In the interest of keeping my eye on the defeating McCain ball, even as Senator Clinton flails impotently toward her inevitable primary loss, I commend this video post from Talking Points Memo to your attention:

Money quote:

Now, it's not easy to draw lessons from history, but one of the clearest lessons that there is is that military power is almost always based on economic might and the one-military power-seldom long outlives a country's economic power. And what that tells us is that fiscal soundness-whether a country's budget is in order, whether it has chronic current accounts deficits and stuff like that is a much bigger deal than any one weapons system, even any one small conflict like we have in Iraq

Marshall goes on to explain that McCain is almost pathologically incapable of dealing with foreign policy in any way beyond as a question of short-term military strategy, and certainly not as part of the integrated whole of governing which includes maintaining the nation's fiscal health as part and parcel of its geopolitical strength.

As I was listening to this, I kept recalling McCain's repeated line that he was a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution." As Dick Cheney apparently told Paul O'Neill, Reagan's lesson was that deficits don't matter. It seems as if McCain has internalized that message completely: Fiscal recklessness is no vice if it is perpetrated in pursuit of a noble foreign policy goal. And the emergency in the middle east is such a noble goal-as was victory in the Cold War.

The problem with the analogy is that the two conflicts are wildly different. Every dollar spent on bigger, louder, more destructive, more frightening weapons in the cold war could logically be justified as forcing the other side, which was economically less sound, to spend an equal amount on their own super destructo machines to keep pace. You can argue about whether that was what worked, but as a strategy, it at least made sense.

However, the current war is asymmetrical. We could spend every last cent we have on weaponry that'd make Darth Vader weep with envy and the other side would still be busily stocking up on small explosives to build IEDs and hatching plans to kill us with our own airplanes. In other words, whether we drain the treasury to build a doomsday device or space nukes or invisible fighter planes, the enemy will still be doing what it is currently doing.

The way to maintain military superiority is to wield that power judiciously and to carefully tend our economic resources. It is not to pour money into foolish, destructive quagmires in the middle eastern desert. George Bush's, Dick Cheney's, and John McCain's bellicose tunnel vision has the equation precisely reversed. And in reverse, the equation seems to be devastating our military, our standing in the world, and after five years, the economy itself.

Whatever McCain's differences with Bush, the fact that he has internalized this brutally wrongheaded lesson from the Reagan era tells me that he will be every bit the disaster Bush has been. I hope anyone thinking "I could never vote for (Obama/Clinton)-if (he/she) wins the nomination, I'm just gonna (stay home/vote for McCain/vote for Nader/vote for McKinney)" thinks long and hard and honestly about just how much another four years like the last eight would suck.

Novick for Senate

I'm seriously thinking about endorsing Steve Novick for Senate. All I know about the man is that he's a Democrat and he made the following ad:

Anyone know anything about the guy? I'm asking all 3.2 of my readers. Not that my endorsement means anything (particularly not in Oregon), but I'd hate to wind up endorsing some horrible candidate just because I'd like to have a beer with him.
But just so there's no second guessing, I really would like to have a beer with a man who's not afraid to open that beer with his hook in his ad.

Obama's Race Speech

I'm not being original when I say this speech was nearly perfect. I'm particularly amazed at the way Obama used his bi-racial-ness as a hook upon which to hang the message that he gets resentments on all sides and that he is uniquely situated to deal with those resentments en route to working toward the common good. I've known enough bi-racial and multi-racial people to know that it can be an identity that causes problems and pains that are as difficult to face and address as those faced by any minority, but without the language and support structures built up over time to take on that task. The fact that most bi-racial people don't have bi-racial parents who know the particular strains they face doesn't help.

But Obama used his bi-racial identity as an asset. In this speech he used it as a way to tell everyone that he gets their dirty little secret, that it's OK, and that the problem that secret represents can be dealt with if it's faced head-on. Brilliant.

Probably the best and simplest take on it was John Stewart's when he referred to the speech as Obama talking to Americans about race as though they were grown ups.

I also have to wonder (on a slightly more frivolous note) about his mention at the beginning of the speech of the issue of slavery nearly hamstringing the convention that led to the Declaration of Independence. It may be just a coincidence, but that very historical episode was dramatized (wonderfully, I thought) the night before in HBO's miniseries, John Adams. If that isn't one of the luckiest coincidences ever, it's a pretty masterful bit of scheduling.

SNL

Tracy Morgan providing "balance" to Tina Fey's pro-Clintonism on weekend update:



Am I crazy to think this was just depressing? If "balance" involves trafficking in crude racial stereotypes and sexism, I think I'd prefer things to remain unbalanced.

When Tina Fey said "bitch is the new black," "bitch" wasn't being used as an epithet, but when Tracy Morgan said "black is the new president, bitch," it was.

I think too much has been made of SNL's impact and relevance. It's probably only relevant to beltway journalists, who are always behind the curve on everything. But if they're going to try to strike some sort of balance, they could do a MUCH better job by actually making both sides close to equivalent.

Once a Buchanan...

I've been watching the Rachel Maddow/Pat Buchanan back-and-forth on MSNBC this whole prolonged primary season, and I've been enjoying the hell out of it. They are both very smart, witty, and charismatic. But I have to admit that I've been wondering when Buchanan would revert to that old Nixon-crony, unhinged, ultra right wing, Opus Dei loon we've come to know and love.
The answer is March 12th, as it turns out:


And Rachel Maddow (AKA the best thing about MSNBC, if not TV altogether these days) kicks his ass in a perfectly "I'm more disappointed than angry" way.

H/T Skippy.

Ferraro to Obama: Don't Antagonize Me

Not such a good recovery. A few thoughts:

1) I haven't seen her speak much, so I have to ask if this tendency not to finish words a recent thing or was she always like that?

2) "Threats" coming from the Obama campaign? She should put up or shut up with that accusation.

3) The veiled threat at the end? Classy.

Obama on Hardball

He's good. This performance was much better than he usually is in unscripted settings with small audiences.
Maybe the smashing win tonight in Mississippi was buoying his spirits. Or maybe he's just generally getting better at this.

A random Spitzer thought:

The way I hear it, you pay hookers not so much for the sex as for the discretion. After a certain point, that's all there is, right? I mean, you may have some beauty standards and/or some kinks that make your ideal hooker one in a million, but even one in a million isn't gonna cost you $55oo an hour.

But strangely, once you reach that super high end threshold, the greater expense actually diminishes the potential for discretion. You have to wire the money or pull it out of your account in cash-and those kinds of wires or cash sums are going to get noticed. Bankers and IRS investigators have their antennae tuned to detect such moves.

It's a bizarre conundrum. Does it mean that in the end, all effective prostitution will be somewhat cheap and sleazy? If that's the case, I think it unlikely that a large portion of the market will be effected.

VP nom derangement syndrome?

What the hell is it about failed Democratic Vice Presidential nominees?
After 2000, Joe Lieberman straight-up lost his mind in the ways that are by now familiar (Joementum!). I always chalked it up to the fact that he was borderline at best to begin with.

But via Andrew Sullivan (via DailyKos, in turn), I just read this charming quote from 1984's party-elite-backed VP nominee, Geraldine Ferraro:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept,"

The best part? She spoke this insanity on John Gibson's radio show! John "Fox News," "Let's Mock Some Dead Homos," "White People Need to Have More Babies to Prevent the Dusky Hordes' Demographic Onslaught" Gibson. Why anybody situated to the political left of Mussolini would go on Gibson's show is beyond me. But to do it to take a racist crap all over one of her party's presidential candidates is mind bogglingly stupid.

This is not out of context. Listen yourself:


Will Clinton ask Ferraro to step down? Will any member of the press even mention it to her? I wouldn't bet anything of value on it.

Update: Apparently the quote above is not from the John Gibson show, but from an interview with the Daily Breeze, a Los Angeles area newspaper. But the Gibson Show cut is also legit and very, very close. Which means that this line of BS is part of Ferraro's standard slate of talking points. I'm actually quite amazed, though I suppose I shouldn't be.

Spitzer-damn.

A few thoughts on my governor's prostitution-ring shenanigans:
1) Way to go, idiot!
2) Prostitution should not be illegal.
3) Even if it was legal-way to go jerk!
4) If he resigns, does it affect his superdelegate status? Here's hoping it does.

Can you say...

..."coattails?" I knew you could.

Spread the word

This is news that deserves to be spread widely. It looks like the delegate count in California was certified on Tuesday, and it included 4 more delegates than had been reported for Obama. At this stage, that's pretty damned significant. But I didn't hear anything about it on the news or on big websites like Slate, Huffington Post, Drudge Report, or the like. It may have been there somewhere, but I didn't see it.

So in the interest of full dissemination of relevant information, I'm posting the news and a link to a full accounting. Enjoy.

PS: This comment from Kid Oakland on the Daily Kos diary linked above gets at a very important part of why I support Obama:

And that's why we fought everywhere we could in CA knowing that the early voting was a steep mountain to climb and we likely could not win the stateHere in CD-9 we won Obama 4 of the 6 delegates for a 4-2 advantage. We did that by winning the last 2 or 3 out of every 100 voters to get to 62.6%. You read that right. Had we left off and not won over the last 2 or 3 out of every 100 voters, CD-9 would have been a delegate tie. That's why Barack Obama is staying close in every state, because of boots on the ground persuading people and getting out the vote. Note to Super Delegates: that's the kind of energy you want on our side in November.

"CD-9" refers to the 9th Congressional District in the East Bay. I used to live there and I'm happy as hell to see it went 4-2 for Obama. Nice work, Kid Oakland and friends!

Macbeth

The wife and I went to a staging of Macbeth at BAM last night. It starred Patrick Stewart as Macbeth and it was simply amazing.
The staging was beautiful and inventive (or it seemed to be-certainly it wasn't what I was expecting). The acting was just perfect (Michael Feast as Macduff stole the show in my ignorant opinion).
I've actually never seen a staging of Shakespeare before (I know-give me a break). I was impressed and delighted. I hope it won't be long before I see some more. Shakespeare is vastly better in the flesh than as cold text (and he's pretty great as cold text).
If I start making strained allusions to Macbeth, please call me on it-we are in some weyrd times, and some may be appropriate-but stop me if I go overboard.

Why do I miss living in the Bay Area?

This kind of stuff. Ballsy. Clever. Kinda old-school. Awesome.

h/t crooks and liars.

The price of compensation

Not cheap, as it turns out.

Some thoughts on the [please let it be] final debate

I think Obama basically won (surprise!). Not a knockout, but he offered nothing cringeworthy, either. Obama would have basically had to completely botch the mission for Clinton to have won, and he didn't. Clinton offered a few "ouch" moments. For example, the "you always ask me the first question" response. What the hell was that? I don't even know what point she was trying to make, so at best it was a non sequitur.
Russert didn't look good, but does he ever? As Josh Marshall notes, his insistence on reading Farrakhan's noxious quotes into the record was just bizarre.

Also, in the post-game on MSNBC, Chris Matthews is coming off as (surprise) a fool. Watching Matthews force Jesse Jackson to admit that Barack Obama is a better speaker than him was kind of painful. That question accomplished nothing, and made me kind of sad (and I'm no huge Jackson-backer, either).

And Stephanie Tubbs Jones does not come off well as a Clinton spokesperson. She looked adequate when she was opposite Captain Knucklehead, but when she has no moron as a foil, she looks ineffectual and a little spastic.

The Hives

It appears as though Skippy the Bush Kangaroo has posted a video by The Hives as his Monday Night Music Club. In which case-Yay!
The Hives are the bee's knees. Or should that be "the bees' knees"?
It's all so confusing. let's just call them the cat's pajamas and let it go at that.

Bummer

Well, dammit. Professor Lawrence Lessig has decided not to run for Congress, despite my support for his potential campaign.
Apparently the polling showed that he simply couldn't beat Jackie Speier. And couldn't even avoid a crushing blowout.
Nonetheless, I would have loved to have seen him in Congress. I still would. But I support his change congress movement more, and I encourage you to do whatever you can to help him with it. He really is a very very smart man, with creative approaches to difficult problems. Moreover, he is an incredibly classy man, as evidenced by his frequent iteration of the fact that Speier has been such a capable public servant over the years (and he's right about that).
Professor Lessig's videos are extraordinarily calm, cogent, downright grown-up explanations of where he's coming from and I find them refreshing as hell.
But the change congress organization is the action now, and that's simply a group of ideas whose time has come, regardless of the man spearheading it, or his electoral fortunes.
Give the site a gander.

I wonder

Just thinking aloud here, but...
I wonder if Gore has refused to endorse (or if Gore has been asked not to endorse by someone like...say...Howard Dean) so he can be one of the final coffin nails should Clinton try to stay in post-March 4.
Of course, post March 4 would be post-post-firewall, so my hypothesis may assume too much prognostication.
BUT-Al Giordano at the Field was predicting a Gore endorsement for Obama as far back as late January. It may be that he was asked to hold off so he could put the Clinton campaign out of its and our misery before it becomes a superdelegate showdown (or a member of the team sent on that mission-remember, Pelosi and Edwards have yet to endorse as well). That role seems to suit his elder-statesman image pretty well.
But what do I know-I'm just thinking here...

Outta my mouth!

So I was all set to put up a post about this embarrassing exchange between Chris Matthews and Texas state senator Kirk Watson.
The upshot of it was going to be that contrary to various comments I've seen here and there (and there), the real story of Watson's inability to name any of Obama's legislative accomplishments is about Watson, not Obama.

This guy belly-flopping on the question (and make no mistake: it was a real, flat-out, from the 10 meter platform, doesn't penetrate more than an inch below the water, rib-cracking, skin-breaking belly-flop) doesn't mean Obama doesn't have legislative accomplishments. It doesn't even really mean this guy doesn't know Obama's legislative accomplishments. All it means is that he was the wrong guy, in the wrong frame of mind, on the wrong show, at the wrong time. That's the charitable interpretation. The less charitable interpretation is that the man is a buffoon.

Either way, it says nothing about whether Obama actually accomplished anything in the US Senate or in the Illinois State Senate. And that works both ways-it doesn't point out a lack of accomplishment or the presence of accomplishment. At worst, it points out a poor choice of surrogate by the Obama campaign.

I'm sure the post I had in mind would have been sharp enough and that you would have enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed thinking it up. But now I don't have to write that post at all, because Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings wrote it for me. With polished prose and everything! The major difference between my embryonic post and her full-term one is that hers is well researched and actually has links to bills Obama sponsored in the US Senate. Not even from his website either, but legitimate links to government databases!

Go read the whole thing.