I'm generally not a fan of George Will (despite, or maybe because of, having Men at Work on my bookshelf), but I have to give credit to the 1960 World Series analogy. That was pretty good.

I started getting into baseball books around the time Bunts came out. I heard about it quite a bit and nobody seemed to say anything bad about it, so I went into the bookstore and bought it without even thumbing through or anything. How can anyone positively review a "book" that is just a collection of redundant newspaper articles about how bad the Cubs have been for a long time?

Since then I have had a special kind of dislike for "books" of that sort.

Most of this is just Will's usual bloviating, but he does strike a realistic note at the end:

McCain's problem might turn out to be the fact that Obama is the Democrats' Reagan. Obama's rhetorical cotton candy lacks Reagan's ideological nourishment, but he is Reaganesque in two important senses: People like listening to him, and his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness -- the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.

Hillary thought she could parlay Rev. Wright into the nomination, and right now she's walking around in a coma, still babbling about Florida and Michigan. I sincerely hope that the Republicans try a rerun of this.

I also remember a bittersweet bet that I won in 1979, just before the Iranian hostage crisis. Carter was unpopular but the general consensus was that the Republicans couldn't offer much beyond an inarticulate career politician / bureaucrat (Bush I) and a B-level Hollywood actor (Reagan), who was seen as wildly popular among hard right conservatives but way too "out of the mainstream" to ever get elected. Apparently two Gubernatorial landslides in the nation's largest state didn't register on their Richter scales.

A group of us were sitting around talking politics, and the CW of the punditry was echoed in the group, which was made up 100% of liberal Democrats. I heard them all making jokes about Reagan, and just for the sheer hell of it, I started asking what sort of odds that they'd give me if I bet on him to win in 1980. I got talked down to 2 to 1, and wound up betting somewhere over a hundred bucks. I didn't really care about the dough so much as I wanted to test the depth of my friends' convictions.

After we'd put up the money, I was asked what made me so sure about Reagan. And I said: It's because of what I've been hearing here. You guys are so blinded by your contempt for Reagan that you think that all you're going to have to do is to portray him as some sort of jingoistic cowboy and everyone's just going to nod their heads and say "Yeah, of course---we'll never elect an actor as President of the United States. Impossible." And the Republicans are going to absolutely destroy you because of that overconfidence.

Of course I'm not saying that the Republicans are suffering from the same degree of overconfidence this year that that group of friends of mine was suffering from in 1979. But reading and listening to a lot of the wingnuts in the past two months, I'm getting a strong impression that they think they're going to be able to do the boogeyman bit on Obama in the same manner that my friends thought that the Democrats were going to be able to do the boogeyman bit on Reagan, and that Obama will fold like a house of cards, doomed by Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.

I sure hope I'm right about this, and that the Republicans keep on running against the Boogeyman, and give the real Obama a free hand in running against McCain. I'm looking forward to this opportunity.

Why the frig does Will care what happens with the Democrats? He's been a GOP Lhasa Aps-hole since the 70s, so he's not the dog to be in this fight. Or perhaps his dog is Clinton and he's still beating the anti-Clinton drum out of sheer Pavlovian reflex.

And don't even get me started on Reagan's "ideological nourishment." Barf.

Repoz, you evil bastard, posting this! 8-)

As long as Obama loses white Democrats 60-40, there would be very few things McCain can do to lose the White House.

Hilary is taking this to Denver. The '60 series didn't end until the last at-bat. Why should she call it quits before then?

Why should she call it quits before then?

Because unless she has pix of Obama blowing Rev. Wright, she ain't getting on the ticket.

Because unless she has pix of Obama blowing Rev. Wright, she ain't getting on the ticket.

Voila!

Because unless she has pix of Obama blowing Rev. Wright, she ain't getting on the ticket.

Maybe she's staying in just to screw Obama? Why shouldn't she? It's not exactly like Obama and his supporters have been civil to her. She doesn't owe anything to him nor is she afraid of any empty threats from the Party. Best case scenario she has a shot in '12. Worst case scenario she'll be the junior senator of the Empire State forever.

Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart both went to the convention with fewer delegates.

Maybe she's staying in just to screw Obama? Why shouldn't she?

Yeah, and if she did, it would be consistent with all the good that she and her husband have done over the years for any other Democrat not named Clinton. So what the hell, why not try to split the party in half? Ain't no skin off her back, and maybe McCain can make her his Secretary of 3:00am Defense.

She doesn't owe anything to him nor is she afraid of any empty threats from the Party.


What empty threats? Without the party, Hillary and her husband are in Little Rock at some backwater law firm. The only reason she's gotten as far as she has is because she and her husband have the support of some party leaders.

As long as Obama loses white Democrats 60-40, there would be very few things McCain can do to lose the White House.

When Obama starts losing white Democrats 60-40 to a Republican instead of a fellow Democrat, then McCain can start getting those change of address cards from the post office. We have no idea what these white Dems will do when faced with the choice of Obama-McCain.

It's not exactly like Obama and his supporters have been civil to her.

Outstanding, on so many levels.

As long as Obama loses white Democrats 60-40, there would be very few things McCain can do to lose the White House.

I am certain of few things. One of those is that Obama, absent something totally unforseen, is not going to lose white Democrats 60-40 to McCain.

Voila!

Was there a subliminal message in there, possibly hidden in the shadowy right side of her face?

Why the frig does Will care what happens with the Democrats

He doesn't. He likes making fun of Democrats, and after eight years of listening to a lot of vitriolic Bush-bashing and now distancing themselves from him (I don't like Bush at all, but even I think a lot of it is out of line) Republicans are feeling frisky watching the Demos whale away at each other and make mistakes. That is also part of the reason that the two recent Obama threads here have combined for over 5500 posts and at least half have been by the right wing of BTF (there has been a lot of good, substantive discussion from both sides as well).

Maybe she's staying in just to screw Obama? Why shouldn't she?

It's been amusing watching tough-talk righties like Orinoco, here and elsewhere, (O'Reilly for one) stick up for HC the last couple of weeks--hey, she really is a spunky broad, ain't she? It is in some respects the flip side of liberals who have been shocked, shocked by her tactics. I am not in the camp of Obama supporters who is particularly mad at her for staying in nor am I very mad at her for her rough stuff in the campaign. I expected nothing different once he started to beat her. And, hailing from and having relatives from/in Eastern and Northern KY, I do understand why she wants to go on to WVa and KY--she will win both, and I can see her wanting to go there to see these people, talk to them, and let them have their say. Three of my aunts in KY, I know, are excited about getting to see her in person.

As to why she is staying in, well, people's emotions and decisions are complicated, so it is a lot of things. There is no doubt in my mind she thinks she'd be the best president, and I think both she and Bill are political compulsives--they are happiest in the arena. But the bottom line IMO is Wright. That is why she is in--she thinks Wright makes her the better candidate in November, and I agree with the idea from the other thread that if she has got something bad on Obama, she needs to share with the group. Better now than later. This is more or less what Dianne Feinstein, a long-time hard-core Clintonite SD said--she wants a "rationale" for HC staying in at this point.

hey, let's move this over to the other thread. We're going for history there.

And I find Will to be a pedantic, owl-eyed, bowtie-wearing celibate jerk.

Of course I'm not saying that the Republicans are suffering from the same degree of overconfidence this year that that group of friends of mine was suffering from in 1979. But reading and listening to a lot of the wingnuts in the past two months, I'm getting a strong impression that they think they're going to be able to do the boogeyman bit on Obama in the same manner that my friends thought that the Democrats were going to be able to do the boogeyman bit on Reagan, and that Obama will fold like a house of cards, doomed by Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.

I'm not going to speak for all the "wingnuts", but as a conservative Republican speaking for myself, I don't feel any sense of overconfidence for three reasons:
1) I'm not that crazy about McCain, and suspect there are others like me who feel a shade of ambivalence towards the general election.
2) Obama has been able to marry a steady liberal voting record with a stump speech of being able to bring bipartisan "change" to Washington. The press has eaten it up, of course, and I suspect the casual independent voter isn't all that aware of Obama's legislative history.
3) The warts that have emerged, namely Obama's three close companions that have all made non-politically-savvy statements or actions in the past (Wright, Ayers, his wife), haven't appeared to move the needle a whole lot. I find it hard to be overconfident when I find Rev. Wright's comments reprehensible, but haven't seen any disparaging comments from the left wing. I've come to recognize that there are many people (1/2 the country, give or take) who feel very differently than I about this country and the values it should espouse. Nothing will surprise me, for better or worse, and that's not an attitude which breeds overconfidence.

That said, I would imagine that most righties sense an opportunity for what was supposed to be a lost election, and that there would also be some overconfidence on the left for the outcome of the congressional elections, but I don't think the left has done itself any favors on that front.

but haven't seen any disparaging comments from the left wing.

First, Ayers is not a "close companion."

Second, a lot of people on the "left wing" have come down on stuff Wright has said. Many of us just interpret the context and significance of the comments differently than you apparently do for a variety of reasons.

Third, there have been two huge threads on this, and it has been covered in nauseating and revealing detail, as you may know. So, I'll ask you the same question that was asked on the other thread: do you think Obama's relationship with Wright will specifically affect policy, and if so, in what way? (Obama does have a pretty liberal voting record, and since you disagree with much of that, of course vote against him. McCain should be talking about that every day). Or, is it simply the fact that Obama was associated with Wright that bothers you?

The warts that have emerged, namely Obama's three close companions that have all made non-politically-savvy statements or actions in the past (Wright, Ayers, his wife), haven't appeared to move the needle a whole lot. I find it hard to be overconfident when I find Rev. Wright's comments reprehensible, but haven't seen any disparaging comments from the left wing. I've come to recognize that there are many people (1/2 the country, give or take) who feel very differently than I about this country and the values it should espouse.

It's not that Obama supporters feel differently about this country or love it any less than you do. It's just that we see these issues as not being all that relevant to an Obama presidency.

Michelle was talking about how proud she was of the country that it was taking another step past its unarguably bad racial history. Most people felt bad for her that a few words were twisted around to make it look as if she'd never been proud to be an American. Who hasn't said something like that about someone or something he/she loves? Unless you're looking for controversy, there's nothing there.

I'm not a church-going person, but friends and in-laws who are tell me that they've sat in church many times and not entirely agreed with everything the pastor says. Wright said a few despicable things over the past 30 years, but he also served the country in the marines and has done some incredibly positive things for a down-trodden community. Lately, he's gotten a little wacky, but there's no evidence that this aged, odd Wright will have any impact on policy-making.

Finally, I don't know how you consider Ayers a close companion. He's apparently a guy who has sat on a charitable board with Obama and is accused (but never convicted) of doing some bad stuff when Obama was 8 years old. People can see that if that's all you got, that ain't much.

It's easy to say that half the country feels very differently about it than you, but the truth is, we all feel the same about the country. We just feel there are different ways of making it the best it can be. Obama understands this and is working hard (albeit imperfectly) at changing the attitude that just because we talk about issues in a different way doesn't mean we love the country and what it stands for any more or less.

I find it hard to be overconfident when I find Rev. Wright's comments reprehensible, but haven't seen any disparaging comments from the left wing.

I can't say I agree with Wright's comments, but I think the lack, to the extent it exists, of disparaging comments from the left about him or them is attributable first and foremost to the fact that most of us don't think what Rev. Wright thinks or says is all that important in the grand scheme of things, at least not in relation to how much press coverage he and his statements received.

I suppose there is also the idea that my experience with America shapes my attitude towards its practices and policies, and I did not go through what he went through. (That, and he's a military veteran, which make attacks on his patriotism a somewhat harder sell for a lot of people, to the extent that this is a known fact about him.)

Good take, Dolf. As I've said, my thoughts about Republican overconfidence this time around are more in the Wish category than in the Prediction one. They know that the Democrats are going to try to tie Bush around McCain's neck, and they also know that if this gambit succeeds, it's likely to be fatal to McCain's chances.

As for any overconfidence on the left, there may be a bit of that among some of Obama's younger supporters, but anyone who feels overconfidence about this country electing an African American president in the face of an attack machine that has been so successful in the past about impugning the patriotism of so many liberal candidates---anyone like that has got to be crazy.

But I do have the confidence that once Hillary is out of the way, and presumably living up to her word that she'll campaign 24/7 for "the Democratic nominee" among her own base, Obama will be more than capable of framing the issues in a way that a majority of voters will understand, even with all the Wright and Ayers distractions. He's no Ronald Reagan or John Kennedy in terms of natural eloquence under pressure---no other candidate could ever dream of matching Reagan's classic response to the age question in that Mondale debate, or of equalling Kennedy's handling of press conferences---but I do think that with 90% of the party united behind him, he'll have the confidence to hit the Republicans where they hurt, and hit them hard and often.

In fact, I would love to see Obama, perhaps in either the first or the last debate, quietly slip in the old Reagan question from 1980: "Are you better off now than you were four eight years ago?" And then see McCain try to answer that.

In fact, I would love to see Obama, perhaps in either the first or the last debate, quietly slip in the old Reagan question from 1980: "Are you better off now than you were four eight years ago?" And then see McCain try to answer that.

My favorite part of the 2000 campaign--well, maybe make that the only part I liked--was when Lieberman asked Cheney if he was better off now (i.e., in 2000) than he was eight years ago. That was a very funny (and non-nasty) line.

Finally, I don't know how you consider Ayers a close companion. He's apparently a guy who has sat on a charitable board with Obama and is accused (but never convicted) of doing some bad stuff when Obama was 8 years old. People can see that if that's all you got, that ain't much.

Charles, stick to the first part of that and you're on solid ground. If Ayers is a "close companion" of Obama, then George Costanza was a close companion of his fellow members on the board of the Susan Ross Fund.

But don't have any illusions about Bill Ayers. I'm his age, and I not only know all about his past, but I also know damn well that whatever his current mainstream work may entail, and even if most of it's good and not particularly controversial (which would be what Obama would have been dealing with), at heart he's a seriously demented human being. Go back and read that New York Times piece that was published (by sad coincidence) on 9/11/2001 and see if you don't agree. The only thing that separated Bill Ayers from those who planted the actual bombs was that he didn't have enough of the old "revolutionary suicide" in him. It didn't have a damn thing to do with any consideration he may have had for human life.

So, I'll ask you the same question that was asked on the other thread: do you think Obama's relationship with Wright will specifically affect policy, and if so, in what way? (Obama does have a pretty liberal voting record, and since you disagree with much of that, of course vote against him. McCain should be talking about that every day). Or, is it simply the fact that Obama was associated with Wright that bothers you?

Will Obama's relationship with Wright specifically affect policy? No. Will Obama's initial reaction to the emergence of Wright's comments give us some insight on Obama himself? I think so.

Him being associated with Wright isn't all that bothersome, in the true sense of the word. What is bothersome is that we know less about Obama than any other candidate, and that the facade doesn't match the inner chamber, so to speak, in a way that seems to be different than most pols.

Maybe she's staying in just to screw Obama? Why shouldn't she?

Indeed, why not? Even I can see that Obama is a good looking, and fit, man.

Will Obama's relationship with Wright specifically affect policy? No. Will Obama's initial reaction to the emergence of Wright's comments give us some insight on Obama himself? I think so.

Him being associated with Wright isn't all that bothersome, in the true sense of the word. What is bothersome is that we know less about Obama than any other candidate, and that the facade doesn't match the inner chamber, so to speak, in a way that seems to be different than most pols.

This, in a nutshell, is why a certain percentage of the population will never accept Obama's explanation for his association with Wright.

But it's also, in a nutshell, why that certain percentage is likely to remain centered around those who would almost never vote for any left of center candidate to begin with.

Let's put it this way. By this point, we know a hell of a lot more about Obama's reasons for associating with Wright than we know about how McCain plans to "win" the war in Iraq. To some of us, the latter may be a slightly more pressing matter.

Obama's problem with white voters became apparent back in Ohio, which was (amazingly) two months ago. He seemed to have decisively broadened his coalition in the Wisconsin primary. But it crashed before the Rev.

So far whatever outreach he's made to whites have not worked. If the Obama fans don't think it's a problem, who am I to worry? I doubt his campaign is so sanguine, though.

Maybe she's staying in just to screw Obama? Why shouldn't she?

Indeed, why not? Even I can see that Obama is a good looking, and fit, man

You have a future in supermarket tabloids:

CLINTON-OBAMA LOVE CHILD!

Bill and Michelle in tears!

As an Illinoisan, I actually feel as if I know more about Obama than any other candidate and his "facade" as you put it really seems to match what he does and what he believes. The reach across the aisle stuff is consistent with his behavior in the Illinois legislature. His opposition to the gas tax holiday is consistent with his image of learning fom mistakes as he suppoted a similar holiday in Illinois and saw that it did not work at all. His family man image seems not to be stagecraft. His respect for his wife seems unimpeachable. His desire not to demonize the opposition is commendable. He had every chance to throw the Rev. Wright stuff back in HRC's face, as she and Bill called on Rev. Wright among others to help counsel them during their marital difficulties. But he knew that was personal and chose not to use it. GWB left a playbook from 8 years ago on how to demonize McCain. Obama will have none of it.

Dolf, if you don't want to vote for Obama based on his voting record or what he pledges to do in the White House, then great. That's what democracy is all about, but don't try to pretend that it's a question of character.

Bill and Michelle in tears!

At the risk of crossing a line...I can't say for Michelle, but I'm pretty sure Bill would be perfectly happy with a wife swap.

At the risk of crossing a line...I can't say for Michelle, but I'm pretty sure Bill would be perfectly happy with a wife swap.

Nah. He needs a lesbian wife who won't care what he's doing behind her back, as long as she can get some every now and then too.

Orinco, I'm sure the campaign is concerned, but I think they realize that trying to beat a Clinton for the votes of working class white Democrats is a lot tougher than trying to beat a Republican for those same voters. After all, the Clintons won the presidency twice. If HRC runs as an independent in November, then Obama is in a world of trouble, but no one anticipates that.

I've got a friend who is a childhood friend of Michelle's, and who has socialized with the Obamas quite a bit. He says that the "real" Obama is exactly the same as his stage/political persona. He's a pretty humble, down to earth guy who wants to make this country and this society a better place. He's not driven by ego in the slightest, and he truly believes in everything he says.

And what Charles S. said.

You have a future in supermarket tabloids:

CLINTON-OBAMA LOVE CHILD!

Bill and Michelle in tears!

OTOH there's always the Peterson-Kekich solution, which would let Bill have his cake pie and eat it, too.

Kudos on #30, FHM.

I think they realize that trying to beat a Clinton for the votes of working class white Democrats is a lot tougher than trying to beat a Republican for those same voters.

Are they voting for Clinton or are they voting against Obama right now?

Being a Republican I'm naturally inclined to believe the later. There are also some strong empirical evidence. Back in the salad days of Wisconsin, Hilary was losing white men. Now they have turned decisively against Obama in the primaries, despite record level ads by the cash flush campaign and the bandwagon effect which should be anticipated but has not materialized. A definitively negative opinion would be hard to reverse among a group that's prone to swing anyway. It doesn't take much defection among democratic leaning whites for Obama to lose it.

FWIW, Bush had a good record of bipartisanship in Texas. It's tough to pull off in DC, though if he could, I'd become a huge Obama fan. I don't particularly care that they pass allot of bills, but it would be nice if the two parties would stop acting as if the other is evil and anti-American.

This, in a nutshell, is why a certain percentage of the population will never accept Obama's explanation for his association with Wright.

I'm not sure I've heard Obama explain why he is associated with Wright, so I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. I assumed that Obama saw Wright as a connected ally in a politically important city. All effective pols do this to some degree, so whatever.

I don't think I've got character issues with Obama, save one. I find his message admirable. I think him (as a black man) being president would send an important symbolic message to the world and ourselves.

As noted, I do have issues with his politics. But here's the character issue (and this is paraphrasing K. Rove, not an original thought of my own)...if Obama was the across-the-aisle, here comes a fresh wind of change candidate that he says he is, why is his voting record so consistently with the party, and where are the Barack-initiated bills that display a different brand of politics? That's where the facade doesn't match up...not that I think he's secretly a Black Panther disciple of Farrakhan.

f Obama was the across-the-aisle, here comes a fresh wind of change candidate that he says he is, why is his voting record so consistently with the party, and where are the Barack-initiated bills that display a different brand of politics?

His bills have generally been crafted along with GOP Senators, even if he is liberal in how he votes.

As noted, I do have issues with his politics. But here's the character issue (and this is paraphrasing K. Rove, not an original thought of my own)...if Obama was the across-the-aisle, here comes a fresh wind of change candidate that he says he is, why is his voting record so consistently with the party, and where are the Barack-initiated bills that display a different brand of politics?

Don't you think we need a different brand of politics at this point? Do you really think the neocon agenda this administration has promoted has been beneficial to the country?

If you do, I'm at a loss as to understand why. The last time the country was in this bad a shape was in the late seventies.

I'm not sure I've heard Obama explain why he is associated with Wright

In his first book, Obama explains that Rev. Wright helped him find God during a particularly troubling time in his young life. I don't get the need for religion myself, but it's prevalent enough in world society that I'm willing to accept that at face value.

The big bi-partisan bill that Obama is known for is one he so-author with Dick Luger concerning finding and destroying so-called "loose nukes" from the old Soviet Union. But the bi-partisanism is more of an attitude. He's Liberal and makes no bones about it, but he does not villify or question the motives of his opponents. That is what is so refreshing. Polls show that the majority of Americans support the liberal position on most issues.

He doesn't constantly bring it up, because no one likes a know-it-all, but in the view of 75% of Americans, he was right all along about the invasion of Iraq. That tells me, at least, that he's more likely to be right about the next one. As the prospectus always says, past performance is no guarantee of future earnings, but it's all you got to go on.

Do you really think the neocon agenda this administration has promoted has been beneficial to the country?

I don't think the administration has promoted a damn thing, which is one of the primary problems. Bush is nominally a conservative in that he hates abortion and is hawkish, but wouldn't know fiscal responsibility if it slapped him in the face (ironic, since he's got an MBA and had decent tax initiatives) and he certainly isn't a small gov't sort of guy.

Bush never used the bully pulpit which comes with being the most powerful person in the world, and he never tried to limit pork. Much as I disagree with much of what he does, I think McCain actually would represent a different brand of politics in that respect.

He doesn't constantly bring it up, because no one likes a know-it-all, but in the view of 75% of Americans, he was right all along about the invasion of Iraq. That tells me, at least, that he's more likely to be right about the next one.

What I liked about that was he voted against it when, quite frankly, it wasn't the most politically safe thing to do. that's why I don't like hillary. I felt all along she was voting not with her conscience but with an eye towards paving the way for her run at the White House.

I hate that, people who are career whores.

Bush never used the bully pulpit which comes with being the most powerful person in the world, and he never tried to limit pork.

What????????????

He used the bully pulpit constantly to get us into Iraq!!!!! The "you're either with us or against us" thing.

He used the bully pulpit to downplay global warming and stem cell research.

He used the bully pulpit to issue a tax rebate at a time when he was running up budget deficits.

He used the bully pulpit to roll back civil liberties during a time of fear and uncertainty after 9/11.

He used the bully pulpit to try to find a sinecure on the supreme court bench for his loyal cronies, rather than finding someone who was actually qualified for the job.

Bull, Dolph. You're making excuses for the neocons.

I guess the idea is to isolate political discussions so as not to contaminate too much of the site, but, really, this article has essentially no baseball content whatsoever. Sure, Will uses the 1960 World Series as a metaphor to kick off the discussion. That doesn't make it a baseball article. That's not baseball content. Why is this being posted? Is it for the quarantine reason I speculate on in the first sentence?

He doesn't constantly bring it up, because no one likes a know-it-all, but in the view of 75% of Americans, he was right all along about the invasion of Iraq. That tells me, at least, that he's more likely to be right about the next one. As the prospectus always says, past performance is no guarantee of future earnings, but it's all you got to go on.

BP also likes to talk about judging decisions on the available info at the time. We had been attacked, and there were likely links between Hussein and Islamic terrorists. Not a perfect decision, but defensible.

Also, we have long since lost any perspective, but historically this Iraq war is roughly akin to '39 Yankees vs. '62 Mets. In an absolute sense, I don't like that we are in a war, but a) this is not Vietnam redux; and b) I also like the lack of 9/11 repeats. I'm not saying that there's a direct correlation there, but it's a data point in the right direction.

BP also likes to talk about judging decisions on the available info at the time. We had been attacked, and there were likely links between Hussein and Islamic terrorists. Not a perfect decision, but defensible.

Also, we have long since lost any perspective, but historically this Iraq war is roughly akin to '39 Yankees vs. '62 Mets. In an absolute sense, I don't like that we are in a war, but a) this is not Vietnam redux; and b) I also like the lack of 9/11 repeats. I'm not saying that there's a direct correlation there, but it's a data point in the right direction.

bwahahahahahahahah. This post is so full of delusion it's hysterical.

We had been attacked, and there were likely links between Hussein and Islamic terrorists.

Actually no, Dolph. It was highly unlikely Hussein was involved.

Bush was explained this by Brent Scowcroft but chose to ignore the advice. I guess he resented his daddy's cronies trying to keep the ####-up kid in line.

But look. Even somebody with a passing knowledge of Islamic religious politics knows the secular Hussein would never get in bed with Islamic fundamentalists who would like to have overthrown him if they could. Hell, he spent an entire career suppressing them, or anyone else who was a threat to his power. The only link of Iraq to religious extremists was a small group in northern Iraq who were terrorizing the Kurds, likely with the tacit support of Iran. Since they didn't directly challenge his power, and served the double purpose of keeping the Kurds distracted, he probably tolerated their presence but was on the ready to squash them if they tried to impose any extra-governmental authority.

this is not Vietnam redux

It is in this respect:

An optional war that does not serve the country's best interests and that has alienated us against both our friends and enemies abroad alike and has spun the country into an economic tailspin while weakening our military and emboldening our enemies.

In those key respects, it is just like Vietnam, which are really the only ones that really count.

I also like the lack of 9/11 repeats

So the beltway sniper and the anthrax attacks don't count, huh?

LOL, no they don't you fool.

From the Iraqi Perspectives Project:

Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.

Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al-Qaeda — as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision.

I need to get back to work. Thanks for the chat. I apologize for using the word "never" WRT to Bush's use of the bully pulpit. He obviously has used it occasionally, but GWB has long been mistrusting of the press, and has been a source of personal frustration in his inability to articulate and promote political principles, choosing rather to hide behind a veil of secrecy.

I think they realize that trying to beat a Clinton for the votes of working class white Democrats is a lot tougher than trying to beat a Republican for those same voters.

I don't think it's a LOT tougher. Working class white *people*, in general, have been particularly hard-hit by the economic preferences given to minority groups, which are associated with Democrats - and Democrats other than Bill Clinton have not done a particularly good job in holding those votes in the last few Presidential elections. There's less party loyalty among working class white Democrats today - especially here in the South - than there is in virtually any other demographic.

-- MWE

It's also similar to Vietnam in that it was started/escalated by a semi-literate Texan against a country that was no threat to the US and one that Texan had never heard of before taking office.

I don't think it's a LOT tougher. Working class white *people*, in general, have been particularly hard-hit by the economic preferences given to minority groups, which are associated with Democrats - and Democrats other than Bill Clinton have not done a particularly good job in holding those votes in the last few Presidential elections. There's less party loyalty among working class white Democrats today - especially here in the South - than there is in virtually any other demographic.

Agreed. That's why I said "Democrats". It will take some reconciliation, but I think a great majority of those who voted for HRC in the primaries will come back to the nominee in the fall. The party has lost a lot of those white former dems, especially in the South as LBJ predicted, but in today's climate, the ones who are still with us in the primary are holdable in November.

It's also similar to Vietnam in that it was started/escalated by a semi-literate Texan against a country that was no threat to the US and one that Texan had never heard of before taking office.

I'd guess that Bush 43 had heard of Iraq prior to taking office. Perhaps he was just sick of his dad's stories about Iraq and wanted to wipe it from the map so as not to hear the same old #### every year at Christmas dinner.

I don't think it's a LOT tougher. Working class white *people*, in general, have been particularly hard-hit by the economic preferences given to minority groups, which are associated with Democrats - and Democrats other than Bill Clinton have not done a particularly good job in holding those votes in the last few Presidential elections. There's less party loyalty among working class white Democrats today - especially here in the South - than there is in virtually any other demographic.

Fair points, although I also think that many of those folks are not too "sanguine" about what they perceive as right-wing free trade/pro big-corporation/pro-rich policies, and additionally, as you are aware, they are not a monolithic mass. Some will choose McCain over Obama for personal reasons even if they prefer Obama's policies; others will not, perhaps thinking McCain is a good guy but that Obama's policies will help them more at the gas pump, etc. The outcome, as Orinoco suggests, may be determined by the numbers in each group.

With that in mind, I will repeat what I said in the other thread via Doug Wilder: in some ways, the most important person for the Demos in the fall will be the LOSER of BO/HC. HC said last week she would "shout from the rooftops" that people should vote Demo. even if that Demo is Obama. As Andy points out, if indeed Obama holds on and beats her, it will be important to what degree that is stump rhetoric and to what degree she means it.

Working class white *people*, in general, have been particularly hard-hit by the economic preferences given to minority groups, which are associated with Democrats

Unless by "minority groups" you're referring to the Chinese and the Mexicans (etc.), I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. I hope that your source goes beyond one of those old Jesse Helms commericials. Because that's the sort of phony "reverse racism" rhetoric that we usually hear from demagogues like that.

And as for those job losses, outsourcing wasn't invented by the Democrats. It's entirely a bipartisan, profit uber alles driven phenomenon, underwritten in great part by bipartisan-backed tax incentives.

White working class people may have plenty of valid non-economic reasons to favor conservative candidates, but losing jobs to "minority groups" because of "preferences" sure isn't one of them. Unless, of course, you're referring to the sort of jobs that were formerly reserved for white men only---which is the sort of "preference" that was seldom complained about by those who are hollering the loudest about "preferences" today.

Okay, Andy, so my dad shouldn't be upset he didn't get two promotions at the end of his career that went, instead, to minorities far below him in seniority, experience, training and positive reviews? I mean, sure, the system as a whole is tilted toward white men but on a case by case basis, a white man can easily get screwed. And he ain't going to just smile and say, joy for equality.

There are a lot of stories like that and the people on the short end are, justifiably, upset. Just as the minorities that get screwed due to racist employers are, rightfully, upset. Asking either person to suck it up is counterproductive and unfair. Not to mention unlikely to garner votes.

I've got a friend who is a childhood friend of Michelle's, and who has socialized with the Obamas quite a bit. He says that the "real" Obama is exactly the same as his stage/political persona. He's a pretty humble, down to earth guy who wants to make this country and this society a better place. He's not driven by ego in the slightest, and he truly believes in everything he says

Nice thing to read as an Obama supporter. Thanks.

Okay, Andy, so my dad shouldn't be upset he didn't get two promotions at the end of his career that went, instead, to minorities far below him in seniority, experience, training and positive reviews? I mean, sure, the system as a whole is tilted toward white men but on a case by case basis, a white man can easily get screwed. And he ain't going to just smile and say, joy for equality.

There are a lot of stories like that and the people on the short end are, justifiably, upset. Just as the minorities that get screwed due to racist employers are, rightfully, upset. Asking either person to suck it up is counterproductive and unfair. Not to mention unlikely to garner votes.

bunyon, how old was your dad when this happened, how old were the men promoted over him, what year was this, and what were the hiring policies of the company at the time that those other men were beginning their careers? If at the start of his career those hiring policies---like almost every hiring policy in the country prior to the mid-to-late 1960's---favored whites, did your dad complain about those policies back then?

These are not rhetorical questions, but real and very relevant ones, and I'm not trying to guess the answers. What was the company, and the job(s), in question?

No doubt it's tough on a case by case basis, Bunyon, but how else do you make up for the fact that your dad's whiteness may very well have been part of the reason he had more seniority, experience, training, and, depending on the attitude of the reviewer, positive reviews.

That is not intended to reflect poorly on your father who, no doubt, worked hard and earned everything he ever got, but if he entered the workplace before 1970 or even during the 70s, he probably benefitted from being white. Heck I entered the workforce in the late 80s, and I'm pretty sure I did. I'm not sure my boss would have given me all the opportunities he did, if I were black. Now, I've worked very hard for him, and I hope he's pleased with his decision, but I hold no illusions that my race (and the fact that I'm a fellow Cubs fan) didn't grease the wheels a little.

This was early 90s, dad was close to retirement. He worked for the state. And they werren't men promoted ahead of him.

I grant your point about hiring practices when he was hired. But I think the bigger point is that the people put ahead of him weren't anywhere close to as qualified as he was (I mean that in terms of time in and experience in supervisory jobs - had they been close to equal in those regards, I imagine Dad would have been cool with it (or cooler, anyway)). Does that not matter to you? Do you really think racial harmony will be achieved by promoting less qualified minorities (and women) ahead of more qualified white men?

He worked for a state government.

Regardless of whether or not you think this was fair, or right, you can't seriously expect people it happens to to not be upset about it. Go ahead and dismiss that anger if you like, it won't change how those folks view candidates and policies. It's much the same as the folks telling minorities to suck it up and stop whining about they've been screwed in the past. That, alone, won't win many voters of that type, whether or not it's right or not.

your dad's whiteness may very well have been part of the reason he had more seniority, experience, training, and, depending on the attitude of the reviewer, positive reviews.

Thankfully I'm not a white person in this country. But I do know that White Guilt(TM) will not be the prescription to win over the population at large. A Democratic primary, maybe; But not the general election.

I hope Obama is smarter than this and has some means to salvage/broaden his appeal. So far I haven't seen it despite two months' effort on his part.

That is not intended to reflect poorly on your father who, no doubt, worked hard and earned everything he ever got, but if he entered the workplace before 1970 or even during the 70s, he probably benefitted from being white. Heck I entered the workforce in the late 80s, and I'm pretty sure I did. I'm not sure my boss would have given me all the opportunities he did, if I were black. Now, I've worked very hard for him, and I hope he's pleased with his decision, but I hold no illusions that my race (and the fact that I'm a fellow Cubs fan) didn't grease the wheels a little.

My father would agree with you, FWIW. But now that you've worked hard you deserve to be rewarded. If rewards don't come for hard work and productivity but rather by fiat from above by taking race, gender and ethnicity into account, there really is little reason for anyone to work hard or be productive.

And, regardless, I was trying to answer Andy's supposition that talking about the anger of folks who have been screwed is irrelevant. But if it is relevant to them, it's relevant. If a candidate just doesn't think it matters, he won't win those votes.

As to how to you make up for it, you don't. How do we make up for what happened to the Negro League players? The fact is, we can't.* You apologize and promise to do it right in the future. You promise their kids and grandkids will get a fair deal and then you do it. But you can't ever make it up to the folks that got the shaft in the first place. Perhaps those ladies should have been hired in my dad's place in the late 60s. As it happens, they got his promotion years later and failed at the job. How did that help anyone?

* I suppose you could try to figure an economic payment, but how you do that is beyond me. Simply giving someone a job they aren't qualified for, however, isn't an answer.

EDIT: I didn't mean only to make up to Negro Leaguers, but to all blacks who lost opportunities they deserved based on race. I don't think we can actually make it up to them. That doesn't mean we don't try or give them something, but what prize given in old age can make up for losing one's dream as a young person?

To swing this thread back on topic, I present George F. Will's Sports Machine.

A Democratic primary, maybe; But not the general election.

You're a real charmer.

What can I say? I wrote a paper on the Eugene McCarthy campaign. Nothing's new in American politics.

I wrote a paper on the Eugene McCarthy campaign. Nothing's new in American politics

.

There's some truth in that statement. But the "white guilt" putdowns are pretty lame and "nothing new" definitely applies to McCain in many respects.

Affirmative action is a blunt instrument designed to solve a complex problem. No one on either side will contend that it's anywhere close to perfect. Fortunately Obama's campaign has tried to steer clear of this and other traditionally "black" issues. He has never presented himself as a "white guilt" candidate in the manner of the civil rights veterans like Jackson and Sharpton.

He has run on the same issues that have gotten most other presidents elected: Leadership, inspiration, inspiring story, love of country, and a firm grasp of the issues. Notably he has steered clear of experience and military service because as Humphrey, McGovern, Ford, Carter, Mondale, Bush I, Dole, Gore and Kerry could tell you, those are losers.

There is no escaping the fact that Obama's white support has consisted of college profs/college students and the college students who turned into Yuppie/DINKy/bobo, for whom "White Guilt" definitely apply. That is the Eugene McCarthy coalition. Add on the Blacks and you have the McCarthy plus RFK coalition or Hart plus Jackson coalition. The Democrats usually kill them off during the nomination process. The one time they didn't, McGovern lost 49 states.

In fact, I would love to see Obama, perhaps in either the first or the last debate, quietly slip in the old Reagan question from 1980: "Are you better off now than you were four eight years ago?" And then see McCain try to answer that.

I'd like to see McCain answer back if America is better off now than it was two years ago.... before gas was $3.50 or more a gallon, before the epidemic of foreclosures, before the Bear Stearns bankruptcy, and before Democrats took control of Congress.

Notably he has steered clear of experience and military service because [...] those are losers.

Could he possibly have "steered clear of experience" not because of his magical prescient judgement but because he doesn't have any?

I'd have an easier time talking with Obama fans if they don't grossly overrate him at every opportunity.

I'd like to see McCain answer back if America is better off now than it was two years ago.... before gas was $3.50 or more a gallon, before the epidemic of foreclosures, before the Bear Stearns bankruptcy, and before Democrats took control of Congress.

You're really going to try to pin this economic downturn on 15 months of a small do-nothing Democratic majority, after President Bush got just about everything he wanted for six years? Or are you just trolling?

The one time they didn't, McGovern lost 49 states.

Obama-McGovern comps have been floating around a few places, based on one semi-high-profile article about it. All I can say is, it's a very different time, a very different guy, and a very different opponent. I have said all along this election will be close; I still think so.

I'd like to see McCain answer back if America is better off now than it was two years ago.... before gas was $3.50 or more a gallon, before the epidemic of foreclosures, before the Bear Stearns bankruptcy, and before Democrats took control of Congress.

More left-wing bias on BTF. Man, I'm sick of it.

Could he possibly have "steered clear of experience" not because of his magical prescient judgement but because he doesn't have any?

You misunderstand. I meant he steered clear of running on those issues. He has more legislative experience than HRC, but he never talks about it because experience in not a winner in presidential elections. Neither is military service, at least in my lifetime.

EDIT: Before anyone jumps on me, 1988 is the one notable exception to the experienced guy and military veteran losing. But most people see that as just a 3rd Reagan term.

I'd have an easier time talking with Obama fans if they don't grossly overrate him at every opportunity.

Obama has plusses and minuses, like McCain, and Clinton. And, you'd "have an easier time talking with Obama fans" if you didn't label us as being part of a "cult" or as pandering to "white guilt" (TM) "at every opportunity."

Obama-McGovern comps have been floating around a few places, based on one semi-high-profile article about it.

You don't have to read the New Republic article to think Obama-McGovern. I just read the Pennsylvania exit polls.

I have said all along this election will be close; I still think so.

I agree with this and think you are more realistic than about 95% of Obama fans on the internet right now. I think the election map would not look very different than the last two.

However a close presidential election will mean that Obama will have vastly underperformed his party, as gauged on the congressional ballot.

However a close presidential election will mean that Obama will have vastly underperformed his party, as gauged on the congressional ballot.

Irrelevant. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and performed in office as if he had kicked Gore's ass from here to Guam, just as Obama will likely do if he gets in, regardless of handicapping.

However a close presidential election will mean that Obama will have vastly underperformed his party, as gauged on the congressional ballot.

Isn't that almost always the case? For whatever reason (I think it's personal demonization by the Karl Roves of the world, but that may be my bias), the Democrat running for president always seems to do worse than the party.

I agree with this and think you are more realistic than about 95% of Obama fans on the internet right now

.

I don't know; I don't hang out at barackobama.com, but you may be right. Most Obama fans I know personally think it is going to be a very tough go. Going in, I thought it would be close, but that if Obama got past HC, he would nose out McCain. With the Wright situation and some of Obama's mistakes, I see it as a toss-up with many unforeseen elements that will come into play. McCain seems to me to be a pretty good candidate from the Repub perspective, but the fact that he seems OK to me is probably tied to why some hard-right folks are not onto him. I think Obama is a good candidate as well.

Isn't that almost always the case?

Usually. I think it is more because that a lot of people like a split gov, and I have heard some people say over the years that they like a Democratic Congress and a Repub pres for a variety of reasons.

True, yet oddly enough during the peace, prosperity and balanced budget times of the 90s, we had exactly the opposite.

McCain seems to me to be a pretty good candidate from the Repub perspective, but the fact that he seems OK to me is probably tied to why some hard-right folks are not onto him.

He's a good Republican candidate on one thing, and one thing only: foreign policy. On economic policy, as other have noted, he's more or less a dunce, and on the social issues that energize the Republican base, he's been all over the map.

-- MWE

He's a good Republican candidate on one thing, and one thing only: foreign policy. On economic policy, as other have noted, he's more or less a dunce, and on the social issues that energize the Republican base, he's been all over the map.

Well, I meant that more in terms of electability/appeal to the center/personality. As I have said, once the Demo drama is over I think the media will zero on in McCain for awhile, and we will see how he handles it.

True, yet oddly enough during the peace, prosperity and balanced budget times of the 90s, we had exactly the opposite.

Divided government rocks. Either way.

Bill Clinton was much closer to the center than any of the other Dem nominees who've had their asses handed to them. The US is a center-right country. Given the choice between someone on the right and someone on the left, the guy on the right will win.

That doesn't bode terribly well for Obama, but it could be a new day. Who knows?

Bill Clinton was much closer to the center than any of the other Dem nominees who've had their asses handed to them.

He wasn't at first. It was only after the electorate #####-slapped him at the 1994 midterm did he hire Dick Morris and go for the center. When he started out, he focused on gays in the military and socialized medicine.

I can't help but think both of those were done at Hillary's urging.

I don't think it's a center-right country, but it likes a center-right president. Obama will tack to the middle following the primary just as McCain will. it's also a pendulum country. Things go too far one way and the other side bounces back. I see a bit of a parallel to 1980. A lot of people voted for Reagan because they were tired of the mainstream line out of Washington and the media that they were bigots and fascists just because they didn't support the full 60s agenda. Today I think a lot of people are sick of being called elitist and/or unAmerican for the past 28 years because they oppose the war and would rather read a book than go hunting. Obama speaks to them in a way that even Gore and Kerry were scared to.

When he started out, he focused on gays in the military

Sounds like a couple of Saturday nights I can recall when I still lived in DC. :)

Bill Clinton was much closer to the center than any of the other Dem nominees who've had their asses handed to them.

Neither Gore nor Kerry got their ass handed to them. Hell, Gore even got more votes than Bush.

It was a center-right country. After Bush II got finished, it is now a center-left country, although I'm sure he hasn't figured that out yet.

After Bush II got finished, it is now a center-left country,

This is the kind of mindless bravado a lot of Obama fans exhibit on the internet. (Admittedly less so in real life)

kevin probably thought the same thing after the 1974 and 1976 elections.

It pains me to type this, but kevin is right.

I actually think we're closer to 1976. Obama is Carter, McCain is Ford (he just didn't get the two years as president) - a good guy folks generally like even if they're not all that thrilled with the idea of him as CinC. The country is absolutely, completely sick of Bush (Nixon) but, somehow, it's still looking to be a close contest at the top of the ticket. Obama may win, but it will be close. I do sincerely hope he's better than Carter.

And, you're all right. I shouldn't have referred to GOre and Kerry getting their asses handed to them. Though I think it's fair to criticize Kerry for blowing a 2 foot putt.

McCain seems to me to be a pretty good candidate from the Repub perspective, but the fact that he seems OK to me is probably tied to why some hard-right folks are not onto him. I think Obama is a good candidate as well.

I think McCain is a good enough candidate to win and Obama one of the few Democrats weak enough to lose. I include Hilary, Edwards and Biden among the other weak Democrats. Coincidentally they all ran this year.

In a normal year, Obama's flaws would be fatal. A Republican like McCain should wipe him out a la Dukakis. This year is toxic for Republicans in general. However it's not comparable to the soul-crushing toxicity of 1976. Back then a weak Dem only squeaked out a win. It's going to be close, but not as dangerously close as 2000 for a McCain win in 2008.

I include Hilary, Edwards and Biden among the other weak Democrats. Coincidentally they all ran this year.

Who would you regard as a strong democratic candidate?

In a normal year, Obama's flaws would be fatal.

What would those be? Being black? Knowing a nutjob minister? Not knowing how to bowl?

This was early 90s, dad was close to retirement. He worked for the state. And they werren't men promoted ahead of him.

I grant your point about hiring practices when he was hired. But I think the bigger point is that the people put ahead of him weren't anywhere close to as qualified as he was (I mean that in terms of time in and experience in supervisory jobs - had they been close to equal in those regards, I imagine Dad would have been cool with it (or cooler, anyway)). Does that not matter to you? Do you really think racial harmony will be achieved by promoting less qualified minorities (and women) ahead of more qualified white men?

He worked for a state government.

Regardless of whether or not you think this was fair, or right, you can't seriously expect people it happens to to not be upset about it. Go ahead and dismiss that anger if you like, it won't change how those folks view candidates and policies. It's much the same as the folks telling minorities to suck it up and stop whining about they've been screwed in the past. That, alone, won't win many voters of that type, whether or not it's right or not.

Honest answer, bunyon, though in terms of getting the bigger picture it would help to know the state in question. But a couple of specific responses:

This was early 90s, dad was close to retirement. He worked for the state. And they werren't men promoted ahead of him.

I might not have reacted as I did had you said this in the first place. In terms of raw numbers, the great bulk of affirmative action beneficiaries have been white women.

I grant your point about hiring practices when he was hired.

Which is a huge part of the counter-argument, especially wrt African Americans. It's hardly irrelevant---though I'm not saying that you're saying that it is.

But I think the bigger point is that the people put ahead of him weren't anywhere close to as qualified as he was (I mean that in terms of time in and experience in supervisory jobs - had they been close to equal in those regards, I imagine Dad would have been cool with it (or cooler, anyway)). Does that not matter to you?

Of course it matters. The question of "qualifications" isn't nearly as cut and dried as many people like to pretend, but in the cases when it's pretty clear-cut, as you say it was in your dad's case, it's tough to argue for the sort of leapfrog hiring practice that you describe. But I think that you might also admit that these sorts of cases are not always so clearcut as all that, and that they are often exaggerated, and exploited for not-so-nice purposes by not-so-nice people.

The overall question of affirmative action is hopelessly bogged down in a mix of history, prejudice, and a way-too-abstract a conception of justice (on both sides, I hasten to add). You're never going to get it right no matter how hard you try. It would be nice if all fields of employment were like professional team sports, but they aren't. "Merit" in the narrow sense of the word often has little to do with who gets picked and who doesn't. The polite word for this is "networking," and although it can be racially benign, that's not always the case. And if whites are doing most of the hiring, its effect isn't always beneficial to black people.

Countering that, you have both formal and informal affirmative action schemes, and if they're run by the bureaucratic and CYA imperatives, then in lots of cases people like your dad will suffer, and there's no real excuse for that other than it demonstrates one particular side of human nature---and in this case results in what seems to be some sort of a quota system. By saying this, of course, I'm accepting your dad's version of events. It's no slight on your dad to say that there may have been another side to the story.

How the hell do you resolve all this? God knows. Obviously the Platonic goal is a work force hired on a broadly meritocratic basis, where race (in all cases) and gender (in most cases) are not factors in either hiring or "steering" by high school counselors---which is how many minorities and women over the years were channeled into lower forms of employment.

And just as obviously, there is a major conflict in some cases between pure meritocracy (however broadly defined) and the competing ideal of a work force that's roughly representative of the demography of the local population. (At this point, I leave out certain niche fields that for benign reasons have attracted disproportionate numbers of one particular group or another.)

On the one hand you want to be fair to the individual, but at the same time you also have to acknowledge that a society that is marked by one group cornering a disproportionte number of the best paying jobs is not the best of all possible societies.

And to square the circle, it's obvious (to me, anyway) that two broad societal changes are going to have to happen. Without them, all you're talking about is charity and band-aids.

First, the whole culture of learning has got to penetrate much further down than it does now. I'm not sure how you can accomplish this in a free society when it often seems as if we honor the superficial over the substantive almost as a matter of reflex, but to the extent that the problem is swept under the rug, we will inevitably gravitate towards an ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, and the factor of race will only accentuate this.

(And when I say "the whole culture," let me be a bit more specific. By that I mean both---both---the largely disfunctional culture of broken families and homes, disproportiately but by no means exclusively an African Americn phenomenon; and---AND--- the larger societal culture that we old grouches like to deride: Mindless and largely passive forms of entertainment that cater to the lowest common denominator; and the general hostility towards any sort of thinking that doesn't reduce itself to sound bite arguments. The political ads are only one of the more depressing examples of this---and the fact that they WORK is even more depressing.)

And second, we have to make some sort of a break with the whole every man for himself mentality that's been so accelerated in the last three decades. In the abstract, the idea of pure individualism and individual responsibility is bracing and benign. But in practice, what we've gotten by taking this philosophy to its seemingly logical conclusion is the withdrawal of the middle and upper classes from the public school systems, leaving those behind with fewer and fewer examples of good role models among their peers, and making the gap worse (with a handful of exceptions that get all the attention) with each generation. And you are not going to solve this by privitazation, charter schools or home schooling. These aren't necessarily bad in themselves in all cases, and for many individuals they may offer the only form of relief, but their overall effect is to isolate the left behinds even more than they were before.

And bunyon, the result of all these complex and historical interactions is that people like your dad get plssed off, but plssed off largely at the wrong people. Neither he nor those women who got hired over him put all this machinery in place. They just happened to come along when they did, and there is no rational reason why they should hold each other responsible for where they happen to have wound up.

We like to think that we ourselves are solely responsible for our own fates, and to a huge extent we are. But that's only part of the story, and to the extent that we deny the other (collective) part, we're only going to be having this same conversation a hundred or a thousand years from now.

Regardless of whether or not you think this was fair, or right, you can't seriously expect people it happens to to not be upset about it. Go ahead and dismiss that anger if you like, it won't change how those folks view candidates and policies. It's much the same as the folks telling minorities to suck it up and stop whining about they've been screwed in the past. That, alone, won't win many voters of that type, whether or not it's right or not.

Tough to argue with that. But to relate this to the specifics of this year's election, I'm not sure how this falls on the shoulders of Barack Obama, beyond his symbolic presence as a black man.

Who would you regard as a strong democratic candidate?

William Jefferson Clinton. Southern cultural background. Dirty poor cultural background. Executive experience. Once in a generation political instinct. Only weakness was foreign policy but was lucky enough to run after the fall of the Soviet Bloc.

In a normal year, Obama's flaws would be fatal.


What would those be? Being black? Knowing a nutjob minister?

Put it this way, if the Jeremiah Wright jeremiads came out in December instead of March, would Obama be anything other than a distant joke right now?