Shaping and molding young minds

Two tales of the emergent political consciousness of l'il wobs.

Tale One: L'il wobs is currently enrolled in a hippy-dippy kind of Christian Montessori school. The boy apparently enjoys the religious part of the curriculum, which is fine by us, albeit a little jarring at times (for instance, when he referred to our wine as "Jesus blood." The way we see it, he'll encounter Christianity at some point - better from people who are teaching him to love everyone than from, say... Baptists. Besides, how's he ever going to appreciate Milton if he doesn't get some Judeo-Christian learning?

At any rate, a few weeks ago, l'il wobs started talking about "Rock" Obama. I was curious to know what the lad knew about "Rock," so I asked him. We were told that Obama is very beautiful, that he was put in jail, and then they killed him.

We were obviously a little surprised by his answer. Either ms. wobs or I asked him if maybe he was talking about Jesus, and l'il wobs responded, "They're the same."

Tale Two: One of l'il wobs friends and his parents weren't able to make the baseball game today, so they offered their tickets to us. We trekked down to watch the Nationals take on the Pirates. All was going well until "Star-Spangled Banner" time. To add a little razzle-dazzle to the proceedings, fireworks are launched to punctuate the "rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air."

L'il wobs hates loud fireworks and immediately broke down and wanted to leave. We talked our way through it, and he eventually re-settled and started to have a good time, charming our seatmates and munching on (four fucking dollar) Cracker Jacks.

During the bottom of the fourth, however, an Aaron Boone shot to the patio in center field brought out another round of celebratory fireworks, upon which l'il wobs recommenced freaking out. He was talked back down again, but by the time the sixth inning rolled around, he was pretty adamant about going home.

At any rate, when l'il wobs grows up to detest America, you'll know who to blame.

So many more questions

Well, Obama has garnered the crucial Grateful Dead endorsement (hat tip). That might be enough for some hemp-clad dreadie who just put down the bong, but not for me. Nosiree.

Bassist Phil Lesh, 67, said he met Obama, who told him he has some Grateful Dead songs on his iPod music player, last year.

Which songs, Senator? Some cuts from American Beauty or the Scarlet>Fire from Cornell '77?

Donna: Yay or Nay?

Pigpen, Keith, or Brent?

And most importantly, Bobby or Jerry?

Don't think that you can duck the hard questions, say that you've got some Dead tunes on your iPod, and think you can win my vote... which I'll get around to casting when I come down.

Dip me in cowshit and roll me around in grass blades

Huh.

So, what's our takeaway from two completely non-representative state electoral contests? On the D side, both Obama and Clinton can run formidable campaigns, and most pundits (including yours truly, although I don't think I exactly qualify as a pundit, per se - just as a know-nothing loudmouth) are full of shit. I have no idea where this heads down the road, and the time lag between now and the next few contests (and the big February 5 electoral burrito supreme) makes a magic 8-ball more reliable than any prognosticator. I do think it's a two person race now - Edwards will stay in (and I hope he stays in through February 5, just to keep the social democracy rhetoric in play), but he's got no chance and will be under pressure to bow out.

On the R side, Mittens' star is fading fast. After getting walloped after dumping buckets of money into Iowa, and then getting creamed in a state where he practically lived (oh, and winning Wyoming... whatever the hell that means...), he's going to have the sickly gangrene stench of loserdom following him from here on out. I don't necessarily think it bodes well for McCain, I think outside of its theocon wing, the GOP is terrified of Huckabee, and Giuliani hasn't begun to seriously invoke 9/11 to win yet. Who the fuck knows?

Me? I'll be taking advantage of this apparent lapse in the orderly succession of leadership to smuggle massive amounts of hallucinogens to 7th grade midwesterners. Or drink more booze, as has been the case this evening.

All bets are off

After watching the Democratic debate tonight, I hereby rescind any predictions I made about how things are going to shake out. Edwards isn't done by any stretch of the imagination, although I am somewhat skeptical about how his gambit trying to shift the frame from a Clinton v. not-Clinton to a "which version of change do you want" will work. Hillary will be hammered tomorrow for aggressively defending her record - unfairly, I think, because she's a woman. It'll be characterized as "bitchiness." We'd be fools to discount her public service record (which on many issues is very good, on others, not so). Hillary has a lot working against her right now, and I don't know that tonight did her any favors in the face of those obstacles. The debate didn't change my mind about my preferences (Edwards said what I wanted to hear), but it certainly muddied the waters as to how I think the average voter is going to respond.

On the other side, I think Romney sealed his fate in New Hampshire tonight. He looked like the flamingest asshole on a stage filled with flaming assholes, a congenial theocrat, and a crazy man. It's all downhill for Mittens from here on out.

What now?

First things first: my political prognostications aren't worth shit. Now what do we draw from this completely unrepresentative, first-in-the-nation presidential wine-tasting?

On the D side: Iowa was a must-win for Edwards. I don't think there's any way for him to rebound. From what I understand, his field operation in NH is a shadow of what he invested in Iowa, and he's already far enough behind Obama and Clinton in NH that I don't think he'll be able to staunch the bleeding. Obama probably rides the big mo to a win in NH. But beyond that? Clearly, Edwards message resonates, and it's going to be interesting how his supporters shake out and who tries to make a play for them. Like Dave and a lot of others, I find Obama's "unity" message to be a little disconcerting, especially when accompanied by his recent policy sniping from the right. Likewise, I'm not enamored with Hillary and the whole idea of Clinton II. I'd gladly take either over anyone the Rs would have to offer up, though. Obama's clearly the "change" candidate, but his vision of change seems out-of-sync with the times.

Color me flummoxed as to how my own vote shakes out, but for now I'll say that Obama is my second choice after Edwards. After NH, we've got ourselves a Battle Royale on our hands.

On the R side: One thing I'm sure of: you can stick a fork in Mitt. He got shellacked by an underfunded, Bible-bangin' hillbilly, and now the GOP money guys are going to abandon him in droves. I had figured that McCain would get a third place nod that would give him some momentum going into NH to nip Romney there. But Grandpa Fred in third?

So NH looks like a mess to me on on the R side. McCain is ahead in the polls, but will be competing with Obama for independent voters in an open primary, and Obama clearly has more going on for him. Huckabee has been hanging around 10% in the polls and might get a little bounce, but doesn't have the fundamentalist core he needs so desperately. Mitt is going to hemorrhage supporters, but the question becomes how many. I think enough of Mitt's support goes to McCain to put him over the top in NH. Mitt might go on for awhile after that, but will diminish in significance. And South Carolina will be a hideously nasty affair as the GOP big boys try to stamp out Huckabee like they did McCain in 2000 (oh sweet irony). We'll be hearing whispers about Huckabee fucking goats any day now.

And somewhere out there, we have Rudy 9/11 waiting to use his "big state" strategy. I think Rudy fails miserably in this - his support is already cratering given his, erm... out and out douchebagginess, and being out of the media narrative for the first few states while others build momentum will only seal the deal.

But really, what the fuck do I know? Onward to New Hampshire!

Daring to dream

Bill Richardson sets goals where angels fear to tread:

Yet the challenge for Mr. Richardson is whether he can break out of the “also ran” status as the fourth-ranked candidate on the Democratic side and knock off one of the top three, with his aim, according to his campaign staff, squarely on the person in the No. 3 spot: Mr. Edwards, who has been losing ground lately as the Clinton and Obama campaigns devote more resources here.

That's right, baby. The governor of New Mexico has his sights set on being Number Three. I'll no longer tolerate all this talk about Hillary being the candidate driven by blind ambition when it's clear that Richardson's all-consuming drive for the show spot eclipses her settling on just the presidency.

Profiles in douchebaggery

Rush Limbaugh is so, like, middle-school in the way he acts. In proving his point about Don Imus, Oxycotin Boy becomes that smug prick who would be an asshole just to prove the point that he could get away with it and there's nothing you can do about it:

The leading US shock jock Rush Limbaugh is taunting the liberal media by repeatedly airing a derogatory and racially charged song about the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Limbaugh, whose rightwing talk show is one of the most listened to in the US, has been running a song called Barack the Magic Negro, to the tune Puff the Magic Dragon.

On his show Limbaugh says he is an entertainer and the song is a parody. He justifies it by saying the first linkage of the term "magic negro" to Mr Obama was by a black commentator, David Ehrenstein, in the liberal Los Angeles Times.

Really, he's just like a twelve-year old. And Obama seems to understand that Rush is just an angry boy acting out, given his decision to pretty much roll his eyes and shrug, "What're ya gonna do?"

Rush is fishing for a controversy à la Imus to garner some free publicity, I'm sure, and he'll undoubtedly get some. Where Imus's remarks were seemingly off-the-cuff and aimed at a group of young women whose achievements and stature didn't warrant public ridicule, Rush has carefully constructed a parody aimed squarely at someone who expects to be the butt of many, many jokes over the course of a campaign. As an African-American who has run for office before, I'm sure Obama knows that there are those who will be hostile to any black person in a position of power. And the higher the authority, the more intense the hostility. I also love how Rush smugly clues his audience in to the clever historical references that he's made. Really cute.

Even though his actions resemble that of a pimple-faced seventh-grader, I'm still shocked by the cynicism with which he wields his racism. Rush knows his audience. He knows that Senator Obama has received threats. And while able to cover his ass with the claim of parody and distancing himself from more extreme and violent sentiments, there exists no other reason for his actions than to inflame a backwards put potent voting base.

What a douchebag.

Flotsam and jetsam: presidential edition

I've been avoiding talking about politics for awhile now, not for any reason, per se, other than the fact that plenty of other people do it, and for the most part I don't really have anything to add, other than a little snark. But all this hoopla surrounding the potential Fred Thompson candidacy (not to be confused with the already declared and mortally wounded Tommy Thompson candidacy) has gotten me hot under the collar, and pattyjoe has been fanning the flames playing Fantasy Ticket '08. I'll see his EmRom-Thompson v. Obama-Edwards, and will state unequivocally that the best "political theater" match-up will be Thompson-EmRom v. Gore-Obama.

Is anyone else more than a little intrigued that for the second time in thirty years, the GOP may have an actor at the top of its slate?

The NYT is currently running a pretty bland is he is or is he ain't piece on Thompson. What's missing from the article, you ask? Any mention of Iraq.

I'm announcing a new caucus, the "We can do better than Hillary" caucus. I know many of you have professed some strong Anyone but Hillary inclinations, and I can hardly blame you. She's been wrong on some pretty important issues, and I can say that I'll do my share of the lifting to see that we elect a good alternative - and for once, we do have some very palatable alternatives in the top tier of presidential contenders. However, if the Hillary Juggernaut does happen to steamroll the competition (a distinct possibility), I know damn well that she is better on my issues six way 'til Sunday than anyone the GOP might beat out of the Bushes, and I know damn well that another GOP presidency - with a narrowly divided Senate hanging in the balance - would be disastrous for this country: for women's rights, for civil rights, for Iraq, for unions... do I need to go on? Hillary will never be ideal. Indeed, we're fortunate right now, because we know we can do better. But let's stay real and act accordingly.

Ixnay on the ynchinglays

Par for the course for the boys over at Fox:

[Fox contributor Pat] CADDELL: It may or may not be. Let me say this. Can I say something, Bob, on this point? Just this -- you cannot run a campaign the way they're doing, saying, "Vote for me because I'm a woman," which is what they're doing.

If Barack Obama was out there saying, "Vote for me because I'm black," or Richardson -- Bill Richardson said, "Vote for me because I'm a Hispanic," people would hang them high. I mean, this is ridiculous.

I'd call this an unfortunate choice of words, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that this might be the exact image Caddell had in mind.

Stopping the war

So now both John Edwards and Barack Obama have comprehensive plans for withdrawing from Iraq. Good on 'em. How do they stack up?

Timeframes: If both proposals became law today, their timeframes would be very similar. Obama has firm dates (out by the end of March 2008, with provisions for extending that time frame and for keeping "a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.") Edwards, on the other hand, has proposed more vague 12-18 months ("from when?" being the obvious question).

Metrics for progress: Seems like an odd thing to need to discuss when both candidates are calling for withdrawal, but Obama's provisions for extensions beyond the March 31, 2008 deadline are dependent upon the Iraqi government meeting thirteen criteria put forth by the Bush administration. Edwards' approach seems to assume that either a) the political cleavages in Iraq are so sharp that rapprochement in the near-term is highly unlikely and worth the cost in American lives and treasure, or b) that the U.S. presence in Iraq is an actual impediment to any sort of political solution. My hunch is on the former. At any rate, the Edwards plan makes no provisions for "progress" in Iraq.

I actually think this point illuminates some of the stylistic differences between the candidates. Edwards here seems to be playing for the majority of the population who think the situation is hopeless and want withdrawal in the very near future (by the end of year). Obama, on the other hand, appeals to an idealized (if somewhat diminished) notion of American optimism by offering the hope that maybe, just maybe, things might be turned around in Iraq. Populist versus optimist, as it were. Just sayin'...

Diplomacy: I'm shocked, shocked! to discover that both candidates favor intensive regional diplomacy, including talks with Syria and Iran.

Redeploy to where?: Again, both candidates seem to be in agreement. U.S. forces will remain in the region; Edwards is explicit about the military's role in containing the Iraqi civil war within its borders, and both allow for humanitarian interventions and retain the right to intervene to prevent terrorism. I don't know how significant a point this is, but Edwards seems pretty unequivocal in calling for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces, while Obama's legislation seems to imply that U.S. military personnel would remain to continue to train Iraqi security forces, as well as conduct anti-terrorist operations.

Funding: Here's where the real difference lies. Edwards is calling upon Congress to place funding caps on how many troops it will support (immediately capping it at 100,000 troops). Unfunded troops must be redeployed. Further, Edwards is proposing that military units who do not meet "real readiness standards" cannot be deployed to Iraq. I read the entire text of Obama's bill, but found no mention of funding one way or the other in the bill. As Congress's constitutional power in this matter derives from its power over the appropriations process, it would seem to me that Edwards' proposal has more teeth. I don't know what Senator Obama's actual position on capping funds for the occupation is, but as far as proposals on the table go, Edwards is the one proposing that Congress use its institutional leverage to halt the war.

Edwards obviously has the luxury of not actually holding office with the possibility to vote on his proposal. Obama has the burden of trying to convince 59 of his colleagues to agree with him (or at least agree enough to prevent a filibuster). Differences in proposals aside, there's a potential win for the public here. The Edwards campaign is asking folks to contact their Congresscritters to push for the details in his proposal. Let's just crawl into our happy fantasyland bubble here and pretend that the calls generated by Edwards' call to action moves Congress past the tipping point to a more "immediate withdrawal" frame of mind - Obama's S. 433 would be the natural proposal to build consensus around, no? And after the bill passes, both candidates are magnanimous in victory, right?

But then, of course, Bush vetoes the bill, enough Republicans remain loyal to sustain an override attempt, and we're back to square one... Wow, even the fantasyland bubble can't squash that little nugget of truth. How much more of his crap do we have to take?

I could start in with my standard leftist carping that neither of these candidates are addressing the question of Iraq in the broader context of the U.S. role in the Middle East (working on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? examining our petro-dependency? supporting repressive regimes?), but honestly, I'm excited to see two concrete plans to get us the hell out of Iraq. Again, good on 'em.

Make love to me, sweet politician

Since we're all publicly commenting on the status of our presidential courtships, I might as well chip in.

A while back, I made the comment that I wanted to see some leadership from Obama. I was rightfully challenged to define what I meant by leadership, and my answer was probably some lame "I know it when I see it."

Well, I saw it. Obama has staked out the position on Iraq where everyone else needs to be. That's some serious not crap in my book. And then I saw it again, in his classy - but necessary - response to Joe Biden's knuckleheaded racism:

Obama later issued a statement that absolved Biden only in part. "I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally," he said, "but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate."

Again, serious not crap.

I'm sure in 2010, we may all be talking about how ahead of the political curve Obama's subtle positionings were for 2007 (for a presidential aspirant, at least). But for now, I'm impressed with him doing the Right Thing. Twice.

So now that you've got my attention

I'm with pattyjoe here: John Edwards is saying the things I want to hear right now, especially his emphasis on movement building (which seems to be ripped right out of the Dean playbook). To that end, his appearances over the last few months have been geared to building such a movement; he's already sewn up the loyalties of a good chunk of rump-Big Labor and has been working some churches in a manner befitting of the civil rights activists of the 60s. The recanting of his Iraq vote does count for something with me (being the forgiving sort). Also, from what I hear, he's been staffing up from the ranks of organizations that have been working to rebuild the social movements of the Left for the last decade.

I'm also intrigued by the historical lens of which digby writes, with Obama/JFK and Edwards/RFK both offering intriguing possibilities. Of course, I'm left wondering where Hillary Clinton fits into this analogy. Hubert Humphrey?

The Arabian Candidate

Get out the smelling salts! Pam's been in the liquor and has the vapors again, this time over one Barack Hussein Obama. She clucks approvingly,

The left goes ballistic when you use Obama's full name. Deceiving the American people, yet again. Debbie Schlussel nails it here

His full name--as by now you have probably heard--is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Hussein is a Muslim name, which comes from the name of Ali's son--Hussein Ibn Ali. And Obama is named after his late Kenyan father, the late Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., apparently a Muslim.

And while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that's not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he's a Christian, but they do not.

Read it all, there's much more and read her comments section.

Then, there are the other items in his background. As best-selling author Scott Turow wrote in Salon, Obama went to a Muslim school for two years in Indonesia. His mother, Anna, married an Indonesian man (like another Muslim, as Indonesia is Muslim-dominated and has the largest population of Muslims of any nation in the world).

If I may summarize Pam's argument: due to some apparent connections with Islam, we should assume that underneath all that pious Christian talk, Obama is some sort of latent Islamonazifarian. Right now, he's hood-winking us all ("Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.") into putting him in the White House, whereupon some jihadist operative will ring him up in the Oval Office, ask him if he'd like to play a game of solitaire, and boom! - next thing you know, he's got four more wives, has implemented sharia law, and is building minarets around the Capitol building.

I'd find this laughable if not for the fact that I'm going to have to spend the next two years being reminded by the 30 percenters that Obama's middle name is Hussein, just like that bad guy in Iraq. And his last name rhymes with Osama.

Precious bodily fluids

I've had Dick Cheney (who, may I remind you, not so long ago was shooting people in the face) pegged as an antiseptically paranoid control-freak for quite some time, picturing his remodeled Naval Observatory digs done up in stark white, with visitors required to undergo extensive decontamination upon entering, and for godsakes remove your shoes!

The NYT isn't dispelling that particular notion:

Like so many other people involved in politics these days, Mrs. Ryun has become obsessive about using hand sanitizer and ensuring that others do, too. She squirted Purell, the antiseptic goop of choice on the stump and self-proclaimed killer of “99.99 percent of most common germs that may cause illness,” on people lined up to meet Vice President Dick Cheney this month at a fund-raiser in Topeka.

When Mr. Cheney was done meeting and greeting, he, too, rubbed his hands vigorously with the stuff, dispensed in dollops by an aide when the vice president was out of public view.

In fact, the use of hand sanitizers by the Bush administration and those who must deal with it seems downright cult-like:

“Good stuff, keeps you from getting colds,” Mr. Bush raved about hand sanitizer to Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, at a White House encounter early last year.

Mr. Obama, who recounts the episode in his new book, says that after rubbing a blob of it on his own hands, the president offered him some, which he accepted (“not wanting to appear unhygienic.”)

Mr. Obama has since started carrying Purell in his traveling bag, a spokesman said.

Say it ain't so, Barack! Say it ain't so!

And who, you ask, in a hail of awkward puns, will champion the unwashed masses?:

[Governor Bill] Richardson [D-NM] said that if he ran for president, as he is considering, he had no intention of conforming to the norms of his antiseptic peers.

“I just won’t use the sanitizer,” he said. “I’ve been offered it, but I’ve turned it down.”

This positions Mr. Richardson as the early hygienic maverick of 2008.

“I’m not afraid to get my hands dirty,” he said.