Can he? Pimping for more Democratic candidates to come out against the war, he claims:
Military conflicts don't end on their own, and they don't end because of politicians, insiders and parties. They are forced to end by power-challenging mass movements. That is the principle behind the Lamont Lesson - and we're lucky that lesson is again being taught.
Military conflicts generally end when one side wins; not when the peaceniks finally get their way.
A number of writers are looking at some very interesting poll results this morning. Richard Baehr notes that there is a startling difference in three particular states that indicates the Democrats are nominating a very risky candidate:
Were the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, the Democrats would be in very good shape even without Ohio. That is because current surveys show Hillary Clinton winning all three states by solid margins over John McCain. But John McCain trounces Barack Obama in the same three states by over 20% in each case. So with Clinton as the nominee, these states vote as they did when her husband was the nominee. When Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, these states vote as they did when George Bush was running. The differences in the poll results are shocking. Clinton wins Arkansas and Kentucky by 14% and 9% respectively. McCain wins against Obama in the two states by 25% and 24% respectively. This means the shift from Obama to Clinton is a change of over 34% margin in one state, 38% in the other.
That's a staggering difference and a reminder that just having an (R) or a (D) after your name is not all that matters.
Jay Cost notes that the main difference between where Hillary and Obama do well portends poorly for the latter. Hillary and Obama are essentially even in Safe Democrat States, and in Swing Democrat States. Obama does better than Hillary in Safe Republican States, but Clinton does better in Swing Republican States. And in those states, Clinton does a LOT better than Obama among White and Hispanic voters.
At Salon, Paul Maslin examines the youth vote possibility and concludes it's probably not worth much, and might backfire:
Furthermore, what the god of demographics giveth, he or she might also taketh away. I worked for the Howard Dean campaign in 2003 and 2004, and I have always felt that a big part of his last-minute decline in Iowa four years ago was due to a mostly older electorate engaging in a more detailed consideration of the Deaniacs. Meaning, many of the graying Iowans took a look at the hundreds if not thousands of young out-of-state campaign volunteers who were knocking on their doors, decked out in orange ski hats and claiming to be part of "the perfect storm," and decided they didn't want what the youngsters were selling. Clearly Hillary Clinton has built impressive margins over and over this season among seniors, and I suspect that part of her appeal to older voters stems from a similar backlash at the younger alternative. The more messianic the whole Obama thing seems, the more his brand becomes associated with kids, and perhaps the more aged wine there is for McCain & Co. to sip.
That's right on the money. Most observers agree that the Deaniacs in their orange caps behaved like typical kids enamored of their first love, just as Obamania seems a trifle overblown.
That's why I'm in this race. I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history. I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it's the only reason I'm standing here today.
Perfect is rarely used as a verb, so this seems too odd to be an accident. Back in the 1960s, among the far Left, there was a raging debate as to whether man was perfectable. Even then it was pretty obvious that the communist utopia that many desired would butt up against reality; humans just don't act idealistically. So the Left began to claim that man himself was perfectable. Discussing the drafting of the Port Huron Statement, considered the beginning of the New Left, Tom Hayden writes:
At the time, as disfranchised students, embracing such an expansive idea required a wrenching re-examination of common assumptions. What, for example, was the view of human nature that underlay our assertion that all people had basic rights to participation, or that democracy was the system best suited to respecting human dignity? All-night discussions ensued, often concluding at daybreak. On the one hand, there were followers of the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, influenced by the atrocities of the Holocaust and Stalinism, who had asserted that "the children of darkness," the political realists, were in their generation wiser than "the foolish children of light," the pacifists and idealists. On the other side were the Enlightenment humanists who believed in infinite perfectibility through education and nonviolence as adopted by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. The dominant view was that we were children of light. We chose utopia and rejected cynicism. The statement ended on an apocalyptic note: "If we appear to seek the unattainable, as it has been said, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." But, reflecting our mostly mainstream backgrounds, we also wanted to be relevant, effective. Agreement was reached when Mary Varela, a Catholic Worker activist, inspired by Pope John XXIII, suggested that we follow the doctrine that humans have "unfulfilled" rather than "unlimited" capacities for good, and are "infinitely precious" rather than "infinitely perfectible." The theological amendment drew no objections and was incorporated without citation.
Of course the idea that humans can be perfected, or that any human institutions, especially government, can be perfected is absurd. It reflects more "we need it" rather than "we can get it."
"I am a competitor, and I am in this to win," Barr said. "I do not view the role of the Libertarian Party as spoiler, and I have no intention of being a spoiler."
Any Republicans considering Barr's campaign should be aware of his stance on legalizing drugs (in favor) and Iraq (immediate withdrawal). The xenophobes will like his stance on immigration, but again, he's not going to win. The real choices are Obama or McCain.
Here's an amazing anti-Obama site, apparently written by Hillary supporters. It's really quite astounding in the level of vitriol directed at the chosen one. Anybody who thinks that only the Republicans play hardball needs to check this one out.
Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s Dreams from My Father: “Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”
This kind of idiocy goes over well with the Kumbayah crowd, but it demonstrates why older people are flocking away from the Obamessiah in droves. He's not serious.
I don't expect this to affect Obama's support level, and it at least reflects some sense among his campaign staff:
At Obama's Chicago headquarters, advisers said there was no reason to worry — West Virginia was demographically suited to Clinton and won't be part of their general election plans.
But the liberal blogs should be up in arms. What happened to the cherished 50-state strategy?
74% of West Virginia Democrats Vote Against Presumptive Nominee
The media have been having fun reporting that something like 25% of Republicans in recent states have been voting against McCain; let's see them do the same for Obama. Nope, it's going to be "You inbred corn cousins, the only way you could vote against the Obamessiah is if thought he was a Muslim." Note, as usual, that it is white Democrats who think this.
What's even more interesting is that no Democrat has won the White House without carrying Minnesota since 1912 (it went for Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party) so given that Obama won Minnesota and Clinton won West Virginia, McCain is guaranteed to win the general election unless the eventual nominee can somehow completely replicate the social and political conditions prevailing in pre-WWI America. The outlook, in short, is very grim.
Sorry, Matt. The issue is not whether you carry Minnesota in the caucuses (not even a primary). The issue is whether you can carry it in the general election. Hillary has a chance in Minnesota; Obama has no chance in West Virginia. It's true that Obama can cobble together an electoral map without WV, but when you say that PA and FL are out too, well, McCain's looking at winning easily.
What is amazing is how many people are putting down West Virginia. Check out the (Not-So) Moderate Voice:
Because, of course, that is exactly what Hillary is pitching to the Democratic primary voters of West Virginia (and presumably Pennsylvania, Ohio, and soon Kentucky) is that like the “White God-fearing citizens of Rock Ridge,” it is perfectly cool… no, it is laudatory, that they should not wish to live under the governance of a Black man– any Black man. Simple as that. She said it. This is why she should be the choice of the super-delegates, because, despite Obama’s significant lead in delegates and votes, (1) he’s still a Black man and hence cannot win a general election, and (2) his big lead is as a result of overwhelming support among Black voters, who, since they are not the target demographic, should be discounted accordingly.
One thing is certainly consistent. The Hillary voters slag Obama and the Obama voters slag the Hillary voters.
Aravosis admits what everybody's known for years: the media are in the bag for the Democrats:
Why is the media even covering her? The only stories that should be written about Hillary Clinton is how much damage she's causing our party. How she's hurting fundraising at the DNC - they even admitted it, they're not raising the money they need to fight John McCain because of this woman.
Here's the worst: In Muncie, a factory town in the east-central part of Indiana, Ross and her cohorts were soliciting support for Obama at malls, on street corners and in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and they ran into "a horrible response," as Ross put it, a level of anti-black sentiment that none of them had anticipated.
"The first person I encountered was like, 'I'll never vote for a black person,' " recalled Ross, who is white and just turned 20. "People just weren't receptive."
Horrible, indeed! Granted, the idea of not voting for Obama based on his color is absurd, but this gal gets the vapors over it. There are some other incidents that are mentioned, but I note there's no discussion of the sexism that Hillary supporters have encountered on the campaign trail.
Andrew Malcolm looks at their plans to take over the Republican Convention:
In the last three months, Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upward of a million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.
Unfortunately, he repeats some old nonsense about how McCain is still not getting 100% of the vote in the Republican primaries:
Just take a look at recent Republican primary results, largely overlooked because McCain locked up the necessary 1,191 delegates long ago. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who've each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.
On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.
In fact, many McCainiacs were voting in the Democratic primaries in an effort to throw a monkey wrench into their process. Regardless, the Paulistas are still getting that same 7% or so they were getting back in February. Captain Ed has more:
McCain has been winning meaningless primaries by the same percentages that George Bush won them in 2000, and McCain significantly outperformed Paul in the 2000 races. At that time, no one seriously thought that Bush had an insurgent problem with McCainiacs, because he didn’t — and now McCain doesn’t have a problem with Ronulans, either. Winning 8% of the vote in a state where McCain didn’t campaign and where McCain-supporting Republicans crossed over to keep Hillary in the race isn’t impressive, it’s pathetic.
Barack Obama began sketching the outlines of his expected presidential contest against Republican John McCain on Saturday, saying the fall election will be more about specific plans and priorities than about questions of political ideology or who is more patriotic.
Hey, if I were Barack, I'd not want the campaign to be fought over who is more patriotic, too!
“Senator Obama wants to sit down and have negotiations and discussions with the person who just yesterday called Israel a quote ‘stinking corpse,’ ” he said, referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad, and “who continues to advocate quote ‘wiping Israel off the map.’ ”
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state.
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.
Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
Obama and Paul are the result of the unfolding Dean revolution in internet politics. But what Obama has done is use the power of the web to organize on the ground more effectively than any candidate in history. So far, the non-Paul right has been pretty clueless.
Yep, he's comparing Obama to Ron Paul and Howard Dean, two guys who got tremendous buzz and who lost horribly.
Here's an amusing set of reminiscences of that tumultuous year. My favorite bit is Stefan Kanfer's encounter with Mark Rudd:
Rudd had two expressions, blank and furious, and the first now appeared. “In the 1930s,” I shouted over the increasing crowd noise, “there were all sorts of insurrectionists who promised a New World, come the Revolution. You know what? The Revolution never arrived. A little later, the marchers abandoned their cause and wound up with real jobs. And they were damned glad to get them. Read some history now and then.”
“Never!” declared Rudd. It was unclear whether he meant getting a job or reading a book. “Never!” His admirers joined in, “Never! Never!” They crossed the street, broke the few intact windows, yelled at the cops, and started marching around the block urging student action, beginning with a refusal to attend classes. “Strike!” they shouted, like the chorus in a Clifford Odets play. “Strike! Strike!”
But let's remember, he's a mainstream Chicago liberal, just like Barack!
Here's the original photo, along with the text. Get this bit of nonsense:
In 1970, a bomb that was apparently being built in a Greenwich Village townhouse, occupied by at least five members of the Weatherman, accidentally exploded—killing three of the group, including Ayers's beloved Diana Oughton. In Fugitive Days, Ayers tries to imagine what happened. Maybe Diana tried to stop the others from their path? Maybe they all drank too much coffee and smoked too many cigarettes?
Maybe Diana saw that this bomb, packed with nails and screws, would have exacted a heavy human toll if it had ever reached its destination—a New Jersey military base. Could she have, in a gesture of sacrifice, crossed the wires herself? "I'll never know what happened," he says. "That's the price I have to pay.
And maybe they were smoking too much dope. One thing I noticed from the Weather Underground documentary of a few years ago was that everybody tried to divorce themselves from the group at the townhouse, as if this was some splinter group. Undercutting this narrative is the fact that Ayers' girlfriend was there. And the notion that she sacrificed herself nobly to save lives at Fort Dix is ridiculous; it's painting a happy face on a woman who had planned to murder others but was incompetent enough to only kill herself and two other fruitcakes.
Obama's daughters, Sasha and Malia, did skate—tentatively but adorably. Obama and his wife, Michelle, walked alongside while a ring of photographers and cameramen captured the scene. At one point, Obama's youngest, 6-year-old Sasha, skated a short nervous distance into her father's outstretched arms. If the point of the scene was to make the candidate look just like any other (well-dressed) Indiana father out on a Saturday night, then campaign strategists got what they wanted.
Actually what they got looks way too much like John Travolta getting out onto the dance floor. Yes, he's hot and he knows it.
Weird. Is this the kind of stuff we'll be seeing out of him instead of the baseball and football throws on the tarmac that Kerry amused us with? He doesn't look like any other well-dressed Indiana father on a Saturday night, he looks like he's auditioning for America's Next Top Model.
If this weren't enough to make right-wing hearts flutter, Hillary has another brand-new advantage: She is hated on all the right fronts. The snots and the snark-mongers now all despise her, along with the trendies, the glitzies; the food, drama, and lifestyle critics, the beautiful people (and those who would join them), the Style sections of all the big papers; the slick magazines; the above-it-all pundits, who have looked down for years on the Republicans and on the poor fools who elect them, and now sneer even harder at her. The New York Times is having hysterics about her. At the New Republic, Jonathan Chait (who inspired the word "Chaitred" for his pioneer work on Bush hatred) has transferred his loathing of the 43rd president intact and still shining to her. "She should now go gentle into the political night," he advised in January. "Go Already!" he repeated in March, when she had failed to act on his suggestion. "No Really, You Should Go," he said in April after she won Pennsylvania, which made her even less likely to take his advice. "Now that loathing seems a lot less irrational," he wrote of the right wing's prior distaste for both the Clintons. "We just really wish they'd go away."
An absolute romp. On a serious note, I don't think you can discount the possibility that many conservatives, like me, are worried that this is probably a Democratic year, and Obama has troubling ties.
Now these associations over here.... Hendrik Hertzberg attempts to rescue Obama from the Weatherman associations But get this:
1. Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were prominent members of the Weather Underground nearly forty years ago, when Barack Obama was a child. They are now, respectively, a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and an associate professor of law at Northwestern. They long ago abandoned the political ideas they supported in their youth, which speaks well for them, but they never acknowledged that those ideas were mindless and vicious, which does not. They live in the same Chicago neighborhood as Obama.
I assume that Hertzberg has some backup for his claim that Ayera and Dohrn long ago abandoned the political ideas they supported in their, heh, youth. I certainly see no evidence of that abandonment. And Ayers was 31 and Dohrn 33 in 1975 when they made their "Underground" documentary.
He goes on to attempt to smear Hillary by association because she was on the board of Wal-Mart with a guy who didn't like unions:
Obama has never served on any corporate boards. Hillary Clinton, however, was a member of the board of Wal-Mart for six years, ending in 1992, when her husband ran for President. Her service on the board coincided with that of John Tate, who summed up his views on labor relations as follows: “Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off of the productive labor of people who work for a living.” These views were not youthful follies, left behind long before Tate joined the board.
Again, the notion that what Ayers and Dohrn did constituted youthful follies is not backed up by any evidence.
The song is called Mother Russia and it's on the phenomenal Turn of the Cards album by the group Renaissance which I have no hesitation in recommending.
Legend has it that she answered an ad from a rock band looking for a singer. Annie Haslam had the greatest singing voice I ever heard. I saw Renaissance at the Carnegie Hall concerts around 1976. The band was extraordinarily talented, and her voice really sounds this good live. Unfortunately most of the live Renaissance videos I have seen on YouTube have awful recording qualities, but there are several good live albums, especially the Royal Albert Hall and the Carnegie Hall performances.
The band was moderately successful with their art-rock sensibilities but never broke through with a big US hit. But some of their extended songs--Black Flame, Ashes Are Burning, are highlights of 1970s music. Give it a couple listens before making up your mind.
