Confirmation Hearings.

To say that I have completely disengaged national politics since the election would be untrue. While I certainly don't spend nearly as much time following the intricacies in the halls of federal power as I did at the beginning of last autumn, I am still trying to keep my ear to the ground for the rumblings that may kick up significant dust. Barack Obama has now been president for a week, and I'm aware that he has indeed fulfilled his promise to get off to an active start. Michael Savage was on air last night trying to make the case that our new president is abusing his right to pass executive orders. He seems to think that the six times Obama has used the tool is some kind of record. I'm not going to do his homework for him by verifying the validity of the claim.

During Bush's reign there were a number of executive orders that generated controversy. It would be interesting to see an enterprising professional journalist do a side-by-side comparison of Bush and Obama in that regard. But lately my interest has been drawn more by the ongoing discussion about the President's cabinet appointees. The big three so far, as far as I'm concerned, have been Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, and Eric Holder. Hillary was bound to escape much of the nasty criticism and attention she might have drawn had she not been appropriated as the Conservative pundits' poster child for opposition to Obama's candidacy last year. Remember Operation Chaos and all those silly right-wingers with their 'I heart" Clinton sock puppets?

Meanwhile former president of the New York Federal Reserve Tim Geithner seemed like an incredibly cautious choice for Treasury Secretary. He was widely seen as non-partisan, and had significant support from many financial and political quarters. While he did draw some flak for his role as a key adviser in the Wall Street Meltdown Crisis, he managed to come off as an establishment guy that might just have the answers to get the nation out of the mess that had been brewing for years. No one expected anything else but a quick and uncomplicated Senate confirmation hearing that would be more ceremonial than investigative. And then information about Geithner's tax evasion in the early part of this decade came to light.

Geithner was able to weather the controversy, but he emerged into his position with more bruises than anyone really expected. Sure, it's a bit ironic to hear a bunch of Republicans whine about a guy who didn't particularly relish the idea of paying federal taxes, but this is more of an issue of strict adherence to rules than concordance of basic philosophies. Perhaps Geithner would be hailed as a hero (on the Right) for his past foibles if he were a Bush appointee? It's all a bit beside the point anyway, as he was ushered into the Obama administration officially by a 60-34 senate vote. Still he could end up being a black mark on the President's economic recovery program should things not work out in an ideal fashion (which they won't).

Now we can expect to see the Eric Holder saga taking center stage in the upcoming media cycle. Obama's nomination for Attorney General has been called on the carpet to justify his participation in the Clinton pardon of Democratic campaign contributor Mark Rich. A fact not likely to receive much media play is that Holder first attained the federal bench via appointment by former President Ronald Reagan. Similarly, conservative pundits and skeptics (like Arlen Specter) are likely to gloss over the fact that George W. Bush used Holder as the acting Attorney General in 2001, while awaiting the confirmation of super-dolt John Ashcroft. And finally, the same critics probably won't bring up Holder's encouragement of the strong independent counsel that Janet Reno set in motion, resulting in a an impeachment hearing for the last Dem president. Washington can always rely on an awfully short institutional memory.

Where In the World is Hillary Clinton?

As Barack Obama looked more and more likely to win the primary election this past summer, many observers wondered if Hillary Clinton would accept the decision of the voters. Perhaps she would try to find a way to include the excluded delegates from Michigan and Florida. Maybe she would try to make the case that Obama couldn't win the bigger swing states, and attempt to outmaneuver his campaign at the convention. As the time approached for her to either accept or dispute the outcome of the race, everyone waited with anticipation to see what she would do. Obviously, by now the entire nation knows what happened- she conceded the race and pledged to support Obama's candidacy in the general election, and her husband convincingly echoed those sentiments.

Still people wondered whether the Clintons would feel snubbed because Hillary was not tagged as Obama's running mate. Conventional wisdom suggested that she was likely considered, before being rejected in favor of Joe Biden. The McCain campaign exploited the situation by picking an unknown female politician from a remote state as his Vice Presidential nominee. Since then Sarah Palin has energized the base and inspired an avalanche of charges and countercharges among the media, her fans and detractors. In the meantime she has been vocal in praising the Clinton candidacy, claiming to have been inspired by Hillary's example. She has also tried to claim the support of "disenchanted" Clinton voters.

That latest charge is, at its core, essentially irrational. How any reasonable supporter of a Clinton candidacy could transfer his/her loyalties to Palin simply because of gender boggles my mind, and makes me a bit contemptuous of their mental capabilities. Their positions on all of the major issues are virtually dichotomous. Still we are told by Right Wing pundits and the McCain/Palin campaign that women voters who had formerly backed Clinton are flocking to the other side. I suspect that many of these folks are the so-called "PUMAs" that only voted for Hillary at the behest of hack radio host Rush Limbaugh. His calculated attempt to stop the Obama candidacy by having Republicans register to vote in the Democratic primaries fell flat on its face (see Operation Chaos).

But the lip service that disingenuous "conservatives" paid Clinton only betrayed their fears of an Obama victory. The same thing holds true post-convention. The idea that Sarah Palin would represent the core values of women drawn to Hillary Clinton is patently ridiculous. This is a politician who believes that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest. This is a governor who knowingly replaced the fired public safety commissioner (who had refused to sack her ex-brother-in-law) with someone with an alleged history of sexual harassment*. Meanwhile the executive director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault reports that the high rates of domestic violence and rape in Palin's state "haven't been on her radar as a priority".

McCain's record on "women's issues" is even worse. He has been vocal in his opposition to the Equal Pay Bill for Women, and has suggested that what they need instead is more "education and training"**. In an attempt to kill existing legislation, he voted to suspend the Family and Medical Leave Act, "unless the federal government certified that compliance would not increase business expenses or provide financial assistance to businesses to cover any related costs." And like his running mate, McCain supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade. However, despite these concerns, Hillary Clinton is allowing the McCain/Palin ticket to claim her former supporters without any substantive challenge. Her campaign staffers have said that they won't allow her to be used as Obama's "attack dog". While that is certainly their right, it makes me wonder about her intentions and speculations about 2012.


*As a result of the public disclosure of these complaints, Chuck Kopp resigned two weeks after Sarah Palin appointed him. Palin admits having been aware of these reports when she offered him the position.



**Maybe the training he has in mind is the VP position?






ENDNOTE: This post was inspired in part by Carlo Osi's articulate and insightful analysis, "The Clinton Factor versus the Palin Effect". Please read it here.

POSTSCRIPT: I wrote this post on Tuesday, and then found out later that Hillary Clinton had a few words with Diane Sawyer (on Good Morning America) . Could this be the start of real support for the Obama/Biden campaign? Well, she did make a point of trying to redirect the attention from Palin to McCain. I'm not quite sure that spin is the best she can do for the ticket at this point.

Who Plays Second Fiddle?

Generally it seems like a real bad idea to make early predictions regarding American politics. The media environment is often way too arbitrary in its coverage, and has the ability to swing events in unanticipated ways. For instance, who knew that they would lend credibility to "Swift boats for Truth" in the 2004 presidential election? With Bush's poor performance and ratings during his first term, most sensible observers were calling for him to be soundly defeated in his re-election bid. Inexplicably he prevailed. It's my contention that Kerry was torpedoed by the media. They made him look completely ineffectual, even with his long record of service to our federal government. I realize that I offer speculation at my own peril.

About a year and a half ago I suggested (on this very blog) that Barack Obama had a good chance at becoming our first black president. Even on its surface it's a claim that ignores the obvious reality- Obama is as "white" as he is "black". But that's not part of the story this election cycle, and so the terms have been established regarding his racial identity. There were certainly times in the intervening months that I've second-guessed myself. It looked to me as if Obama's handlers were going to make him assume a 'vanilla' campaign strategy. He seemed for a bit to be a bit too conservative in his rhetoric. His usual 'spark' was missing. However it returned in full when the Jeremiah Wright flap hit the press.

Now the media seems more-than-ready to call the race for Obama. They are treating him as the presumptive nominee. It is reported that he has the lead in both pledged and superdelegates. Apparently his lead is insurmountable by Hilary Clinton. Her chances have been trumped by mathematical analysis. "She can't win." So now what? The big question (as far as I'm concerned) is, "Who will be Obama's running mate?" Naturally the obvious choice would be his 'newly-defeated' opponent. The media has been pushing the message that many Clinton voters have expressed their opposition to supporting Obama. I suspect that this isn't true. This assumption may be an unintended consequence of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos".

While it seemed like a forgone conclusion that, had Clinton prevailed, she would have certainly picked Obama for the second spot on the ticket- I'm not sure that the opposite will hold true. A lot of people have suggested that her ego will not allow her to seek anything less than the Presidency. Others have said that they doubt that Obama would want the former first couple looking over his shoulder. I don't think that either of these contentions are true. Hillary and Bill would obviously bring a wealth of useful experience to the prospective administration. I believe that Obama has a strong enough personality to counter any influence peddling. Likewise he has thought a lot about his positions and would not compromise himself based on external pressures.

Still all of this does not mean Obama should invite Clinton on board. Perhaps he will consider geography when he makes his decision. John Edwards has declared himself out, but Jim Webb from Virginia might do the trick. He's a moderate and a military veteran. Or maybe Obama decides he needs to shore up the Midwest, and chooses the youthful 'rising star' Evan Bayh, or Claire McCaskill from Missouri. Conventional wisdom suggests that he must pick someone who won't 'harm the ticket'. It's not the time to court controversy. I've been suspecting he may tag Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico. That would be a major advantage in courting the growing Latino vote, and balance the ticket with a perceived 'middle-of-the-road' bureaucrat with foreign relations experience.

On the Eve of the PA Democratic Primary...

Here we are smack dab on the day before a major contest that could decide the contest to see who the Democratic candidate for President will be. In Pennsylvania primary voters have gotten used to being largely irrelevant in the primary nomination process. By April most presidential election cycles have all but been officially concluded. This year is obviously different. A strong victory by Clinton could possibly make her a front-runner once again. With strong support from superdelegates to make up for a shortfall in the pledge delegate count, I would hardly consider her an also-ran. Conversely, if Obama does well (either winning or getting very close), a lot of people are going to be clamoring for his coronation.

Hillary Clinton's lead (once in the double digits) has narrowed to less than five points. As in every previous state primary, it appears that Obama is an exceptionally strong finisher. This is an incredible feat, given the amount of space and time the media has been devoting to analyzing Obama's every utterance. Last week we had a big flap about the following quote about Pennsylvanians in small towns, and their frustration with the past few presidential administrations' unfulfilled promises: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

It's not surprising that these words got plucked completely out of context, and presented as if they were a condemnation of our state's villagers. The Clintons command a lot of loyalty from the establishment, and no one's been all that successful at getting criticism to stick to Obama. So I understand the desperation here. But when you read that quote in relation to his prevalent theme, it's quite clear that Obama was saying that he could be a voice for those folks. Of course that's incredibly frightening to both the Hillary camp and the rabid right wing. There's a certain brazen irony about the way people have been spinning this disembodied quote. Some are trying to brand Obama as an 'elitist'. Don't be surprised if the AM radio hacks try to ride this 'controversy' all the way until November.

Of course Obama is about as far from being an 'elitist' as you are going to find in Washington today. And consequently, he's not a 'socialist', or a Muslim, or a hate-monger. Still he has been called all of these things. I suppose that his opponents feel that the more shit they throw at the wall, the more that is likely to stick. The latest snippet his detractors have decided to focus on is a perversion of his feelings about George W. Bush. Obama said "You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain. And all three of us would be better than George Bush." While this certainly reveals a troublesome predisposition to stray from negative campaigning, it definitely reveals his sense of the moment.

But instead of accepting Obama's message of optimism, Clinton has decided to twist his words into an endorsement of John McCain. There is an underlying message being communicated when Clinton calls Obama a cheerleader for his opponent- she promises a much nastier approach to winning the Presidency. The instrumental question is whether or not attack politics will be effective in the general election, or if undecided voters would prefer a message of conciliation. I know I would enjoy seeing Obama adopt a more critical tone, but I'm already in his camp. Tomorrow is going to be an indirect gauge of the comparative elements of the strategies employed by these two candidates. May the best man win.

Would you like some freedom fries with your New World Order?

I feel fortunate to be part of a social circle that is willing to address the bigger questions in life, regardless of whether anybody within our group can actually do much to address the problems that we talk about. I certainly don't find it useless to discuss situations over which we have minimum control. At some level I think it's important merely to get the words out, and maybe the reverberations will catch the ear of someone in power. As a citizen of a nation that gives ample lip service to the glories of democracy, I consider it my civic duty both to have an opinion and to communicate it. I'm fully aware that many Americans simply can't be bothered to discuss politics, but I think that's a mistake.

I have one particular friend who has recently been concerned about the prospect of a world government. He sent me a video clip that he found on YouTube which features Walter Cronkite accepting an award at a gathering of internationalists called the World Federalist Association (watch it here). At the end of the video, Hillary Clinton makes an appearance via closed circuit television. I detect a distinct bias in the presentation, as it is quite obvious that whoever edited this piece meant it to be foreboding. If you watch it, I think you'll see what I mean. I was asked to respond (specifically in reference to my friend's fear that a world government would engage in genocide to systematically reduce the world's population) , and the following is what I wrote, albeit with minor changes...

"I noticed that this was edited significantly so that Cronkite's words were often presented out of context. Particularly egregious is the segment that has him joking about sitting at the side of Satan. Of course this clip was isolated so as to provoke those most horrified by the idea of a world government- religious fundamentalists. The only greater authority for them is their specific conception of God. They recognize no other government as valid. To them, this Youtube selection is simply a herald of the apocalypse as depicted in Revelations.

The only reference I heard in this video to "genocide" is Hillary Clinton's lauding of Walter Cronkite for his involvement in WFA's mission to END world genocide. That's the exact opposite of what you posit as the great threat of world government. The idea of a world government, as Cronkite clearly spells out, is to be able to hold individuals (like Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) accountable for their repeated crimes against humanity. If we accept the need for a federal government to regulate interstate commerce and prosecute people whose crimes transcend state borders, then why shouldn't that concept be applicable on a greater level?

These ne'er-do-wells (the ones I mentioned above, plus CEO's of profit-driven countries across the world) are currently insulated from the nasty consequences of their actions by the idea of national sovereignty. There's no reason to continue to allow them to hide behind an archaic idea that has only caused suffering for humanity, every other species of animal, and the ecosystem in general. This formation of the inviolability of national borders is exactly what has caused us to be in the dire situation that we find ourselves in. The current formulation is just not working.

An enlightened and meticulously constructed system of worldwide regulation over individual actors is not just desirable- it is a necessity for the future survival of the planet. Why let those controlling the largest and most technologically advanced military forces decide what is best for the world's citizenry? Especially when the key figures behind that military-industrial complex are completely unaccountable to ordinary people? In resisting organizations like the WFA, that is the situation you continue to empower."

Of course there is much in our dialog that I haven't presented in this post. I don't think it's appropriate or respectful to print my friend's words in this forum. Our discussion has continued, and I'm sure that we'll both be moved to work through the vast complexities of the topic. But I think it's only fair that I point out that my friend's perspective is formed more through libertarian philosophy than millenarian religious belief. Still I can't help but believe that the folks who are most resistant to the idea of world government seem willing to use biblical prophecy to foment hysteria about the possibility (my friend excluded, of course). No doubt they'll ensure that the conversation is emotional and fraught with fear. As for me, I'm sure I'll return to the subject soon.

Hillary and Florida. Hillary and Michigan.

If you've been following the progression of the primaries, you are no doubt aware of the controversial situations in Florida and Michigan. These two states decided to move their elections up ahead of Super Tuesday, the traditional day of reckoning for each party's aspiring presidential nominees. Because these actions were explicitly forbidden by the Democratic Party leadership, it was decided that the delegates from these two states would be stripped from the Democratic National Convention. The three front-runners for the party's nomination (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards) agreed to help enforce this ruling by refusing to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Only candidate Mike Gravel continued to actively pursue the vote in these states.

At the time of the original ruling (last August) Hillary Clinton seemed to have no qualms about boycotting these two primaries. She went as far as to publicly state on public radio,"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." This seems like a fairly unequivocal stance to me. In fact it is suggested that both Clinton and Obama did mount limited unofficial campaigns in Florida. And they both remained on the ballot in the "sunshine state". In Michigan Obama took his name off the ballot, while Clinton decided not to remove hers. It was clear that Clinton believed that she would triumph in Michigan, and she refused to cede the momentum that she thought the victory would bring her.

After Clinton won by handy margins in the disputed primaries, she seemed to hint at a fundamental change of attitude. After the victories, her campaign issued the following statement-"The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else." Easy for her to say, of course... but the stance seemed to fall a bit short of calling for the delegates to be reinstated. Perhaps she had confidence that she would continue to pick up an overwhelming majority as the weeks passed. But that was not what fortune had in store for the Clinton camp. Now after losing in ten straight state elections, Clinton has changed her tune. There is talk that she will mount a lawsuit against the party if she doesn't get her way.

With the relative weakness of opposition coming from the GOP, this broiling conflict has the potential to sabotage Democratic efforts to win in November. Currently it appears that neither Obama nor Clinton will accumulate enough delegates to be automatically declared the victor before the Convention. Apparently the choice is going to come down to the "superdelegates"- those representatives of the party that are entrenched and therefore given the latitude to cast their votes as they choose, regardless of the preferences of the voters in the states. If Florida and Michigan delegates are allowed to participate in the convention, they could possibly muddle the process with unnecessary controversy.

The only outcome that will preclude such a controversy is a series of substantial Obama victories in the remaining primaries. If he is able to clear the difference that the inclusion of Florida and Michigan delegates would make for Clinton, then he is almost sure to be the unchallenged nominee at the Convention. On the other hand, if this isn't the case, then Michigan and Florida will have had undue influence in the ultimate outcome. In my opinion that would be a travesty of justice, since both the Democratic Party and the serious contenders for the presidency initially agreed that there should be no campaigns in those states. Democratic voters are already so disillusioned by the political process (after the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections) that any significant disagreement over procedural policy might be a fatal blow to a likely takeover of the executive branch.

Does Bill Clinton help Hillary's chances?

A couple of weeks ago I heard one of the seemingly-interchangeable conservative talk radio pundits say that Hillary Clinton owes her presidential aspirations to her husband. I suppose that this assertion is fairly uncontroversial on its surface. Had Bill Clinton never attained the presidency, it's likely his wife wouldn't have become the senator from New York. But that's not all that anonymous hack was talking about- he was actually claiming that Hillary somehow owed her successes to Bill's infidelities. I had a hard time following the logic of this argument. I assume that this guy was suggesting that people felt sorry for Hillary during "Lewinsky-gate", and therefore were more willing to give her the benefit-of-the-doubt as a politician. This particular claim seems ridiculous, but I won't deny that Bill Clinton's actions do affect Hillary's fortunes. They have in the past, and they will continue to do so.

It's clear that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president on the merits of Bill's two terms in office. She's obviously hoping that people will make a comparison between the last eight years of Bush rule, and the mid to late 90's. Certainly there are many people (especially within the Democratic party) who would accept the notion that the nation looked brighter under Clinton's management. I actually think that Dubya has done more for Bill Clinton's political legacy than any other American alive, including the former president himself. Obviously most of our history's executives look better in comparison with George W. Bush. That's the main reason why none of the current candidates for the office have much in common with the man. Even many who have struggled to defend his record are ready for change. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they want to return to the Clinton years.

In fact many progressives would prefer that almost any other Democrat (besides Hillary) win the 2008 primary. For one thing, they concede that the prospect of another Clinton presidency could be the one thing that mobilizes the increasingly deteriorating Republican coalition to show up for the general election. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton isn't representative of truly progressive politics (nor was her husband). She promises no real health care reform. She has done little to challenge the aggressive foreign policy goals of the Bush administration. She doesn't seem to be much of a friend to working people. There's actually very little indication of what agenda she will actually pursue if she achieves victory. She's very much an establishment candidate.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton is doing very little to help Hillary's chances of winning. The greatest asset he demonstrated during his presidency was his ability to come off as a diplomatic and thoughtful man. If nothing else he was moderately likable. His ability to connect with a wide range of people masked the fact that he was accomplishing little of the Democratic agenda. Still many of the faithful were willing to invest their trust in his management skills. Unfortunately for his wife, he seems to have changed dramatically in the intervening years. He has shown himself to be defensive, deceitful and petty in his support for his wife's pursuit of the presidency. His attacks on Barack Obama seem shrill and impulsive. The media, who were often charmed by his wit and patience in the 90's, has been unpredictably critical of his approach.

Additionally, I don't think that the Democratic Party machine appreciates the increasingly ugly tone with which Bill Clinton has been attacking Hillary's chief rival. The type of slash-and-burn techniques that he is employing could come back to hurt Obama's chances after the primaries are over. I think that's why we are seeing more and more respected Democratic leaders endorsing Obama. The support of Claire McCaskill, John Kerry, and Caroline Kennedy for the upstart senator from Illinois must weigh heavily on the Clinton collective mind. And when Edward Kennedy actually evokes his dead brothers' memories to back a candidate, it's clear that the tide is turning. It would be interesting to see what effect true desperation has on the Clintons.

What's Up with Michigan?

Today is the day for the Michigan primaries. This is the first presidential election in which the state has moved its primary date into January. The decision has yielded decidedly mixed results. While the GOP seems to be taking the new setup in stride, the Democratic party has resisted the move. In fact the Dem candidates for the presidency agreed not to campaign at all in the state. Of the three front runners, only Hillary Clinton has allowed her name to remain on the ballot. According to Democratic Party rules, only four states can hold their primaries before February 5th. In addition to the states that have already voted, only Nevada and South Carolina get this unique privilege.

While the Dems have shut the Michigan delegates completely out of the process, the Republicans have only withdrawn half of the state's representatives to their national convention. This is a mild punishment for a significant step toward primary anarchy. Apparently both parties will extend these consequences respectively to Florida- where party leaders also saw fit to vault themselves into national prominence. The growing controversy over timing for the primaries has become a bit of a media circus. Certainly Clinton has only exacerbated the issue by remaining in the contest. She was likely to win anyway if no one campaigned, so her continued presence is simple political expedience.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the race for the Democratic nomination remains close after February. Will Hillary Clinton insist that her Michigan victory counts? In fact it's a bit difficult to figure out just whose motivations are pure in this little debacle. Edwards and Obama can claim to have taken the high road, congratulating themselves for being loyal to the Democratic National Committee. But since they weren't going to sink money into a potential victory, they had little at stake in resting on principle. On the other hand, why should Clinton willingly give up the delegates she would have received from a sure victory?

The Republicans are now engaged in a heated three-way battle to reach the top of their diminishing heap of candidates. Mitt Romney has attained the penultimate position in both of the previous two state primaries, and he hopes to finally achieve a victory to build upon. The possibility exists that he will finish strong, since Michigan is his home state. Meanwhile John McCain believes that he can continue the momentum from his New Hampshire win if he can only pull out a victory in this beleaguered state. This would be a huge coup for McCain, whose campaign seemed to collapse under its own weight last year. There's still not much noise coming from the Giuliani camp, which is a bit surprising considering the widespread perception that he is an "electable" candidate.

I have to admit that I'm happy for the asterix that will be attached to today's electoral results. The entire concept of primaries bothers me because I don't believe in party politics- especially in a two-party system like we currently have. We have invested too much time, trust, energy, and money into what appears to be a fixed and closed establishment that demands fealty and conformity from anyone who desires a place in federal government. The arbitrary order of state primaries exposes the inherent inequity of the system. The more people disagree about the primary process, the more likely people are to find the entire structure illegitimate. I'd personally like to see primaries eliminated altogether. We need to find a more "fair and balanced" way to narrow the field of candidates.

Looking Ahead to Next November.

Now that the 2007 elections are over, we can finally devote our full attention to next year's presidential race. The primary season has been pushed up earlier than ever before. Iowa gets pole position on January 3rd. The reason for this early date is Michigan's decision to hold their own on January 15th. By the time Pennsylvania's primary rolls around, the contest will be all but decided. One can only guess how Montana and South Dakota feel about this setup, since they come last (on June 3rd). Chances are that their events won't even make national news.

Honestly, I feel that I could just about call the race already. However much I might want Barack Obama to win the Democratic nomination, it's looking more and more like he hasn't got a chance. Despite trailing only Hillary Clinton in campaign contributions, he is losing by approximately 20 points in all of the major polls. Clinton's lead has been growing steadily for the last six months. Barring any major scandal or revelation, it doesn't appear that Obama will catch up. That's a real shame (as far as I'm concerned) because he looked very inspiring as he announced his candidacy. If there's one single thing that Bill O'Reilly and I would agree upon, it is that Obama has made a big mistake in listening to his handlers. Whomever he's picked to be his advisers, they seem to have put him on a strict diet of "vanilla". Meanwhile John Edwards has distinguished himself as the true embodiment of a change in the nation's direction. Too little, too late... Johnny-boy.

On the Republican side, Rudolph Giuliani is looking like a good bet. He's been fighting Fred Thompson in the opinion polls for months, trading places numerous times. But many observers are saying that Thompson is looking lost and tired. His initial burst of enthusiasm upon entering the race looks to be waning, and he lacks the type of funding that a serious challenge for the nomination requires. Although he seems like he would be the ideal choice for the Christian right, the world of conservative punditry remains skeptical. He's also got some major skeletons in his closet. Before his most recent television fame, he served as US Senator from the state of Tennessee, garnering a reputation as a somewhat lazy lawmaker. Prior to assuming that office he lobbied hard for the deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry. Any moderate student of late the Twentieth Century can tell you that this led to one of the most costly financial boondoggles in the history of American government.

Even though he is the current leader of the pack, Giuliani is not an obvious pick for the GOP. He may have built his media reputation on the back of the defining event of the new epoch, but a close scrutiny of his reaction in the wake of 9-11 reveals a continuity of incompetence and indecision that extends backward into his time as NYC mayor. His campaign against urban crime was often overshadowed by incidents of police misconduct, civil rights violations and numerous conflicts of ego. Additionally, a number of his political appointees faced criminal charges as a result of their "loyal service" to the city (see Bernard Kerik). As symbolic leader of the self-described "values party", Giuliani has severe shortcomings. He played a significant role in protecting a childhood friend that molested children in his capacity as Catholic priest. This same friend served Giuliani by helping him annul his first marriage- just so Rudy could marry his new girlfriend. Unfortunately for this second wife, Giuliani had a series of affairs with other women (some of which were alleged to be his employees). When he left her, he moved into an apartment owned by two of his "gay friends". Since then he has become estranged from his own children.

When you consider Giuliani's avowed support for the public funding of abortion and gay marriage, you have to wonder whether these positions will inspire Christian leaders to help get out the vote for the Republican ticket. I'd have to guess that James Dobson and his cohorts are going to choke on their communion wafers when they are asked to throw their considerable influence behind such a character. They'd have a hard time with the waffling Mormon (also-ran Mitt Romney) as well. Ultimately I believe that, without Christian Conservatives in the coalition of the right, the GOP simply can't win a national election. And that means we have our first woman president.



On a Brighter Note: While trolling Wikipedia, I discovered an interesting fact- this is the first year since 1928 that no incumbents (president or V.P) will be running in the general election. No matter what else this cycle brings us, we can thank the fates that Dick Cheney has decided not to seek the presidency. Not that I truly believe that he would have had a chance in hell of winning... but somehow I feel heartened that I won't have to watch that fool out on the hustings. Every time I see his face on television I am awash in a wave of profound disgust.

Reconsidering Democratic Candidates for 2008 Presidential Election.

I really didn't anticipate having to take another close look at the field of presidential candidates. Until quite recently, I was hands down in favor of Barack Obama. Having seen clips of his speeches, I was convinced that he was presenting an element of sincerity not seen in any political campaign as long as I've been alive. But lately I'm not so sure. It's as if his handlers and advisers have taken him aside and warned him to curtail his true feelings. He sounds tentative and indecisive. He's not setting the tone of the dialogue at all, and I find that completely disappointing. Unless he resumes the spirit and attitude he had a year ago, there's no chance of him getting the Democratic nomination. The problem is that I don't have anyone to support in lieu of Obama.

I've heard a lot of good things come out of the mouth of John Edwards lately. I like his seeming commitment to environmental issues. I like the idea of ending the Iraqi war, and putting our resources into alternative energies. Our foreign policy cannot continue to be centered on oil dependency. Yet while Edwards hits a lot of the right notes in his speeches, I simply don't believe anything he says. I don't know whether its his southern accent, or if its his abysmal record of avoiding controversial issues between election campaigns. It's great to have and state convictions- but I have a hard time finding the real-life advances Edwards has made toward his stated agenda. I do realize his party was in the minority during his tenure in the senate. Still... he actually co-sponsored Lieberman's Iraq War resolution, and he voted for the Patriot Act. After his "retirement" from the Washington political arena, he worked for a Wall Street investment firm.

Of course the candidate to beat is Senator Hillary Clinton. In the opinion of some observers (including Alan Greenspan), she is married to one of the best Republican presidents we ever had. Unfortunately her family was attacked by a sustained campaign of false moral rectitude and righteously delivered character assassination. Certainly some of the irrational anger that was directed against her husband has rubbed off on her. She is the bogeywoman of the right wing. They constantly invoke her when they want to mobilize their political base. All the while I wonder why conservatives haven't embraced her. She began her political career as president of her college's Young Republican Club, and served as a volunteer on ultraconservative presidential contender Barry Goldwater's campaign. Hillary's been a tireless advocate for the American occupation of Iraq. Her early-90's failure to come up with a viable healthcare plan for the nation was so resounding that it virtually ended all serious discussion of the issue for over a decade. I would think that Hillary Clinton would be the perfect moderate compromise option, if she hadn't been so thoroughly vilified by the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh. Of course it wouldn't hurt her chances if she had a penis.

So after you eliminate the big three, then who is left? There are the marginal candidates that don't have a chance in hell of winning the primary. Joe Biden is clearly the Republican-lite choice. He is basically Hillary Clinton in white male packaging. Bill Richardson is the stealth minority candidate (do y'all know he's part Mexican?). Then we have special interest favorite- Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut. Dodd's been in bed with Enron, Morgan Stanley, Arthur Andersen, and the International Association of Fire Fighters (!) He'd most likely get support from NORML, due to his stated intentions to decriminalize marijuana. Bringing up the rear is perpetual also-ran Dennis Kucinich. He's both a consistent advocate for peace and the seeming embodiment of comic relief for the mainstream media. The last time Kucinich was taken seriously was when he was the boy mayor of Cleveland (1978).

Finally... we have a new face in the field- Mike Gravel, the former senator from Alaska. He seems to be elbowing in on Kucinch's territory as the lone voice of the far-left. He's taken some interesting positions including calling for the abolishment of the IRS, a national sales tax, a single-payer national health care system, equal rights for gays, nuclear disarmament, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and term limits. But Gravel is primarily known for his support of direct democracy (the National Initiative). This entails allowing the people to cast votes in ballot initiatives at the federal level, effectively making them an additional legislative body of the United States. It would be naive to think that Gravel has much chance of winning the presidency, but he adds some fresh ideas to the national dialogue. Unfortunately the press tends to willfully ignore (or deride) proposals that they deem to be too distant from "the center". While I think he'd be a worthwhile alternative to Obama, I'm way too cynical to suggest him as a viable Democratic nominee for president.