrast to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who, hours earlier, delivered a painful speech that made me want to stick my head in a food processor.

--Junichi

McCAIN MILKS THE POW COW

I am a prisoner of war. How dare you accuse me of anything?

I am grateful for the sacrifices that McCain made for this country and I believe his surviving his POW experience deserves our highest respect. And he should receive lifelong mental health benefits. And medals. And discounted movie tickets. And parades. And a discounted early bird special.

But McCain has now comically used his POW status as a crutch to deflect nearly all criticism. So much so that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have nothing left to parody.

For example, last weekend, McCain's spokeswoman responded to accusations that McCain was not in a "cone of silence" during the Saddleback forum by saying, "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."

Tonight, Jay Leno just asked his guest, Sen. McCain: "For $1 million, how many houses do you have?"

McCain responded, "I spent five and a half years in a prison cell, without — I didn’t have a house, I didn’t have a kitchen table, I didn’t have a table, I didn’t have a chair. And I spent those five and a half years, because — not because I wanted to get a house when I got out."

When will this end? Is anybody buying this?

McCain is flaunting his POW status the same way that the South African minister was flaunting his diplomatic immunity in Lethal Weapon 2.

I am starting to worry that McCain believes that his Vietnam POW status entitles him to, for example, stab me in the eye with a flaming shank ... without consequence.

"The indictment from the D.A.'s office that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, committed homicide is outrageous."

--Junichi

THE PERFECT #2

*

It's hard to imagine McCain picking anybody like Obama, however, since McCain actually likes the idea of Dick Cheney as Vice President:

*

But no matter who McCain picks, nothing will be as unintentionally funny as this New York Times headline:

Talk of McCain’s No. 2 Concerns Conservatives

(Hat tip to J. Romero)

--Junichi

POLL: WHO IS LEAST LIKELY TO BE CHOSEN AS OBAMA'S VP?

--Junichi

57.4% SAY PRAYER CAN CURE A TERMINAL ILLNESS

According to a new survey, 57.4% of Americans believe that prayers to God can cure a family member from a terminal illness, even after doctors declare that treatment would be futile.

I find that number bewilderingly high.

I am not here to criticize religion, however. If somebody I love were told that no medical technology could save him or her from a fatal illness, I would probably pray to every deity every known, including Xenu, Poseidon, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I am here, however, to submit that there must be a positive correlation -- indeed, a causal relationship -- between the high percentage of those who believe in the healing power of prayer and the fact that 47% of Americans do not have health insurance.

Why would one need health insurance if God can cure even terminal illnesses?

*

On a related note, after this past weekend's spiritual forum in Orange County, I now predict that McCain and Obama's religion/faith (which are very similar) is going to be a bigger political issue in the 2008 presidential election than their health insurance plans (which are very different), much to my dismay.

*

Now is as good a time as any to spotlight the Spiritual Science Research Foundation's (a real foundation!) guide to the efficacy of various types of prayer positions:

Keep in mind that the chart above must be accurate since the foundation has the word "Science" in its name.

--Junichi

WHO IS EXCITED ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN?

Answer: Not these guys.

(Tip o' the hat to John Aravosis)

--Junichi

OBAMA'S PROBLEM WITH WHITE SUBURBAN WOMEN

Do not ignore the lady in red

According to the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, Obama has a six-point advantage over McCain.

But for me, the most interesting aspect of the survey is that McCain has a six-point advantage over Obama among white suburban women (44 to 38), who constitute 10% of the national electorate.

The same poll concludes that Obama's lead would expand to a nine-point lead if he added Clinton as his running mate, despite evidence of many voters' strong negative association with her.

Given these numbers, how can anybody argue that Clinton would be a net loss? And in response to some of the comments left on this post, how can anybody argue that the selection of a VP doesn't matter? A 3 percentage point swing would have altered the results in 1992, 2000, and 2004, just to name a few.

(Thanks to my $50,000 question on Millionaire, I'm suddenly an expert on election results.)

I have no idea why any Clinton-supporting white suburban woman would vote for McCain over Obama, except for reasons related to prejudice, ignorance of issues, or irrational bitterness. (Is McCain's clear anti-choice record not common knowledge?)

But these numbers reflect a reality that Obama needs to figure out a way to reach out to white suburban women.

And therefore, despite my own personal objections with Senator Clinton, I remain convinced that Obama should consider her for the VP slot.

*

I suppose one other way that Obama could overcome his problem with white suburban women is to simply hope that this excerpt from the book The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter gets more mainstream coverage:

In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, 'You're getting a little thin up there.' McCain's face reddened, and he responded, 'At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.'

Like, for example, in this video below. (NSFW!)

--Junichi

SO WHY NOT?

Hottie or Nottie?

As the post immediately below this one makes clear, I am not a fan of Senator Clinton.

She is a self-absorbed, dishonorable, egomaniacal, shifty, and unscrupulous beltway politician who doesn't have the moral fortitude to apologize for authorizing an unnecessary and unlawful war that has resulted in the evisceration of several hundred thousand lives.

And the nerve of some of her supporters to suggest that she has somehow "earned" the VP slot. Who has the audacity to insult a person as an inexperienced, corrupt, sexist, "secret Muslim" who might be assassinated and is the beneficiary of "reverse racism" - and then suggest that he somehow owes them anything? Like candidate, like supporters.

But all of the above is a long disclaimer to precede my current belief that Senator Clinton might be Senator Obama's best pick for Vice President.

At the very least, I believe she should be seriously considered.

Don't get me wrong. I, personally, would prefer a grip of other viable candidates over Clinton. Al Gore, for starters. (I really do think he could be persuaded.) Claire McCaskill. Russ Feingold. John Edwards. Joe Biden. General Wesley Clark. Jim Webb. Kathleen Sebelius. Jon Stewart. Even Republican Chuck Hagel would be attractive in the veep slot.

But Obama's goal should be to pick the person who will most effectively help him capture the White House. And Clinton may very well be that person who gives Obama the greatest net increase.

Sadly, I think there are currently at least a million voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries and will (a) vote for McCain, (b) vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, or (c) not vote in November -- before they vote for Obama.

Primary exit polls seemed to indicate that at least 10% of Clinton supporters fell into that camp. Let's say that half of those people change their minds once Clinton endorses him. If the remaining 5% of the 18 million voted for Clinton won't vote for Obama unless he chooses Clinton, that's 900,000 votes.

Are those 900,000 people ill-informed, unprincipled, or racist? No doubt. Given the similarities in their platform, a Clinton supporter who will vote for McCain over Obama is likely to be a naive ignoramus who is voting on the basis of trivial matters like flag pins or the middle name Hussein.

But you can't dismiss their numbers.

Plus, the polls strongly suggest that Clinton appeals strongly to groups like blue-collar workers and the elderly for whom Obama is apparently not an obvious choice.

If a million people transfer their vote to Obama because Clinton is his VP candidate, those voters may very well decide the fate of the election.

You might argue that this million will be canceled out by the millions more who find the idea of a black man/white woman ticket too much. But those bigots are not going to vote for a Democratic candidate anyway.

As for those of us who take issue with Clinton, we will undoubtedly recognize that she, if offered the veep slot, should not stop us from working to put Obama in the White House.

*

Although my wife (also an Obama supporter) hates this opinion of mine, I am nonetheless choosing to voice it because I seem to be in a very small minority of Obama supporters.

*

I'm not sure this debate is even necessary, however, as Clinton probably won't accept. Among other reasons, her husband will never release his list of donors and business dealings, which Obama would certainly require.

--Junichi

OBAMA CONNECTS FOUR!

I was really hoping this viral video would no longer be relevant or timely today.

But alas, Senator Clinton's speech last night was so extraordinarily ungracious that the above clip (created several days ago) has taken on new meaning in the course of a few hours.

Yesterday, at 9 am pacific time, the video was just kinda funny.

By 3 pm, when it was clear she wasn't going to concede the nomination, despite Senator Obama clearly clinching it, the video was eerily poignant.

By evening, shortly after Terry McAuliffe introduced Senator Clinton by asking the crowd, "Are you ready for the next president of the United States?" -- and precisely the moment when Senator Clinton ludicrously suggested, "the nearly 18 million people who voted for me [need] to be respected, to be heard, to be no longer invisible" -- the video became a very dark sketch about one person's horrible affliction with what psychiatrists refer to as narcissistic personality disorder.

(With thanks to AmericaBlog)

--Junichi

MONSTER

I realize this is relatively old news, but I am appalled that Senator Clinton made the following statement:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacks Israel]. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Several weeks have passed since the above clip, but she - to my horror - has yet to move away from her stance or sound bite.

Even if one believes in the right of the United States to engage in massive retaliation for aggression against our allies, Clinton's words are unconscionably insensitive, at best, and insanely genocidal, at worst.

"Totally obliterating" Iran would mean the death of 71 million people, which eclipses Hitler's total obliteration during the holocaust by about 60 million people.

I can't think of anything that George W. Bush has ever said that sounds as hawkish, maniacal, and detrimental to our national security interests as Clinton's words on Iran.


P.S. And some of you are still defending Clinton as the choice for progressives in November?


P.P.S. Now that Senator Clinton has officially become a monster, can Samantha Power be reinstated as Obama's foreign policy adviser?

--Junichi

ON HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN

(Click above photo for additional photographic metaphor)

--Junichi

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BARACK

--Junichi

VP CANDIDATE FOR McCAIN: TONY ZIRKLE

McCAIN / ZIRKLE 2008?

As a public service, Poplicks will be periodically submitting suggestions to Senator John McCain for potential running mates.

After a substantial vetting process, here is our first nominee for consideration to be the GOP 's next Vice President of the United States:

TONY ZIRKLE

• PROFESSION: Attorney, Former Prosecutor
  

• MILITARY EXPERIENCE: Attended the Naval Academy

• EDUCATION: Graduated cum laude from Georgetown; law degree from Indiana University

• AGE: Much younger than McCain
  

• POLITICAL EXPERIENCE: Currently seeking the GOP nomination for Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District; receiving significant local and nationwide press coverage

• BELIEVES IN GUN RIGHTS: On his own website, he proposes enacting a "'Derrenger's for Dildos' policy to put guns in American women's hands instead of divorce aids."
  

• TOUGH ON CRIME: Wants to bring back the guillotine
  

• FAMILY VALUES: Major anti-pornography crusader; strongly believes that pornography is a Jewish plot against women

• HAS IDEAS FOR IMPROVING THE ECONOMY: Believes that work productivity is significantly reduced because of employees surfing for Internet porn; recession would therefore end after he bans pornography
  

• STRAIGHT TALK POTENTIAL: Believes that white people are the victims of a "genocide"; open to idea that all racial groups in the United States should be segregated into different states.

• WILLING TO REACH OUT TO IGNORED GROUPS: Recently attended a birthday party for Adolf Hitler hosted by a White Supremacist party adorning swastikas
  

• GREAT SOUND BYTES: When asked to defend his appearance at the group's Sieg-Heil-ing gathering, he replied, "I'll speak before any group that invites me ... I've spoken on an African-American radio station in Atlanta."

In sum, Zirkle is an honest and fearless man with nearly flawless Republican credentials. What could go wrong?

You're welcome, John.

--Junichi

OUR GENERATION'S JIM CROW LAWS

Denied

I do not exaggerate when I say that we are literally in the midst of the systematic decimation of American democracy.

In yesterday's 6-3 decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court refused to recognize any constitutional flaws with Indiana's Jim Crow voter identification law, which is, thus far, the most restrictive in the nation.

By sheer coincidence, I also watched the compelling short documentary, Freedom To Vote: Protecting The Ballot, at the Newport Beach Film Festival yesterday. Reading the opinion before watching that was a bit like walking into a horror movie in which you know that every person on the screen is going to die before the credits roll.

As the documentary pointed out, our nation's history is a story of the struggle for the right to vote. But only in the last few years are our government leaders fighting to prevent people from voting.

To my disappointment, few seem alarmed or enraged by the proliferation of Voter ID laws. The common thinking is: What's the big deal? We need to stop voter fraud and, besides, one needs a driver's license to do many things like board a plane, open a bank account, etc.

The big deal is that 20 million people just became potentially disenfranchised as a result of yesterday's Supreme Court decision.

The big deal is that most of the disenfranchised are people of color (mostly African American), elderly, disabled and/or poor people, who tend to vote for Democratic candidates and causes.

The big deal is that these Voter ID laws are enacted because the reactionary right-wing forces of our country are intentionally trying to deprive those groups from voting.

The big deal is that 20% of black voters in Indiana do not currently have a valid photo ID.

The big deal is that almost none of the enacted or proposed Voter ID laws provide measures to help voters obtain the necessary identification or offer alternative ways of voting.

The big deal is that these laws are being passed despite no nationwide widespread evidence of fraud caused by voter impersonation. (In Indiana, there was literally not one reported incident of fraud, which the Supreme Court acknowledged.)

The big deal is that our courts seem interested in a nonexistent form of voter fraud, but could not care less about more widespread evidence of voter fraud in Florida (2000), Ohio (2004), or the New York primary (2008). (Did you realize that not one vote in Harlem went to Obama in the most recent Democratic primary?)

While the Court's decision may not fundamentally alter the 2008 landscape, it will surely eviscerate enough votes in 2010 and beyond to tilt the outcome of any election.

Which is to say, the Supreme Court just handed yet another election to the Republicans.

For the skeptics and critics, let me just say that I understand that, technically, no citizen has been denied the right to vote.

But countless studies have confirmed that the hurdles for those without driver's licenses are immense and unappreciated by those of us who drive every day. Those without licenses will have a difficult time procuring the birth certificates or passports necessary to get one. The documentary I watched yesterday noted how some African American citizens in Georgia were born during an era in which they were not granted birth certificates. Thus, the costs alone are enough to discourage people from going through the trouble.

Reading the Crawford opinion made me appreciate what it must have felt like in 1896 to read Plessy v. Ferguson.

The difference between 1896 and 2008 is that everyone understood the impact of Plessy. But the magnitude of Crawford (and the voter ID laws yet to come) will never be fully appreciated.

--Junichi

EDWARDS vs. CLINTON vs. OBAMA

Judging by their performances on the Colbert Report ...



I still maintain that John Edwards was the best choice.

--Junichi

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WORLD THIS WEEK

Shake Your Body Down To The Vons

Here is this week's edition of five things that are absolutely, positively wrong with the world:

1. Marlon Jackson (upper-left in above picture), one of the original members of the Jackson Five, is now stocking shelves at a Vons supermarket in San Diego.


2. After mother Debbie Shank became severely brain damaged and permanently disabled from a horrific traffic accident and successfully sued the responsible trucking company for $417,000, Wal-Mart shanked Shank, one of its former employees, by suing the disabled woman for $470,000 to recoup the medical expenses it paid her in health benefits. Bonus: Ms. Shank has no short-term memory and breaks down every time she (re)learns that her son just died in Iraq. (Credit: Dan Martinez and Adam Pheiffer)
   


3. A strip club in Dallas will keep its license and will not be penalized despite allowing a 12-year-old sixth grade girl to work as a nude stripper.


4. Judge Peter Olszewski Jr. of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania sentenced three criminal defendants to 24 months in jail unless they learn to speak English.


5. The MSM is still pretending like Hillary Clinton has any chance of receiving the Democratic nomination. (Exception: Reuters.)
   

--Junichi

MONDAY ROUND-UP

Conan the Buddhist Chihuahua

A linkapalooza to help you start your week:

• SENIOR CITIZENS GONE EVIL: This CNN story has further destroyed my faith in the goodness of humanity: Two elderly women aided and befriended two homeless men, took out life insurance policies on their lives, drugged them, killed them with a car, and tried to collect on the insurance after making it look like a hit-and-run. In other news, I'm not above executing female senior citizens.

• IT'S RAINING McCAIN: Speaking of losing faith in humanity, who knew that human beings could create something more horrendous than that "Hillary 4 U & Me" music video? Can somebody please confirm this is a joke so I can sleep at night?
  

• THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT AMERICAN AIRLINES: Speaking of being unable to sleep, a woman has sued American for failing to protect her from a passenger who moved into the empty seat next to her and -- wait for it -- diddle whacked into her hair while she was sleeping. What was that man thinking? Couldn't he have waited until he landed and walked into the nearest Target department store?

• JAPANESE DOG LEARNS TO PRAY IN BUDDHIST TEMPLE: That sounds like a pretty sweet pet trick until you realize Conan the Chihuahua (see picture above) is goofing on Buddhists just to score some dried fish-flavored Scooby Snacks. Up next: training the dog to achieve nirvana through meditation instead of the shameless lickery of his groin.

• ATTACK OF THE NATIONAL CORNDOG DAY: That's a strange ad, right? I love me some c-dogs, but I'm not sure I enjoy the image of a fleet of torpedo bombers conducting a protracted aerial assault on urban basketball courts with giant corn dogs.

• THE FUTURE OF HIP HOP HAS ARRIVED: For those who haven't seen this video, please enjoy ...

--Junichi

NOT QUITE A WATERSHED MOMENT: OBAMA'S SPEECH ON RACE

Overall, I thought Sen. Obama's speech on race this morning was effective. (Full transcript available here.)

It's not often you see multiple news channels broadcasting lengthy speeches by major presidential candidates on white privilege and systematic racism. And by "not often," I really mean "never."

The speech further contributes to the fascinating study of how Obama deals -- and doesn't deal -- with issues of race. As a political maneuver, Obama brilliantly crafted a text that simultaneously connects and disconnects himself with the civil rights movement and black leaders today. He carefully criticized the black community in exchange for being able to criticize the white community, all the while maintaining a positive and hopeful stance.

Of note:

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

I do admit I was disappointed by the end of the speech, however. I wish Obama had more to say than to merely call for a unified America. "Not this time" makes for a great refrain, but it doesn't exactly amount to any specifics about what he would do differently as president.

Also, I do have one very specific complaint. One way in which Obama clearly does not represent change is the way in which he, like virtually all other American politicians, goes out of his way to demonstrate his undying allegiance to Israel.

In his speech today, he said the following of Rev. Wright's remarks:

They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

I have no beef with his criticism of Rev. Wright's remarks. But he is clearly doing more than distancing himself from Rev. Wright -- he is, again, using the opportunity to demonstrate his (and the Democratic Party's and the Republican Party's) unwavering allegiance to Israel.

I hate to open a can of worms here, but it seems obvious to me that the United States will never help to achieve peace in the Middle East until it is willing to acknowledge the moral and legal wrongs of both Palestinians and Israelis, the wrongs of the U.S., other western occupiers, and cultural imperialists, as well as the fundamentalist, violent nutjobs who undeniably perpetuate the endless cycle of violence.

In my book, any politician who focuses on the 1,033 Israelis who have been unconscionably killed since September 29, 2000 -- while ignoring the 4,494 Palestinians who were unconscionably killed by Israeli security forces -- is not bringing the change needed to our foreign policy. (Source for stats: Israeli Information Center for Human Rights.)

Obama's opposition to the war on Iraq only goes so far in extending a hand to the other countries and people we should be reaching out to in the hopes of becoming stalwart allies.

Given that Obama is constantly forced to deal with ignorant whispers that he is secretly Muslim, I understand his need to firmly renounce the "hateful ideologies of radical Islam" and to reach out to the Jewish community. Anti-Semitism is a real, ugly, and major problem here and abroad. But so is anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry, and I wish Obama were willing to take those on, as well.

A major speech that ties together our history of racism with our current foreign policy?

That would have made for a true watershed moment.

---

Oliver adds:
I heard some jackass on CNN compared Obama to "a Black Panther," which is rather ridiculous insofar as this speech is seeking reconciliation far more than, you know, armed insurrection.

I prefer NPR's Renne Montagne's opinion: "one of the most important speeches on race a politician has ever given." Of course, considering the paucity of speeches on race these days, perhaps that's not saying much but check out what Obama has to say, nonetheless.

--Junichi

HILLARY CLINTON'S SUICIDE PACT

For the past two weeks, I've attempted to gather my thoughts on why Hillary Clinton has effectively killed her chances of becoming President.

Thankfully, Keith Olbermann's comment, which I wholeheartedly second, has saved me from writing that epic essay.

While I don't think Clinton has (yet) killed Obama's chances of getting elected, she certainly is the most effective tool in helping the GOP secure the White House.

For what it's worth, several months ago, I could have easily seen myself enthusiastically supporting Hillary, if she were chosen as the nominee. I still want to believe that she would make an amazing President.

But this latest Geraldine Ferraro flap has effectively killed any possibility that I will support, campaign for, or donate to Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

Clinton, Ferraro, Penn, and her inner circle of advisers have made clear that the only thing that matters to them is a Clinton presidency. I respect vigorous campaigning, but the Clinton camp has, in desperation, sunk to a suicide pact.

Framing Obama as the "black" candidate? Arguing that Michigan's delegates should be counted even though Obama wasn't on the ballot? Claiming that Obama doesn't have the experience of Clinton or McCain to be President - but then suggesting he'd make a great vice president? I'm more disillusioned by Clinton's attacks and abandonment of principles than I am with Spitzer's moral transgressions.

Oh, I'll still vote for Clinton against McCain -- I'm not stupid enough to vote for 100 more years in Iraq and the decimation of a woman's right to choose -- but I will do so with no enthusiasm.

--Junichi

MARCH FORTH

[Insert classy caption about finger-pulling here.]

Here is my prediction for today:

OHIO:

Clinton 49%
Obama 46%

TEXAS:

Obama 50%
Clinton 45%

RHODE ISLAND:

Clinton 55%
Obama 44%

VERMONT:

Obama 70%
Clinton 30%

Sum: Obama gets closer to the nomination, but doesn't clinch. Clinton doesn't drop out. Battle goes to Pennsylvania.

Over the last few days, the MSM started to turn on Obama and has clearly put the brakes on his momentum.

Of course, I could be wrong.

I once claimed that Fred Thompson would have an easy road to the GOP nomination.

Also, in the anti-Nostradamus department, I once predicted that Andrew Ridgeley's solo career would be huge.

--Junichi

PICK UP THE DAMN PHONE

Personally, I'd like a president who doesn't wait until the seventh ring to pick up.

--Junichi

HOW PASSIONATE ARE YOU ABOUT THE PRIMARIES?

Whatever the answer, you're not as passionate as this guy.

--Junichi

MAVERICK, YOU CAN BE MY WINGMAN ANY TIME

Yaaarrrrgh! It wasn't me!

There are dozens of good reasons not to vote for John McCain.

For me, his alleged private romantic affairs with another woman is not one of them.

While I appreciate the NY Times's focus on McCain's ethical hypocrisy, I found today's much-anticipated "bombshell" to be entirely dissatisfying. There's flimsy evidence that McCain gave lobbyist Vicki Iseman much of anything illegal, much less a ride on the Straight Talk Express.

By the end of the article, I felt like the allegations were only a few steps removed from Karl Rove's 2000 push-polling allegations in South Carolina that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child.

Even if the Times' allegations prove to be true, I will always resent the Gray Lady for making me visualize a grumpy contrarian Aryan septuagenarian doing the Humpty Dance on the ovarian floors of a woman almost half his age.

(Did you enjoy the internal rhymes of grumpy/Humpty and contrarian/septuagenarian/ovarian? You're welcome.)

Come to think of it, the most shocking part of the Times's story was that a homophobic Republican politician was exposed for alleged hanky-panky with an actual woman.

I suppose I was expecting something more along the lines of this (warning: NSFW).

*

There is one upside to this McCain story. When you have a so-called "Maverick" allegedly snookering a woman with the last name Iseman, I mean, c'mon ...

(Credit: Unknown)

--Junichi

WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR

June Jordan

The manufactured controversy about Barack Obama's use of the phrase "We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For" is so inane and absurd that I hate myself for even bringing it up.

The Clinton campaign, desperate to start any controversy to reverse Obama's momentum, has accused Obama of plagiarizing Governor Deval Patrick.

Others have pointed out that the line actually comes from either a 2006 Alice Walker book of the same name or a classic Sweet Honey in the Rock song.

But both Alice Walker and Sweet Honey clearly credit the origin of the line to a poem by June Jordan -- "Poem for South African Women" -- that was published in 1980.

An excerpt:

And who will join this standing up
and the ones who stood without sweet company
will sing and sing
back into the mountains and
if necessary
even under the sea:

we are the ones we have been waiting for.

You can read the entire poem here.

A few others have suggested that the line comes from Hopi elders, but, thus far, there is no proof that the line was ever in print before 1980.

Regardless, Clinton aides, if you're going to accuse Obama of plagiarism because you don't have any better attack, get your facts straight.

--Junichi

DEAR JASON RAE

One Man, One Super-Vote

Dear Jason:

I am inspired by you.

When you were just 17 years old, you ran a grassroots campaign and were elected one of Wisconsin's four members in the Democratic National Committee. After beating two established leaders, you became the youngest person ever elected to the DNC. As a college student, you authored a bill that provided domestic partner benefits to faculty.

Today, you are probably one of the Democratic Party's most famous "superdelegates," as I've seen or heard you interviewed on countless news programs. And with your recent brave decision to come out in the national media, you are probably one of the few openly gay delegates.

Because you have yet to pledge to a candidate, you've received quite a bit of attention from some major players. Hillary Clinton called you, as did her husband Bill. You had breakfast with Chelsea Clinton. John Kerry and Madeline Albright even called to say hello.

As you know, you could very well end up being the person who decides the next president. You seem to be relishing in that awesome power and responsibility.

Unfortunately, this post isn't just an ode to you. It's also a notice that my admiration will expire the moment you pledge to a candidate.

You see, by pledging to either Clinton or Obama, you will be making a complete mockery of the democratic process. Each un-super American's vote is worth less than .0001% of yours. The exclusive club to which you belong constitutes seven-millionths of the Democratic Party, but 20% of the vote at the convention.

Which is to say, you suddenly have the power to single-handedly nullify the will of over 10,000 voters, which is far greater than the number of Florida voters whose votes were eliminated by the Supreme Court in 2000.

As an Obama supporter, am I biased? Perhaps. I won't deny that I am anxious about the serious possibility that superdelegates will hand Clinton the nomination despite Obama receiving more votes. But even if the situation were reversed and the superdelegates handed the nomination to Obama, I would still be enraged.

No matter how you vote, you will be crushing the hopes of millions -- especially those who have dreamed to cast their vote for the first African American president or the first female president.

You will be the latest chapter in the history of disenfranchisement in America.

You will be the the poster-child of anti-suffrage laws, the human embodiment of poll taxes, the 21st Century Jim Crow.

But it's not a lose-lose situation. There is one way to escape this dreadful fate: vote with the people.

Choose the candidate who receives the most votes nation-wide. Or, at least, pledge to vote for the candidate who wins your home state of Wisconsin.

You will be my hero, Jason Rae, if you use your access to the mainstream media to tie your vote to the popular vote and call on all the other superdelegates to pledge the same.

On the other hand, if you and your fellow superdelegates decide this election by choosing the candidate of your own liking, I will hold you personally responsible for destroying millions of Americans' last remaining morsel of faith in our fragile democracy.

Please do the right thing, Jason.

Sincerely,

Junichi

--Junichi

McCAIN IN THE MEMBRANE

This is an excellent parody, although I am disappointed that nobody sang "I hate the gooks" or "Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."

The part of this video that makes me chuckle the most is the woman who is imitating ScarJo at the mic.

--Junichi

BARACK OBAMA T-SHIRT

Probably not an official Obama shirt

After seeing somebody in San Diego sporting the above T-shirt, I actually understood -- for the first time -- why some women have voted for Hillary Clinton even though they prefer Barack Obama on the issues.

Clearly, the Republican Party doesn't have a monopoly on jackasses.

*

That stupid shirt inspired me to design my own Barack Obama for President shirt:

Since the official Obama 2008 t-shirts are dull, I decided to make one of my own.

If you'd like an Obamania shirt, too, you can catch the fever here.

--Junichi

WHO SAYS ONLY REPUBLICANS STEAL ELECTIONS?

The People's Vote: Obama = 603, Clinton = 590

Who needs Diebold when you've got the Democratic Party figuring out a way to overrule the will of the voters?

From AmericaBlog:

Obama has the most delegates by virtue of your votes, our citizens. But Hillary has the lead in total delegates, 783-709. How is that possible? Because of a bunch of Democratic party officials got together and decided that they prefer Hillary, so they gave her the lead in spite of the fact that you, the voters, gave Obama the lead.

Who says Republicans are the only ones who know how to steal elections?

As we've explained before, in addition to the delegates each candidate wins based upon how well they do in each state, each state's Senators, Members of the House, Governor and certain Democratic National Committee officials are their own delegates and they get to vote too. But they don't get to vote like you get to vote. No. They're already delegates, and they get to choose who they throw their delegate vote behind. So what happens is that so far in this race Obama is ahead. But Hillary has a lead in Superdelegates over Obama, 2-1. Those Superdelegates - i.e., party officials that have nothing to do with your vote - have decided to give Hillary the lead in spite of your vote. How do you like that?

Now, if Hillary ends up having the lead in delegates but Obama wins anyway by getting most of the Superdelegates I'll be just as upset. This is no way to pick a president; a bunch of mostly-white mostly-rich mostly-men getting together and deciding if we're smart enough to pick our own candidate. If either candidate has fewer "real" delegates than their opponent, but wins by virtue of their Superdelegates, I think you're going to see a civil war. Imagine what will happen in the black community if a bunch of white Democrats are perceived to have taken the election away from the first black presidential nominee? Imagine how they're going to feel towards the Democratic party in the future? And for that matter, imagine how Hillary voters are going to feel towards Obama if she wins the real delegates but he wins by virtue of the Superdelegates?

--Junichi

ARE ASIAN AND LATINO VOTERS RESISTANT TO THE IDEA OF A BLACK PRESIDENT?

Is Obama's Kryptonite in Chinatown?

For the past few months, I resisted the notion that Chicano/Latino and Asian American Democrats are more likely to vote for Clinton than Obama.

At a recent Poplicks staff meeting, Dr. Wang was trying to convince me of this.

But last night's exit polls have forced me to accept that reality.

In California, Obama won both the black vote and the white vote. Exit polls indicated that 49% of white voters chose Obama, while only 43% chose Clinton. 73% of black voters chose Obama over 25% for Clinton.

And yet, according to CNN, Clinton still prevailed in the Golden State because Chicano/Latinos, who constitute about 30% of the state's registered Democrats, chose Clinton by a 2-to-1 margin: 66% for Clinton, 33% for Obama.

Also, Cali's Asian Americans voted for Clinton by a 3-to-1 margin: 75% for Clinton, 25% for Obama.

These numbers line up with national exit poll data, which similarly reveal that Clinton handily beat Obama among Asian American and Chicano/Latino voters throughout the country.

While I would like to believe these numbers merely reflect the fact that different groups have different concerns, I'd be naive to think that the candidates' race played no part.

I am exhausted by the MSM's inane and pointless discussion of whether America is ready for a black president.

Nonetheless, there seems to be an under-explored side of that story: why Asian and Chicano/Latino voters are not as infected as others by Obamania.

I hate to hyper-generalize and conclude that this reflects that other people of color feel threatened when one specific minority group succeeds. After all, race or gender played no calculation in how I voted.

Yet, with most Democrats evenly split between two candidates with few policy differences between them, a 2-to-1 (Latino) and 3-to-1 (Asian American) disparity is statistically significant. I can't think of any obvious way to explain this disparity that isn't related to race.

Is it possible that non-black people of color are the most resistant to a black president?


Oliver Adds: Speaking of which...where the hell is ANY coverage that discusses the Asian American vote in CA? Last time I checked, the API vote is roughly equal to the African American vote and as Junichi notes above, API voters played a major role in giving Clinton the win, especially in countering both the White and Black voters who leaned Obama.

Yet you scour the news and it's barely mentioned despite the fact that the 75% margin is the most disproportional swing amongst any of the major demographic categories.

I'm still a little in shock of it myself. Had it been more like the Latino vote - 60/40, I could have understood that. But 75/25?

Should we blame S.B. Woo?

--Junichi

CITIZEN'S RIGHTS

Obama, if you must know. Take that Derek! ;)

--O.W.

FOR THOSE ON THE FENCE

Behind this man is a McCain presidency

According to pundits, there are still thousands of Super-Duper Tuesday voters sitting on the fence between Senators Obama and Clinton.

I thought about writing a long post on the (few) policy differences between the two, as well as my reasons for voting for Senator Obama.

But then, I saw part of this new national Washington Post/ABC News poll and it's pretty much all anybody needs to know ...

McCain vs Hillary
49% - 46%

McCain vs Obama
46% - 49%

Romney vs Hillary
41% - 53%

Romney vs Obama
34% - 59%

Although I realize poll numbers wildly fluctuate (looking at you, Rudy), this confirms my long-held belief that the difference between Clinton and Obama is a Republican presidency.

--Junichi

BARACK STAR

This Will.i.am production is a very effective pro-Obama propaganda video, even though it doesn't actually say much at all.

As far as Will.i.am messages go, it's certainly a step up from "Let's Get Retarded."

I'm impressed that he resisted repackaging his own song as follows:

Baby where’d you get your health care from?
Tell me where’d you get your health care from?
I got it from Obama!
I got it from Obama!
I got it from Obama!
I got it, got it, got got it…

Also, for your enjoyment, here's another indirect Obama endorsement in the guise of a message to Ralph Nader:

--Junichi

HILLAR, PLEASE.

In light of the smörgåsbord of offensive statements the Clintons made in both courting and dismissing the black vote in South Carolina, I believe the picture above says it all.

Heck, this might even be the best photo in the history of presidential politics.

*

The numbers out of South Carolina's primaries are stunning:

Democratic voters in yesterday's primary: about 530,322
Republican voters in last week's primary: about 446,000

Keep in mind that South Carolina hasn't gone "Blue" since 1976.

*

Another astonishing fact is that Sen. Clinton didn't even win the white vote among Democrats in South Carolina. According to exit polls ...

Edwards 39%
Clinton 36%
Obama 24%

Unfortunately, these numbers don't bode well for Obama.

Still, I'd like to believe that those who voted for Edwards and Clinton would vote for Obama in the general election.

Which is to say, come November, South Carolina could very well be the state that pushes the electoral count in favor of a black Democrat winning the White House.

Whowouldathunkdat? Given that the confederate flag still flies on the front lawn of South Carolina's Capitol building, this is quite a welcome development from the Palmetto State.

--Junichi

I [HEART] HUCKABEE!

Victory!

Congratulations to Governor Mike Huckabee on winning Iowa's Republican Caucus.

This is great news for those of us who ...

• ... equate gays and lesbians with pedophiles and necrophiliacs
• ... do not believe in evolution
• ... think school shootings are caused by abortion
  
• ... consider environmentalism equivalent to pornography
  

Hooray!

(Seriously, could this not be the best news for the Democrats?)

*

Update 10:12 pm: I'm thrilled that both Edwards and Obama beat Clinton. I prefer Edwards on the issues, but Obama's victory speech was goosebump-inducing good.

Despite the historic win for Obama, here's what I consider the most heart-warming news of the night:

Total Voter Turnout:

356,000

Percentage of total vote:

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

Source: Group News Blog

--Junichi