Basing my reasoning on absolutely no hard facts (which I fully admit up front), here's the scenario that keeps suggesting itself to my addled brain (and which, to my surprise, doesn't seem to have suggested itself to anyone else): during the discussions between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (which took place between the end of the primary season and when she began campaigning for him), Hillary gets Barack to agree to this sideshow if he gets elected. She will be "offered" Secretary of State, which she will then decline "because there's so much to do in the Senate." But — and here's the crux of my thinking — she will gain by this situation by improving her prestige in the Senate and attaining more power than she normally would have (due to her low seniority status).

Read Complete Article »

At 12:39 PM (Alaska time) Democratic challenger Mark Begich led the incumbent (and convicted felon) Senator Ted Stevens by 2,374 votes — an improvement of over 1,300 votes in today's tally. By my thumbnail estimates, there appear to be just over 10,000 ballots left to count, meaning that Stevens' defeat seems likely at this point.

Read Complete Article »

I mean, it is so fantastical I had to actually laugh at it. Because of course every single right-winger in America who has been using such language will immediately start using the same language about George Bush. All who have called the concept of an American "timetable for withdrawal" as being: downright dangerous, weak, a surrender, cowardly, losing a war to al Qaeda, giving up on the War On Terror, giving the terrorists what they want, a crazy Democratic idea, a dangerously naive idea by [insert name of Democratic politician here], proof that Democrats love to lose wars, proof that Democrats are un-American, anti-American, and blame-America-first — all of the people who have ever uttered anything of that ilk will of course be intellectually honest and consistent, and will now denounce Bush in exactly the same fierce language as they have used previously. Because to do otherwise would just reveal their monstrous hypocrisy. And of course they will not shirk their duty to do so, since they've been provided with such a shining example of an American leader "caving in to terrorists" and surrendering in the face of the enemy. Of course they'll denounce Bush just as strongly as they have been denouncing others who have espoused such views.

Read Complete Article »

Bush's meeting is going to last six hours. And nobody expects it to come up with anything even close to the same magnitude of what happened in Bretton Woods. Nobody sane, that is. So please, media types, don't call it what it's not. Let's have some truth in advertising here. Call it "Desperate Bush Lame-Duck Photo-Op With World Leaders Who Would Really Rather Be Talking To Obama," if you have to slap a label on it. Because that's a lot closer to what it's going to be.

Read Complete Article »

As I see it, the issue breaks down in a number of ways. The first question is anonymity — do Americans have an absolute right to anonymity in political messages? The second question is technological — is anonymity a right, no matter what the medium? And the third question seems to be political, and deal with campaign and election law — what kinds of rules on speech are constitutionally allowable in politics?

Read Complete Article »

One of the more scurrilous 2008 campaign tactics (in a campaign seemingly full of them) had to have been those insidious "Have you heard… Barack Obama is a secret Muslim?!?" emails. These bounced hither and yon on the internet almost from the beginning of the campaign itself (or at the very least, since when it looked like Obama had a chance at the nomination). This sort of activity would likely fall into most people's "there ought to be a law" list — a list of things worth changing in our election process. Unfortunately, the state Supreme Court of Virginia handed down a ruling in the midst of the campaign which may ultimately make any sort of limits on this sort of anonymous political (and technological) mudslinging actually unconstitutional. Meaning it would be impossible to pass any sort of laws against the practice at all.

Read Complete Article »

OK, I know it's been a week and we've got to move on. The election is over, the dust has settled, and I really should be writing about something else rather than indulging in navel-gazing. But I can't help myself. I have to write one more article about the election, and in particular my picks. I apologize in advance. If you don't like watching someone else pat themselves on the back, then just skip today's article altogether and go out and decorate a veteran's grave. You have been warned.

Read Complete Article »