Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Much rending of garments and beating of chests hath been heard from the Republicans lately, those who are wont to periodically bewail (both plaintively and pleadingly) for The Second Coming of He Who Is Known as Saint Ronald of Reagan. But maybe they're just looking in the wrong places.
Because maybe the spirit of Reagan has already returned.
Since Republicans have all but anointed John McCain as their presidential nominee, it's about time to start speculating on who he's going to choose to fill out his ticket. Most of this speculation has so far centered around the possibilities of McCain giving the nod to one of his primary opponents (Huckabee or Romney), in order to shore up his support among this GOP faction, or that right-wing interest group. Going further afield, there have been some guesses about Republican officeholders who may help a McCain ticket in other ways. But there's one name I haven't heard mentioned yet, one which should worry Democrats: Condoleezza Rice.
Think about it for a second, and you'll realize what a bold stroke it would be for John McCain. He's either going to be running against an African-American or a woman in the general election, so why not add a Republican African-American woman to his ticket?
There are two different aspects of voter demographics and the media worth commenting on in the presidential race this year. The first, about the Republicans, the media has so far largely ignored (but may pick up on later); and the second, about the Democrats, where the media itself seems to be the problem.
Professional pundits like conventional wisdom. It's comfortable for them to say what "everyone knows" with the voice of authority. But, seeing how often this so-called "wisdom" has been wrong already this year, one can't help but wonder about yet another pillar of political wisdom: that there are only so many "battleground" states in play this year, and that the red/blue electoral map from the last two elections will generally stay the same this time around. Because there is a good chance that this may be wrong, too.
It's been a busy week for Democrats, with a lot to cover. There has been good news and bad, but on the whole I'd have to judge the week a success for Democrats in general. Led by what the Washington Post reports as a "rare uprising" of House Democrats. But before I get to that, I'd like to offer one observation from the campaign trail.
With the Democratic campaign heating up, both Hillary and Barack are currently wooing John Edwards' endorsement. Rumors have been flying about who Edwards is leaning towards, and some have even suggested that his window of time to endorse is closing. I disagree -- I think Edwards is truly trying to figure out which candidate is going to further his campaign's ideas. I think all the rumors are just the media acting like gossipy teenagers (once again).
Sooner or later, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is going to lose the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. This, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, is a "known known." So the question arises: what should whoever loses do next?
Now, while many are holding out hope for a "Dream Ticket" with both their names on it, I personally don't think it's going to happen. Choosing a running mate is just about the only fun thing the candidate gets to do during their entire campaign. And they rarely choose the person everyone expects them to. They also rarely choose former contenders for the nomination, although it does sometimes happen. They usually either choose someone who they are personally comfortable with (think: Dick Cheney), or someone who their campaign managers assure them will "bring them votes" either geographically or otherwise (think: L.B.J.).
While I remain officially neutral in the Democratic presidential nomination race, I have been accused lately of writing nice things about Barack Obama, and not doing the same for Hillary Clinton. To tell the truth, I had been formulating an article in my mind on this subject, but I hadn't gotten very far.
Riding to my rescue was one of Huffington Post's own commenters, who not only suggested I write a pro-Hillary article, but also outlined what I should say in it. I thought the idea had merit, but instead of just swiping his idea and writing my own words around it, I offered him the opportunity to write it himself.
If the President of the United States appeared on your doorstep and asked you to do something both you and he knew was illegal, would you do it?
I ask this question, because that is what is at stake in the showdown over the FISA law, warrantless wiretapping, and giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for breaking the law at the request of the federal government. In other words, if the president does it (no matter what "it" is) is it therefore legal? This question was famously asked of Richard Nixon, and we all know what he had to say about it.
Mulligan -- (noun) A golf shot not tallied against the score, granted in informal play after a poor shot especially from the tee.
This is about fairness. Because with the delegate count in the Democratic presidential nomination race so very close, every state is going to matter this year. Which should include Michigan and Florida. But, as amateur golfers know, sometimes you have to take a Mulligan. And get a "do-over."
Democrats in Michigan and Florida need to vote again. It's as simple as that. Because it is the only fair thing to do. People are already shouting "Unfair!" about the situation, from many directions. Most of them are right, or at least have a valid point. The only way to resolve this mess is to go back to square one and do it all over. Because while it's not the best outcome for every faction, it is the only truly fair way to handle the situation as it stands now.
I'm going to start off with a quick piece of advice for both Democratic campaigns (or perhaps for Howard Dean) -- spend the next few weeks taping everything John McCain says publicly. He is in the midst of shoring up his support in the Republican conservative base, and hence will be in full pander mode. Tape everything that comes out of his mouth during this period, because you are going to need it as ammunition for campaign ads this fall. After he locks up his party, he's going to try to tack back to the moderate middle, and the voters will need to be reminded of how desperately he courted the far right wing of his party.
Like I said, this advice should be followed by both Obama and Clinton now, so they'll have the footage to use later, no matter which of them becomes the eventual Democratic nominee.
