McCain's downfall.

Should illegal immigrants who worked in the United States be allowed to collect the promised tax rebate?

Hmm... I have a concentration in economics from Northwestern (they didn't offer minors, only "concentrations") and to be straight with you, I have my doubts on this whole stimulate-the-economy-by-spending-the-rebates plan. I also took some political science classes, and despite the cultural appeal to the 6os, I don't believe in magic. Those days are gone, not coming back no matter how physically attractive(?) or verbally electrifying the candidate.

I suspect if you hand the tax-filing illegal immigrants well over a thousand dollars per family, much of that "extra" money will be sent home to family in Mexico. Not stimulating the American economy a bit, unless the money is used to guide more family members illegal across our still essentially open borders.

It's just not in the nature of immigrants -- legal or illegal -- to splurge on a wide-screen t.v. or to take the family to Disney with the rebate. Again, I'm not so sure that spending on China-manufactured products is going to help America's economic woes much anyway, and I suspect many have wised up and will use the money not to spend, but to pay bills and keep the wolf from the door so to speak. (Shell's posting record oil profits, and the basic grocery staples are up, up, up thanks to the costs of oil, transporting all goods.)

But tell me this, all those who are calling for an Obama-McCain showdown: Isn't this "extremism" at its finest? One backs Bush's Iraq policy 100%, the other calls for a complete withdrawal. That's the center? That's understanding the current real-world options and the best they can do to navigate the options? Either/Or?

Personally, in the GOP, I still like Romney. He's real-world tested, not a Senate product. McCain overnight is going to morph into a leader, when he had done essentially nothing in his Senate career? (To me, McCain-Feingold was well-meaning, but unconstitutional if you respect First Amendment principles.)

And Obama -- well like I say, I don't believe in turning the clock back to the 60's just to give Caroline Kennedy/Edwin Schlossberg's children and their cohorts "something to believe in" again. Sorry kids, if you've been blessed like that and are still depressed and unhopeful, trust me -- it's you. No special shade of presidential candidate skin with electrifying speeches can get the job done, if you can't find it within yourself to start at the bottom in tackling the job that needs to be done. Talk to the dwindling numbers of middle-class youngsters if you want to see how it works. The 60s truly are gone, and those ex-hippies encouraging such rot should be ashamed.

The "Do you believe in magic?" days should have been put to rest long ago -- hard work, rational compromises, not magic, folks. Read up on your country's past, kids, and don't let them play those silly "change for its own sake" cards once again. The surviving Kennedy's are a bloated, privileged class riding the coattails of dead men. Have been for years. They maybe mean well, but... Look around you and understand the reality-challenged ignorance of many promising a magical turnaround absent hard choices, accepting consequences and denying their own track records (one was confidently spouting Guiliani-Huckabee, before she came clean admitting she'd take McCain over Clinton, if indeed her magical man Obama doesn't get the nod, bringing back that 60s unity and love and magically transforming the economic and political climate. That's not logical; that's extremism considering how different the two are -- policy-wise. Of course, that's the same pundit type who will discuss looks, age, tone of voice... anything but rational policy discussion. Thankfully, they hold no real sway, short of entertainment value. Escapism from their own second-hand lives, talking just to hear themselves speak).

We may not like them personally, but both Romney and Clinton have shown they understand that you don't feed the kids sugar and crap just because they'll like you more if you do. America is facing some hard times ahead, necessary if we hope to pull out of this recession and rebuild our country from the bottom up. Clinton gets that, hence the charges of closet Republicanism on many issues. Romney too. Sure he cut jobs of failing companies in dying industries. Sometimes it worked in saving the patient, sometimes they died despite the efforts. But feeding them sugar and promising magic, that might make the children feel better temporarily, but look at the 60s -- take a close look at that Kennedy presidency, in fact -- sift through the decades of fallout, and tell me: would it have been better to adopt social policies then that felt hard but didn't essentially abandon the public school systems, traditional family and religious values, solid economic theory?

We man not like Hillary or Mitt, might not want them as friends, not on the top of the list as cool people to invite to the weekend party, but you have to admit: they both get it. They understand where we're at -- in America, in Iraq -- and acknowledge that hard choices are ahead. It won't come easy though, never has despite the lingering myths.

To wrap it up, no. No, you don't give tax rebates to illegal immigrants to stimulate the Mexican economy. No, it's not "fair" to say if they filed, they get the rebate. Tell that to those making over $75,000, who are much more likely to splurge on a vacation helping service workers, or on a durable consumer goods-- helping the Best Buy sales guys and the manual installers, if they indeed hire household help (an American citizen) to rewire, haul and install. Plus, odds are that those illegals filing aren't doing so to nobly pay additional taxes, but to receive money back from their deductions, and potential EIC (earned income credit.) So as you begin to study it, the "fairness" angle -- or "if they paid in, they get the rebate" falls flat.

Nothing personal, truly. I like America's princess afterall, even at 50. I'm sure she's a great wife and mother, and she'd probably sell a few books on her own too, without the title bestowed way back when. It's just pure economics, with a basic understanding of human incentives and a wallop of common sense. Immigration -- legal immigration and regulation -- is fine, but America surely cannot continue to absorb low-skilled workers and remain competitive in the global economy. Nothing magical about it.*
----------------------------

*And yes, I do understand that voicing such substantive concerns might put me in the minority and court unpopularity. That's ok. Better to be respected than to be liked; better to be correct in the long run than to feed the baby sugar and wonder why he finds himself in ill health years down the road. Enough of that, America.

UPDATE:
Here's a cartoon that captures this silly magical mindset perfectly!

Law in Action.

or, How to Save Some Lives...

Israel's High Court of Justice reversed itself Thursday, after previously refusing to hear petititioners' requests for an immediate hearing on the Israeli government's decision to reduce fuel and electricity supplies to the Gaza Strip.

Although the court did not explain its decision, and had rejected the third request just three days earlier, it appeared that latest events in Gaza persuaded it that the matter required immediate attention.

Two Palestinians and 10 human rights organizations petitioned the High Court on October 28, after the government announced it would reduce electricity and fuel supplies in the context of its decision to declare the area ruled by Hamas "hostile territory." On November 29, the court rejected the petitioners' request for an interim injunction temporarily prohibiting the state from reducing fuel supplies until the court ruled on the core request to cancel the cabinet's decision altogether. Later, the court said the next hearing on the petition would take place on February 3.

On January 3, January 6 and January 21, the petitioners again asked the court to hold an urgent hearing on the grounds that the humanitarian situation in Gaza was deteriorating. Each time the court rejected the request.

Apparently, the government decision to seal the border crossings, the complete power outage in Gaza City and the massive exodus of Gazans into Sinai changed the justices' mind.

According to Sari Bashi, director-general of Gisha, one of the groups petitioning against the cuts, the fact that the border between Egypt and Gaza has been breached does not, at least for the time being, change the fact that Israel is responsible for the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Since Israel withdrew from the Strip in 2005, Gisha has maintained that Israel still effectively occupies Gaza because it controls all land, sea and air access to the territory.
...
(Amnesty International's head Middle East researcher Donatello) Rivera said that even if there was access by land between Egypt and Gaza, Israel will still control air and sea access to the Strip. It will also be able to prevent residents of Gaza from entering the West Bank, even though the two are regarded as one entity.

"Either an entity is occupied or it is sovereign or belongs to a sovereign country," said Rovera. "There is no in-between status."

Hibernation.

December snowball in fresh snowfall.


Snow Turtle.

Talk about short-sighted...

Once again it seems, Israel would like someone else to take responsibility for cleaning up after their messes:

Israel, which withdrew from Gaza in 2005 after 38 years of occupation, has expressed concern that militants and weapons might be entering Gaza to bolster rocket launchings toward Israel, and said responsibility for restoring order lies with Egypt.
...
The town of Rafah was divided in two when Israel captured the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Middle East war, and crossing the border has become increasingly difficult over the years.

The opening of the border began before dawn Wednesday, when masked gunmen used 17 explosive charges to tear down the border wall — erected in 2001 by Israel when it controlled Gaza.

The funny things they say.

It's been awhile since I had my 9th graders in class; the last weeks we met before Christmas were for a practice, and then a Living Rosary in church for Our Lady of Guadeloupe. (We lit the candles they held for each recitation until the church was a circle of light. It looked pretty; the kids liked holding the fire, I think).

Tonight, I gave them a quick pop quiz, mostly to find out where they were -- some went to Catholic grade school, some didn't. Some attend church on Sunday; some don't. Being freshmen, and this my first year teaching, the "theme" mostly is incorporating our faith teachings into their Monday through Friday lives. It's a tough age, and they come from 2 nearby public high schools, so I'm content to let them often steer the discussions, sharing what's going on in their lives and worlds. They need time to talk together like that about spiritual things, I think; they're good kids all. Still, I thought it best to make sure they were learning something related to our religion.

I have them write a brief essay each week, just a few paragraphs -- good practice for the standardized tests surely, forming topic sentences and supporting detail. Tonight I asked them to share one moment over Christmastime when they felt the presence of the Holy Spirit with them -- something special that stood out; interpret it broadly. Then I had them turn their papers over, and asked a few basic questions and we talked about the answers. (ie/ "What ethnicity was Jesus?" "What does it mean when we talk about the Trinity?" and the million-dollar question whose word I even spelled out on the board, "What is Transubstantiation?") They impressed me with their answers; I think it throws some at that age -- who have been to their friends' bar mitzvahs and think in more modern day labels -- to comprehend Jesus was a Jew.

The easy opening question drew a laugh in our discussion afterward. I said, "I can think of at least 3 Mary's in the Bible. Name 2." (Kids like to be quizzed actually, they're all competitive in that way.) Of course, the mother of Jesus was a given. And I was thinking about Mary and Martha, the latter who busied herself preparing food while the former sat with Jesus listening to his stories. Maybe coming so soon after the holidays, they thought it was pretty much a balancing act -- they understood that the better choice was to spend the precious time with him, but then they could also see the point of view, "Hey, Jesus is in your house. Of course you want to prepare him a nice meal."

The third -- Mary Magdalene -- is the one from the Easter morning story. The early riser who went to the tomb, saw the rock rolled away, and came back to report to the men what she had seen. Putting themselves in her shoes, I don't think she knew then necessarily that he had risen, despite the clues Jesus had earlier given them. Probably it was racing through her mind, "could be grave robbers, how'd they get that rock moved, etc." We talked about the burial in caves procedure; one wanted to know if everybody got his own cave, or if they shared. Rational minds grappling with detail.

I didn't much follow the DaVinci Code myself, so I think of that Mary more as the one who carried the news on Easter morning -- a fine role, really. So when they identified her, and I asked them what role Mary Magdalene played in the Bible, that's kind of what I was going for. So when one answered, "She was the prostitute", I said "Right... but what's the word we want to include before that?" I was thinking "ex-" or "reformed", "repentant". Slightly different wavelengths though ... a pause, and in a questioning tone, "a holy prostitute?"

Thanks, Charlie. For a good honest laugh, and then I told him what word I was thinking of...

He might be many things...

but something tells me he's not a liar.

Randy Moss:

This is a negative," he said of the latest allegation, "a black cloud hanging over my head, and that's something that I did not want coming into the season. ... Everything I tried to do from getting here early, to make sure I eat the right food, all the way to practicing and playing, I wanted all of that to be A-plus.

"Everything's been positive, so why would I bring something negative on. As much as I care and love the game of football and love my teammates, I would never put myself or them in a situation of something like this."
...
"It's very unfair to athletes if a person makes a false claim. You know, there's nothing that we can do," Moss said. "The only thing that we can do is either pay up or sit back and listen to what's being said or what's being written.

"For someone to make a false claim about me, I'm kind of furious. It kind of hurts me deep inside for someone to do something like that because, you know, I've always said time and time again, I'm going to stand up for what's right. If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong."

Fearing Fear Itself.

...
Joseph Cirincione, of the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, said the Bush administration could stand accused of having "needlessly hyped a threat for political purposes" if it's determined the radio voice was not from Iranian forces.
...
U.S. sailors say they have heard the prankster — who is possibly more than one person — transmitting "insults and jabbering vile epithets" on unencrypted frequencies during Navy exercises in the Gulf for years, said the Navy Times, a privately owned newspaper.

"Navy women — a helicopter pilot hailing a tanker, for example — who are overheard on the radio are said to suffer particularly degrading treatment," the newspaper said Sunday.

Rick Hoffman, a retired Navy captain, said a renegade talker repeatedly harassed ships in the Gulf in the late 1980s when U.S. warships protected Kuwaiti oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq war.

"For 25 years there's been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats," Hoffman told Navy Times. "He could be tied up pier-side somewhere, or he could be on the bridge of a merchant ship."

The Iranians frequently send frigates and patrol craft or reconnaissance planes, including U.S.-made P-3 Orions, to watch U.S. ships in the Gulf. The Navy often responds by scrambling jet fighters to intercept and shadow Iranian planes.

Said Cirincione: "We have to take a step back and make sure we don't hyperinflate these threats, to prevent a shooting war that nobody really wants."

Mickey Gurdus, an Israeli who has been monitoring radio and TV broadcasts for Israel Radio for four decades, believes the Gulf broadcast was not a hoax and "could have been psychological warfare."

"I can't imagine that there is anyone in the proximity of the Strait of Hormuz that would carry out a hoax like that," said Gurdus, who did not monitor the original radio broadcast Jan. 6. "I think this was something real."

Gurdus said he believes the broadcast heard by the U.S. vessels were UHF or VHF transmissions that would originate within a 60-mile radius of the strait if made from land and 180 miles from an airborne transmitter.

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said he was surprised that the source of the transmission remains unclear, because of the many decades of U.S. naval presence in the Gulf.

"You would have thought we would have been able to nail this down," he said.

Read the whole thing?

I don't know (what you're thinking Andrew. But...) Personally, I'd take care labeling this man a mere "Clinton surrogate". Surely you don't doubt he can think for himself? Respect:

The Billion Dollar BET: Robert Johnson and the Inside Story of Black Entertainment Television by Brett Pulley John Wiley & Sons, Inc., April 2004 $24.95, ISBN 0-471-42363-7

Robert L. "Bob" Johnson became the world's first African American billionaire in 2001 when he sold BET, the cable channel he founded in 1980 with a $15,000 loan, to Viacom for $3 billion. Author Brett Pulley, an accomplished business journalist who has worked for both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, is now a senior editor at Forbes magazine. Like his subject, Pulley is also a black man.

But as a well placed business reporter, he covered Johnson and BET during critical points in the ascent of the mogul and his media companies. Pulley wrote the Forbes cover story ("Cable Capitalist") once Johnson leapfrogged Oprah on the Forbes 400 list of the richest people in America.

Pulley understands both the love and contempt BET garnered among the black audiences and also how Bob Johnson's building his empire is a uniquely American story. (He compares Johnson to a "modern-day Citizen Kane.") In just 200 well-paced, crisply written pages that you might be tempted to consume in one sitting, Pulley's tells this compelling story, fully contextualized with critical business and personal details.
...
Like John H. Johnson (no relation), the pioneering black media mogul and Ebony magazine founder, Bob Johnson came up from southern rural poverty in the segregated South. He was born the ninth of 10 children in Hickory, Mississippi, on April 18, 1946. By the 1950s, the Johnson family had moved in the rural town of Freeport, Illinois, where Johnson got his early work experience and education. He was an honors graduate of an integrated high school that was 90 percent white and applied to college because of a persistent English teacher. He attended the University of Illinois at Champaign, where he majored in history, pledged Kappa Alpha Psi (and was subsequently expelled for a hazing incident, but restored to membership years later).

He also met the woman he married in 1969, Sheila Crump, the daughter of a suburban Chicago neurosurgeon. As a newlywed, Johnson found a job teaching school on Chicago's South Side to be near his wife, who was still completing her undergraduate degree at Illinois. In 1972, Johnson completed a master's degree in public administration at Princeton University.

He and his wife moved to Washington, D.C., where he worked for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Urban League. He was press secretary for Delegate Walter Fauntroy, the first person elected to Congress to represent the District of Columbia in 1971. On the hill, he learned about the cable business, and eventually was hired away as a lobbyist by the National Cable Television Association. BET was born when Johnson asked a cable entrepreneur who was trying to launch a network for the 50-plus audience if he could take his business plan for the senior network and replace "senior" with "black" and change the numbers accordingly.

Johnson's business life is filled with boldly opportunistic moves like this one, which is what capitalism is all about. He also proved to be a master salesman traveling the country to get cable operators to pick up his service. He acquires critical business mentors and investors like John H. Malone, who teaches Johnson what he needed to know about market finance to take his company public and then to take it private again.

In fact, Johnson becomes the master of strategic alliances, forging important relationships with Time Warner (through which he acquired Emerge magazine), and ultimately Viacom's Sumner Redstone and Mel Karmazian, who made him a billionaire and a Viacom stockholder, but not a board member.
...
Thanks to Pulley's carefully crafted chronicle, we have a truly balanced view of America's first black billionaire.

Background -- especially the wife -- sounds vaguely similar to someone else, no? Minus the poverty aspect of course. And the proven track record of success...

Words and deeds. Nothing wrong with that. Hardly just a Clinton surrogate, dontchathink?

But enough about Brett Favre...

The real story in yesterday's game was that of Ryan Grant, formerly an undrafted free agent out of Notre Dame:

On Green Bay's first play from scrimmage, Favre threw a swing pass to halfback Ryan Grant, who was hit by Seattle linebacker Leroy Hill behind the line of scrimmage and fumbled.
...
On the Packers' next possession, Grant, who had one fumble in 218 regular season touches, coughed it up a second time after a hit from Seattle safety Brian Russell.
...
It was so quiet, you could hear a snowflake fall.

As Grant sat on the sideline, worrying whether he'd irrevocably blown his chance to shine in his first playoff game, Packers coach Mike McCarthy and his assistants discussed whether they should pull the young runner for a couple of series to let him collect himself, according to a Packers player.

Favre, who later would join Joe Montana as the only players to exceed 5,000 career postseason passing yards, sidled up to the shellshocked halfback and told him to shake it off. "It's not like I gave him some win-one-for-The-Gipper speech," Favre said.

What, exactly, did the great quarterback say to Grant: "Who gives a (expletive)? We're gonna keep handing it to you, so forget about it and keep running hard."

To say Grant listened would be a huge understatement. The first-year starter carried 27 times for 201 yards – the most ever by a Packers back in the team's long postseason history – and three touchdowns. It was one of the great bounce-backs in recent NFL memory.

"He didn't have any choice," Packers cornerback Charles Woodson said. "We were gonna kick his ass if he didn't."
...
"I was running left, the way I was supposed to go, and I saw him (Favre) falling and took off to the right," (tight end Donald) Lee said. "The next thing I knew, the ball was coming."

Favre, just before hitting the turf, threw an underhand scoop pass that hit Lee in stride, and the tight end gained 11 yards for the first down. Grant ran it in from the 3 on the next play for a 28-17 lead, and Green Bay put it out of reach by scoring touchdowns on its first two possessions of the second half – a stretch of six consecutive TD drives after Grant's early miscues.

"I learned a lot from this game," Grant said. "I'm just glad Mike (McCarthy) stuck with me."

More than an hour after the game, Favre stood in a nearly deserted locker room and marveled at the young runner's resilience – and that of this team that no one, not even the quarterback himself, viewed as a viable Super Bowl contender going into '07.

"The way he bounced back, running for 200 yards, that's hard to do," Favre said. "Whooo-hooo. Obviously, he's tough mentally and physically. This game will be important for him down the road."

Acknowledging "collateral damage".

or, "The price paid when Life is systematically devalued."

NEW YORK (AP) -- At least 121 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have committed a killing or been charged in one in the United States after returning from combat, The New York Times reported Sunday.

The newspaper said it also logged 349 homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans in the six years since military action began in Afghanistan, and later Iraq. That represents an 89-percent increase over the previous six-year period, the newspaper said.

About three-quarters of those homicides involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, the newspaper said.
...
The 121 killings ranged from shootings and stabbings to bathtub drownings and fatal car crashes resulting from drunken driving, the newspaper said. All but one of those implicated was male.

About a third of the victims were girlfriends or relatives, including a 2-year-old girl slain by her 20-year-old father while he was recovering from wounds sustained in Iraq.

B.O.: Hoping... chanting... and touting support... of a losing immigration bill.

By MOLLY BALL
REVIEW-JOURNAL

From the back of the Culinary union hall on Friday, all that could be seen were hundreds of upraised hands -- black, brown and white -- clapping to the chant "Sí se puede."
...
This is a union whose members, more than 300 in the stuffy, hot, sour-smelling hall downtown, have been trained to make some serious noise on command, and that is what they did when the presidential candidate whom their leaders decided to support, Democrat Barack Obama, took the stage to accept the endorsement.
...
The endorsement has split the union from its biggest allies, including most of the big Democratic names in the state. Union leaders say they never considered themselves part of the party establishment anyway, and they relish what might be an underdog role. But there's no question that the coming days, until Nevada holds presidential caucuses a week from today, will create serious fractures.
...
The same slogan the union members were chanting in Spanish inside the Culinary hall was being chanted in English across town, at Del Sol High School on Patrick Lane: "Yes, we can."
...
Obama has gained confidence as his campaign has been taken more seriously. "My job," he told the crowd, "is to be so persuasive tonight that even though it's nighttime, a beam of light is going to shine down on me, and you're going to say, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"
...
Obama took questions from the audience for more than half an hour. One person wanted to know what he would do about "anchor babies," the term for children of illegal immigrants who are automatically made citizens because they are born on U.S. soil and then serve as "anchors" for their families.

He outlined his position on immigration, essentially the same as the bill that passed the Senate and died in the House last year that would beef up border security while providing avenues for existing illegal immigrants to get legal.
...
"The larger point is, we've just seen seven years of an administration that basically believes anything goes if it's for a profit," he said.

"They do not believe in regulation."

Why?

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. - Authorities issued an arrest warrant Saturday for a Marine corporal wanted in the death of a pregnant colleague, whose burnt remains were excavated from a fire pit in his backyard.

Onslow County Sheriff Ed Brown said investigators also recovered the remains of Lance Cpl. Maria Frances Lauterbach's unborn child.

"The fetus was developed enough that the little hand was about the size of my thumb," Brown said. "The little fingers were rolled up and this is consistent with what we were looking for, a pregnant lady who is the victim, Maria Lauterbach, and her unborn child."

Just ... why?

I hope he's man enough to find it within himself to come back and face justice... Leaving a note of confession to the burial gives me hope that he just might be.

"Still now, Cesar Laurean ... he's a man."

(Apologies to the Dubliners' Danny Farrell.)

Wow, I knew he was an older guy, but who knew Don Wright was a Hillary hater too? Poor woman -- damned if you do (show emotion), damned if you don't.*

For the record, that sure wasn't crying to me. Expressing emotion, sure ... of course, can't have any of that from a legitimate female candidate.

Who knows? Maybe he's just hard up for copy now that her competitor is officially declared off limits as cartoon fodder. You know, to make up for the past, all that guilt needing to be absolved and all.

Just kiddin', Don -- I eagerly await your unflattering caricature of the first black man (say, is it a no-no not to cap that "B"?) who has a credible shot at becoming President of the United States, some say.

You know, that media commitment not only to fair and equal treatment, but to recognizing actual facts. (Like say, the difference between true crying, and expressing natural emotion in the eyes and face. Seems a pretty simple call to me, and most of us who have seen the footage -- if that was "crying", I'm a monkey's uncle.)

Or was all that idealism lost long ago, as Bill McGowan alleges?

Still, looking forward to seeing what you can do with that caricature, Don! Good luck and get to it, buddy! And please, don't take my criticism personally. Look at how good Stoda's been writing, for one, and something tells me Dave George is getting out of the predictions game, settling for crowing after the wins, at least. :)
------------------------

*Or maybe you're just a damned woman if you try to push past the comfortable boundaries society has in place for the role of American women. Tough, resiliant women who care about serious issues -- we don't know what to make of them eh, when they're not content to use their educations in the more appropriate First Lady, features type roles. *sigh*

"Or maybe... "

Gully Sully spots sexism at work!

Anne Rice - a quintessential Clinton supporter - makes her case for Clinton. Notice how she uses the name "Hillary" all the time. To me, that's a sexist double-standard. To Rice, treating Clinton like a male senator is sexist. Maybe it's generational. David Kuo sees the same thing.

Or maybe.... people just refer to "Hillary" in situations where using the surname "Clinton" might be confusing, as both she and Bill share that one?

Personally I think referring to her as Mrs. Clinton, as Gully Sully did a few days back is more obvious "sexism", if you're busy looking for that.* If you're going to tack on the title, isn't it more appropriate to use Sen.?

Wait a minute: talking about all these nonsense "ism" issues like alleged "sexism" and "racism" and "generational" issues -- that's not Sully's way of steering the discussion off the substantive issues the country faces ... and where his preferred candidate-of-the-moment comes up short, is it?

If so ... Heh!

ps. Gotta love these comments on that YouTube Anne Rice site:

If you want more direct evidence of how Obama's message of hope and unity will fail, all you have to do is watch Andrew Sullivan side with Rush Limbaugh to attack Hillary Clinton as he did on his website today. Obama supporters are now partners with Karl Rove... heaven help Obama, these sorts of things are going to bury him
...
Considering how viciously Obama supporters go after Hillary (i.e. andrew sullivan), It seems Obama's message of positive politics and unity will go nowhere as fellow democrats say to themselves "hey, who are these holier-than-thou Obama people?" That and sending Jesse Jackson Jr. to blame racism when you lose just shows we do need experienced fighters who know how to take a hit the right way and get things done.

And no, that's not me commenting. (I was busy with Mal tearing up carpeting this afternoon to expose some nice old hardwoods; damn abundance of carpet staples! -- easy, but tedious work. You know, the kind of work so many would claim they need illegal labor for, because everybody knows: it's allegedly physical work "Americans just won't do anymore." Even earned myself a minor pinkie blister...)

Still, you gotta love how the internet opens up the dialogue, eh -- the immediate evaluation of what these pundits throw up and hope sticks ... like the earlier charges today that Andrew Cuomo made racist statements. Somehow, I suspect the innocent word "unity" will be totally redefined before this campaign is through using it.

Here's further proof of the ugly that Gully Sully chooses to post on his blog, this time apparently from the formerly reputable Washington Post:

"Clinton fought back, but she needs a radio-controlled shock collar so that aides can zap her when she starts to get screechy," - Joel Achenbach, WaPo.

Classy, fellas. Very grade-school recess. I know the country doesn't need that kind of political "dialogue" to further unite us... So much for keeping it dignified and focused on relevant issues, eh Sullivan? Maybe Huckabee can quarantine that kind of nastiness. (Heh!)
--------------------

Good lord; he's just a treasure trove over there today:

"Obama's Cute"
10 Jan 2008 05:15 pm

Meghan McCain catches the wave. But she's supporting her dad and went on a date with a Ron Paul backer. She really is one of her generation, no?

Sounds to me it's the Boomers like himself and Paglia doing much of the public heavy panting over the Obama's alleged "sexxiness".* Now, can we please not turn this into a "generational thang" while you're still busy playing the race and gender cards in uniting the country? Thanks a bunch!

*Really, what am I missing? Not one to judge potential political leaders on looks myself, but if I hear one more time how "sexxy" Obama is ... somehow he mostly comes across as skinny and smarmy to me. Though I'd love to cook him a nice hot meal -- and find out how that personal battle in kicking the cigarettes is coming. Public health policy interest and all that; why ban smoking and tax the bejeesus out of folks instead of just working to educate, encourage personal discipline, and hoping they're wise enough to take responsibility for their own personal habits?

PAGLIA: HILLARY HOLDS 'DISDAIN FOR MASCULINITY'...
trumpets today's DRUDGE REPORT.

Now let's just back up the trailer truck a bit (no mean feat) and take a closer look at that one, shall we?

Just how much credibility on the subject of masculinity would you give this lesbian and self-professed "fag hag" who starts out her monthly article lecturing readers on what happened at the Rodham dinner table when Hill' was a child, and then ends her article with a paean to drag queens? Look, we know she digs Michelle Obama -- finds her personally attractive ("Meanwhile, my pessimism about the Democrats' chances in next year's presidential election vanished for an ecstatic moment when I laid eyes on a photo posted last week on the Drudge Report of the Obamas standing with Oprah Winfrey. ...what a vision of a future White House! It flashed through my mind that Michelle Obama would be the most graceful, stylish first lady since Jacqueline Kennedy. And she's fierce!)" It's nice that Paglia's vowing to support the Democratic candidate come what may, but she really should stick to the pretty poetry books, dontchathink?

Further, what credibility does the professor have to represent working-class women, those supposedly sexually brutalized by Hillary's big, bad ole husband? Most of us think of Monica ... she wasn't working class. And it was consensual, which further reduces the victim label some wanted to lay on her for political reasons.

Now you might say, imbalance of power = President v. Intern. But just as Gully Sully (gullible Sullivan) has no credibility on moral issues due to his barebacking past, wasn't there something years ago about Paglia sleeping -- consensually -- with a female student, whose father didn't take kindly to it and got her fired from the girls' school where she was teaching?*

I admit -- I don't really follow the gay gossip. So I'm unclear on the details. And I really wouldn't waste time enlightening myself, just as I'm not exactly clear whether Sullivan was advertising for quickie condomless sex partners before or after he was aware of his HIV infection.

(Don't really care; don't choose to spend my free time entertaining such detail. But if you're a eclectic reader, particularly one who browses around, you tend to pick up on the scuttlebutt, hence my cursory knowledge of stories in both their pasts.)

So who exactly died and made Paglia a political scientist, much less a expert on unequal sexually harrassing relationships or working women? My view is -- unless there was some quid pro quo proof, if women want to be accepted as equals, we have to take responsibility for our actions and not play the victim card, as Paglia clearly wants to do on behalf of these "working women".

No thanks. Stick to your drag queens, your poetry books, and your relationship with your partner and child. Just as the rest of us have no place evaluating whether or not one should stick it out should infidelity occur in a private relationship, Paglia has no cause to judge whether or not Clinton was right to remain true to her wedding vows --"for better or worse ... til death do us part."

I wonder if -- like her unconsummated crush on Madonna, back when shock was a better selling technique -- Camille was harbored a Hillary crush, just as she now admits being hot for Michelle Obama. Maybe she wished when the Monica sex scandal surfaced -- and was played up by Republicans at the expense of the country -- that Hillary would "liberate herself" as a divorcee and leave her marriage. And Paglia then soured when Hillary worked through it, remained loyal to her marriage, and proved more resiliant in the end.

Dunno, but I do know that Camille Paglia -- who apparently was afraid to have dinner with fellow professor Ann "how I judge what is said depends on who it is that's saying it (imagine that in the public classroom)" Althouse -- is not one to lecture the country on masculinity or working-class women. Nor is Sullivan really, with his obvious man-crush on Barack Obama, no real beacon of working-class masculinity himself.

Not that it necessarily matters in a president, but if these two "critics" are bound and determined to view politics throught the sexxpassion lens based on the sexual play of their own 1980s pasts, it's fair game to hoot and jeer, right?

Thankfully, the rest of the country has moved on from those times, we're more immune to shock techniques for their own sake, and understand it's not about the sex stupid, it's about the economy, the Middle East, the Islamic rogues who view us as an immoral nation, etc. etc.

And hey, didn't those crazy liberal kids Paglia and Sullivan themselves eventually "settle down"? Far be it from me to offer advice, but maybe take your partners out on hot dates, oogle the 20-something kids, go home and make passionate love ... and keep your noses out of the Clinton's marriage and dinner tables, eh? For the sake of the country.

Because Mike Huckabee is one hell of a speaker -- common sense, plain talk -- even if doesn't dress like Rudy G. Heh.

------------------
* Just so you don't think I'm libeling, online I found a relevant reference to Paglia's own alleged "imbalance of power" relationship:

While at Bennington, Paglia had two girlfriends. The second one, a theatrical young woman named Patty, was a former student. The couple went to a school dance one evening when a rich student from Chicago came out of nowhere and physically attacked them. Paglia spoke about this to Heather Findlay in a cover story for Girlfriends magazine. She said, "I went to the police and filed a report. Then her parents went ballistic." ... The relationship with Patty ended the following year.

Just like Bill Clinton did, it looks like Paglia too was forced to pay the price for her private indiscretions. So why the continued hostility on behalf of Clinton's alleged "victims"?

Si se puede !

= "Yes, we can ! "

I don't know. If that's Obama's new slogan, while it might earn him some primary votes, it is liable to cripple him mightily if he makes it to the general election. Particularly in tight economic times, I would think.

Rightly or wrongly depending on your view, illegal immigration is an important issue to conservative voters, especially in the heartland and West -- the Red States that haven't yet been swamped into submission.

It's a gamble sure, and may yet pay off in the short run, but I'm not sure adopting the Spanish slogan of the immigration movement is the best response for Democrats at this time. Particularly if McCain is not the eventual Republican nominee. (He still fully supports the Bush Iraq plan, remember, hasn't recanted on the wiseness of America's decision to invade.)

Regardless, I honestly don't think it's the Builder Bob coalition he's courting here, Glenn...

----------------
Even if the more literal translation of the Spanish phrase is "Yes, it can be done!", I strongly suspect he is courting the legal voters in Hispanic coalitions with this one. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but again, it may come at a high cost come general election time, given the current climate on illegal immigration and the recent political associations with the phrase.

After AeroMexico, a Mexican airline, had filed a trademark application for "Sí se puede" with the US Trademark Office, lawyers for the United Farm Workers defended the phrase as the intellectual property of the UFW. After litigation, AeroMexico agreed not to use the phrase and abandoned its trademark application.[1]
...
The phrase drew widespread political and media attention as a rallying cry during the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests.

---------------

Meanwhile,
Sullivan is quoting the Latin in describing Obama: "Per ardua ad astra, baby!" * ("though struggles, to the stars!")

I just wish he'd explain why he thinks loyal Republican voters will be so eager as he to discard all their previously held conservative ideas to vote Obama in the general election. To punish the Bush/Cheney administration? Because they won't fully support the eventual Republican nominee? Something tells me if they feel that strongly, more would just stay home rather than vote for Obama's rhetoric and liberal policies.

Down the page, in fact, Sullivan quotes this nugget, gleaned from poll data (so take it for what it's worth):

Hillary got the lion’s share of support of voters who had “positive feelings” about the Bush administration: 42% to Obama’s 27%.

Hm... wouldn't that suggest that it is she, and not he, who would garner more support in the general election should voters realistically be thinking about foreign policy and an eventual Iraq withdrawal? I would think so... (Unless you suspect the conservatives' primary considerations to factor are that she's a hated woman -- albeit more a moderate on the Iraq issue -- and he a man, calling for immediate troop withdrawal.)

Again, I wish Sullivan would explain why he believes so strongly that so many American voters are like him -- that the independent and Republican support Obama has seen thus far will deliver him past his liberal impulses in the primary, allowing him to score general election votes. I don't think most party folks change their loyalties so easily, even when their current leadership has so mucked up the job.


* I know everybody is looking ahead to California, but somehow I don't think trying to play on Ah-nold's lines is going to do the trick, either... baby!

Let's take another look at that Kennedy presidency.

From perhaps another make-believe Sullivan reader:

These current Dems would have nominated Adlai Stevenson over Kennedy in 1960.

Now far be it for me to betray mythology, or speak ill of the dead. But truth be told, even many loyal Democrats understand that much of Kennedy's reign is myth: conjured up after his terrible assassination leaving the young family behind, helped along by Jacqueline's Kennedy's choreography that her husband be remembered appropriately.

It was her hand, and the inspiration to achieve concrete results carried on by the politicians and people after his killing that helped define what we think of as the Kennedy legacy. Had he remained alive, who knows how history would have evaluated and what would have been accomplished? It's no sure thing he would have even earned re-election, in fact.

The moon achievement in the space race (with emphasis on honest competition in the math and sciences, and considerable help from foreign-born scientists), the civil rights acts (emphasized and passed only after President Kennedy was dead), the extraction from the more dangerously active moments of the Cold War (Bay of Pigs) to settle for a policy of communist containment ... If you evaluate the JFK presidency alone, many in the know rate him as a mediocre president in the short time he had to demonstrate his skills. His inspirational legacy, that's what many now credit him for greatness. Particularly the Boomers, who were only children when he was alive.

So let's not belittle Adalai Stevenson. Who knows -- if he had gotten the nod ahead of JFK; if there had been no assassination -- how things would have turned out? We can't rewrite history any more than we should gloss over the truths in our hero worship.

Did I call it, or what?

When Sen. Obama loses, naturally the reason given will be bigotry, not inexperience, not honest policy disagreement:

Tonight is the first primary - not a caucus. People get to vote in a secret ballot - not in front of their largely liberal peers, as in Iowa. They may have told the pollsters one thing about voting for a black man, but in the privacy of the voting booth, something else happens. I don't have any hard evidence for this, but the discrepancy in the polls is remarkable. David Kuo cites it. The vast discrepancy between the last polls and the result puts it on the table. I hope it's not true. But it could be.

So much for racial progress and unity, claiming voters won't evaluate the political candidate as a man, but specifically as a black man. *sigh*

Good writing 101: Show, don't tell.

Here's Sully's take on last night's results.
Just the opposite of clean writing: wordy, vague, superficial.

Part of me is crushed. But part of me is happy to see two candidates forced to battle it out in a long slog. We find out more that way. They grow more. More people get a say. That's a good thing. And I should say that although I remain a passionate Obama supporter among the Democrats, I also feel little compunction in recognizing that Clinton did have something of a personal breakthrough in the last few days. The brittle exterior cracked. What was beneath is more human and less calculated. She was forced to explain from the heart why she really wants to win. People responded. As they would.

I have no doubt that Obama is the better candidate, for America and the world. And I believe after this very close race, he will go on to Nevada and South Carolina stronger for not winning in a wave of euphoria. Nothing worth winning comes easily. But Clinton is learning from Obama as he has from her. And both are growing as a result. This is a good thing.

Maybe these questions can help a bit as you sort out your ... feelings (whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings...):

1) Why exactly are you so convinced -- no doubts -- Obama is the best candidate for the Democrats, much less the country? (You're puffing again on the world, I think, inspirational as it might be for some in other countries to see a man of color leading the United States.)

Have you really thought this one through, or is it like your cursory research on Ron Paul's background? Can we now call you Gully Sully -- short for gullible Sullivan?

2) How long do you plan to identify as a Democrat? ("I remain a passionate Obama supporter among the Democrats") Will you be jumping ship if your preferred candidate doesn't win the primary? What does that say for your loyalty to the Democrats -- or do you really think loyalty is a negative word?

3) In your calculations, do South Carolina and Nevada -- or Iowa -- really play a huge role in the overall nomination process? That is, can you distingish between states, their importance to the mix overall and their demographic and historical significance? (Think of a sports schedule -- is a win anywhere a win just the same, or do you think athletes and coaches understant a victory in certain regions is more important, more worthy, than other minor victories. (Think SEC v. Big Ten interleague competitions.) I mean, have you ever been to Iowa and if so, do you really think Iowans represent? (Hint: look to how past caucus winners have done overall.)

4) Is a young voter vote really as meaningful as an experienced political voter paying more attention to the process, and seasoned by years of observation? Do you think the young can be counted on to loyally support their preferences today, or have they proven to be more flighty and less likely to turn out and necessarily cast their ballots all along the way? Or is it more group-think, hopping on board a hot trend today because it's cool but something that will pass as other things of important take precedence?

5) What exactly has Obama learned from Clinton? She from him? (Generalities like those in the last graph really aren't worth much; step up here and tell us what you suddenly respect in her -- what she, you claim, has taught him to make him a stronger candidate and policymaker. And what, other than being more real and dropping the tough-guy facade, do you think she has learned from him?)

6) Finally, do you let reality and results influence your "doubts", "confidence", and "predictions" or are you more a fanboy -- passionately rooting for your fave player, no matter the realities or outcomes? Because forgive me, but as written this really sounds trite:

But Clinton is learning from Obama as he has from her. And both are growing as a result. This is a good thing.

Particularly when just yesterday, you wrote this:

Obama will win tonight; but the euphoria of the past few days will be impossible to sustain. It is inherently unstable. Clinton's naked appeal for sympathy yesterday may well rally some older female voters to her side. A victory for Obama in single digits is more likely than a blow-out. Then we'll have the Clinton campaign shake-up stories. Then she and her husband will unload whatever dirt they can on him - using the classic arms-length 527 Rove techniques. Then they will try to use their party muscle to intimidate Democratic loyalists to stay with the establishment in California and Florida and New York.

This is not over by any means. The Clintons have too much to lose and they have no scruples in fighting to keep their power. If they can destroy Obama, they will. His job is to stay calm, cool and determined. And all of it is good training for the fall. What we're seeing is if Obama can survive brutal attacks. It's a good system for testing future candidates. So far, he has shown he can out-organize, out-argue and out-fund-raise the Clinton machine. Can he now outlast their bile and rise above their anger? That we will soon find out.

7) So why should we think the generalities you're spewing now are any more solid or accurate than the dish you offered up previously? Track record, babe. Sure, one should change underwear daily, but maybe take a time out and think about political opinions long enough to get them hammered out so they're less superficial, dependent of drama or passion!, and don't change with every new day... It's called Super Tuesday, not Ruby Tuesday, ya know.
----------------

ADDED:
This is more a personal one, but certainly raises my curiosity:

8) With the recent revelations about Ron Paul's past newsletter writings on racial topics, how the heck do you reconcile internally supporting him as the Republican nominee and Obama as the Democratic? Do you think absolution is the key ingredient in those whites casting votes for the latter, as other pundits have speculated.

Because unless the mirror has two faces, I'm hard pressed how you honestly could support such divergent ideologies as the two candidates you're currently backing, legitimate American voter or not.

9) C'mon... 'fess up. You really write a lot of the "Dissents of the Day" and other supposed reader correspondence yourself, eh? This one is just sick, and alone ought to cast you out of serious political pundit consideration:

After all your postulating about Obamamania I'm visualizing Hillary wearing a strap-on with New Hampshire emblazoned on it, and you bowing before her.

I mean, where has the dignity gone -- the self-professed unity -- brother? You really seem to crack under pressure, and resort back to the ugliness. This is why it's important to test people, under pressure, and see how they respond to losing. Show your real character, who you really are, so to speak. (Just please stop with putting on the Catholic garments when it suits your purpose, so to speak. They didn't teach you that ugliness in Catholic school, and many resent your ugliness then chastising others for their "bigotry" when you're so willing to whip it out against others when it conveniently suits you.)


SHAKING MY HEAD:

Maybe New Hampshire voters just didn't want to see Clinton ejected so soon. Pity? Fear of a rush to judgment? The media's hyping of the tears? It sure is much closer than anyone expected. Of course, there's a long way to go. But with a third of the votes in, Clinton is four points ahead.

and

It looks as if female voters rallied at the last moment to Clinton. She won them 47 to 34. The tears worked? Wait for the come-back kid rhetoric.

pssst: Your misogyny is showing, Andrew. American women aren't so stupid as you have them. It was an honest win, and your man got beat, fair and square. Now blow your nose, wipe your tears, and grow up from the grade-school tactics, eh? Nobody has cooties, and men and women these days are competing on equal playing fields. I know, I know: must suck for you missing on on all that male-bonding, smoky-back-room-with-the-boys, political days where the women could be counted on not to trouble their pretty little heads with realities and interfere with the process.

I really do think you're missing something when your predjudices are fully on display:
There's one other possible explanation for the apparent Clinton revival in the last few days. Maybe Democrats decided that a sudden blowout for Obama wasn't good for their party. Maybe they wanted to see Obama fight some more, to keep the contest more competitive, to give their candidates more testing for the fall. Maybe they just wanted to say: "Wait. A tidal wave is no way to select a candidate. We need to see both of them fight on under the kind of pressure they will face in the fall."

I'm thinking out loud. But I suspect that Clinton's frankness, desperation, emotional volatility, temper and vulnerability these past three days pushed some to keep her campaign alive.

Or maybe, just maybe: long-time Democratic voters understand that running an untested, first-term Senator with no military, business, or political leadership background to speak of ... is not the strongest candidate or the wisest move given the current economic and international climate? That maybe it's better to have a battle-scarred candidate who is practiced and has presumably learned a bit about the process and from her mistakes, than to settle on an empty-slate being advised to "remain above it all" instead of showing us how he fights, and what it really is he would fight for? Because I really don't know what you're smoking, but nothing in the past decade has shown the rest of us that American politics has suddentlyt turned into a genteel art, where Republicans are willing to voluntarily work in cooperation with Democrats for the overall good of the country.

Maybe you should get out of Providence and take a road trip throughout the country, and see what your once-preferred-man President Bush has wrought across the spectrum, in terms of affecting daily lives, eh? Might make your puffery a bit more credible to Americans, at the very least, if you tone it down a bit. Of course, you're free to do and say as you like, just as the rest of us are privileged to call you on it; God Bless America. Yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Even in defeat, Sullivan spins...

Congrats, Mrs Clinton. You earned this.

That's Sen. Clinton to you, bub. (Remember, she earned that one too -- twice) Or just plain Clinton, if you prefer. We know by now who she is, who she's married to -- whether you like it or not.

Don't pop those champagne corks just yet, fellas.

After the first quarter (26% in), that Hillary woman leads 40% to 35%...

(I imagine they're really scouring the photo archives now, looking for unflattering Clinton faces to pepper the blog front pages with.)

It's more a distance run, not a sprint. And you really do have to compete hard if you want to win -- nothing wrong in traditional Democratic circles with breaking a sweat, you know.

Finally, I suspect New Hampshire voters are more representative of America than say South Carolina or Iowa, where no doubt it's still seen as something unique to cast a ballot for a black candidate.

Good game, Democrats. Good game. Nice and close, and maybe inspiring everybody to bring their best come February 5. Think distance, not short-term bursts of speed...

Oh, and don't give a second thought to how your look when competing hard. Leave the looks games for the more superficial sideline sitters, eh? Playing hard and winning has little to do physical looks, really. Plenty of time to fix yourself up for the dances after the big game. Right now, the substance of the game should matter most. No matter what the looks-obsessed segments of society think; maturity comes with age in most circles, even the testosterone enhanced.

OK, just one more...

If you know anything about animals, you know that mothers sometimes consume their sickly young. (Has to do with fear of predators to the nest, and disposing of the birth remains so as to remain undetected.)

But never let Mr. Gay Rights Rhetoric miss a chace to humanize and add his homosexuality spin. Here's what the article reports:

The zoo made the decision to remove the cub from its mother, Vera, after another polar bear at the zoo apparently ate her two newborn cubs.

Though Vera has not tried to harm her own cub so far, it was taken away from her Tuesday afternoon when she carried it out of her cave and appeared to try and hide it elsewhere in the polar bear compound, Maegdefrau said.

"She is absolutely nervous," he added.

Vera's cub, which was born in mid-December and has not yet been named, seems healthy and the chances of raising it by hand are good, Maegdefrau said. He added that the other polar bear, Vilma, most likely killed her cubs because they were sick.

And here's Silly Sully's spin:

The cub of polar bear Vera is seen in the hands of a care taker at the Nuernberger Tiergarten on January 8, 2007 in Nuremberg, Germany. Her companion Vilma had given birth to probably two cubs in December 2007 which now seem to have been devoured by the mother herself. A keeper of the Nuremberg Zoo did not see any signs of the two cubs whose voices had been heard before when he checked the cave on January 7, 2008.

So Vera and Vilma are somehow "companions", eh? Lol, sorry Andrew. It's just a basic natural fact, if you've ever seen animals birthed or read up on animal mothering insticts. Not cruelty really, just basic facts of survival in unprotected environments. Instincts not lost in "safe" places like zoos, it seems. Survival of the fittest, survival of the species, so to speak.

Women really are the stronger sex throughout life, you know. It's all in how -- and what -- you measure. Remember Ma Joad? Talk about strength to advance the group in times of adversity ... The easier route is just to walk away and pursue your own interests, of course, like brother Noah Joad.

Silly Sully says...

Obama will win tonight; but the euphoria of the past few days will be impossible to sustain. ... This is not over by any means.

That's great he's coming to his senses, but for God's sake, can somebody please step up and teach him the difference between a simple comma and the need for a semi-colon? Because that's not how it's done in America; if the second clause can't stand on its own, use a simple comma. He'd probably be one to kill a bird with a rifle, eh?

And speaking of... how do you suppose Obama's stances on gun control will sit with folks in those Red States?* A nanny state is a nanny state, even if the new nanny is an attractive black man, eh?

"A victory for Obama in single digits is more likely than a blow-out. Then we'll have the Clinton campaign shake-up stories. Then she and her husband will unload whatever dirt they can on him - using the classic arms-length 527 Rove techniques. Then they will try to use their party muscle to intimidate Democratic loyalists to stay with the establishment in California and Florida and New York."

Say, is that fear I'm smelling, Silly Sully? And he's already showing how he'll spin an Obama general election defeat:

The Clintons have too much to lose and they have no scruples in fighting to keep their power. If they can destroy Obama, they will. His job is to stay calm, cool and determined. And all of it is good training for the fall. What we're seeing is if Obama can survive brutal attacks. It's a good system to testing future candidates. So far, he has shown he can out-organize, out-argue and out-fund-raise the Clinton machine. Can he now outlast their bile and rise above their anger? That we will now find out.

Funny how if his guy wins, he trusts the faith and intelligence of the American people. If not, it's those meanie Clinton's to blame! Those who've committed more long term to the Democratic party goals and successes might take his advice for what it's worth:

And all of it is good training for the fall.

Because just like all of the disappointed gays across the country misled by Sully's liberation rhetoric who found themselves targets in subsequent elections and in reality less close to their goals thanks to subsequent constitutional amendments, I doubt he's going to take much responsibility in "the fall" for misleading those youths and African-Americans willing to trade up their take on reality for cheap rhetoric.

Do you think the military families with soldiers on their third tours -- whose cause he once championed, remember, before the going got tough -- are going to vote for the "Imagine Peace" and "Hope is Change" unity candidate?

Somehow, I just don't see it.

And I've watched enough American sports to know that while you might profit in some instances by just remaining "calm and cool" and letting your opponents make unforced errors, that kind of simple strategy is never, ever going to win you the championship. Not at that level. At some point, you have to show confidence in your own game, honed by years of practice and confidence in what you've got. And color alone in the sports arena doesn't earn you point one these days. Thankfully.
--------------------

*And I guarantee you:
the Republicans will follow up on the drug-use question. If only a little more than a decade ago the pot question was such a biggie (the question of inhaling) why does Sully think the admissions of high school cocaine will get a pass from conservatives and Republicans? Because the candidate self admitted?

I imagine he will be asked if he sold, and what his position is on those unlucky ones unlike him who got caught -- with either powder or crack -- and are serving jail sentences for it. Do as I say, not as I do? Or, it's cool, because I didn't get caught?

In short, like any honeymoon period, it's going to end one day. And then we'll really get to see how Sen. Obama plays the game, when he's actually got defenders in his face challenging him, and no special points awarded for not committing any penalties, remaining cool and calm and above it all. If he's not challenged until the general election though, it might be too late for the Democrats (and not just the pseudo-Democrat Andrew-come-latelies) then.

Think about it, if you really want to see a change in the White House from these past 8 Bush-Cheney years? Because if not, I really think we're on the path toward handing the game over to the Republicans yet again. Look at the gas/milk/food staple prices and the overall economy and tell me if you think the country as a whole can really afford that? It's like pushing for a war, and then reversing course when you finally realize how high the price will be -- a little too late then, that's why you have to do your rational thinking in advance, no matter how cute and seemingly clean he might be...

P.S.A.

Nouns defined: Blog, post, comment.

Subsumed is my blog.

What I'm putting up here is a post (or entry).

If people leave messages on a post (not an enabled feature on my blog -- sorry), that's called a comment.

It's kind of amazing the people who confuse the first two, or the last two terms. Who think they put up a new "blog" every day, that other people add "posts" to. It's the verbs that throw them off, I think. Because it is cool to say "I blog daily" or "a commenter posted something to my blog".

But try to keep those three nouns straight: A blog is short for weblog; a post is what the blog's author puts up; and people who don't run the blog and chime in on certain topics leave comments. Hope this helps.

David Frum:

And this much-derided rebuttal to Barack Obama seemed to me exactly right. "Making change is more than making speeches." I have a feeling that Democrats will be quoting that line to themselves in early 2010, as President Obama careens from one hubristic error to the next.

Conversely, I remain immune to Obama's appeal. Who's writing his speeches? Rob Reiner? How such utter empty gas-baggery could sound to so many people like the second coming of Pericles utterly baffles me. And yet evidently it does thrill millions of people, not only the Beatlemaniacs in the liberal blogosphere, but (much more importantly) the still-powerful custodians in the big media, who have decided that any criticism of Obama no matter how well founded is out of bounds. (See negative reaction to Hillary Clinton's rebuttal, as above.)

Me? I'm a bit more optimistic. I suspect many of the independent and Republican crossover primary voters may just suprise us in the fall when they're voting not for a primary candidate, but for the President of the United States. Do small-government, non-peacenik Republicans really fall that quickly for a pretty face? Or are they just delighted to see that Clinton woman get hers an election ahead of time?

And the unity talk? Something tells me not everyone in those Red States is lining up to get unified under the Democratic banner. (You really have to have a bit of skepticism in this game). The younger voters, sure, but the whole country? I don't think it will be the cakewalk some enthusiasts predict.

We'll see in November, I guess, and also how the sense of entitlement and unity-talk play out when candidates are called on to more fully outline their policy positions -- particularly on foreign policy, immigration, and economic issues. (Surely we'll get over the color of his skin, and more into content once the novelty wears off?) Of course, Bloomberg running on a third-party candidacy could throw everything off, similar to way Daley and Byrne split the vote in Chicago giving Mayor Harold Washington the office with less than 50% of the vote.

If the Democrats lose this November, we can thank men like Andrew Sullivan. He's best known for the Push for Gay Marriage. Sadly, the country wasn't really behind that one either -- evidenced by the results of state constitution amendments across the country. (Thanks Andrew.) If he had only listened to others, and worked within the system proceeding incrementally, who knows? Instead, he castigated those groups working on behalf of a larger constituency, and got what he wanted -- a Massachusetts marriage for himself, everyone else out there be damned. Now he doesn't understand why America won't lift their public health policies on HIV+ immigrants, so he can become an American citizen and vote. Nor does he understand that many think it's best for children to be raised in homes with a male and female parent -- he attributes to simple bigotry the American majority preference for traditional upbringings. Were it only that easy: imagine change for all.

I wonder what excuse Sullivan would give for the Democrat's further fall -- either this November, or early on in an Obama term? Probably, that we're all bigots. Remember this guy's track record -- just as eager an early Bush supporter, (he really seems to vote for physical looks over substance -- empty like that) no questions at all about the push to invade Iraq. It seems he likes to be with the "in" crowd, and changes his opinions at whim. But then again, he's not even an American citizen. Just likes to play one on the blogs.

His hatred of Hillary Clinton, I suspect, comes from the knowledge that he wouldn't be such an "innie" if her administration were to rule. Still, isn't it something how this self-defined conservative is so eager to line up as a Democrat today, supporting policies remarkably similar to Clinton's?

Or is he just eager to push the Democrats into unsustainable minority positions, so he can jump ship ... again ... when the going gets tough? Maybe other than himself, he's really got nothing to lose here, no sense of the past or continuity into the future for American children and grandchildren. He'll no doubt be gone long before the bills come due for future generations.

November can't come too soon, and for the sake of the party, I hope if she has to go down, Hillary goes down fighting. It's about time somebody starting challenging the attractive newcomer on policy issues, long before the Republicans have a shot at explaining why this is no time for empty rhetoric and affirmative-action attractions.

Samuel Adams...

now there was a man. Hi-ho-diddley-I-owe.

One nice thing about steering clear of crowds: Amazing how much there still is to read out there, when you're not so tethered to the current offerings. Kind of like it's best sometimes to travel to the places not served by jets or paid servers. You know what I mean.

If we can make it to December ...

The nicest thing about individual sports over team sports is there's much less posturing. You're competing against your own personal best really, and while there are times of external motivation -- running against a particular rival, say, that might inspire you to kick it up a notch -- mostly it's just you and the moment. Competing with self.

For some, that's the best competition in toto. You're not limited to somebody else's game plan, training regime, or dangling carrots. Nor do you have to trade in your own values every so many miles. In the end, you've pushed yourself, paid for it yourself, and chiseled out your own niche. Worth it for the internal pricetag, not accepting the outside value they'd hang on you? -- the imperfections others are still defining, concentrating on, curing.

I'm sure there's a lot of reward hanging in crowds. Feeding on each other's excitement. Running with the pack. Standing inside the fire, so to speak. But some tend to do better, are more elevated en masse, while others are freer to slip away quietly and pursue outside challenges. That they choose... and are willing to pay for.

Maybe in the end, that's the more worthwhile course, the best comfort in old age, kmowing that your own measuring stick holds true while others are bent on sharing their costs, spreading their own losses throughout those ever eager to band together. Better to rely on yourself to make your own home, rather than be beholden to those others seemingly eager to lend a hand.

Of course, running long distance probably you have a different strategy than those whose race consists more of hurdling or sprinting. So take it for what it's worth depending on your own race, your own personal best. Remember how many short-term thinkers were so bullish on GWB too? We've shared his pain -- some more than others -- and paid the price. But the cleanup's just beginning really...

Accountability, babe. America is a great place for second acts -- reinvention -- but like elephants, some are better at memory games and think there's a lot of telling detail in the past worth examining. So while some might be dazzled by short-term attention spans and sexxy dizzles -- it's the wave of the future, dontchaknow? -- some are still thinking long term: aiming to pay their own ways, carry their own loads, and stay away from the madness of crowd-think.

On Obama, off the internets.

"His reply last night to the question about the troop escalation in Iraq was yet another example of a wasted opportunity to unify rather than divide. If he really believes what he said, he's an ignorant simpleton when it come to foreign policy. I don't think he is, so I have to conclude he was lying to gain votes, too proud to admit he may have erred, too invested in his own scenario to acknowledge reality. A lot like the current incumbent, if you ask me. His scripted speeches are inspirational, uplifting and unifying. His off-the-cuff remarks are as partisan, divisive and mean-spirited as the others. He's just better at getting away with it."

Imagine the entitlement attitudes a Bush/Obama back-to-back presidency will spawn as American boys become men: Take it easy today, good things are still promised you in the end.

UPDATE:
Obama tells Diane Sawyer:

"I find the manner in which they've been running their campaign sort of depressing, lately. It was interesting in the debate, Sen. Clinton saying 'don't feed the American people false hopes. Get a reality check, you know?' I mean, you can picture JFK saying, 'we can't go to the moon, it's a false hope. Let's get a reality check.' It's not, sort of, I think, what our tradition has been."

C'mon now, people. Don't you remember Kennedy leading us like that? Let's all join hands, and get started because the future is coming! -- Everybody together, now:

I believe I can fly...
I believe I can touch the sky.
Think about it every night and day...
Stretch my wings and fly away.

I beliieeeeeve I can fly...

Heh.

END OF THE WORLD UPDATE:
(No, really we mean it...)

Now I'm not one to call out group identification, but it's worth noting that Camille Paglia is on record championing Michelle Obama's hotness -- take that fwiw coming from a fevered movie-star worshipping imagination; Andrew Sullivan is creaming his keyboard daily with I-Feel-It! Obama worship -- allcoverage, allthetime; and now the DRUDGE REPORT is highlighting a close up of Hillary's lips. *sigh*

You kids really need to get out some: Politics as passion, candidate worship in sexual way ... we're not that into it. Leave America's voting out of the sexxpassion analysis, please, and pursue your private passions. This is dumbing down focusing on lips, dontchathink?

Blackburn for President.

Forget the melanoma question, he's looking forward:

The record shows, nonetheless, that the death rate slowed when the surge upped the number of troops to 160,000. The correct Democratic response to that should be not that the surge is a failure but why in heck weren't there enough troops there to get that effect four years ago? We know the answer. It's because the president put his faith in ludicrous strategies in the first place. Democrats can't say that if they also want to say that more troops are ineffective in the second place. Republicans can't say it at all if they want White House support in the fall.

Now, there are some things that more troops never were going to do. They were not going to make peace between Sunnis and Shiites who hate each other. Our presence simply gave them us to blame for their own failure to create politics.

Another thing more troops in Iraq were never going to do is bring down Al-Qaeda. Mr. Bush's Iraq adventure has dragged on longer than World War II. Hitler was protected by military forces that were well-trained and equipped by the standards of the day. It didn't take as long to get him as it is taking to get Osama bin Laden. Hitler might have done better if he had run the Third Reich from a cave in the Alps, but probably it seems that way only due to a difference in U.S. leadership. We didn't use Pearl Harbor as an excuse to invade Bolivia.

The trouble with candidates who can't speak clearly about what's happening is that then they can't speak clearly about what they hope to make happen. Nearly all the Democrats and Republican Rep. Ron Paul talk about bringing the troops home as if they would come on a magic carpet instead of rental Boeings. Who, for example, would protect the last group to leave? Details, details? No, seriously: If Mr. Bush messed up getting us in, there are any number of ways his successor can mess up getting us out. Not thinking about it in advance is a guarantee that the successor will choose one of them.

Most of the Republicans talk about not abandoning freedom-lovers among the Iraqis, whoever and wherever they are. That sounds a lot like standing down when the Iraqis stand up. How they can do that with its leaders warning that the Army will reach its breaking point next year is something best left to someone else's imagination.

The test for the Republican winner will come at his convention. Gen. Colin Powell warned in advance that invading Iraq was accepting what he called "Pottery Barn rules - you break it, you own it." The president's pals dismissed that warning as "details, details" when he made it. Next summer, watch how much prominence he gets at the GOP convention. It will show how well - if at all - the candidate has learned the lesson.

Gen. Powell's warning may have been the last time a U.S. official got an Iraq prediction right. Maybe that's because he wasn't running for anything. Anyway, more troops on the street, like more cops on the beat, made the bad guys keep their heads down. That's all the surge did. It's all it ever could have done.

Know Hope. = Mouth Platitudes.

No, I'm not surprised. Spent enough time in Protestantland to laugh at those who would still claim, "If there's no color around, must be dangerous to go there." Not dangerous, but surely uncomfortable if you are the type who just wants to blend in and observe and enjoy your vacation, and not face a million friendly questions arising from curiousness, friendliness, and hospitality. You know what I mean.

I guess if you've got a special card, you learn to play it. In some circles, at least.

Heck, how many of the younger generation of whites wanted to be black in recent decades? If this is a way to reconcile our racial past and award on the basis of color, I suspect there's a segment of Americans -- liberals and discontented Republicans as well -- who would enjoy seeing Sen. Obama get the primary nod.

Still, the ethnics, the git 'er done working class of the Democratic past -- black and white -- still have life in them, I have to believe. And if you're smart, you're still raising your own to believe it's what they contribute, what they do, the track record that counts -- not just marketing like "Imagine Peace" or "Know Hope".

How about, Face Reality, folks? and,
What have you done for us (the U.S.) lately?

The most beautiful thing I have seen this year.

With :38 seconds left in the half, Arrington makes a side-diving catch in the endzone to put Michigan up again. Score 10 on the finish -- graceful -- shades of the young Randy Moss who used to amaze, though he usually went high outleaping his defenders.

I don't know how this game will end up, but I just wanted to note: that kind of physical beauty? That's why I watch football.

UPDATE:
Congratulations Coach Lloyd Carr:
"It helped that we were healthy. ... I love 'em to death."

An inspiring season, a great career.
And a beautiful finish. Good game.

ADDED:
And if Coach Carr is collecting clips, he ought to pick up Dave George's column today. Looks to me like Heisman winner or no, the Florida Gators head into their off seasons with a loss, same as FSU. Not too satisfying, or enviable a position really.

No need to worry, though, about what might happen three or five or seven years down the road. Meyer and his staff will outcoach Carr today. Tebow and his teammates will outplay the Wolverines. The Capital One Bowl, once considered a clunky consolation prize by Spurrier, will prove a major benefit to a Florida team that didn't even win its division in 2007.

Put it all together and you've got UF as 10-point bowl favorites and looking to make a lot more noise next year.

Could be a lot worse. Meyer could be back on the coaching carousel, measuring UF against some other big-time college opportunity or, once the stench of Bobby Petrino has passed, the NFL.

These are the good old days, that's my point.

Ask the folks at Michigan or Nebraska or Alabama or Notre Dame if a nice, quiet New Year's Day at the Capital One Bowl wouldn't feel pretty satisfying right about now.

McCain on illegal immigration.

Why he won't be elected our next American president either.

Jerusalem divided, or shared rather?

Facing reality in a new year:

Israel needs to internalize that even its supportive friends on the international stage conceive of the country's future on the basis of the 1967 borders and with Jerusalem divided, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared to The Jerusalem Post.

At the same time, he made clear that he did not envisage a permanent accord along the '67 lines, describing Ma'aleh Adumim as an "indivisible" part of Jerusalem and Israel.

In an interview at the start of a year that he hopes will yield a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, the prime minister said many rival Israeli political parties remain "detached from the reality" that requires Israel to compromise "on parts of Eretz Yisrael" in order to maintain its Jewish, democratic nature.

If Israel "will have to deal with a reality of one state for two peoples," he said, this "could bring about the end of the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. That is a danger one cannot deny; it exists, and is even realistic."

Indeed, his primary responsibility as prime minister, Olmert said, lay in ensuring a separation from the Palestinians.

"What will be if we don't want to separate?" he asked rhetorically. "Will we live eternally in a confused reality where 50 percent of the population or more are residents but not equal citizens who have the right to vote like us? My job as prime minister, more than anything else, is to ensure that doesn't happen."

The reality in which Israel was seeking an accommodation, he elaborated, includes a situation in which even "the world that is friendly to Israel... that really supports Israel, when it speaks of the future, it speaks of Israel in terms of the '67 borders. It speaks of the division of Jerusalem."
...
At the same time, the prime minister expressed considerable empathy for Palestinian concerns over settlement growth. If the only construction work undertaken since the road map was accepted had been at Ma'aleh Adumim and Har Homa, he said, "then I imagine the Palestinians, though they might not have been happy about it, would not have responded in the way that they respond when every year, all the settlements - in all the territories - continue to grow. There is a certain contradiction in this between what we're actually seeing and what we ourselves promised. We always complain about the [breached] promises of the other side. Obligations are not only to be demanded of others, but they must also be honored by ourselves."
...
Asked whether next week's first Bush presidential visit was designed for Bush to become the godfather of the State of Palestine, Olmert said, "I don't think he would define a visit like this in those terms... He's coming as an expression of his friendship. Also, he's coming to give expression to his support for the diplomatic process."

Bush was not pressuring Israel in any way, Olmert said. "He's not doing a single thing that I don't agree to," he said. "He doesn't support anything that I oppose." Rather, Olmert said, both he and the president hoped that the Annapolis timetable, for an accord in the course of 2008, could be met.

Indeed, said the prime minister, there was currently an almost divinely ordained constellation of key personalities on the international stage favorably disposed to Israel, creating comfortable conditions for negotiations that might never be replicated.

"It's a coincidence that is almost 'the hand of God,'" Olmert said, "that Bush is president of the United States, that Nicolas Sarkozy is the president of France, that Angela Merkel is the chancellor of Germany, that Gordon Brown is the prime minister of England and that the special envoy to the Middle East is Tony Blair."

The imperative, he said, was to make every effort for progress while this array of supportive characters remained in place.

"What possible combination," he asked, "could be more comfortable for the State of Israel?"
...
When I even think of how things would be if we were dealing with people other than Mubarak, well, I pray every day for his well-being and good health," Olmert said.