Night Light

wow, that's some ill will: ted kennedy re HRC

From Bloomberg News, Teddy Kennedy says he doesn't think Obama will choose Hillary as a VP.  But it's the way he says it that stung:

"I don't think it's possible,'' Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt,'' airing this weekend.

Kennedy, 76, without naming names, said Obama should pick someone who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.''

Meaning she isn't it tune with Americans' "nobler aspirations"?  Sounds right, actually, but ... harsh much?  Then Kennedy adds:

"If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful."

Draw your own conclusions about the level of good will between the Kennedy and Clinton camps.

"political correctedness"?

It's unfortunate that people use the concept of  "political correctedness" only as a negative, when it can also be a way of raising awareness of the ways in which words can wound.  And the phrase has its usefulness when discussing Democratic politics, especially this year.

Jerome Armstrong writes in MyDD that "political correctness on speaking about demographics has arrived, so are accusations of racism for speaking about voters in terms of their voting habits by skin color that far behind?"

Accusations of racism itself - a belief that nonwhites are inherently inferior?  No. Accusations that the Clinton campaign has been exploiting and exacerbating racial divisions for selfish ends?  Yes.   Those accusations are not only not "far behind,"  they've been here for a while.

"Political correctedness" has, of course, become a pejorative term for the habit of criticizing any speech that belittles or stereotypes people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.  The Right has been highly successful in using this phrase to mock and discourage any attempt, however valid, to persuade people not to characterize others in these terms.

Armstrong 's specifically defending the Clinton campaign's pattern of discussing racial voting patterns as an important demographic.   Maybe he's thinking about Hillary's USA Today interview yesterday, where she said "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again ...  how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."  (Emphases mine; note how those "hard working" Americans are "white."  As opposed to ... whom, exactly?)

Armstrong answers his own question - "are accusations of racism for speaking about voters in terms of their voting habits by skin color that far behind?" -  this way:

"I hope not, we can talk about a division without promoting it to happen."

That's hypothetically true, of course.  But we're not talking hypothetically here.  We're talking about the Clinton campaign - a campaign that has worked very hard to make exactly that division happen.  Giving them a pass on it now - especially by using the right-wing frame of "political correctedness" - seems like the wrong move, especially for someone from the more-or-less leftward side of the blogosphere. 

Equivocation from "progressive bloggers" over the Clintons' less admirable tactics has been a continuing source of disappointment ever since this campaign began.  They, of all people, should have rejected those tactics from the start. 

To be clear:  I know what Armstrong meant, and it's a reasonable statement in the abstract.  But applied to these people in this campaign, it's a defense of behavior that Democrats and progressives should reject in the strongest possible terms.

And as for "political correctedness" - progressives should stop helping the Right demonize it.  Sometimes cultural sensitivity is something to promote, not dismiss.  We can all find absurd examples of the principle taken to the extreme - Fox News has been only too happy to document them - but let's not discard a good principle over some bad applications.  And let's not give a pass to people, even those we consider good people, when they use divisions of race, gender, or sexual orientation for their own ends.

count every white vote

Is the Clinton team predictable, or is the Clinton team predictable?  On Monday I suggested (satirically, I thought) that their next tactic would be to suggest that the Democrats hold "whites-only primaries" from here on in.   Greg Sargent reports Clinton's chief  strategist, Geoff Garin, is now saying essentially the same thing:

Geoff Garin made the case for her electability in some of the most explicitly race-based terms I've heard yet.

Garin argued that the North Carolina contest, which Obama won by 14 points, represented "progress" for Hillary because she did better among white voters there than she did in Virginia.

As Sargent puts it, Garin's argument is "an explicit, and unabashed, linking of her claim of electability to her success among whites."  Atrios adds: 

"There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the reality of race and politics, and there's nothing wrong with politicians targeting their campaigns and messaging towards various subgroups ... (but) what the Clinton campaign is doing is saying that Obama has electability problems, and using their support from white voters as evidence of that. That's a wee bit problematic, and not just because it doesn't follow logically any more than (their) other electability arguments ..."

Guess who never won more than 43% of the white vote in either of his Presidential runs?  Bill Clinton.  Granted, that was a three-party race.  Bush I didn't win a majority of those votes either, but  he beat Clinton among whites both times and still lost.

This doesn't just undercut the last remaining Clinton electability argument.  It also speaks to the commonly-accepted spin that Clintons have more inherent appeal to the Bubba vote than other politicians.  If good ol' boy Bill couldn't whip patrician George Sr. with these voters, how can Hillary claim she'll conquer war hero McCain in the same demographic?  Are they going to be more impressed with her time at Wellesley than with his in the Hanoi Hilton?

And all this begs the question:  Why even bother counting other votes if you're going to use this kind of logic?

Why Couldn't Hillary Close the Deal?

For weeks Sen. Clinton and her supporters taunted the Obama campaign with the question, "Why can't he close the deal?" Fair enough. If Obama is going to be the nominee, they argued, why can't he deliver some more decisive wins?

After tonight's results the question has to be reversed:  Why couldn't she close the deal? Sen. Clinton needed a forceful victory to deliver the message that she, not Sen. Obama, has momentum and vote-getting ability. Yet she lost resoundingly in North Carolina, and as of this writing Indiana hangs in the balance. I'm not prepared to write the Clinton campaign's obit yet - that's been done one too many times already. They may continue to fight for a while, but the outcome is now inevitable.

Listening to Sen. Clinton's speech tonight, the lyrics of an old Randy Travis hit - a good populist country song - came to mind: Is it still over?  Are we still through? Before today's primaries she had already lost the nomination process according to any objective measure not invented by her own campaign. She was trailing in pledged delegates, and was even lagging behind in that questionable and tainted metric they call the "popular vote" count. After tonight, she'll still be lagging.

There was no "game-changer" tonight.  It's still over.  She's still through.

The "deal" she had to close wasn't the nomination itself, but something less lofty. She merely needed to "un-conclude" the race, by convincing superdelegates and party loyalists of two things: That Obama had a "glass jaw" (to use a Republican phrase), and that by contrast she had the momentum and fighting ability of a true winner. Those two ideas needed to be demonstrated in a convincing manner - so convincing, in fact, that Party leaders could justify overturning the agreed-upon selection process.

It was a tall order, and she fell short. She threw the kitchen sink at Obama and he came back strong. He refused to pander on the gas tax, instead choosing to bank on the wisdom of the voters. He exceeded expectations, then capped his victory with a speech that was at once inspiring, populist-themed, and generous toward his opponent. (He gave the audience a foretaste of the game he'd be bringing to John McCain, too.)

So why couldn't she close the deal? Pundits will argue about that in the days and weeks to come, but here's my theory: Voters rejected cynicism. The notion that "we can play the Republican game, but better" alienated them. In the end, the "lesser of two evils" approach was less effective.  That's a hopeful sign for the future.

Most of the talking heads on TV tonight were taking the position that it's all over but the shouting, and that Sen. Clinton is positioning herself for a graceful exit. Only Rachel Maddow took the contrarian position that the Clintons are preparing a "scorched earth" campaign. Even before Rachel spoke I was giving the "exit strategy" theory 2 to 1 odds. The other possibility, the one Rachel calls "scorched earth," I'd give a 1 in 3 chance.

Nobody ever went broke betting against the Clintons being gracious. But remember, Hillary will need to operate in the collectivized structure of the Senate. She also needs to hang on to enough goodwill for a possible second Presidential run. And then there's the matter of her huge campaign debt. Russert says there may be a deal in the works for the Obama campaign to pay it off.

So, while I'm not ready to join the Hallelujah Chorus yet, there are some plausible scenarios for a possible wind-down of this conflict. That raises hopes for a unified party - hopes that have looked nearly dead until now. It would be heartening to see the Obama and Clinton camps, and their respective followers, went to work rebuilding and reuniting their fractured party. A well-orchestrated Clinton exit after the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries could be face-saving all around, and would allow the parties to plan for a graceful transition to a united party.

Come to think of it, I take back what I said.  There was a game-changer tonight.  You can't make the argument that you're a winner and your opponent's a loser unless you're  winning.    As far as that "game-changer" is concerned:

Game over. 

that old rugged crosstalk

Tristero's new entry includes links to both  PZ Myers and to my post about tristero and Sam Harris (welcome, Digby readers!  It's an honor to have you). So I found myself reading Myers' blog for the first time in quite a while.  Myers is an avowed atheist, while I call myself a "spiritually-inclined agnostic," but here's an atheist goal I can wholeheartedly embrace (as articulated by Myers):

"The atheist goal is not the elimination of religion, but a reduction of its impact in secular functions, like government."

I've been working toward that outcome for some time.   Some will ask, Won't that kind of thinking encourage ruthless government behavior?   There's no evidence to suggest it will, and plenty to suggest otherwise.  After all, there's no study linking more ethical public policy to religiously-founded governments, and there's plenty of documentation of the problems with theocracies past and present. 

On the other hand, neither is there evidence that eliminating religion altogether will make human life happier, healthier, or more ethical. That's  why I've tangled with Sam Harris and others that have been described (by me and others) as "evangelical" or "militant" atheists:  Our differences don’t involve issues of belief itself, but center on the claim that the world would be better off with the total elimination of religion. Harris et al. assert this, yet provide no evidence for their argument.

Still, because I agree with Myers & Co. on the role of religion - especially fundamentalist religion - in public life, I've written much more about religious extremism than I have about "militant atheism."  After all, which one presents a clearer and more present danger in today's world? 

(One religion-related post, Unscientific American, was up on the front page of Richard Dawkins' website for quite a while.  I disagree with Dawkins on a number of points, but it was gratifying to find common cause with him on this topic.)

The link also reminded me of my  attempt to define "militant atheism" and what seemed to be the logical flaws in its argument.  Myers' response was to that post to label me "another backlasher" - meaning, I suppose, that he assumed I had orthodox religious beliefs of some kind - and to dismiss my arguments as follows:

1. This "backlasher" describes "militant atheists" as having characteristics A, B, and C.
2. I (Myers) don't have characteristics A, B, and C.
3. Therefore the "backlasher" doesn't know what he's talking about.

The more logical conclusion - that Myers is not a "militant atheist" by the definition used in that piece - is not considered.  The very reasonable statement by Myers quoted above supports that conclusion - he's not one.  But his characterization of my position, that militant atheists "believe that religion is the root of all evil," is a distortion of what I wrote.   

If Myers bothered to read the Harris piece I was critiquing, "Science Must Destroy Religion," he found this statement:  "Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global, civil society. "   That statement is flatly incompatible with Myers' comment that atheists "don't seek the elimination of religion."  Or am I missing something?   

That's why, ultimately, addressing this topic was frustrating.  You have somebody like Harris, who says "The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so." Yet when we met I suggested he review some demographic research that contradicted his assertions about religious people in general and Muslims in particular. He refused.   In fact, he demonstrated a "passionate unwillingness to do so."  Nevertheless, when I wrote about the encounter, his defenders thought that was just fine of  him, and even quite clever.

I bore some responsibility for the hostility, too, I suppose.  By even using a term like "militant atheism," which apparently had already become pretty inflammatory in some circles, I was adding more heat than light to the discussion.  Still, when even the more reasoned of the group (like Myers) wouldn't engage on substance, it became pretty clear my time would be better spent elsewhere.

The level of vituperation I got from atheists was unbelievable.  A number of them posted comments or sent emails that included statements like "you love it when Jesus f**ks you in the a**" and "you're a sh*tty-pants baby in diapers whining for your Daddy-God."  I believe that's known as "dispassionately considering new arguments."

(Dr. Dawkins has a chapter in one of his books that consists of insults he's received from religionists.  I think I could give him a run for his money …)

But this "debate" also provided me with my favorite of all the putdowns I've received over the years for my writing (even though it mischaracterizes me theologically):

"Why don't you come down from that cross you can't decide whether or not you believe in?"

 

 

Advice for Tristero

Tristero on Digby's blog has run afoul of the vaste hordes of commenters who stand at the ready, prepared to descend on anyone who criticizes any advocate for atheism on any grounds whatsoever.   Tristero's mistake was in criticizing Sam Harris for his latest diatribe against all of Islam, and all those who practice it.  He writes:  "...  by refusing to accept Harris' over-generalizations and join him in deploring an imaginary demon, I incurred the wrath of many commenters."

Join the crowd.

Tristero attempts to respond to the commenters here.  He or she needn't have bothered.  There will be no appeasement on this topic.  I tried to engage this bunch in dialogue a couple of years back.  I pointed out, as Tristero does, that I don't think very many atheists hold Harris' extreme views of Islam, that while I have spiritual inclinations I'm an agnostic by most classical definitions, that I was raised by an atheist/humanist mother, etc. etc. etc. 

The payback was swarms of posts with titles like "Eskow: Anti-Atheist Bigot."

If I tried to qualify my statements with more disclaimers, making it clear I wasn't tarring all atheists with the same brush, the posts and comments tended to read "Eskow:  anti-atheist bigot who's too wordy."

My advice for Tristero:  Let it go.  This dialog isn't going anywhere.  And as for Harris, he's already taken his logic to its logical conclusion:  He's an outspoken advocate in favor of torture, particularly of brown people from Muslim cultures.  My mention of that fact, together with a link, has been cited as further evidence of my "anti-atheist bigotry" - despite my statement that I believed this was a rare position among Western atheists.

Sam Harris is a sales and marketing expert.  He's selling atheism second and Sam Harris first, and he's very good at it.  But he's not big on engaging in direct and honest debate.  Neither are his supporters,at least if my experience is any precedent.

As I was saying to Tristero: Let it go.

Democrats Propose New Whites-Only Primary

A senior Democratic Party official outlined a new proposal that would allow only white voters to participate in the remaining primaries.  Under this proposal the Party would only count the votes of Caucasians whose income level is considered to be "working class," and whose political orientation is considered conservative - or, as the official put it, "culturally non-elite."

"The other people can vote," he said on conditions of anonymity.  "We're just not going to count their votes."

"We don't want those latté-sipping liberals choosing our nominee," he added. "You know who I mean: They're the ones who knew the war in Iraq was wrong and who don't like it when our Presidential candidates - or their husbands - triangulate on torture."

Yet you're pushing to have the votes counted from Michigan and Florida, which you guys agreed wouldn't be counted and where Obama didn't campaign -

"Right!  That's another reason we're discounting all these other votes.  Gotta make room for the ones we're squeezing in through the back door."

How will this new plan exclude these "liberals," as you call them?

"First, no college towns," the official said.  "We're not counting their ballots.  And no college graduates either."

Why's that?

"They're not the votes we want.  They're not 'real people.'  Real people are always white and never liberal. That lets out African Americans, too, so we don't want them picking our nominee."

That doesn't sound right.  Won't there be a big public backlash to a whites-only primary?

"Heh ... you'd think so, wouldn't you? But we've been using this logic for months now in making our pitch to superdelegates, and nobody's really squawked. I give the media a lot of credit for keeping ithe whole matter quiet."

What about white voters in states like Iowa?

"They don't get counted, either.  Only white voters in big states, or little states that we don't have a chance in hell of winning. Those are the kinds of voters we need to win over, so we'll be counting only their votes going forward."

Um, I don't quite follow the logic.  But what about caucus states?

"Nah.  Any state irresponsible enough to hold a caucus instead of a primary deserves to be disenfranchised.  I mean, even the word sounds elitist.  'Caucus.' They don't say 'caucus' down at the bowling alley, son."

But the caucus participants were hard-core Democratic activists - (at this the party leader tugged at his pants.)

"Caucus this, junior!  Catch my drift?"

I hate to sound idealistic here, since I know how you guys hate that, but in picking a candidate ... shouldn't everybody's vote matter? 

"Look, fella, do you want to win or not? If we're going to win, we need to get those white working-class voters - the ones that have consistently voted Republican for the last few elections. And to do that we have to bring out the Karl Rove playbook."

What do you mean, exactly?

"Oh, you know. Make senseless economic proposals like the gas tax holiday, because we figure - just like the Republicans - that the rubes are too stupid to know the difference. Then, when the people with some expertise disagree with us, call 'em 'elitist.'  Disparage the experts, just like Bush.  We can see when something works."

But what about your fellow Democrats?  What if they don't want to join in a counterproductive policy like the gas tax holiday?

"Then we put 'em on the spot, just like the Republicans do. That's the answer! Make them 'stand up and be counted' - Karl came up with a great phrase there. I'm sure he won't mind if we borrow it. If they won't pander along with us, cut 'em down like timber."

"Remember: The only voters we need to win are lower-income whites, and if we have to damage other Democrats to get 'em we will."

But what about African American voters?  Won't this new strategy of yours alienate them?

"Sure, but where are they gonna go?  It doesn't matter how black people vote in the primary!  Forget South Carolina!   It's not like they'll vote Republican, right?"

And what about those liberals you've been taking for granted?

"They're so hardwired for the lesser of two evils that they'll pick it every time."

But if you've alienated liberals and African Americans, you've depressed the entire base of the Democratic Party. The GOP's always said you need to energize your base to ensure high voter turnout and effective fundraising.

"Aw, hell, son!  We don't have to do everything those Republicans do, do we?"

But the real voters you're courting aren't just lower-income white people, they're lower-income white men.  So if you really want to use your logic, shouldn't you only count the votes of white men?

"No way, boy!  That would violate one of our core Democratic Party values!"

Which value would that be?

"Inclusivity."

Friday Random 10: I have seen the future and it's retro.

Elmore James

Random choices from our music files:

1. "Chelsea Girls," Nico - Why did her thick accent and flat singing voice work so well on a ballad like this?  Because it made her more human?
2. "All That We've Got Left," Vern Gosdin & George Jones - Two country singing masters who were human and had great voices.
3. "Death Cell Blues," Blind Willie McTell - The great blues master seems like ancient history, but he died in 1959! And he was only sixty years old or so.  Music seems to evolve so fast. To some of us he's an ancient and legendary figure like that other blind balladeer, Homer.
   
4. "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," U2 - Wasn't that Odysseus' line?  I mean, since we're speaking of Homer ...
5. "The Sky Is Crying," Elmore James - And then God gave us slide guitar.   Without it a whole range of human emotion would be unexpressable, at least through the medium of tube-blown amplifiers.
6. "Kemayoran," Grup Bamba Pang - To quote Smithsonian Global Sound, where I bought this online:  "      Recorded indoors at night, Majene, Propinsi Sulawesi Selatan, Indonesia.  This genre of singing with guitar accompaniment by the Mandar of South Sulawesi ...  is called sayang-sayang, and performed at weddings and domestic celebrations."  If you haven't found Smithsonian Global Sound yet, here it is.
7. "Ball and Biscuit," White Stripes (live) - Who says rock and roll is dead?  I have seen the future and it's retro.
8. "Mona," Bo Diddley - The pure products of America play homemade electric instruments.
9. "Deportee," Nanci Griffith - I've seen grown men swear they want to bear Nanci Griffith's children.  (Well, OK, they had been drinking.)  She sings Woody Guthrie's words about disposable and dehumanized Mexican workers.  Plus ca change and all that.
10. "You Tell Me," Johnny Cash - Back in the day.  Before he was hip was when Johnny Cash was really hip.

That's all ...

Coffeecups and Gutterballs: A Precision Media Hit On Obama, A Pass For Clinton

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Suppose a small group of people controlled the press, and they wanted to ensure a Republican victory in November. A few weeks ago Obama seemed to be riding a wave of inevitability and positive perception. The Democrats seemed to have found their candidate, and he scored well against the Republicans because he was seen as postracial and postpartisan. If this group were to write a memo to the media, what would it say?

Our hypothetical group's game plan would have very specific objectives:

1. Extend the Democratic primary race as long as possible.
2. Remind the public that the seemingly "post-racial" Obama is a black man; make him seem as scary-black as possible.
3. Strengthen Hillary Clinton's image with white working-class voters by making her appear populist, folksy, and one of them. Conversely, characterize Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with "real people."
4. Break down Obama's post-partisan appeal to independents and Republicans by linking him to the divisive left/right politics of the 1960's.

Now look back over the media's coverage of the Democratic campaign during the past several weeks.  Bingo:  Mission accomplished. By giving the primary campaign more of a horse-race feel than it actually has, they've managed to extend it. The Rev. Wright controversy and constant mentions of Louis Farrakhan have made Obama seem more "scary-black." (It should be noted that Clinton has closer political ties to a Farrakhan lover than Obama does. Her PA campaign chair Gov. Ed Rendell said this of him: "His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest... one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience.")

Those images of Hillary doing shots in Pennsylvania were broadcast morning, noon, and night, emphasizing her working-class image. So were images of Obama bowling a gutterball and looking "elitist." And by promoting Obama's alleged "ties" to Weather Underground radical Bill Ayers while downplaying Clinton I's pardon of two fellow Underground members, Obama was made to look more "leftist" than Clinton.

And that's not all, as they say on the late-night ads ...

Now we have the matter of Hillary's difficulty with a coffee machine.  This video has gone viral, complete with goofy and irritating music. It shows Sen. Clinton struggling to operate the coffee maker in a gas station. It's become popular among Obama supporters because it shows the allegedly "populist" Hillary's bafflement at operating a device that is familiar to most working Americans. Why is the coffee-machine video so popular among Obama supporters? Because they think it would be airing 24 hours a day if their candidate had made the same mistake.

And it would.

So, is the coffee-machine video getting airplay on the cable news shows?  Not really ... well, wait:  CNN did run a piece about it, but only to debunk the idea that this means Hillary's out of touch. "These coffee machines ARE finicky sometimes," says reporter Jeanne Moos, "I nearly broke one at the car dealership ..." Yet CNN breathlessly repeated over and over that Obama only scored a 37 while bowling, without reporting that he never finished the game! And there was no Jeanne Moos to say "we all throw gutterballs sometimes."

But, stop already! Isn't this all ridiculous? Isn't it trivial to concern ourselves with whether the next President is able to go bowling or get a cup of coffee from a vending machine? Of course! But the media make us care about these things. They have an enormous ability to influence what we think about, and they've chosen to emphasize the reality-show aspects of this race. Then, having done that, they skew the race in favor of different candidates in a naked display of their ability to influence the outcome. That's the lesson of the bowling incident and the coffee-cup video: One gets exposure and the other doesn't, because the narrative has already been written.

In this particular reality show, they've decided who they want voted off the island next.

So what does this all mean? Is our hypothetical group real? Did instructions come down from on high? The crystal balls are murky. But it's clear that American media outlets are owned by fewer and more powerful interests. And they don't necessarily have to write memos. All they have to do is hire and promote well-intentioned but biased reporters who don't even realize how they're distorting the news. Throw in a couple of cooperative editors, and you've got yourself a "free press" ready to do the bidding of its owners. And most of those owners are Republican.

We know that the right-wing learned how to spin and manipulate the news using outlets like Drudge and Fox. And rather than fight this system, Clinton campaign advisors like Sid Blumenthal decided to exploit it for their own ends. Blumenthal's been circulating the most scurrilous right-wing attacks against Obama to a mix of friends and journalists, and some of his readers have printed them.  (Blumenthal's the guy who found the Obama campaign's idealism infuriating; guess we know why now.) And it turns out that Rev. Wright's latest public tirade was orchestrated by ... a Clinton supporter.

But, some Democrats will ask, don't we want people like than running the Democratic campaign? Won't they be more effective at winning? Maybe - but that argument would be more compelling if they weren't losing. If the Clinton campaign wanted to run such a negative campaign, it should have done so from the very beginning. But they were overconfident. By turning ugly now, when they're behind, they're damaging the party. And, ironically, that may be why they're been getting such favorable media treatment lately.

If the media's first job is to cripple or take out Barack Obama, then the Clinton campaign is just a means to that end. Whether Obama yields to Hillary or takes the nomination in a weakened position, the Democrats will have been wounded. And the extended race will have provided months of extra "horse-race" stories for the media.

At that point Blumenthal et al. will find that their usefulness to the media machine has ended and they're yesterday's news. Their tactics won't work any more. Suddenly Clinton will be the target again - and John McCain will be on his way to the Presidency.

Word to Sidney Blumenthal and all the other Rove-emulating Clintonites: You're disposable tools in a bigger game. You guys, of all people, should understand that.
___________

UPDATE: Two alleged statements by Clinton associate Mickey Kantor have been removed from this post. He says he never said the more extreme statement, and there's evidence the video we saw was doctored. So we take him at his word. Another phrase that he used, "these people are sh*t," seemed to refer to Indiana voters but is ambiguous. (Not that ambiguity would stop the press if they were determined to smear a candidate by association, as the Clinton team knows all too well.)

Kantor reportedly asked that the more extreme statement not be repeated, even as a retraction. Fair enough. We've honored that request, and have also removed the other one. We suggest that Clinton and McCain supporters likewise refrain from repeating scurrilous and false remarks about their opponents in the future, even if only to deny that they believe them.

The True McCain Health Plan: Wealth Transfer From Voters to Corporations

Health policy proposals can reflect many different ideologies or political philosophies, but John McCain's plan isn't so much ideological as utilitarian. There has been a lot of excellent analysis of it in recent days, but one critical aspect has somehow been overlooked: The McCain plan, if enacted, would result in an enormous transfer of wealth from the general public to large American businesses.

In that sense, it reflects a lot of what passes for "conservative" ideology nowadays. There is no underlying belief system, just a mixed big of policies - so "pro-big government" and some "anti big-government" - that share only the ability to enrich the large corporate donors that finance Republican campaigns.

So Republican political platforms are often little more than ideological smokescreens for policies that benefit these special interests. That's why large corporate donors support think tanks that do nothing but cook up these kinds of proposals. The "maverick" McCain is now a strict adherent of this pseudo-conservative line, and his health plan reflects that. It's pro-free-market where that benefits his party's backers, and anti-free-market where necessary to provide the bill with enough political cover to be palatable.

(I don't usually sound so populist when reviewing health policies.  But it's good to look at what a plan would actually do if enacted, rather than what it's backers say it would do, and this is what was most striking.)

How would this transfer of wealth take place under the McCain plan? First, its important to note that most under-65 Americans with health coverage receive that coverage through their employers. The employers who provide health benefits aren't small businesses - they're medium to large companies. While these companies receive a tax break for providing coverage, it isn't enough to cover their costs.

What would the McCain plan do for them? First, it would destroy the employer-based system by eliminating tax breaks for companies that offer health care. As a result, nobody would have employer coverage anymore. Since businesses are paying far more in premiums than they're been getting in tax breaks, they'll save an enormous amount of money. But unlike Sen. Ron Wyden's plan, for example, the McCain plan would not require these employers to give this sudden windfall back to their employees as salary increases.  America's businesses would enjoy a huge reduction in expense without being asked to give anything back.

In return, individuals and families would be given tax breaks to go out and buy their own health coverage, but without the buying power of larger employers. So here's what's likely to happen in the real world under the McCain plan, based on what we've learned so far:

1. If a family gets a $5,000 tax break but the typical family premium is $12,000, they'll either pay $7,000 out of pocket or go without coverage.
2.  People with pre-existing conditions won't be able to get private coverage.
3.  McCain will encourage the states to take on people with pre-existing conditions by creating "high-risk pools."
4. But high-risk pools at the state level haven't worked very well. So people with pre-existing conditions will either go without insurance, remain uninsured, or state taxes will skyrocket to cover their costs. That means even more money out-of-pocket for individuals, in the form of higher state taxes.
5.  Cost controls on premiums are sketchy.  That means the $12,000 average premium will probably go up, too.

The end result? More out-of-pocket expenses for individuals, terrible difficulties obtaining coverage if you have a pre-existing condition, and an enormous financial break for larger American businesses.

This plan is more likely to pass than previous Republican proposals, since it includes high-minded suggestions like that state-based "Guaranteed Access Plan" for high-risk people. But if you've seen how expensive and unwieldy state risk pools can be, how difficult they are to join (six-month waiting periods, etc.), and the limits to their coverage, you know it's a plan that provides very little for "the least of us." Not only that, but by insisting that these high-risk state plans work with insurers, McCain would ensure even more transfer of public revenue to the private sector.

"Guaranteed access" and the other, more palatable plan provisions are left vague, while the windfall effect for business is immediate and specific. The plan would, in the words of Popeye's pal Wimpy, "gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

That's enough to persuade The Politico and other observers that McCain is "moving to the middle on health care." And since politics is a game of expectations, that may be enough. But underneath the centrist rhetoric, the McCain plan will gladly help voters "Tuesday" while it empties out their pockets to give corporate interests a big hamburger today.
________________

Here are some interesting reactions to the plan from across the political spectrum:

Ezra Klein - I particularly enjoyed his "It's 3 AM and your child is sick" opener.
Jonathan Cohn - Perhaps the best overview of the plan I've read.
Race 4 2008 - Review of McCain conference call on the health plan.
Megan McArdle - As she says, the plan is "heavy on theory and light on practice." And in my experience, where a plan is light on practice nothing is going to happen.
Bill Scher - As Bill notes, only a few journalists have written about the radical nature of the McCain Plan.

Friday Random 10: Random Music Generator

Pashtun tribesman

Randomized for your protection.  You know the rules - the Music Player  selects tunes haphazardly from the 20,000 or so on our hard drive, and we tell you what they are without editing them to make ourselves look more impressive (well, not much, anyway):

1. "Some Other Guy," Beatles Live at the Hamburg Club - In a way I liked them best as a bar band.  But then, I'm an old bar band guy myself.
2. "Tougher Than the Rest," the Mendoza Line - Cool cover of one of my favorite Springsteen songs, from a now-defunct band.  They obviously have good taste:  Not only did they pick this song - they also named themselves after that line of demarcation in batting averages that makes ballplayers as unremarkable as Mario Mendoza.
3. "A Soft Place to Fall," Alison Moorer - She's Mrs. Steve Earle now, but that's not why I'm glad this song came up.  It's gorgeous, it's sad, and it's country.  That means, as long as it's playing life is good.
4. "I'm Gonna Live and Howl Until I Die," David Lindley and Ry Cooder live - Players so good you'll just up and put your instrument away.
5. "The Bible's True," Uncle Dave Macon - Richard Dawkins would disagree, but can he play the banjo?
6. "Do Sumpin'," Nervis Brothers - Don't know where I got this, but it's definitely a funk groove.
7. "I'm Gonna Tear Your Playhouse Down," Ann Peebles - Shoulda been the Democrats'  theme song against Reagan in 1984.  When they picked "Celebrate" I knew they were screwed.  I mean ... celebrate what?
8. "Zemun Watang ke badaruna," Soudibeh Ka - I've already gone on record regarding the music of the Pashtun tribes.
9. "Digging Up Bones," Randy Travis - A country song that uses the word "exhuming."  That was a questionable choice, don't you think?
10. "Eat the Rich," Aerosmith - Sounds like self-destruction to me.

Until next week, then ...

From 'A More Perfect Union' to Prices at the Grand Union

Obama needs to shake up the campaign, to hit a "hard reset" on the political dynamic. The pundits are turning against him, which means superdelegates could soon follow. It's time for him to follow some well-worn advice from the suburbs: When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.

If you believe the conventional wisdom, it's all coming down to those white "Reagan Democrat" voters. If they don't get behind the Democratic nominee, we're told, the Dems will lose. Of course, life has an unfortunate way of being more complicated than the conventional wisdom. (After all, can the Democrats afford to alienate black voters in their pursuit of working-class whites?) Still, it's becoming clear that Obama needs to do a better job speaking to the kind of voter once condescendingly described as a "regular person."

Can he do it? Probably ... if he's willing to make some changes to his message. He needs to make those white middle-class white voters comfortable with him before Indiana votes, because a loss there would do even more serious damage to his November chances. And he needs to address those simmering concerns about his ability to connect with all segments of the electorate. The best way to do that is by confronting them head-on.

Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech on race was inspirational and brilliant. But I remember telling a comedian friend at the time that it might have been, as they say in stand-up, "too hip for the room." I agree with those who say it would be a sea change in American life to have a President capable of giving that kind of speech. But he has to get elected first.  For that, he'll need to tell people how he'll change their lives - not abstractly, but concretely.

When Norman Mailer wrote his 1960 essay about John Kennedy, "Superman Comes to the Supermarket,"¹ he was using the new-styled grocery store as an emblem of what postwar America had become. He wrote of "the spirit of the supermarket, that homogeneous extension of stainless surfaces and psychoanalyzed people, packaged commodities and ranch homes, interchangeable, geographically unrecognizable, that essence of a new postwar SuperAmerica."

But that was almost 50 years ago. In those days supermarkets and gas stations shone with promise, however prefabricated and homogeneous, and with the gleam of polished metal. But that part of the American Dream's gotten rusty. Consumerism isn't about hope anymore. It's about fear. Grocery stores are battlegrounds filled with dread. Each shelf is a danger zone; a new shock to the family budget may be hiding there. Gas pumps are bearers of bad news, their gauges clicking off ever-rising numbers. If Obama's going to reinvigorate his candidacy, he needs to move from a More Perfect Union to the Grand Union.

What can he do? He can show up at a supermarket in Indiana - maybe the Marsh Supermarket on Jersey Street in Indianapolis, where two loaves of Wonder Bread are going for $3.00 if you have a Marsh card - and give a speech in the parking lot. He can tell voters of all races that he understands their financial fears. He can rattle off some grocery prices to show that, unlike George Bush Sr., he knows the specifics of their pain.

It would be a mistake to try acting "just like them." Some voters may think Obama's "not their type of guy." So what? If they think he can help them financially, he'll become their kind of guy.  So Obama would be better off being himself, and saying something like this:

"I know my life story may seem strange to you, with its elements of different nations and different races. You might think my pastor was a little weird sometimes, or whatever they're saying on Fox these days. But the economy bears down on all of us, whatever our backgrounds may be. You shouldn't vote for me because you think I'm just like you - although I may be more like you than you realize. You should vote for me because bread in this supermarket costs $1.50.  Can you believe that? It was less than a dollar a few years ago.

"There's a reason for that, and together we can solve it. A lot of that price increase comes from fuel costs, because the oil companies have had a free hand. Vote for me and we'll fix that. Gas is four bucks a gallon now, and we can fix that too."

"Now, I know people make fun of me sometimes for talking about change -- yeah, they do -- but I'm not talking about pie-in-the-sky change. I've got a couple of opponents who have been in Washington for a long time. My Democratic opponent campaigned for NAFTA, and now some of your jobs are gone. My Republican opponent is in bed with those big oil companies that are pushing up prices. And they both work with those corporate lobbyists that sent our jobs overseas. That's what I want to change."

"So when you hear somebody say 'all that Obama ever talks about is change,' you tell them that you just went shopping today and you don't have any change left ... in your pocket. Tell them you could use a little 'change' right about now. You tell them that this Obama guy may be a little different, but I just filled up my tank and, you know what? I could use a little 'change' right about now. Then you go vote for me, and when the next election rolls around some of these prices will have changed ... for the better."

Would Obama ever give a speech like that? It's hard to say. It may feel too populist for him. He may prefer not to be defined that way. But playing it safe isn't working for him. Nobody denies the brilliance of his gifts. But if Superman doesn't come to the supermarket, the superdelegates may start shopping elsewhere.
_______________

 Here's an excerpt from Mailer's essay, to remind you how some people saw JFK during the 1960 election. And see who the contrast with Lyndon Johnson reminds you of:

"... yet there was an elusive detachment to everything (Kennedy) did. One did not have the feeling of a man present in the room with all his weight and all his mind. Johnson gave you all of himself, he was a political animal, he breathed like an animal, sweated like one, you knew his mind was entirely absorbed with the compendium of political fact and maneuver; Kennedy seemed at times like a young professor whose manner was adequate for the classroom, but whose mind was off in some intricacy of the Ph.D. thesis he was writing."

all me, all the time.

Someday we'll have the ultimate in narrowcasting media .  You'll have the you channel broadcasting all you all the time.  The star will be you, the audience will be you, the subject will be you - and it will provide endless loops of pleasure to you.

Until that day comes, how about a little ... me!  (although the ratio of me to other people   is very low in these clips, meaning I don't say all that much.)

First up is a brief Young Turks clip, since I did the show again today.  Then there's a BBC radio piece on Saturday Night Live and the election (I make a few comments here and there ...)  Another is Al Jazeera English Language TV, their "Listening Post" program.  When the host said "thanks for coming on the show," I said "thanks for getting me on the No Fly List."  He didn't laugh enough for me.   It made me kinda nervous (though Tommy Franks has been on the show, too.)

But enough about me ...

The Young Turks:

BBC Radio:

Go here (I first appear about 2/3rds of the way through the clip.)

The Listening Post:

too much politics ... psyche is fried ... must change subject ...

Robert Creeley, writing about Charles Olson:

One time at Black Mountain he said to me, ‘I need a college to think with’  ...

‘Come into the world,’ he said, ‘Take a big bite.’

It was poetry that could move with the necessary syntax and speed, to ’be here’ coincident with recognition, a locating act ...

on the hillary side

For balance - I can't get worked up about Hillary putting Bin Laden into an ad.  The ad was listing the threats presidents face. 

As outrages go, it ain't much.

is kos a more articulate obama advocate than obama's own team?

After enthusing last year about all the Democratic candidates, including Clinton, Kos has arguably become Obama's most articulate advocate.  Here's what he's said in just the last few hours:

• Re the argument that, as he puts it, "Obama's not 'electable' since he can't win every single state on the calendar," and the specific question:  "why didn't he win Pennsylvania if he's so hot a candidate?" - a list of reasons why he didn't win and is nonetheless electable is provided.  (Have Obama's own people made the same arguments?) 
• Kos adds:  "In two weeks, I'm sure the Clinton people will be just as eager to demand explanations as to why they can't win North Carolina." 
• He goes on to say  "Fact is, we have two fairly different candidates who appeal to different demographics ... Clinton runs the same old path that has served us poorly in the last two elections. Obama's is different, putting the Mountain West, North Carolina and Virginia in play."
• Re the "popular vote" argument:  "... in Clinton and Jerome's world, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote only IF you exclude four caucus states, IF you include two unsanctioned states, and IF you "disenfranchise" every voter in Michigan who voted against Hillary Clinton."
• Re Corzine's take on the "popular vote" argument:  "That's not just dismissing the four caucus states that didn't report popular votes, but all of them, all 13 of them. "
• Re the electability argument:  "She's lost more contests to Obama than she's won. She's raised less money than he has. She fares poorer in the polling against McCain than he does. She trails in the popular vote. And somehow, despite the fact she runs behind Obama in the general, the supers are supposed to overturn the will of the primary electorate and spur intra-party civil war on her behalf? "  A state-by-state analysis of Clinton's general-election weakness follows.

Interesting points.

more on why this primary process is killing the democrats

I agree with Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat that this primary process is deadly for the Dems.  But I think it's even grimmer than they're saying.  The Klein/Douthat position is that Obama's the inevitable winner, and that he's being forced to squander valuable time fighting Hillary when he should be targeting McCain.

But it's worse than that.  Not only is Hillary exposing Obama's weaknesses, as Ezra observes.  She's also inflicting a lot of additional damage and driving up his negatives, using talking points Republicans wouldn't be allowed to use (see this piece for details).  And her arguments - including the notion that she's being victimized by unfair party rules - will ensure that a subset of her supporters will refuse to vote for Obama in November (a much smaller subset than currently say they won't vote for him, but nonetheless a meaningful one).

And I'm not as certain as other people that Obama will be the nominee.  I'd say that's 70% likely, but she could still pull off an upset.  If she succeeds - especially after the campaign she's waged so far - she'll inherit a grievously wounded party. 

There's no happy ending for all of this, just a Democratic Party that enters the general election in a wounded state.

Kevin Drum's got the counterargument:  It's an exercise in positive thinking that says McCain's a weak candidate who can't surpass a 45% level of support.  I'm not buying it, though I wish I could.  Right now McCain's hampered by Bush's negatives, but he'll get a lot of help from the media in distancing himself from Bush and playing 'maverick' in the coming months.

If there's a good outcome for this extended battle, I'm having trouble seeing it.  The argument that the extended primary struggle has done the Democrats good seems Pollyanna-ish to me, although this sentence raises a good point:  "There's nobody approaching a 'party boss' these days, and the Democrats are paying the price for his absence."

That's something to consider.  After all, at least a less democratic Democratic Party wouldn't keep on damaging itself like this.

Why I Predicted the PA Results Exactly Right

Reliable polls taken in the last 2-3 days showed Clinton beating Obama by an average of 5.8%.  But the day before the primary I predicted the spread would be 9.5%.  Current reports place it at 9.3%, with 99% of precincts reporting.¹  Why did I get it so right when the polls got it so wrong? 

One reason is dumb luck. Accurate predictions are difficult with numbers as fuzzy as polling data. That said, there are other, more ominous reasons why I did better than the pollsters. The one that should be of greatest concern to the Democrats is the Bradley Effect, where white voters are reluctant to tell pollsters that they won't vote for a black candidate. While the Bradley Effect is highly controversial, the Texas and Ohio results persuaded me that it's real. So I increased Clinton's margin accordingly.

It didn't have to be this way. In the first few months of the campaign, a great many voters didn't seem to perceive Obama as "black." Pundit talk that he was somehow "postracial," possibly as a result of his multi-ethnic parentage, seemed to reflect itself in public reaction to his candidacy. There would have been a Bradley Effect in any case, but it might have been smaller than it turned out to be yesterday in Pennsylvania.

Which leads me to the second reason I called this race accurately: The Clinton campaign has been successful in ghetto-izing Obama as a primarily "black" candidate. Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson remarks were the opening salvo of a war to do exactly that, and it has worked. Even Jon Stewart's joke when interviewing Obama on Monday, while funny - "Do you plan to enslave the white race?" - played into the "black candidate" angle.

From what we seen of the Clinton psychology, and Bill Clinton's in particular, it's easy to understand why they did it. Obama was getting heavy support from black voters, yet presenting himself as "postracial" to the white electorate. That's having your cake and eating it, too. To people as resentment-driven as Bill and Hillary Clinton, the temptation to go after him on race must have been irresistable. (Thus we get Bill saying he was the race card victim on Monday - adding "I don't think I should have to take any shit about this" - and then denying it on Tuesday, despite the audio tape.  What he was really saying was "I should be allowed to get away with this shit.") 

So the difference between 5.8% and 9.3% boils down to what I said when Geraldine Ferraro made her comments last month:  The Ferraro strategy was deliberate, it was coordinated, and it will work. Well, it has. And it's resulted in lasting damage to Obama - damage that the GOP was in no position to inflict for itself. Why? Because, as Democrats, the Clintons and their surrogates have been able to make racial arguments that would have been considered unacceptable coming from Republicans. Assuming that Obama will still be the nominee, the Clintons have done McCain's dirty work.

Don't get me wrong: There would have been a Bradley Effect anyway, though I don't think it would have been this big. And other factors hurt Obama, including ABC's attacks during the debate and the tenacious loyalty Clinton supporters have toward their candidate. Obama underestimated the ferocity of the resistance he was going to face from both the Clintons and the media, and didn't build a strong enough firewall against some of these personal attacks. However vacuous or distracting you think issues like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are, it was inevitable that they would be used against him. His failure to adequately plan for that is hurting him now.

Despite what others say (like Slate's "Hillary Deathwatch"), I've never put Hillary's chances for winning the nomination at anything less than 30%. I still don't. There are powerful forces out to eliminate Obama from this campaign, and Clinton's determination is great. It's a mistake to underestimate either of these factors.

Here's an impression I can't back up with data: If Hillary had run a clean campaign, she would still have won PA. The margin would have been closer to 5 points than 9, but it would have left her in a position to make the electability argument she's been pushing for months. Her question - "Why can't he close the deal?" - is a legitimate one. Superdelegates and Obama supporters might be taking a second look at Hillary after yesterday's results, but her campaign has created too much bitterness for that.

Now it's too late: She's inflicted some serious wounds on Obama, but the way she's done it has made it all but impossible for superdelegates to accept her as an alternative. His supporters are too angry over her tactics to accept her on the basis of electability alone. Obama emerges from Pennsylvania damaged, but choosing Hillary instead would shatter the party. (Even the New York Times finds her campaign strategy "mean, vacuous, and pandering.")

Ironically, a smaller margin in Pennsylvania would have helped her more than this one did, if she had won it cleanly. Instead she's won a genuine - but Pyrrhic - victory, one that doesn't advance her chances for the nomination. And the damage to the party's November prospects is deep and lasting.
_______________

¹Final numbers:  1,258,245 Clinton, 1,042,297 Obama, total votes 2,300,542.  That's 54.7% Clinton, 46.3% Obama (slight rounding).

i predict ...

... that Hillary Clinton will win in Pennsylvania tomorrow by 8-12 points.  If I had to bet on the point spread, I'd say 9.5.

Reasons:

• Race.
• Fear-mongering - it works.
• Stephanopoulos and Gibson, and the rest of the press corps.
• Diehard supporters:  Despite all the talk about "Obamabots," it's the Clinton fans that "want to believe," as Agent Mulder used to say. It seems that nothing will persuade them to reconsider.  That's a powerful resource for any politician.

And, if so, it's on to Denver ... but then, nobody knows anything, least of all me.

i'll happily debate evan gahr. but when our entourages start shooting at each other, you'll know it's gone too far

Bush supporter and GOP icon Kid Rock, making an appearance in Nashville Night Court

Evan Gahr, who wrote the Human Events piece I quoted here, wrote me with a rebuttal (he said he had difficulty posting it as a comment).  My response follows.

FROM EVAN GAHR, HUMAN EVENTS:

So I'm a racist because I criticized black rappers. What about when Stanley Crouch and Al Sharpton criticize rappers? Are they racist also?

You object that I omitted Kid Rock and Lynard Skynard performing at the 2004 GOP convention.  The piece was about Obama, not Bush.  For whatever it's worth I don't think, if what you say about them is accurate, either should have been allowed to perform at the GOP convention. (Although Kid Rock would make an ideal NEA grantee.)  And John McCain should renounce support from John Hagee.

You object to my guilt by association with Obama and rappers. When liberals attacked George Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University, that was guilt by association. Do you object to that also?

Finally, it's rather curious that you accuse me of singling out blacks for criticism when any cursory Google search would have revealed that I was fired by one conservative institution and blacklisted by two others for breaking with the neo-cons and being the only one to have ever criticized a white Christian Right leader for anti-Semitic remarks.  http://www.chimpstein.com/2004/09-26-whois.php

MY REPLY:

I didn't use the word "racist."  Of course  Crouch and Sharpton weren't racist when they criticized rap.  Neither was Obama, who did the very same thing.  The problem with your piece wasn't that it criticized rap.  It was that you glossed over Obama's differences with the rap community in order to suggest he was some kind of rap 'fellow-traveler,' even though he's had less association with these types of unsavory cultural characters than Bush and other Republicans have.

Rappers happen to signify everything that frightens many white voters about black people.  Therefore, whatever your intent in writing the piece, I have the suspicion that this charge will have "legs" in today's media climate.  That's why I mentioned your article in my piece.

George W. Bush met with - and/or took the money from - more unsavory characters than those two rappers.  Kid Rock (who raps, as well as sings) has a longer 'rap sheet' than either Ludacris or Jay-Z.  Bush wined and dined pornographers and other unsavory cultural figures in the White House.  This leave the impression that there is a high degree of specificity to conservative outrage - which appears to be based on primarily on race, class, and most of all political expediency.

Personally, I have no problem with Kid Rock contributing to Republican candidates, or performing at the Inauguration - except for the hypocrisy.  Kid is the author of such works as "Yo Da Lin in the Valley," "Wax the Booty," and "Bawitdaba," where he gives a shout-out to "all my homies is cell block six."  His lyrics frequently repel me - in much the same way a lot of other white and black hiphop does, and for the same reasons.   (Though I like it when he sings in the old Southern Rock style.  He's more talented than a lot of people think.)

It’s a shame that white and black kids are bombarded with this stuff. What’s even more destructive is the degrading sex and violence portrayed in so-called “action movies” of the “True Lies” ilk. I hope one day our young people will no longer be exposed to this psychic pollution. But for me, that's a battle best resolved by open debate and market forces.

Maybe I'm the real conservative here?

I appreciate your open-mindedness in acknowledging the possibility that Bush was wrong in accepting Kid Rock's support.  That's certainly consistent of you.  But most of the conservative movement was silent when it mattered.

As for your biography, are you suggesting your piece should not be considered on its own merits?  Should I Google the author of every opinion I read before deciding whether I agree with it our not? 

You say you were fired for criticizing a white Christian Right leader for anti-Semitic remarks.  If so, good for you.  A lot of these guys are anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic too.  But that doesn't make your argument on an entirely different topic any more or less valid.

Lastly - As for the Bush/Bob Jones University comparison, it's not a good analogy.  If Obama had gone to a Death Row Records social event and give a speech there - thereby showing his approval for Suge Knight and his values - then it would be a good analogy. It’s not “guilt by association” to judge Bush for going to Bob Jones University: it’s guilt by action.

To sum up, my objection to your piece was that it misstated Obama's relationship to the rap community.  It also appeared to play off Obama's race and that of the rappers you mentioned.  If the latter was not your intent, my apologies - but I believe others will interpret it that way too.

In any case, good of you to write.  I appreciate the civil exchange of viewpoints that took place between us via email.

"I Have Some Meth in my Pocket" -- at Least One Cable News Personality Told the Truth Last Week

CNN reporter Richard Quest told police who stopped him last week that he had some meth in his pocket.  And guess what?  He did have some meth in his pocket, according to reports. So that may have been the most honest thing a TV news personality said all week.

Contrast Quest's refreshing candor with  the chart Wolf Blitzer put up last week, purportedly to show the relative wealth of the Presidential candidates. And who's pictured on the leftmost side of the chart, signifying that he has the least money and is most like "regular folks"? Why, John McCain, even though his wife has more than $100 million in assets - money that generated even more revenue in interests and investment income. Bill Clinton's income was added to Hillary's, and Michelle Obama's was added to Barack's - but as far as CNN viewers were concerned, Maverick John was just trudging along on $400,000 a year or so.

Cindy McCain's income is invisible to CNN, but Bill Clinton's isn't. And the Clinton marriage remains the subject of tawdry speculation while the unsavory circumstances of the McCain courtship stays under wraps.

It gets worse. During CNN's grossly distorted presentation, Dana Bash falsely said that "John McCain donated about 26 percent of his income to charity (whereas) the Clintons gave 15 percent - and the Obamas, they gave 6 percent." Add in Cindy's wealth, of course, and those numbers change drastically. But CNN's viewers will never know. "Generous John," they'll think, "barely getting by - and yet giving so much."

Friday Random 10

More randomized selection from our collection of 20,000 mp3s.  Here we go, fast and furious because I'm under the gun workwise:

1. "Mary and Joseph," Richard Thompson
2. "John Hardy," Flatt and Scruggs
3. "Stop Crying,"  Sonny Boy Williamson
4. "Gateway," R. Carlos Nakai
5. "Frank's Song," Tom Waits
6. "Fresh Tendrils," Soundgarden
7. "Fix It Jesus," Rev.  Charlie Jackson
8. "Why You Wanna Do It," Willie Harper
9. "Ye Ma'am," Charlie Rich
10. "For a Minute There," Vern Gosdin

There.  I didn't even edit it to make myself look hipper ...

PS re ABC and SNL

Here's what I don't expect to see tomorrow night:

An SNL routine about how the ABC hosts were "in the tank" for Hillary.

Surprise me, Lorne and Tina.