It's been about a month since we last took a look under the microscope at the possible outcomes of the Electoral College vote this November, so it's time for an update. For those of you too busy to read this, I will sum it up for you in advance: Looks good for Obama!

Now, I don't want anyone to be swept up in untimely exuberance, and firmly caution against prematurely popping champagne corks here. There's a lot of time left in this race, and anything can happen. But things are undeniably looking good for Obama's chances of winning versus McCain's.

Continue Reading »

For only the fourth (or fifth, depending on how you count) time in his presidency, George W. Bush had a veto overridden by both houses of Congress this week. This is big news, since it doesn't happen very often.

The bill which Bush unsuccessfully vetoed was the same Medicare bill which was passed last week by the heroic efforts of Senator Teddy Kennedy (which won him the coveted Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, I might add). The vote in the House was 383-41, including 153 Republicans voting against Bush. In the Senate, the vote was 70-26, including 21 Republicans. This increased the margins from when it originally passed (355-59 and 69-30 respectively, with 129 Republicans in the House and 18 in the Senate).

A huge list of interested parties were in favor of the bill, from the AARP to the American Heart Association. So who was against it? Insurance companies. This was bluntly (starkly?) pointed out by Democratic California Representative Pete Snark... oh, excuse me, that's "Pete Stark" (I don't know how I could have gotten that confused), speaking to the opposition: "I understand when we have 50 groups supporting our bill and you only have one ... it gets a little annoying. But we will see if we can find one other group to support your bill. I doubt it, but we will try."

Continue Reading »

What exactly does Barack Obama mean when he calls himself a "post-partisan" politician? What, indeed does "post-partisan" mean? The answer to such a basic question seems obvious, but then again maybe not, since people all across the political spectrum seem to be misunderstanding the term itself.

So, as the incomparable Dave Barry might say, it's time to play "Mister Language Person," in the hopes of clearing up some apparent confusion, on both the left and the right.

"Post-partisan," for those speaking British English, means "to mail a letter to partisan." Um, no... wait... that's not quite right. "Post-partisanship" is, of course, "an ocean-going vessel with mail for partisans on it." No, that's not it either.

All kidding aside, the word is so new that I actually couldn't find it in the online dictionary I use. From the word's roots, "post-partisan" literally means: "after partisan," or (more eloquently) "beyond partisan." Beyond partisanship means moving away from the fractured nature of partisan politics which America has been going through for the past few decades (historians would correct that to "since America began," but then pointing this fact out would not be in the post-partisan spirit, so we'll move on).

Continue Reading »

You might have missed it, because there has been an astonishing lack of interest in this story in both the mainstream media and (surprisingly) the liberal blogosphere, but America's military involvement in Iraq may soon and irrevocably be drawing to a close. With timetables for withdrawal and everything!

That's right -- the Iraq war may soon be ending.

Continue Reading »

[I'm not normally this lazy, but today I think I will sit back and let the presumptive Democratic nominee for president speak. Barack Obama was roundly castigated by the media last week for a non-story (because he said he might "refine" his Iraq policy). This seemed to fit into the media narrative of "Barack's a flip-flopper," which they had been pushing hard. But anyone who has listened to what Obama actually has said during the campaign about Iraq was surely scratching their head, since his recent remarks were pretty much what he's been saying all along. Since the media went into overdrive on this non-issue, Barack has been fighting back. And, as I discussed yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has given Obama a huge opening by demanding a timetable for American troops to leave Iraq. Obama has been taking advantage of this opportunity, first by penning an op-ed article in yesterday's New York Times, and today by giving a speech on foreign policy. While this was a wide-ranging speech which addressed more than just Iraq, I think it is worth excerpting Obama's strong commitment to ending the Iraq war, in case anyone's been listening to too much mainstream media in the past week or so. Without further ado, here is Barack Obama on Iraq (if you're interested, you should read the full text of his speech).]

Continue Reading »

There were two news reports over the weekend about Iraq that George Bush wasn't prepared for, and both the White House and John McCain have been slow to address them. This opens up a window of opportunity for Barack Obama, one that he has already begun to take advantage of. But he needs to do so more succinctly and more forcefully in the next few days, before the Republicans regroup and try to frame it in their own terms.

The first piece of bad news for Bush was that his efforts to tie the hands of his successor on Iraq are apparently toast. Bush tried to foist a "Status Of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) on the Iraqis which would have continued the U.S. military presence there for a long time to come. But the Iraqis balked, and are now demanding that any such agreement include a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. Not exactly what Bush had in mind, to put it mildly.

Continue Reading »

Welcome back to Friday Talking Points, after a one-week hiatus!

While plenty has happened in the past two weeks which bears close and careful analysis, I'd like to begin by focusing on one event. Barack Obama announced a masterstroke of political tactics last week, and I don't think everyone has appreciated fully what it is going to mean. I say this not as an "Obamamaniac," or as some starry-eyed follower who has been caught up in his "personality cult," but rather as a political observer (with an admitted left-wing bias) applauding a Democratic candidate on a monumentally brilliant decision.

I speak of Obama's acceptance speech. Which will be seen -- live -- by over 80,000 people in the stadium where the Denver Broncos play football.

That is just stunning.

Continue Reading »

[If you missed it, please see the Program Note for an explanation of the repeat columns this week.]

[These "prediction" articles are always lots of fun to write, but sometimes they're kind of painful to re-read later on. At least for me. To others they may bring amusement.

So, to be fair, I am running a "halfway mark" check on my 2008 predictions. I wrote this column in mid-December last year. My record is not that good, I have to admit. Although the one about Iraq and the elections has so far turned out uncannily accurate, I have to say. But many of these I just got flat-out wrong. I predicted an extended primary campaign... for the wrong party. I predicted all kinds of wild things which just didn't happen. But, for your amusement, I am running the column in full, complete with my own personal self-grading. (You may want to read the column first, and then come back to this list to see how I marked it.)

Continue Reading »

[If you missed it, please see the Program Note for an explanation of the repeat columns this week.]

[This column is as appropriate today as when I wrote it. The only thing that needs changing is what is considered "astronomical" for a barrel of oil. Analysts are now predicting $200 or $300 a barrel (or even higher) were America or Israel to attack Iran. But I think that all the other points are still as valid now as when I originally wrote this last fall.]

Continue Reading »

[If you missed it, please see the Program Note for an explanation of the repeat columns this week.]

[Just for fun, right after the Democrats swept the 2006 midterm elections and took both houses of Congress, I thought I would take a crack at making some predictions for 2008. I've never been afraid of jumping in with my analysis long before others get around to it, even if it proves eventually to be laughably wrong.

So here is how the 2008 election looked, to me, a year and a half ago. I concentrated mostly on the Senate, and if I were dividing up the races today, obviously I would switch some of these states from one category to another. But I think my final prediction of 57 Democrats (55 Democrats plus two independents who vote with them) to 43 Republicans is still among the most likely outcomes this year. I could be off by one or two, but I bet not much more than that.

So here are my ridiculously-early 2008 predictions, to provide an interesting look back.]

Continue Reading »