Chief Justice Obama?

These John McCain ads that say that Hillary should feel insulted because she got 18,000,000 votes and was not nominated for Vice President ---

They make me smile.

Because by the same logic when Barack Obama gets a record setting 65,000,000 votes, and John McCain becomes President anyway, then McCain would be honor-bound to give Obama a prominent nomination in the new McCain Administration.

Like maybe a seat on the Supreme Court.

Looking Back On Some of the Things I Said

WHERE WERE ALL HIS FRIENDS?

I stumbled across this column by Daniel Henniger at the Wall Street Journal, who may be a world-famous somebody, but is new to me.

He makes a great point about Obama that I have not seen elsewhere.

When he was trying to defend himself against Reverend Wright, where were all his friends? After listing all the Oprahs, and Kennedys, and what-nots who endorsed Obama months ago, Mr. Henniger goes on to say

"Blogs and Web sites are overflowing with how this meltdown is largely of Barack Obama's own making. What difference does that make? He is not running for class president; he's running for the presidency of the United States. Even at the crudest level of political calculation and cowardice, there's a point in a presidential race when a candidate's supporters are all in. We passed that point weeks ago. It's him or her. ...

"As entities, the parties continue to recede. The Democratic superdelegates, created to represent the party's interests, look like deer frozen in the headlights of the two candidates' roaring tractor trailers.

"As for the supersized candidates, what strikes one most about them is their "aloneness." They look so solitary. Indeed, it is possible that the old and honorable notion of "standing with" a candidate like Obama simply didn't occur to his famous supporters this week. Everyone has become used to watching celebrity stars and athletes take it in the neck on their own. Even someone running for the nation's presidency looks like just another personal crack-up."

LOOKING BACK ON SOME OF THE THINGS I SAID

My March 24 post is linked here.

I said

"Over the next 6 weeks [the Clintons] will lie about anything and everything. They will continually misstate their own positions and rewrite history. There is nothing that they will not resort to.

"And they will make sure that you know it.

"Despite all that, Hillary will win every remaining primary, except perhaps North Carolina, where she will finish within the margin of error.

"This will prove that the worst run, most brazen campaign by a white person can beat the best-run campaign by a black person.

"Because the liberal party in America is not ready for a black President."

When I wrote that, I had forgotten that Oregon had a primary later this month, but otherwise I stand behind what I wrote.

In my March 3 post , I demonstrated how Hillary won in all the large states, (except Illinois) including Florida and Michigan, which, it is universally acknowledged, did not really have fair elections.

I take an aside to tell you that whenever someone in my Weight Watchers meeting complains that something is not fair, my Weight Watchers leader says "No one gets to use the word fair if they're over 8 years old."

Yesterday, we read that Hillary intends to go "nuclear" -- and to base all of her claims in front of the Democratic National Committee, and to the convention, and one assumes, eventually to the courts, on the assumption that her election in Michigan and Florida was indeed fair and proper.

So, as in all corrupt matters, the nomination will come down to what happens in Florida.

One post where I was wrong or at least where the fact have not beared me out yet is my April 22 post, where I said that despite what the Clintons said, the super-delegates did not have to choose the candidate with the best chance to beat McCain, they had to choose the candidate who was best for the party (whatever that means).

Howard Dean has stated pretty clearly that the only standard he is interested in is electability.

That is the best and clearest indication I have heard that Hillary may yet take this nomination.

****

I have said all along that Obama has no chance of becoming President (Absolute zero), and Hillary had a snowball's chance, since voters would turn to Hillary (but they would not turn to Obama) if McCain made enough mistakes.

All these trial balloons regarding Governor Jindal of Louisiana becoming the Republican Vice Presidential candidate would be a mistake of that nature.

How To Choose Between Democratic Candidates You Know Are Going To Lose In November

(Third in an ongoing series)

(RE-EDITED ON TUESDAY, APRIL 22)

(PENNSYLVANIA PRIMARY EDITION

Since I am blogging, I have the following strongly held opinions about last week's debate, which I haven't seen.

a. I thought some of the questions were absurd, but Obama should have had an answer to all of them. They were none of them hard or unexpected questions.

b. What made them hard for Obama was that, as lame as the Gibson/ Stephanopolous questions were, they were asked out of a false assumption that both candidates seem to accept -- the Pennsylvania primary, specifically, and the general election, beyond, will be decided by so-called "Reagan Democrats."

c. Obama cannot possibly win an election on that basis, and he is unwise to even try. All the "Reagan Democrats" are Republicans. If they weren't, John Edwards would still be a factor in the primaries.

d. The election will be decided on what "new" voters decide to do. John McCain has recently said that the "new" voters will vote for him. Maybe he's right.


e. The other false assumption is that a key issue in the primary campaign is "electability". It isn't true that the superdelegates have to, or are even supposed to, choose a nominee on the basis of electability. Hillary Clinton likes to say that, but what else is she supposed to say? No. Superdelegates are supposed to act in the best interest of the Democratic Party. It may be in the best interest of the Democratic Party to nominate the candidate that will lead to the happiest and most motivated warriors, the ones most likely to give money and time to the Democratic Party going forward.

f. So, for example, a lot of young people will be happy to give their time and passion to elect Obama, even against long odds. A lot of middle age women feel likewise about Hillary. They do not care about their electability in a general election. They care about the progress being made by having the first African-American Presidential nominee, or the first woman Presidential nominee.

g. If Hillary does not win the Pennsylvania primary by more than 10 percent, then the numbers work in such a way that her arguments to superdelegates are no different from the arguments that John Edwards or you or I can make to the superdelegates.

h. The notion that this election was there for the Democrats to win, but for the constant bickering between Obama and Clinton is nonsense. There are no slam dunk wins when your candidate in 2008 is either a woman or an African-American.

i. Hillary can win against McCain if McCain makes enough missteps. He could select any one of the people who ran for the Republican nomination against him to be his Vice President. He could be caught with his pants down (hopefully just figuratively). Facts about his health could come out (he could have a real senior moment on the stump). Facts about his wife's finances could come out (McCain wants the Democratic candidate to accept public finance limits that McCain will gleefully get around by getting loans from his wife). Most likely, if McCain does all those things, Hillary will lose anyway. Even so, Hillary does have that snowball's chance.

j. It still says here that the country is not ready for an African American President. If it turns out the country is ready, we'll never know about it, because there will be no voting booths available for non-whites and other liberal riff-raff to vote from.

k. That was the entire point about the U.S. Attorney scandal.

l. You could still look at all of that and say that the future is with Obama, or with someone more like him. You could still say the right fight is more important than the wrong win.

m. Or you could say that given the stakes, winning is too important to give it up to the romantic vision of youth. A paralysing campaign will leave Hillary Clinton in no shape to govern. It is worth it if it means we can stop digging the hole that the Republicans are so intent on burying the United States in.

An Original Observation ...

... Courtesy of my father, who lives in Florida part of the year, and has his ear close to the ground the rest of the time

My dad believes that when McCain wins in Florida in November (and therefore wins the general election), the margin of victory

-- will be from Democrats who are angry at Howard Dean for messing with their primary.

10 Things You Should Know About John McCain (but probably don't)

moveon.org has asked its supporters to send along these 10 things you should know about John McCain But Probably Don't .

The footnotes can be found in the direct link.

1) John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2) According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3) His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4) McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4

5) The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6) He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7) Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8) McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9) McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10) He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

No War In The Middle East Worth Winning Will Take Less Than 100 Years

Krauthammer complains that the liberal media has twisted John McCain's statement that the United States may need to keep provisional forces in Iraq for 100 years into a statement that John McCain wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years.

I responded:

I agree with you that the Democrats tried to turn McCain's statement about 100 years of ancillary U.S. presence in Iraq into 100 years of War, but --

If John McCain does not expect us to be actively fighting in the Middle East for the next 100 years, then what definition of "winning the war" is he working with?

Another way to state the same question:

How long does McCain (or even you) think it will take to reach the "win" he (or you) seek(s)? If that win takes less than 100 years to achieve, is it really a win worth the fight?

And the ancillary question:

How does McCain propose to staff the war with soldiers and to pay for the war financially while still maintaining the moral system he is so keen on defending?

The War in Iraq is not enough without the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iran, the War in Pakistan, the solution to the Middle East conflict, and perhaps, the solution of the energy crisis. The United States is not just in Iraq, now, we are in the Middle East. We cannot leave the Middle East with a "win" unless we win everywhere

I propose this "win"

We can not leave the Middle East until the earlier of the time when (a) there is no risk of occupation of anti-United States forces in Iraq and Saudi Arabia (which includes not only Iran, Syria and/or Turkey, but also Russia and China and whatever surrogates they engage) or (b) we are energy self-sufficient in a manner that does not harm our environment (at which point we can leave the Middle East and let the devil take the hind most).

I say that win could take 100 years of real war. It is worth the fight. If John McCain, of all people, has no stomach to commit to that, then maybe he should look for the fastest way out.

In Defense of Hillary

My good friend A Red Mind In A Blue State entitles his blog post "HILLARY'S A LIIAARR."

Just got through listening to the Bush-Bash over on MSNBC -- and quite frankly Red Mind was nicer to Hillary than Chris, Keith, Dan Abrams and the rest of the Obama circle-jerkers were.

But the boys at MSNBC are missing the point. And Frank Rich, who all of us over on the left think is "spot on" is dead wrong when he says that the Obama-Clinton fracas leaves an opening for McCain. My friends at The New Republic, and Huffington Post, too.

***

Everything Red Mind says about Hillary in his post today is true.

I'll even go Red Mind one better.

Hillary certainly knew that there was video of the trip to Bosnia that would prove that she was a liar.

Bill Clinton certainly knew that he was questioning Obama's patriotism last Friday, when he said he was looking forward to a general election with two people who "love America".

While Hillary may be able to hide behind "misspeaking, " Bill Clinton has never and will never misspeak. He may lie, but he has never said a thing in public that he did not mean to say.

Likewise, James Carville expressly refused to back down from calling Bill Richardson a "Judas" for betraying the Clintons. Who's Jesus? Carville did not dispute the implication.

What's going on?

First of all, this fight has nothing to do with Red Mind or John McCain.

This is a family feud concerning whether the most liberal party is liberal enough to go into a Presidential election with an African-American candidate. Thereby, skipping past the step where we, like every other corrupt body politic, vote for the President's wife before we vote for the minority candidate.

The Senator and her husband are betting that in the end, we won't want to skip that step.

Over the next 6 weeks they will lie about anything and everything. They will continually misstate their own positions and rewrite history. There is nothing that they will not resort to.

And they will make sure that you know it.

Despite all that, Hillary will win every remaining primary, except perhaps North Carolina, where she will finish within the margin of error.

This will prove that the worst run, most brazen campaign by a white person can beat the best-run campaign by a black person.

Because the liberal party in America is not ready for a black President.

And then the Super-delegates will have a choice.

Do you nominate Obama -- a sure loser -- because even if his young voters go out to vote, they will find that the Republican U.S. Attorneys have left them with no polling places with which to vote, and no power with which to protest the result. Sure you will have brought the young Americans, and the new Americans into the Democratic Party. But to what end? All you've done is assured a McCain victory -- and guaranteeing that you wind up with 4 more years of the country on the same wreckless fruitless path to hell.

Or do you nominate Clinton -- who may lose the election, but knows how to steal it.

Her older white voters are going to goddamn well have polling places, and we're going to get in and out of them quickly too. 10 minutes tops. And the Big Dog and the boys know their way around the sharp corners and the sharp elbows.

If Jeb Bush winds up being the Republican candidate on election day, then maybe the Clintons will have met their evil match. But McCain? Please.

Nominate Clinton, and you probably still get McCain and the continuous corrosion of freedom and prosperity, but you have a puncher's chance that Bill can find a way through. You take the chance that maybe -- just maybe -- you wind up with President Clinton -- 4 years of deadlock --- in the hope that maybe, just maybe the country can catch its breath before it slouches towards the void.

You Can't Spell Obama without a Big O (Part 1)

I have long said I support Hillary. I agree with her on the issues, and I particularly agree with her on issues where she differs with Obama. 5 in particular -- the War, Education, Health Care, the Environment and Social Security.

On two of those issues -- the Environment and Social Security, I think we will discover that Obama is not only to the right of Hillary Clinton, but to the right of John McCain.

On the environment, and global warming, and that set of issues, it is even possible that Obama is to the right of George W. Bush.

On education, I am married to a teacher, my cousins are teachers, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law are teachers, I have relatives who are school psychologists, and on and on -- so I have a vested interest in it. I will save for another day my substantive arguments about why I think the "blame the teachers union for our failures in education" argument is a lot of hooey.

Suffice it to say, that on Social Security and Education and Health Insurance, Obama has been spouting the conservative Republican line since he was an embryo.

On the War, I believe Hillary's Senate record has been right, and that Obama's has been wrong. It is true -- as Bubba tried to say, but surprisingly quite didn't know how to -- that both Senators have misstated their records throughout the campaign.

It doesn't matter.

Hillary will not take the political hit required to leave Iraq. She will be able to say that the circumstances in 2009 are different from the circumstances now. During a war, circumstances are changing all the time.

Obama has continually said that "I want us to be as careful getting out, as we were careless getting in." Not the sign of a man planning on leaving Iraq anytime soon. Plus, of course, Obama has not ruled out going into Pakistan. President Bush has made a point to mention that as well. Bush thinks that the voters will be scared of going into Pakistan to wipe out Al Qaeda. I'm not so sure.

The only person who can get us out of Iraq quickly is McCain. McCain can come into office and say that after reviewing the super-duper, top secret, for Dick Cheney's eyes only, intelligence, that we should leave immediately. I doubt he would do that, but he could. And the American people would say OK.

***

Similarly, McCain is the only one who could admit that if we are going to meet our national security obligations properly, and maintain any chance at all of government of the people, by the people and for the people, we need a draft.

The Rumsfeld alternative -- the one that says that we don't need a draft to fight a war -- we merely farm it all out to outside contractors -- means that the core function of government -- the decision to make war or peace -- is no longer in the hands of the people. It is in the hands of the outside contractors.

It is unclear to what extent tactics and military strategy are being dictated by the outside contractors. Maybe Henry Waxman -- who chairs the House committee with the appropriate oversight jurisdiction --- can stop bothering Roger Clemens for a day or two to look into it.

(I digress)

***

Why is Hillary in so much trouble?

Have the times changed on Hillary, and on a lot of us who support her?

A 60-year old Democratic Senator from a major state, a liberal in the current setting, but not really in the historical setting. A professional politician, in both the good and bad sense of the word. A person who has spent a career in public service, paid dues and to whom a lot of favors were owed.

Except that it is a man. Or it is a woman who isn't Hillary Clinton.

Can any person, with that sort of resume, wrest the Democratic nomination from Barack Obama in 2008?

More to follow.