It's Over, We've Won

The Best Defense

Andrew Sullivan posts an essay on why we must elect Barack Obama. In a nutshell, he captures the damage Bush and Cheney have done to our national security, and what an Obama presidency could mean. This is the best defense of Obama I think I have ever read.

Obama and Terrorism

Andrew Sullivan has a very intelligent post regarding Sen. Obama's strategy for fighting terrorism. As Sullivan notes, the current strategy for defeating terrorism worldwide has not been working. Although there have been no major terror attacks against the United States since 9 / 11, al-Qaeda is on the rise again, and Afghanistan is slowly drifting back into chaos.

Some, such as Alexander Cockburn and Richard Kim, will no doubt count Sullivan's support as a point against Obama. However, there is nothing wrong with gaining the support of moderate, intelligent conservatives like Sullivan. As Sullivan himself points out in his post, he came to some of the wrong conclusions about how to react to 9 / 11. What is important is that he has had the sense to recognize that, and adjust his position accordingly.

All about Alexander

Alexander Cockburn has published a condemnation of Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy in The Nation. As usual, his essay is characterized by a total misunderstanding of American politics.

Cockburn's main beefs with Obama: That the Senator is willing to go after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and attack terrorists in other countries. I'm sorry to break it to you, Alex, but most Americans are perfectly fine with that. Most liberals do not oppose defense so much as they oppose war on countries that do not threaten us.

Second, he notes, correctly, that Obama has not taken as strong as stance on civil liberties as might be hoped. This is a valid point, Mr. Cockburn, but it should be noted that this is no worse than what McCain is proposing. Indeed, a President Obama might be willing to revise the Patriot Act. We will have no such chance with McCain.

What is particularly galling about Cockburn's article is what it omits. It does not discuss what the two candidates with a chance of winning would do with their Supreme Court nominations, an issue with the potential to affect a variety of what Cockburn calls "decent progressive principles" ranging from abortion to health care and the death penalty.

Second, he does not discuss the prospect of an outright religious fanatic-Sarah Palin-being within a heartbeat of the presidency. Cockburn notes that Iraq War supporter Christopher Hitchens has endorsed Obama. What he fails to mention is that Hitchens largely based his endorsement on McCain's inclusion of such a fanatic on his ticket.

When it comes to issues like that, Mr. Cockburn, I would rather be on Hitchens's side any day.

Ruthie, Ruthie, Ruthie...

Attn: Ruth Ann Dailey, Columnist, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Dear Ms. Dailey,

The column you published yesterday on the supposed use of white liberal guilt to rally support for Obama has to be one of the most comical attempts at a right wing polemic I have ever seen. Never mind not living up to the standards of William F. Buckley or George Will; you aren't even in the same arena with Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

First, the evidence you back your assertion with is at best weak. You cite the remarks of only three figures to support your claim. (Really only two when you consider that one at the end of the column, Colin Powell, seems to have been shoe-horned in at the last minute when his support for Obama was made public on Sunday.) Three people-Powell, Rep. John Murtha, and Gov. Ed Rendell-can hardly be said to represent the overall trend of Democratic rhetoric.

What is especially amusing is that one figure you quote was not supporting Sen. Obama, while you blatantly misrepresent another. As you admit in your column, Gov. Rendell was arguing for Sen. Hillary Clinton when he warned that many white Pennsylvanian voters would not support a black candidate. Although you try to portray this as liberal elitism, you have to wonder whether Gov. Rendell knows a bit more about Pennsylvania politics than you do, given that he has won two state-wide elections here. Furthermore, your own newspaper recently published an article featuring interviews with a number of these voters. Your co-workers are cutting you off at the knees.

Particularly galling is your misrepresentation of Powell's remarks. You make reference to a short passage in his interview with Meet the Press in which he referred to the election of Sen. Obama as offering a chance at a generational change. You treat this as the entirety of his remarks, when anyone who reads about them can see is not true. Powell cites a number of reasons for backing Sen. Obama, including his position on the economy and the inexperience of Gov. Palin. The latter issue has also been noted by a number of conservatives, including Peggy Noonan hardly people one would expect to associate with liberal guilt.

Face it, Ruthie, your candidate is unable to fight it out on the issues, so he and minions like you are trying to distract everyone with irrelevant side issues.

Not Quite What They Were Hoping For

Reason Magazine's Hit and Run blog has an amusing post about last night's presidential debate. One can practically hear the libertarians howl in disappointment as they see a new era of big government looming over them. My favorite line, in regard to apparent voter approval of this trend: "Is there any way to pull off this "democracy" thing without using actual voters?"

Ways You Can Tell If Your Vice-Presidential Candidate Is Not Ready for the Presidency

If she needs to attend a "boot camp" just to enter a debate...or an interview with Katie Couric.

Deja Vu?

As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman reports on his blog, Sen. John McCain has been repeatedly quoting President Herbert Hoover on the strength of the economy.

Gee, I wonder if quoting the guy who let us fall into the Great Depression will cause people to question Sen. McCain's capacity to guide us through economic chaos?

If Obama Doesn't Pick Up on This, He Needs His Head Examined

The McCain campaign recently handed Sen. Barack Obama two gifts on the economic front. First, just as Lehman Bros. was beginning to collapse, Sen. McCain's financial adviser Andrew Luskin claimed that "Things today just aren't that bad" economically in a Sunday Washington Post op-ed. (Thanks to Wonkette.)

To add to the McCain economic incompetence parade, Sen. McCain himself held a press conference this morning in which he claimed the "fundamentals" of our economy are strong, as reported by NPR's All Things Considered. Later, the Senator backtracked and claimed they are "at risk." If Sen. Obama doesn't use this for a campaign ad, he should fire his campaign manager.

There's a fundamental message that I think Sen. Obama and the Democrats haven't been hitting hard enough: are we better off than we were eight years ago? If not, it's time to vote for a Democrat.

Thanks, But No Thanks: What It Really Means!

Recently, MSNBC journalist Chris Matthews busted Gov. Sarah Palin for apparently lying about her opposition to the "Bridge to Nowhere" project. She has repeated the lie at least seven times.



Perhaps Mr. Matthews is being too cynical. After all, she always uses the phrase "Thanks, but No Thanks." What she's really trying to tell us is that she supported the project (saying thanks), before opposing the project (saying no thanks.)

Thanks to Talking Points Memo for this video.

RNC Bloopers

The Talking Points Memo blog highlights a highly amusing blooper during Sen. John McCain's speech at the Republican National Convention last night. while Sen. McCain was speaking, a photo of what appeared to be a mansion appeared behind him. Although there was speculation that the Arizona senator was showing off his copious real estate wealth, it turns out that the photo was probably of Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, CA. Just compare the photos above.

Apparently, the McCain Campaign had been planning to put up a photo of the Senator at Walter Reed Medical Center for injured soldiers.

Photo taken from Talking Points Memo.

So Much Experience

Great video from CNN featuring an interview with a McCain campaign representative, Tucker Bounds, regarding Gov. Sarah Palin. Wait for about three minutes in and watch Bounds flounder as he tries to justify Gov. Palin's experience. Not surprisingly, McCain's campaign has said the candidate will not be appearing on their network anytime soon.



Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for posting this on his blog.

Juno in Juneau?

Recently, the Internet has been buzzing with the rumor that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's recent infant is actually her daughter's. Observing the political scene over the past few days, another, rather more interesting conspiracy theory has occurred to me:

Palin's daughter isn't pregnant at all...

You may think this is preposterous. After all, why would Gov. Palin and the Republicans create such grief for themselves? However, the grief is exactly the point.

With the media focused on her daughter's pregnancy, all the real issues with Gov. Palin's political views and background-her extremist connections and allegations of corruption-are given short shrift. (Let's face it folks, even without having registered for the Alaskan Independence Party, it becomes clear she was neck-deep in these weirdoes.) Everyone will be talking about her daughter, while the legitimate issues fade away.

Don't believe me? Just don't be surprised when her daughter has a sudden, tragic miscarriage...

Perils of Palin

Over the past 48 hours, Gov. Sarah Palin has demonstrated herself to be one of the most under qualified and downright bizarre Vice-Presidential selections of recent years. Putting aside the imbroglio about her pregnant daughter, we have more reason to be concerned about her seeming past membership in the fringe Alaska Independence Party, a party which apparently advocates that the state hold a referendum about seceding from the Union. (Neo-Confederacy, anyone?) She was apparently attracted to the party by her religious beliefs, as the AIP is an affiliate of the theocratic Constitution Party.

Other rumors have been flying around the web, including the possibility that she endorsed Pat Buchanan's far-right candidacy in 2000. (McCain's campaign denies this, and her affiliation with the AIP.) McCain seems to have chosen a first rate wingnut as his co-candidate.

Corruption seems to be an issue as well. Her apparent firing of Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner over refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law is well documented, including via e-mails and tape recordings, but an investigation by the Washington Independent website confirms that she engaged in similar behavior during her term as mayor in Wasilla.

The bottom line: in his urgency to scoop up Hillary supporters, Sen. McCain did not bother to investigate Gov. Palin.

A Palin Imitation of Hillary

Sen. John McCain has added Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to his ticket in an aboveboard attempt to lure Hillary supporters to his campaign. Indeed, some feminists, such as Geraldine Ferraro, seem rather enthusiastic for Gov. Palin. However, feminists who support Senator Clinton have reason to step back very slowly...

Far from being a step forward for feminism, Gov. Palin's nomination thrusts forward one of the most anti-feminist politicians in America. As NARAL Pro-Choice America documents, she opposes abortion even in cases where the mother has been subjected to rape and incest, and is a member of the group Feminists for Life. This group follows Gov. Palin's lead, publishing a brochure, Victory over Violence, condemning the decision to abort after rape. If you're a woman who's experienced a sexual assault, don't turn to Gov. Palin for comfort.

Perhaps the greatest sign of Sen. McCain's anti-feminist credentials is that he chose a wingnut like Palin. He must think women are truly stupid to fall for her just because of her gender.

Convention Summary and Response

Overall, I believe the Democratic National Convention went well for Sen. Obama. No fights broke out between his supporters and the die hard backers of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Sen. Clinton's speech was a case study in conciliation, while Sen. Obama's concluding speech was his usual inspiring work, establishing his moderate credentials while establishing the groundwork for a nuanced, issues-based attack on Sen. McCain.

A few observations:

The convention got better as it went along. Monday night was actually rather disappointing, with mediocre speakers like Sen. Nancy Pelosi, whose speech, posted below, was a study in how not to excite a crowd.



Things got better on Tuesday, with some speakers, such as Sen. Bob Casey launching attacks against Sen. McCain and the Republican Party. Casey's "Four more months" line should be adopted as an overall campaign slogan. The best, however, was Thursday night. Gov. Richardson of New Mexico gave a speech, posted below, that made me wish he had been the vice-presidential selection.



Second, building on Sen. Casey's speech, the Democratic Party, and Sen. Obama in particular, need to go into attack mode. This can be done without violating Sen. Obama's pledge to pursue a new kind of politics. It is entirely possible to make issues-based attacks which focus on Sen. McCain's record of favoring the wealthy and backing the Bush Administration while still remaining catchy.

For example, one ad that has occurred to me would feature photos of Sen. McCain and President Bush together with descriptions of how Sen. McCain has supported the President's worst policies, punctuated by the refrain "Four More Years." An ad in a similar vein would feature the same material, with a digital background showing the M in McCain's turning upside down into a W.

Finally, all conventions, in the end, are pap. You will not see any nuanced exploration of the candidates positions just by watching their party's conventions. For that, you have to do your own research.

Striking Similarities

Am I the only one who thinks that Gov. Sarah Palin looks a lot like SNL actress Tina Fey?

Palin





Fey

He's At It Again!

Nation columnist, Counterpunch editor, and professional nutjob Alexander Cockburn has just launched a negative attack on Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Biden. In doing so, he only exposes his own radicalism, his lack of understanding of mainstream American politics, and his willingness to engage in smear tactics.

Cockburn begins his attack by ranting that Sen. Biden is not doing enough to attack "corporate capital." The reasoning: Sen. Biden apparently voted against a law that would have prevented bankrupt corporations from relocating to his home state of Delaware. Gee, Mr. Cockburn, I wonder why Sen. Biden would have voted against a law that adversely affects his own state's interests?

Cockburn follows up with an unsourced attack on Sen. Biden's character, citing an unnamed Counterpunch staffer who claims that Sen. Biden flirted with her only a week after his first wife's death. This is beneath contempt, but hardly surprising for Cockburn. After all, in a recent issue of The Nation, he humiliated himself by claiming that the national media was not publicizing reports of John Edwards's affair enough, only to have the article come out just as the media was flooded with stories about the same topic.

Tell me, Mr. Cockburn, why doesn't your staffer come forward with her allegations on 60 Minutes or some similar program? Why doesn't she let us see her face so we'll know who's making these claims and can evaluate her credibility?

Finally, he lambasts Sen. Biden for not being a critic of Israel. Umm, Mr. Cockburn, most American political opinion now favors Israel, for better or worst. I don't like it, but that's just life. If we followed Cockburn's advice, we'd never get a candidate in office.

Here's a little suggestion, Alex. Since you dislike the Democratic candidates so much, why not resign your column at The Nation, which is whole-heartedly backing them. Then you'll be putting your money where your mouth is, just like your erstwhile colleague, Christopher Hitchens (who, by the way, is a much more provocative, and persuasive, writer than you.)

Just a Thought...

If Sen. McCain can compare Barack Obama to Paris Hilton, can Sen. Obama compare McCain's wife, a known drug addict, to Amy Winehouse?

Politics in the Pulpit

This past Sunday, I saw something rather disturbing when I attended services at a local church. For reasons that will become obvious, I will not identify the church except to say that it was of a liberal Protestant denomination.

The service in question was a special congregation-led affair that featured a segment where people could talk about what they were doing over the summer. One woman talked about her attendance at an AIDS conference, and mentioned that many other people who attended the conference hoped a new president in the White House would change American AIDS policy. She left no doubt that she meant Barack Obama, although she did not explicitly mention him.

The political endorsements became more explicit, however, with one of the next people to speak. She declared that she would be volunteering for Barack Obama over the summer in order to convince Hillary Clinton supporters not to vote for John McCain. She urged other people also to volunteer, if I remember correctly.

Although I agree fully with these congregants’ choice of candidate, I think they seriously erred in using the church as a forum for their chosen political campaign. This is not the first time this has happened at the church in question. Several months ago, in the lead up to the Pennsylvania primary, the minister (who it should be noted was not present at this Sunday’s service) reminded the congregation to register as Democrats so they could choose between Obama and Clinton. Although he did not endorse either candidate, it is difficult to imagine that a Republican or Libertarian congregant would have been made to feel comfortable by this announcement.

The significance of these incidents increases when one considers that churches are not supposed to endorse specific candidates for office if they want to keep their tax-exempt status. Several evangelical churches have gotten into trouble for endorsing Republican candidates, and it would be hypocritical and unfair for more liberal churches to engage in the same behavior. Lobbying for social justice is one thing, endorsing a specific candidate is entirely another.

Some will no doubt object that this is an infringement upon free speech, and it may well be in some respects. I would have no difficulty allowing ministers to endorse specific candidates, if churches paid taxes like any other part of civil society, as I feel they should. Those who will not contribute their fair share to civil society have no right to expect the full rights it offers. The government should not subsidize, in the form of tax breaks, a partisan organization that directly endorses candidates. Since there is no reason to expect in the near future that churches will begin paying their fair share, I feel this is the best compromise that can be worked out.