[ Posted Monday, February 4th, 2008 – 16:30 UTC ]
Tomorrow is... (drumroll, please)... Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday!
[OK, I'm already tired of typing that, so henceforth it will be referred to as SDTT, which makes it sound like something you could catch from a toilet seat. Ahem.]
This means we return to our "pick the primary winners" series, for what could be the last time. One program note: because of the tidal wave of primaries tomorrow, the rules for picking winners need a little revision. Because there are so many states voting tomorrow, because there are effectively only two candidates left on the Democratic side, and because most of the Republican contests are "winner take all" as far as delegates go; I will only be selecting the winner for each party and each state today. Sorry Mitt, but silver and gold just don't count for much anymore.
Speaking of Republicans, Tom Toles drew the best (and most hilarious) political obituary for Rudy Giuliani last week, which is worth a look if you need a chuckle.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Friday, February 1st, 2008 – 17:18 UTC ]
This column is dedicated to the idea that Democrats can learn to use talking points as effectively as Republicans often do. This idea annoys many who feel that Democrats using talking points is degrading, and stoops to Republican tactics; a position I don't agree with, but still respect. But sometimes even I have to take Democrats to task for not backing up such talking points with action, or at the very least a plan of action.
And I have to do so now with a brilliant talking point that Barack Obama has been using quite frequently: "There is something wrong when Warren Buffet pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary." This is true (Buffet himself was the originator of the line), and it is an excellent talking point. It uses an example most people can relate to -- the patent unfairness of a billionaire making his money buying and selling stocks who pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does, for actually working for her money.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Thursday, January 31st, 2008 – 14:58 UTC ]
As the field of candidates from both parties narrows, it is now possible to talk of the November candidate matchups in a single column.
But before I get into this candidate versus that, I would like to point out one more interesting thing about this year's election. It's a footnote, really, but an interesting one nonetheless: there's a large chance that this year will be only the third time Americans have elected a sitting senator. There's been a sort of "curse of the Senate" hanging over presidential candidates ever since JFK became only the second one to ever make this leap. While this isn't as exciting as electing the first black or woman to the White House, it will be one more reason this year's election isn't exactly like the others. By my figuring, there's a 75% chance we'll have a senator moving to the Oval Office next year.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 – 16:14 UTC ]
Out of the frozen tundra of Iowa, out of the snowy mountains of Vermont, out of the brightly-lit casinos in the Nevada desert, out of the churches of South Carolina... campaign '08 comes barreling down towards Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday like a cheetah on steroids. But I'd like to pause here for a moment, take a deep breath, and look at the 2008 election's "big picture" -- where we've been, where we are, and how we got here.
The most striking thing about the 2008 campaign so far has been the mainstream media pundits being so wrong, so many times. Here are just a few of the nuggets of "conventional wisdom" served up as gospel truth by the chattering classes -- which all turned out to be laughable: "McCain is finished," "Hillary is inevitable," "Obama will lose Iowa since it's all white," "Ron Paul is a fringe candidate who will not be able to raise any money," "Huckabee doesn't have any money, so there's no way he will win Iowa," "Hillary will lose New Hampshire," "if a candidate (especially a woman) ever seems to cry on the campaign trail, their campaign is over," "Rudy Giuliani is the Republican frontrunner," "this election will be all about Iraq," "black people won't vote for Obama because he isn't 'black enough' and Hillary will win their votes," "Bill Clinton will be a big plus when campaigning for black votes," "Obama will win South Carolina, but it will be a close race," "Fred Thompson will be the next Ronald Reagan," "Everything will be decided on Super Tuesday," "Republicans always choose a frontrunner early and fall in line behind him," "Romney has it all wrapped up now," "Hillary has it all wrapped up now," "McCain has it all wrapped up now," et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 – 16:04 UTC ]
Last night the Democratic response to President Bush's final State of the Union speech was given by Kathleen Sebelius, Democratic Governor of Kansas. While the initial reaction of most Americans could be summed up as "Who?" watching her deliver her speech made me wonder if Barack Obama had helped write it. And after Sebelius endorsed Obama today, I'm left with an even bigger question -- will she be Obama's running mate?
Her name has already been floated around among the pundits handicapping who will be the choice for vice president (they also have a name for the process which I refuse to use due to its overwhelmingly saccharine cutesiness: the "Veepstakes"). So it's not out of the realm of possibility that she'd be on Obama's short list.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Monday, January 28th, 2008 – 15:14 UTC ]
Ever onwards, into the fray, we return to the latest in a series of primary "picks" columns, this time heading down to Florida to examine the Republican race. I refuse to write any Democratic picks, since they're supposed to be in the penalty box for moving their primary up sooner than February 5th. So this week, it's GOP-only.
Which is probably a good thing, since my track record on the Republican side is a lot better than my total for Democrats. I seem to be able to be more objective on the Republicans, and more biased on the Democratic side, so make of that what you will.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Friday, January 25th, 2008 – 16:16 UTC ]
Netizens, fellow bloggers, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and all Americans... I am proud to stand before you and say... the state of the weblog is strong!
Blogging, for instance, means you can put your own comments out there before President Bush gives his final State of the Union speech next Monday. This is a good thing for our blogosphere!
The state of the blog is best when we call things long before the mainstream media wakes up from its eternal slumber to echo what bloggers have been saying for months. Like predicting last May that February 5th will not determine our nominees, and that we may even have open conventions this year.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Thursday, January 24th, 2008 – 16:46 UTC ]
There's a difference between leading and following. Leading means getting out in front, and charting a course. Watching to see what others do, calculating where the political chips are going to fall, and then picking the safest course is not leading. It is following.
John Edwards today came out strongly in support of Chris Dodd's fight against Harry Reid in the Senate over giving telecommunications companies immunity for breaking the wiretapping laws. To be fair, Dodd is the one leading on the issue, but he has dropped out of the race for president, so he deserves the leadership honors on the issue. But among the three leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, only Edwards is even speaking about the issue. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as of this writing, don't have any press releases up on their web pages on the issue, one way or the other. Both of them are out on the campaign trail rather than in the Senate to cast votes on the issue.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 – 15:20 UTC ]
Either Karl Rove has joined the Clinton campaign as their advisor, or somebody over there has learned a lot from his standard campaign playbook. Because they're successfully using Rove's signature (and quite bizarrely effective) political tactic: attack your opponent not on his weak points, but on your weak points. This throws your opponent on defense, when he should be strongly playing offense.
The first indication of this came a few weeks ago when Hillary started criticizing Obama's Iraq war voting record. Even though he was against it from the beginning, Clinton points out that in the past few years Obama has voted for war funding! Well, so what? Unless I'm grossly mistaken, Clinton herself has voted for war funding in the same time period. And Clinton voted for the war's onset, which she's never apologized for (a weak point for her). But she tied Obama up in knots for a while explaining why this was such a ridiculous charge.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008 – 18:15 UTC ]
Life imitates art....
I was amused to read an article in Salon the other day about a man who is selling one acre lots on the moon for the surprisingly reasonable price of $19.95 each.
But what amused me most about the article is that whoever wrote it obviously doesn't know much about science fiction, as Robert A. Heinlein's name wasn't even mentioned.
Continue Reading »
