Oi, This is Bad

I think that I probably should do a post on the whole Blago thing. Ok, as I'm sure you are all aware of by now, Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois was arrested by the FBI yesterday on charges of corruption related to his attempted sale of Barack Obama's now vacant seat in the U.S. Senate. No, that's not a misprint, the dude actually tried to sell a seat in the United States Senate. Obviously, this isn't a very classy move and even though it appears that Barack Obama was not involved, it's not exactly an ideal scenario for the president-elect. That being said, in the criminal complaint (pdf), Blagojevich calls Obama a "motherfucker" and bemoans the fact that Obama isn't offering him anything in exchange for his desired candidate, candidate 1 (believed to be Valerie Jarrett) to which he states, "fuck him!" If I were Obama, I'd be pretty stoked that this cat hates me. It was also reported initially, that the individual that tipped off the FBI about Blagojevich's wrong doing may have been none other than Barack Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Although his office is now denying that (however, it should be noted that a federal investigation is underway, so don't look too deep into his denial). If Emanuel did indeed tip off the Feds, that is great news for Obama, and he probably has little to worry about aside from some embarrassment. Another important thing to take away from this is that it is highly doubtful that this arrest is in any way politically motivated. The U.S. Attorney for Chicago is Patrick Fitzgerald. He's the prosecutor that handled the Plame-leak investigation that led to the indictment of Scooter Libby. In other words, this dude is as straight arrow as they come. The indispensable TPM has even pointed out that Obama wants Fitzgerald to stay on in Chicago for his administration.
Needless to say, this is a sad state of affairs that further blights the name of an already famously corrupt city and state. One can only hope that Blagojevich will face serious consequences for his actions and that the fallout from this disaster will have little bearing on Barack Obama's agenda at this crucial juncture.

P.S. One of the positive elements coming out of this whole affair is that The New Yorker is already tossing around ideas for "Blagojevich! The Musical"

P.P.S. According to some of her statements in the criminal complaint, it's not unreasonable for one to draw the conclusion that Patricia Blagojevich, Rod's wife, hates the Cubs. That's change that every Milwaukee Brewers fan can believe in!

Picture courtesy of Flickr user jburwen December 9, 2008

Good Crazy

(Note: Poor Picture Quality)

The more material of Ta-Nehisi Coates I read, the more I kick myself for not having discovered him in a more timely fashion. In yesterday's Post, Coates has a lovely essay referencing the Rev. Joseph Lowery's introduction of Barack Obama at an event in Selma, Alabama in March of 2007. Rev. Lowery speaks of the difference between "good crazy" and "bad crazy." He likens the good craziness of Barack Obama's historic run for the presidency with that of Harriet Tubman's efforts on the Underground Railroad.

Coates' piece is particularly interesting because it documents his journey from an Obama skeptic, to one embracing the promise of the nation's first African-American president. As a white American, while I am certainly thrilled with Obama's victory, I don't think it's possible for me to entirely realize the historic nature of his ascendancy into our nation's highest office. Only black eyes and ears can fully realize what this election really means. Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay is the closest I've come to fully experiencing the joy of Obama's victory. Please take 5 minutes and read this moving piece. After that, do yourself a favor and become a regular reader of Coates' blog.

If You Read Only One Thing Today...

Read this absolutely bracing Ta-Nehisi Coates post about Barack Obama's grandparents.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user shaesmith2002 April 14, 2008

The Deconstruction of "Joe the Plumber" (Plus Debate Thoughts)

Alright kids, since John McCain (and to a certain extent, Barack Obama) decided to make "Joe the Plumber" the most important voter in the United States of America, I think it's only appropriate that we get some of the facts straight on Mr. Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. First off, it's important to note that according to the Toledo Blade, "Joe the Plumber" is a registered Republican. John McCain was making him out to be an undecided voter. Now, I will acknowledge that it is possible for a partisan to be undecided, however it's reasonable to conclude that Mr. Wurzelbacher's political affiliation is an important caveat in this instance. Also, according to ABC News' Chief National Correspondent Jake Tapper, "Joe the Plumber" would actually receive a tax cut under Obama's plan, as he admits that his income would be well under $250,000. It gets better, Sam Stein over at the Huffington Post reveals that "Joe the Plumber" has long been confused by taxes. In fact the state of Ohio has filed liens against our hero "Joe the Plumber" because he has failed to pay the entirety of what he owes. Basically what we appear to have here, is a partisan Republican know-nothing masquerading as an undecided voter. His intent is to score political points for John McCain as the "every man" skeptic of Obama's intentions. In short, "Joe the Plumber" is a fraud and a massive tool!

Alright, now that we've efficiently dispatched of "Joe the Plumber" let's move on to the debate in which he was mentioned numerous times. I agree with most of the talking heads that McCain seemed to be in control for the first 30 minutes. He was managing to effectively seize the offensive on the issue of the economy. However, I feel that he began to lose his composure after his numerous jabs couldn't seem to find a whole in Obama's defenses. John McCain looked enraged the whole time. A friend with whom I was watching the debate with remarked that his blinking was bound to trigger epileptic seizures. My take on McCain's many grimaces and sighs was that he really needed to go to the bathroom. Anyways, I digress. McCain also said a number of things that are sure to inspire a lot of controversy. First, when he used scare quotes to argue that the "health" of a pregnant woman was something that the "pro-abortion movement*" stretched to mean almost anything. This is extremely offensive and insensitive to the legitimate health concerns that can be the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy. I can only imagine that women voters did not react particularly favorably to this snide remark by McCain. Secondly, I thought it was striking when McCain said that we shouldn't "spread the wealth." I'm quite puzzled by this as McCain seems to be taking pleasure in the acute inequality that plagues American society. Many Republicans have leveled at least somewhat persuasive arguments over the years that progressive taxation is unfair, however few have seemed to take delight in the plight of the less fortunate, and bragged about how their candidacy would not address their economic shortcomings. Finally, I thought McCain's best moment was when he told Barack Obama that he's not George Bush. However, I feel like Obama effectively parried this by stating that he realizes that McCain isn't Bush but he was naturally confused because the economic philosophy championed by the Mac is eerily similar to that of W's. Overall, I thought the debate was easily won by Obama. He certainly didn't have his best performance, but considering the large lead he's currently nursing in the polls, he hardly needed to knock it out of the park. Particularly in regard to his tax policy and health care plan, Obama levied concise arguments that I believe will resonate well with voters concerned about the economy. Moreover, Obama was calm and collected. In short, he was presidential. McCain was noticeably uncomfortable. It was clear to anyone with half a brain that McCain was seriously pissed and that he holds nothing but udder disdain for Obama.

*It always sends me into a fit of rage when conservatives and pro-lifers label those in support of abortion rights "pro-abortion." Nobody is "pro-abortion." Abortion is a horrible thing, and Obama was correct to point out that the main goal should be to reduce the number of abortions in America. However, the religious right has insisted on dubbing those who support choice as "pro-abortion" which is offensive and just plain wrong. It's wrong because if you follow this reasoning to it's logical conclusion, anyone that was "pro-abortion" would believe that every fetus conceived should be aborted! That's a "pro-abortion" policy! In contrast, those that are pro-choice support abortion rights. Therefore, it's fine to say that someone is pro-abortion rights, but it's a fallacy to label someone "pro-abortion."

P.S. One more thing. John McCain kept crediting Sarah Palin for her support for families with children suffering from autism. Autism is a horrible affliction that deserves much more attention from the government. However, what McCain meant to say was that Sarah Palin is an advocate for families with children suffering from down-syndrome. Palin's infant son, Trig, suffers from down-syndrome, not autism. Needless to say, the government would be well served to design programs that combat both of these conditions.

Four Days in Denver

A long, but really cool video featuring Barack, Michelle, the Obama girls, big Joe Biden, and numerous others. Well worth a watch (that is, if you're a partisan Democrat like me!).



Update: Via Oliver Willis. Sorry Oliver!

Hitting Back

FINALLY! Barack Obama, it would seem, has gotten the message and is beginning to hammer John McCain. The McCain campaign is lying at a pace and frequency that is absolutely mind boggling. They have repeatedly claimed that Obama is planning to raise taxes on the middle class; when in actuality, his tax plan will lower the burden on 95% of the American people. Sarah Palin, even today, still claims that she was against the "Bridge to Nowhere" even though virtually ever MSM outlet has called them out on it. This is honestly stunning. McCain prided himself in 2000 as an honorable candidate that would not take the "low road" to the presidency. That John McCain is dead. He's been dead for sometime. The new John McCain is a man entirely devoid of principle. The new John McCain is a man that will say anything to get elected, even if that includes repeating outright lies, over and over and over again. The new John McCain is a man that makes George W. Bush look like the patron saint of nobility. The new John McCain is a man that has sold his soul. John McCain is a disgrace. He's a man that has stripped himself of every last shred of honor and dignity he once possessed. While his military service was honorable, past deeds cannot forgive the sins of the present. It's really quite sad, and you almost have to wonder how he looks himself in the mirror at night. However, at this point, any nostalgia-fueled allusions to the past are irrelevant and counter-productive. This man, this hollow shell of lies, is the candidate that Obama must spar with; and this ad signifies that he is at last congnizant of this new reality.

A Night to Remember

Wow. What a speech! I've seen some great speeches in my 24 years, but I think that this might just take the cake. Obama was brilliant last night. I think I feel the need to try and match that speech by writing a very insightful commentary post. Why even try. I'll just note a few highlights that really struck me. In my opinion, Obama did a great job of defusing the "celebrity" and "elitist" critique that the McCain campaign has been so desperately trying to link him with. By highlighting his struggles growing up as the child of a single mother on welfare, I think it's pretty much impossible to call Obama an "elitist." I was particularly struck by the line, "I don't know how John McCain thinks a celebrity lives, but that's how I grew up." In the words of John Madden, Boom. However, it's really up to the media whether or not they will keep covering this line of attack. Since they know it's BS, they should leave it alone. Another highlight for me, as I sure it was for everyone watching the speech, was the bit on Osama bin Laden. As I'm sure you're all aware, McCain has said that he will follow Osama Bin Laden to "the gates of hell." Now, that plays really well in a cheesy 80's action flick, but in the real world such macho nonsense should be dismissed as utter inanity. Obama said "John McCain wants to chase Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but he won't even follow him to the cave where he lives!" This, of course, is in reference to McCain's puzzling refusal to go after bin Laden in Pakistan. In fact he's accused Obama of wanting to "invade Pakistan." Of course, Obama has never said anything even close to that. I think that line was a watershed moment in this election; as it cuts to the very core of John McCain's perceived national security bonfides.

Overall, I thought the speech was very inspiring. Those were two little highlights that struck me amongst numerous others. I mentioned those two because they marked Obama's response to McCain's two main lines of attack: 1) Barack Obama is an "elitist celebrity" obessesed with his own image; and 2) Barack Obama does not have the experience and national security bonafides that would enable him to be an effective comander-in-cheif. There were many other tidbits that stuck me. In order to go over those, I will outsource any additional commentary and analysis to Michael Tomasky and Ezra Klein.

Game On

Via Ezra Klein.

In a just world

Spencer Ackerman has a great post concerning the Iraqi government's desire to negotiate a timetable for withdrawl of US troops from the country. An Iraqi spokesman even said that the pullout could be completed by 2011 or 2012, which is consitent with the Obama plan. Now this presents and unprecedented oppurtunity for Obama to absolutely hammer McCain on Iraq. McCain has said in the past, as has George W. Bush, that if the Iraqis ask us to leave (or establish a timetable for an eventual pullout) we must do so. Ackerman has a brilliant idea as well, Obama should challenge McCain to endorse a timetable:

If he accepts, he's a flip-flopper; if he declines, he's an imperialist. There's no downside here.

Exactly! Even McCain's pious followers in the media would have trouble spinning a development such as this. Let's hope the Obama campaign has the balls to do it!

Photo used courtesy of Flickr user strader July 25, 2006

Oh, Snap!

Via Ezra Klein, I came across this nifty article from the Washington Post by Anne Kornblut and Karen DeYoung. Kornblut and DeYoung provide a great summary of yesterday's scrap between Obama and the Mack over terrorism. For those of you that are not already aware, McCain criticized Obama for his support of last week's Supreme Court decision that restored the right of habeus corpus to detainees at Guantanomo Bay. Using traditional Republican fear mongering tactics, angry John accussed Obama of being naive and possessing a September 10, 2001 mindset. Like John Kerry before him, Obama identifies terrorism as an issue that relates primary to the fields of intelligence and law enforcement. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, and the King of Maverick all believe that terrorism is a military issue. In essence, they believe that we should meet the forces of terrorism on a battlefield somewhere and annihilate them. Now, in and ideal world, that would be great! I'm all for killing the bastards. But that's not how terrorism works. Terrorists rarerly assemble in force and fight against a standing army. What would they accomplish? They'd literally be defeated in minutes. Again, in an ideal world, this is how things would work. Unfortunately, however, in the real world terrorists aren't that stupid. That is why well trained, properly funded intelligence services and law enforcement are the keys to preventing attacks and tracking down terrorists. Center the to debate, is the role of civilian courts, or standard military courts, versus the military tribunal system set up by the Bush Administration. Here's a key quote from Obama, bringing up the 1993 attack on the WTC:

In the ABC interview, Obama said the perpetrators of the 1993 bombing are proof that the existing justice system can handle terrorism cases. "They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated," he said. "And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.' "

In response, James Woolsey, whom as Keith Olbermann pointed out last night, lobbied for Con Man-in-Chief, Ahmad Chalabi; and John Lehman had this:

Tuesday, the McCain team drew a direct line between the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying that submitting the bombers to the criminal justice system was, in the words of former Navy secretary and 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, "a material cause" of the 2001 attacks. Lehman participated in the McCain conference call.

Huh? The terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because their comrades were tried in civilian court? Am I the only one that doesn't think that makes any sense?

Anyways, it's good to see that the Obama campaign is not shying away from this debate. It appears that the Democrats are starting to realize that conceeding this territory to the Repulicans is no longer necessary (not that it ever was!). Terrorism really is best left to the CIA, FBI, and various other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Occupying Muslim countries swells the ranks of groups like al-Qeada and Hamas. As I've discussed previously on this blog, it's no secret that John McCain believes the state of war is good for the country. War is an end in itself, as opposed to a tool utilized towards a certain objective (i.e. war is the objective!). This highlights two disturbing themes in St. John's candidacy, McCain is the one who is naive, and he displays a fundamental lack of understanding (i.e. dumb as a rock) for the national security issues that are of the utmost concern.

P.S. Kudos to Anne Kornblut and Karen DeYoung for writing this insightful article. I always accused Kornblut of being in the tank for McCain, clearly I spoke to soon. I regret the error and I hope to see much more of this.

Photo used courtesy of Flickr user Chief Joseph March 26, 2008

The Nominee

Last night, an African-American man became the presumptive nominee for a major American political party, for the first time in our history. It was a mesmerizing moment, watching Obama speak in front of tens of thousands of people in the Twin Cities. It didn't really hit me, that is, the gravity of his nomination didn't hit me, until that speech. This nation has an absolutely miserable history in regards to race. Unfortunately, even if Obama is elected, this country will still ache from the wounds of racism, from past and present. However, as Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann said, it's a uniquely American situation that Barack Obama now finds himself in. Despite Hillary Clinton and John McCain's best efforts to portray him differently, Barack Obama always was, and in many ways always will be, the underdog. Just four years ago this man was an Illinois State Senator that few people outside of Chicago had ever even heard of. In that period of time he has assembled an electoral coalition of millions of new voters that has the Democratic party in great position for the general election. Very few accomplishments in American political history can match this. We live in a fascinating modern age, and we are privileged to say that we were alive when all this went down.

The Tale of the Cynic

My iPod has recently decided not to function, much to my dismay, and as a result I have been forced to seek alternatives to rocking out while on the Metro to and from work everyday. Naturally, I've turned to reading. Yesterday, I read Charles Pierce's thought provoking piece in Esquire titled The Cynic and Senator Obama. Pierce is one of the best political journalists out there (yes, he is a REAL journalist) and when I came across his article I knew I had to read it as soon as possible. The article provides us with a glimpse at the tale of the cynic (Charles Pierce) and his pondering of Barack Obama. After nearly 8 years of Bush's rule, the cynic is angry and impatient for a new direction. The cynic acknowledges that Obama's biography is inspiring. Obama, in the cynic's mind, is an intelligent and distinguished man. A man that is certainly capable of leading the country in a fashion much more competent than George W. Bush. However, the cynic is not sure that Barack Obama is what the country needs. The cynic is concerned that Obama has too much faith in America and more importantly, Americans.

Needless to say, Pierce has a very interesting take on the race, and while the article is long (4 pages online, 9 pages printed out) I really think that it's worth your time to give it a read.

Primary Wrap Up

Tom Edsall has got a good write up of last night's results over at HuffPost. Barack Obama won a huge 15-point victory in North Carolina and narrowly lost Indiana by less than 2-points. To make a long story short: he exceeded expectations. I also thought that his speech last night in NC was much better than his Pennslyvania concescion speech in Indiana a few weeks ago. Obama was on message and he got in a few good zingers at McCain. The crowd seemed electrified by his speech, like they used to be back in January and February, hopefully this means his once again ensnared the momentum that marked his early candidacy.

Well, I'm a broken record when it comes to my commentary on Hillary Clinton, but it's time for her to drop out. She's lost any momentum she once had and her argument for the superdelegates was pretty much negated last night. She has also reportedly lent another $6.4 million to her campaign. It's clear that the end is near for her campaign. It's unfortunate that her run is most likely going to end on such a negative note, but when you really think about it, you end a campaign because you experience a defeat, these things rarely end positively.

Also, to my amusement, Sam Stein reports that St. John had a rough night. He won majorities in North Carolina and Indiana but Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul were able to pick up a combined 20% of the Republican vote in each state. This is notable because only Paul is still in the race. His Maverickness will need some crazy straight talk to maverick his way out of that debacle.

This will never end!

Well a new AP/Ipsos poll shows Hillary Clinton leading St. John of the Straight Talk by 9 points nationally. Needless to say, this is not good news for Barack Obama, who leads McCain by a meager 2 percentage points, i.e. within the poll's margin of error. I'll admit it, it's hard to ask Clinton to drop out when she just won Pennsylvania and she's shallacking McCain in national polls. Everyone talks about how every contest from here on out is a "must win" for Clinton, but let's be honest, they're starting to be "must wins" for Obama as well. If he can somehow pull out victories in Indiana and North Carolina, that would take a lot of the wind out of Clinton's sales. While there are certainly a lot of white working class voters (Obama'a bane) in IN and NC, I think Obama has a decent shot at winning both states. First off, there are a lot of African-Americans in North Carolina, which should hopefully lock it up for him. Plus, look at all the colleges in Indiana: Purdue, Notre Dame, Valparaiso, Butler, University of Indiana, IUPUI, etc. If Obama can continue to turn out college aged voters in Indiana like he has been elsewhere he should be in good shape. Nevertheless, poll results like this will keep both candidates alive for some time.

P.S. These results demonstrate that there is cause for optimism considering that even with Bittergate, the Wright controversy, and faux sniper fire dominating the 24-hour McCain-loving media cycle, both Democratic candidates are running even or ahead of his Maverickness!

The Abercrombie Vote

Well, you already know Barack Obama lost last night, but how about those three dudes behind him with the Abercrombie & Fitch shirts. Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias both have posts on these guys here and here. Read the comments on both posts, they are hilarious! I'm actually really surprised that the Obama campaign let these guys stand behind him. First off, in light of Bittergate, Obama's attempts to reach out to working class voters won't be helped by the presence of three upper-middle class frat boy douchebags. Plus you could see people texting in the background. It was just piss poor coordination by the Obama campaign that resulted in a concession speech mixed with a heavy dose of superficiality. Seriously, the whole thing brought back memories of high school that I've been trying to repress for 5 years! Now, in the end, this really isn't a big deal. It's not going to sink Obama and it's not going to birth another scandal. It just means that Barack Obama was momentarily associated with a segment of American society that prides itself on status symbols and mocho effete.

P.S. I'm pretty sure that's not Larry David behind Obama, but it sure as hell does look like him. David has campaigned for Obama in the past though, so I could be wrong. But I'm gonna stick with it not being him.

Photo used courtesy of flickr user _aa_ April 22, 2008

More Bittergate

Via Ezra Klein, I was directed to this wonderfully biting column by Jonathan Chait attacking patent rich boy George Will's newfound affinity for working class voters. Big G scoffed at Barack Obama's "condescending" remarks. This is in the same vain of other pundits like Tim "Blue Collar Buffalo" Russert and Chris "Man's Man" Matthews. Chait singlehandedly deconstructs any vestage of a connection that George Will and co. claim they have with the working class of Pennsylvania. This is my favorite bit:

Bill O'Reilly's or Tim Russert's endless invocations of their working-class backgrounds are the equivalent of the campus activist who introduces every opinion by saying "As a woman of color . . . ." (The one difference being that the latter really is a woman of color, while the former are multimillionaires who retain only the most remote connection to blue-collar life.)

Nice. I was watching Bill Maher last week and he interviewed Chris Matthews and attacked him on his avoidance of anything but "character" issues. Matthews, predictably, wouldn't back down and continued to denigrate Obama and Clinton for their lack of affinity with "normal" people. Bill Maher put it correctly when he stated that this country can't afford to vote for the "better" guy. That's true. But I think he's conceeding a point here. Republicans aren't the "better" guys. McCain and Bush are lifetime upperclass individuals. Bush is just good at pretending that he seems like an everyday American. However, I don't think attending Yale and being a member of the ultra exclusive Skull and Bones is "everyday American." I don't think attending Harvard Business School makes you an "everyday American." Last but not least, being the son of the forty-first President of the United States of America doesn't exactly make you an "everyday American." That's not to say that normal people don't go to Yale and Harvard. Plenty do. But W never would've gotten into any of these prime institutions without a little help from Big Pappa Bush and his connections. Good grief!!!

P.S. I promise that this is the last post on bittergate

P.P.S. Well, ok, that is unless something similar to this comes along again!

Update: The Obama Fuck Up

Well, I'm pleased to say that it appears that Hillary Clinton has saved Barack Obama's ass in regards to bittergate. Ezra Klein details in this post how Clinton's decision to latch on to these remarks and make it a campaign issue have resulted in the media dropping the story on its own merits and reframing it as a spat between Obama and Clinton. As we've seen in South Carolina, this type of framing tends to work against Clinton and for Obama. I'll be honest, I really thought this was a huge blow to Obama, but it appears that he has dodged a bullet, at least for the moment. However, I am very happy that I was wrong and I am currently eating my words with a side of cornbeef hash.

Also, today's New York Times column from P-Krug takes a look at the "bitter" comments made by Obama and using a study from his Princeton colleague Larry Bartels comes to the conclusion that Obama was wrong about the voting patterns of the supposedly "bitter" working class whites of rural Pennsylvania. It turns out that the rural working class is much more concerned about economic issues than Obama thought. Once again, I was wrong about this, as I thought Obama was spot on with his comments. Once again, I am proud to eat my words, only this time with a "Love-It" sized "Birthday Cake Remix" from Coldstone.

In conclusion, my name is Scott, and as the title of the blog suggests, I oftentimes DON'T KNOW!!!

The Obama Fuck Up

I'm sure that you've heard what Barack Obama said in San Francisco by now, but if you haven't , here is what he said, "It’s not surprising then that 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.” Obama said this to explain the supposed "bitterness" among the white working class community. All I can say is...ouch. This could be huge. It's not a good sign that Bill Kristol is already comparing this statement with the writings of Karl Marx in the New York Times [Note: In no way do I think this is a bad thing, however, most people don't understand Marx and equate him with the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Castro]. Hillary has of course jumped all over this, but you can't really blame her, she has to.

Look, the truth of it is, Obama's explanation of working class disenfranchisement is actually pretty much spot-on. Nevertheless, it was an extremely stupid thing to say. Moreover, Obama said this in San Fran-fucking-cisco which makes it that much worse. The charges of liberal elitism and San Francisco values will be flying around for months now. I can't really make a judgement on whether this will sink Obama's candidacy; only time will tell on that front. However, needless to say, this was a major blunder on Obama's part, and it pretty much dwarfs the Wright controversy.

In conclusion...damn!

Obama's Gift of Dignity

This great article by Spencer Ackerman has been up on the American Prospect site for a week or so now, but I just read it last night in the print addition. Ackerman takes an in-depth look at Barack Obama's team of foreign policy advisers and their views. Obama has some great names (or in the case of Samantha Powers, has had) including Susan Rice, Tony Lake, Ben Rhodes, Sarah Sewall, and Gen. Scott Gration. Rice and Lake are veterans of the Clinton administration, Rhodes advised Lee Hamilton, Sewall is a human rights activist and counterinsurgency authority, and Gration is a retired Air Force General and Iraq War veteran. The focus of Ackerman's article is the revelation that this team of advisers represents a coherent visioin of American foreign policy that is a significant departure from the CW of the past 30 years. In other words, Obama came along and realized the ship was sinking and instead of repairing the ship, he built a new one. This group of advisers advocates the promotion of basic human dignity over democracy. They argue that democracy is meaningless if you can not live with dignity. In order for one to live with dignity they need to be well fed, have access to quality and affordable health care, have a plentiful supply of safe drinking water, etc. If the United States can provide a leadership role in alleviating the suffering of those in the developing world (particularly the Middle East and Africa) it will go a long way towards removing the conditions that al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups thrive on when seeking new recruits. I've already said too much about the article, read it for yourself, I assure you that you will come away impressed!

Hillary Clinton: McCain Cheerleader?

Jonathan Chait has interesting post up at the Plank examining whether or not Clinton would prefer a general election victory for John McCain over Barack Obama. I guess I'd like to think that Clinton wouldn't want this, and I doubt she does, but you never know. Chait makes a good point that Clinton would be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2012 if Obama were to lose the general, but I think that her chances would be even more lackluster then than they are now. Granted, that assumes that McCain would have a successful first term. I doubt that would be the case, since McCain has shown recently that he has little expertise in pretty much any policy area, leadership included. However, as I've mentioned countless times, the media's love affair with the Saint would likely result in them painting a lovely portrait of a McCain presidency.

Anways, I digress, Chait also hammers on the fact that Clinton really has no shot at picking up the nomination. If she does (somehow) get the nomination, she will have gained it by convincing the superdelegates that Obama is a wanker. If she does that, I really think its safe to say that the Democratic Party will fall into civil war. Clinton has damaged herself in the eyes of many Democrats that would've otherwise supported her had she won the nomination fair and square. It should also be noted that independents and Republicans find Clinton more or less radioactive. It has to suck to be Hillary Clinton, I do still have some sympathy for her as there is no way to determine how much damage the media's coverage of her has done to her campaign. That being said, what's done is done and we have to move forward. Hillary needs to realize that her continued presence in this primary is damaging the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. In short, she just got reelected to another term in the Senate, she should look to the best interests of the people of New York and return to her duties as one of their elected voices.