It Sure Takes a Village

George W. Bush has forcefully stuffed seven years of non-existent straw men down our throats, namely variations of the "Some people say..." rhetorical device (when no people say), and now Hillary Clinton (ever the ambitious one) has gone and done the President one better.

Hillary has begun to create an entire community of straw folk that will make the hard (or even simple) choices while Hillary focuses instead on focus group results.

Here's Hillary on whether the pro-Obama "1984" ad rushing through the internet tubes should be pulled: "You know, that’s for somebody else to decide."

Sound familiar?

Lee Iacocca would be proud--this Senator is "getting out of the way."

I guess we'll have to stay tuned to see how often Clinton employs this new village of deciders throughout the campaign.

Straight Xenophobia-Talk Express

John McCain desperately wants to be popular.

While in Iowa this weekend, McCain said that “Immigration is probably a more powerful issue here than almost anyplace that I’ve been.”

However, he actually meant to say, "Republicans in Iowa are more willing to publicly immigrant-bash than anyplace I've been."

Or maybe he meant to say, "Because I really want to win the Iowa caucuses, I'm going to pretend that angry white people saying things like 'They're stealing from us' or 'We need to build a fencce' moves my soul and prompts me to consider a total flip-flop on my immigration stance."

In related news, McCain visited New Hampshire Monday and noted, "Immigration is probably a more powerful issue here than almost anyplace that I’ve been."

Not Without My Daughter, Not Without My Wives

If this is for real, I may consider moving abroad... or at the very least to Alaska. Oh, that's right. Hillary actually has to win the nomination first. Breathe.

Catch the pro-Obama "1984" ad while it lasts. Man, it is effective, no matter who made it.

Over at re-designed TIME, Joe Klein writes another blog that gets two notions so wrong they hurt: 1) Klein tries to make Governor Huckabee and Senator Brownback look like lovable "grace" Christians with only the best intentions. Huckabee, we are told, is a "destroyer of stereotypes," and impliedly so is Brownback, apparently because they love music and health care, respectively...my what rogues they are. Klein posits each could win the GOP nomination only by becoming wing-nuts that preach fire and brimstone, like say they hate gays and oppose a woman's right to choose. The odd reality, though, is that both guys already do hate gays and reproductive choice! (What Klein calls "requisite" GOP positions, which begs the question: besides obfuscatory rhetoric, how are these guys truly different from the others again?) Huckabee may be a softer side evangelical, but embrace diversity he does not.

Where's the grace in judgment and hatred?

2) Klein goes on to write that Rudy Giuliani and Willard Romney are "moderate candidates that live like liberals," a dazzlingly airhead-esque statement that ignores the objective fact that the serious players in the Democratic field have less total divorces as a group [low-tier hopeful Chris Dodd (1)] than Rudy does on his own. Man, those liberals and their silly commitments for life. Hippie values!

And finally, on the 4th anniversary of the commencement of the Iraq War, President Bush hurriedly reads a script we've all heard before, this time with less conviction. Even a used car salesman can have an off day (very naughty word alert).

Far from the Madding Crowd

Recently, Greg and I attended an event for John Edwards at the UCLA campus. Both of us noted the complete lack of security for the event. Several hundred college students and members of the public filled and surrounded a courtyard as Edwards spoke. Sure, you may say, it's John Edwards--who'd want to harm him, besides Ann Coulter? And in fairness, I never witnessed any security at an Iowa caucus event for Edwards or his wife or for any of the other candidates in 2004. But something tells me 2008 is different. The intensity at any public gathering seems greater than ever, and the thin line of American politeness appears to have thinned.

Today's Washington Post ruminates on the potential of earlier security for presidential candidates as the selection process is underway. I suppose if we are seriously in a war against terrorism and if we value our democracy (the last element there is the catch) you would think that protecting the process itself warrants value, regardless of party. According to the editorial, the budget is there to start protecting the candidates--do we have the will?

Update:U.S. News & World Report impliedly offers evidentiary support that Homeland Security should start protecting all the candidates soon--with the potentially sped-up schedule for choosing the nominee of each party this cycle, money will be left over... why not protect all of them them now?

Lifestyles of the Maverick

Senator McCain had what some might call a Black Friday (or a Not Good Friday).

First, when responding to a questioner at an Iowa forum, McCain said he did not want to get involved with judging the merits of court decisions as President (admirable) because such an area was a "tar baby" for a politician (yikes). I don't believe I know or have heard anyone throughout my entire life use the term "tar baby." (Admittedly, I do not know many 70-year-olds, but surprisingly I do know several 80-year-olds. So figure that one out.)

The point is that McCain apologized for using the term. This apology is OK, if we have to accept it (and we do) but again, why do certain politicians speak in tongues completely separate from modern reality? Who uses this term anymore? Anyone?

Second, when asked a question by a reporter in Iowa (Is this why you skipped the state in 2000, Senator?) McCain traveled down an odd path that left everyone with what might be described as a not-so-fresh feeling. Courtesy of the New York Times, here's the exchange with some color commentary:

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Reporter: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Reporter: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Reporter: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Reporter: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

Let's be clear--there's nothing wrong with not knowing an answer to a question. After almost 7 years of Bush, any attempt to actually answer the question that is posed to you is refreshing. It's also not that incredibly horrible that McCain cannot instantly recall his votes on specific proposals, or that he reflexively told the reporter a sensible position that was one he has actually never held. What seems so troubling is the ease with which McCain was knocked off guard by a logical question involving a topic that has been in the public consciousness for over 25 years now. Even with the reporter's leading follow-ups, McCain was "stumped." I'm afraid one doesn't have to be an employee of the Centers for Disease Control to know that condoms definitely reduce the risk of STDs and also reduce the risk of transmission of HIV.

This sort of dissonance between our political leaders' reality-the highbrow-and the meek underclass' reality-that lowbrow-is one of the main reasons the United States continues to have ill-performing schools, outmoded healthcare bureaucracies, and an intractable four-year War. The lifelong politicians seem to want to solve problems that have evolved into different animals.

It is simple to blame this awkward moment on McCain's age, but obviously it is much more thematic and systemic than that.

The other problematic issue here is that McCain trusts Tom Coburn to provide him with helpful advice on these aspects of healthcare issues. Senator Coburn is a self-aggrandizing "values" wielder, a former Baptist deacon and obstetrician who desires the death penalty for abortionists and blames homosexuals for abortion rates. Coburn was among those who loudly complained when NBC wanted to air an unedited version of the oscar-winning Schindler's List during primetime in 1997, due to nudity (at a holocaust camp) and violence (a War). Coburn must not know about MTV.

What's worse and directly on point is that during the same year, Coburn "proposed a bill that would have ended anonymous testing for HIV/AIDS and required reporting the names of those who tested positive to public health authorities." This is who McCain looks to on healthcare issues?

When Senator McCain says he has "never gotten into these issues before" it isn't too hard to believe. Tom Coburn's healthcare realism is more like straight talk for 1907 and not 2007. I wouldn't be surprised if the HIV policy papers he supplies McCain even fail to mention lambskin.

It's 2008, and we need leaders who have a general awareness of what the present offers citizens on-the-ground, and who offer solutions fit for our times. Preaching abstinence is important, but in the face of America's sexual-activity in 2008, preaching abstinence alone is comparable to sending soldiers to battle without proper armor.

Here's a proposal for McCain's position on contraception: have one.

Meet the Snooze Bar

Tim Russert has an exciting, fast-paced show planned this Sunday, one filled with vivid political narrative and straightforward debate.

Fiction or fact? I report, I decide. Fiction.

This Sunday, Russert is "moderating" a show dedicated to the four year anniversary of the Iraq War (I think the proper gift is Paper). Here's the guest list: Chuck Schumer, Tom Andrews, Tom DeLay, Richard Perle, Joe Sestak. If that were the guest list for a dinner party I was attending, I would be sure to bring my flask.

Since it's only Russert's Sunday show, I'll just hit snooze.

Question for the group: What has happened to Meet the Press lately? The show used to be an excellent way to begin a Sunday, providing informative and up-close views of leaders and opinion-makers. With all of the significant issues facing the nation, one would think there would be plenty of grist for Russert's mill. Sadly, the shows have been a bore.

Thank goodness for Frank Rich, at least. Enjoy the weekend.

A Little Less Conversation

This is rich (not Marc). Former President Clinton is apparently complaining about the New York Times' recent treatment of his wife, in comparison to the way it is treating Senator Barack Obama. Did Bill miss this oddly substance-free front page article the Times ran on Obama's past investments earlier this month (the one with the negative tone that allowed other news outlets to spread innuendo like this)? Or perhaps the awful Maureen Dowd column shortly after Obama's presidential announcement where, among other things, Dowd described Obama as "testy," "irritated," and "conflicted"? I'm sure Bubba caught this objectively kind Times article about the Mrs. from the 15th of March framing Hillary's flailing statements on Iraq as "nuance." (If you click on the link, doesn't that picture look like a halo? Are you scared yet?)

Thus, far, Hillary's campaign and it's "conversation" with America has offered a lot of whining and hesitation and not many policy proposals or steps toward transformational change. What gives?

I like it better when the Dems go after Fox News.

Methinks Bill should save his energy for enemies that, well, actually exist.

Quick Hits

According to ABC News, Karl Rove is more directly tied to the Bush Administration's plan to fire all of the US Attorneys for purely political reasons, er, I mean in the fight against Terror. Yet the national media ignores the story. Too bad Anna Nicole wasn't a US Attorney. Or for that matter David Geffen. This clip of Josh Marshall's appearance on Countdown with Keith Olbermann explains the significance of the attempted and actual firings perfectly.

Adam Nagourney--a reporter who does not handle Democrats with much fairness or maturity (especially John Edwards)--writes a front-page article about John McCain's 2008 troubles for today's New York Times. Overall it's a bland affair, but this mini-paragraph is great:

“This is the way I campaign best: Get on the bus, get off the bus,” Mr. McCain said as the Straight Talk drove circles through downtown Des Moines to permit three networks to get five minutes with him. “I love it.”

Ironic imagery anyone? As Wonkette summarized recently, "John McCain tries to get his campaign to only suck at the level it sucked in 2000."

Could California's earlier primary be a bad thing for the far right? Here's hoping. But wait, if California helps select a more moderate GOP candidate, will that be bad for the Dems? Nevermind: the California GOP are fighting to keep the primary closed to independents. Bad news for Giuliani, good news for, say, Brownback? Regardless, I think Washington state has the best idea of all.

As for the impact of California's primary on Iowa, Tim Russert noted, "no doubt about it, Iowa will become more important now." So much can change in two months, right Mickey Kaus? I'll send you a Vilsack for President bumper sticker. There's a pile of them under my Harkin for President ones.

Finally, another great Wonkette snark you may have missed (bad word alert).

Profiles in Caution

I'm not a fan of litmus tests, or of having single issues rule your decision-making process when it comes to political figures. But sometimes there are topics that speak to a broader capacity for both leadership and sensibility.

Recently, Democratic presidential candidates have been asked to refute or accept comments made by General Peter Pace regarding whether homosexuality is immoral (Pace personally thinks it is, and said that homosexuality was comparable to adultery, suggesting homosexuals should be prosecuted under military law the same way those who commit adultery are).

When pressed to confront Pace's assertions, Hillary Clinton said that she was "going to leave that to others to conclude." Sadly, Senator Barack Obama punted on the topic as well, first providing a too-clever-by-half answer--"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."--and then with a Bushian muddled one--"I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done." Senator John Edwards is the only candidate, thus far, who has been willing to dismiss the notion flat-out. When Tim Russert asked Edwards in February whether homosexuality was a sin, Edwards replied, "No."

After Hillary's and Obama's initial avoidance of the issue, they then issued statements via spokespeople stating that both of them do not, in fact, consider homosexuality immoral.

What worries me about this tiny episode is not the fire in General Pace's pants over the matter--honestly, to compare homosexuality to adultery is a horribly incoherent way to prove your moral mettle--but how the opportunity it provided politicians like Hillary to display some courage was ignored.

Perhaps the adultery concept hit too close to home for Hillary, and she was in no mood to point out that a broken promise made during marriage is simply not morally comparable to one's sexual orientation.

Regardless of whether General Pace was referring to homosexual acts or homosexuality in general, his notion itself is immoral. It's not Christian by any stretch of the imagination. The religious right likes to fashion itself as a moral savior, hiding behind an unethical, lying President and Republican Party, while calling out groups it deems "immoral." It is safe to say General Pace has at one point or another violated some teaching in the Bible (working on Sunday, perhaps) but that is not of our concern. We live in an age where those who use "morals" to attack consider themselves victims of those they assail. These folks never offer proof beyond a bible passage of any harm done to them, aside from their interrupted peace of mind.

What makes Hillary Clinton's response so troubling is that she aggressively seeks money, time and support from gay voters. If she believes those gay supporters of hers are immoral, she should say so and return their money. That is her prerogative. But Hilary's spokesman now says she does not believe homosexuality is immoral. If true, then for her to sit still and allow individuals like Pace to offensively attack a group of citizens in the name of "values" is shameful and immoral. It's almost like having a pregnant, gay daughter and refusing to defend her rights while simultaneously using her to show your unique brand of "tolerance."

Hillary spoke these words in Selma, Alabama on March 4th, using a drawl only the most manipulative of maneuverers could muster: "You know, Dr. King told us -- Dr. King told us our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

I would say defending the rights of a homosexual couple who adopts a child and provides a loving home of character for that child, matters. I would say standing up to words that create an atmosphere where slander and violence against a homosexual teenager is acceptable and warranted by God, matters. Or, I would say simply stating that divisive hatred and outmoded "moral judgment" are not a proper basis for government or military policy, matters.

But I guess that's for others to conclude.

Update: Clinton tries again. I wonder why Senator Warner was able to be so clear, so quickly? Or Senator Edwards?

Update 2: Clinton had this to say on Bloomberg Television

"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."

It's always like this with triangulating pols like the Clintons, they save their eloquence and passion after it's too late and only after being cornered. This kind of reactionary politics is a core reason why the Democrats lost in 2004. I sure hope we're smart enough to avoid it in 2008.

The Body Electric

Oh the thoughts I've had these past few weeks (and no, they didn't all involve how awful Hillary is as a candidate...)

Let's start small.

I spent most of this past week living in a hotel in Ontario, CA while taking the bar examination there. The conservative foothill of the Inland Empire offered me clear views of the snowy San Bernardino Mountains and the chill of constant winds. It also had a prominent spot for FOXNEWS on the cable dial. And I must say, every time I passed the channel, Sean Hannity or some other "balanced" figure was rattling on about Al Gore's electric bill, always ending their thought with a screeching of the word, "Hypocrite."

Apparently Ozone Man isn't supposed to turn on the lights.

Does anyone think it's a tiny bit more hypocritical to send thousands of sons and daughters into a war you claim is the battle of our generation but then not force your own daughters to contribute to the cause in any substantive way?

Or how about the hypocrisy of supporting a ban on gay marriage and a general anti-homosexual agenda while trotting out your own pregnant lesbian daughter as implied proof of your decency?

Or, even, how about calling yourself "fair and balanced" and then spending a whole week on Al Gore's electric bill?

Love it.