Now that the New York Times has supposedly uncovered John McCain\’s declaration that he\’s down with OPP, I have some thoughts:

In a subconscious way, I kind of saw this coming. In McCain\’s Wisconsin victory speech Tuesday, he slid this line in near the end:

\”I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years.\”

When he said that, my ears perked up a little. Generally, politicians don\’t readily concede their faults unless they\’re trying to beat someone else to it. So while he wasn\’t specific about allegations that he was a \”booty enthusiast,\” it did seem like he was paving the way for something. I\’m sure he knew this story was coming.

Of course, one of the rules of trying to look smart is to actually point this stuff out before it happens. Mental note for next time.

As everyone else seems to have pointed out, the evidence that McCain actually had an improper relationship with this other woman seems pretty thin. Now, if stories begin to leak that McCain also spent a lot of time with the lobbyist for Viagra, then the puzzle pieces may start to come together.

As for the Times story, it shows how desperate things are for the Gray Lady when they\’re spooked into running a semi-story just because The New Republic was going to run with it first – and these are the two entities fingered for horrific plagiarism scandals; now it\’s seemingly a race to see which one can examine their own rectums, head-first.

After hearing the news, I flipped to CNN, only to hear Bay Buchanan savaging McCain for being such an alleged dirtbag. Of course, she didn\’t have any more information than the New York Times did – but had no problem ripping McCain a new one for not being \”straight\” with GOP primary voters (she had worked for the Romney campaign.) I honestly have no idea why any members of the Buchanan family are allowed on television. Plus, the sight of Bay Buchanan in high definition scared me to death. If you\’re a wife trying to dissuade your husband from dropping $2K on a new HDTV, just use Bay Buchanan as an example. It should send him sprinting out of Best Buy.

I\’ve heard some people speculate as to whether we\’ll be hearing more from the mainstream media about Barack Obama\’s Tony Rezko problem. I\’ve been pretty consistent on this – I have a pretty high bar for proving \”corruption\” by elected officials. There are a lot of sleazeballs from both parties that contribute heavily to campaigns, which is their right. And certainly people have a right to criticize it if they don\’t like it. But until that elected official takes some government action to pay back those favors, I think we have to hold our nose and take it. Unless, of course, the money sitting in their campaign account was raised illegally, as may be the case with Rezko. But Obama\’s plans to socialize health care in the U.S. scare me enough – I still have an open mind on the \”corruption\” charges.

So, as it turns out, this presidential campaign will likely boil down to \”cocaine vs. ho\’s.\” We should just elect Tony Montana and be done with it.

Political ads can sometimes be pretty entertaining if you look for the right things.

Barack Obama is currently running an ad in Wisconsin that seeks to answer Hillary Clinton’s charge that he has refused to debate her. In the ad, he takes some policy shots at Clinton:

Generally, claims made in an ad are backed up by a citation. There doesn’t have to be one, but most campaigns add one to look official. Rarely does anyone look up the sources of these citations – and some tend to be quite a stretch.

Obama has pretty much dropped all pretense that he’s citing anything. In the ad, he claims his health care plan saves $2500 for a typical family. The source of this figure? BarackObama.com. And how do we know his housing plan cracks down on crooked lenders? Once again, it says so at his website, BarackObama.com. Certainly, a rock-solid source.

To see how noted independent health care expert Barack Obama comes to this $2,500 figure, his plan can be read here.  The plan includes groundbreaking initiatives such as:

Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Participants will be charged fair premiums and minimal co-pays for deductibles for preventive services.

Yep, that should about do it.

Now if only I could get BarackObama.com to tell me that I needed a new flat screen TV. Then I could cite it when I make my pitch to my wife.

After seeing Mike Huckabee this morning, I was fired up to go see the First Black President (Bill Clinton), whose wife might actually lose the the presidency to the Second Black President (Barack Obama). Sure, Huckabee is a great speaker, but Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton. If you saw Mike Huckabee in a Denny’s, you’d say to yourself “hey, there’s Mike Huckabee,” and go on eating your huevos rancheros. Bill Clinton is the former leader of the free world – for 8 years, from what I understand.

I was interested in seeing how rough Clinton would get with Obama. In Wisconsin, Obama isn’t a candidate – Obama is a way of life. It’s clear Wisconsin is getting the South Carolina treatment from the Clintons – Hillary looks ahead to more favorable states, while Bill stays behind and takes shots at The Chosen One.

This morning, I told my 4-year old daughter (who first endorsed Obama, then Clinton, now McCain) that I was going to see Hillary’s husband. I then threw in, as an afterthought, “oh yeah, he used to be president, too.” Then I realized how crazy that must sound to a 4-year old. She probably thinks there’s a pool of, like, three people that are allowed to run for president. It doesn’t help that Hillary’s husband was sandwiched by a father and son. Nuts.

Clinton’s speech was held in a barn. Literally. The Stock Pavilion on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison is a campus building where livestock shows are held. When I showed up at 12:30 (show time was 1:30, so I thought I’d get there early so I didn’t get Obama’d), there were probably 50 to 100 people in line. It became clear to me, however, that the wait to get in was going to be outside in the 25 degree weather. I thought I’d tough it out, just to get a real sense of what attending one of these events is for the regular folk. I mean, any press person can hop from event to event – it takes determination to stick it out in freezing cold weather.

In front of me in line was a group of giggling college girls, not all of them Clinton supporters. One of them actually had a Barack Obama ringtone on her phone. When she got a call, her phone boomed, “YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!” The girls struck up an interesting political conversation. One said she thought McCain was creepy, and didn’t like him “because he’d probably die.” She said she might vote for him if he picked Condoleezza Rice as his running mate. Another girl, excited to see Bill Clinton, said “what if I get to touch him?” No joke really necessary there.

The wait went on and on, as did the freezing cold. After about 45 minutes, I felt like the muscles in my legs had the texture of beef jerky. The line grew to about 100 yards long, although dozens of people cut in line right up to the front. These people were easy to spot – they’d start out in the street, sizing up the line. They would then flip open their cell phone and pretend to call someone at the front of the line. Finally, they would start waving to their supposed “friend,” and begin working their way through the crowd. At least 20 people pulled the same maneuver, causing a bit of friction among the people who had been freezing there for an hour.

As we waited in line outside, several Hillary volunteers began canvassing the crowd with clipboards to get people to “sign in.” They implied that you had to sign up to get in to the event, which I knew was complete nonsense. Yet it seemed that hundreds of people complied, so best of luck to them getting off that mailing list.

Finally, the Clinton campaign provided some much-needed hope. A front door flew open, and with it the smell of cow manure from the pavilion. This was the most welcome cow manure smell ever – but also likely served as a harbinger for the speech we were about to hear inside. (I’ll be here all week, folks.)

As I walked in the door and got patted down, I noticed that the sign up tables were being staffed primarily by attractive, thin, well-dressed young women. I felt ashamed of myself for immediately assuming they were from out of town. One of them slapped a Hillary sticker on my chest, which I didn’t necessarily mind. I’m probably third in line to being the next Hillary Clinton campaign manager, anyway. When in the Stock Pavilion, do as the cows do, as they say…

Once inside, I got a good look at the almost-empty pavilion. I was told it seats about 2,000 people. The gray, concrete seats form a disinviting bowl around the livestock area. I guess if your clientele is mainly livestock, there’s really no need to go for aesthetic charm in a barn. The floor, naturally, is all dirt. The aluminum ceiling is painted black, with large metal beams holding it up. The press area is roped off in the middle of the dirt area, and ten cameras are already set up on a large platform.

As the people file in, it is clear that one of the most important jobs for Hillary’s staff is to get the right people behind the podium, in camera range. It appears that one of the best strategies for placement behind Clinton is to be in a group wearing similarly-colored t-shirts. AFSCME union workers wearing their signature green shirts were all herded up to the front. The red t-shirt wearing “non-partisan” AARP of Wisconsin members were seated to the lower right behind the podium. I’m 100% sure I could start a group demanding thicker and fuller mustaches, get some friends to wear the same purple t-shirt, and we’d be plopped right behind the podium at the next Hillary event. Viva la Mustache!

Aside from the t-shirt wearers, there appears to be a hierarchy of who gets to be human wallpaper at these events. The pecking order of who gets to sit up front behind the podium for Democratic events seems to be: 1. Veteran wearing a hat; 2. Anyone in a wheelchair; 3. People wearing similarly-colored t-shirts; 4. Anyone wearing some kind of ethnic clothing.

With regard to #4: A young man wearing a Puerto Rico shirt was shuffled up to the front by one of Hillary’s staffers. As a test, I think people should start showing up to these events in over-the-top ethnic attire. You’d watch one of Bill Clinton’s speeches and see an Italian guy with a big curly mustache flipping a pizza, some people wearing lederhosen gulping beer, and some samurai warriors eating egg rolls.

Up in the crowd, a cute girl wearing a tight t-shirt is holding a heart-shaped sign that says “BILL, WILL YOU BE MY VALENTINE?” This is EXACTLY what Clinton needs at one of his rallies. This would be like an Obama supporter showing up at an Obama rally with a sign that said “Hey, Barack – WANNA DO SOME BLOW?”

Some of the young crowd members around me start to chatter about politics. One Hillary supporter actually says he doesn’t mind McCain because he thinks given McCain’s POW experience, that he won’t rush the U.S. into war – since he knows first-hand the toll it takes on soldiers. I almost had to pinch myself to see if I actually was at a political rally. Certainly the last place you expected to hear a level-headed comment. It’s like seeing the Pope in a strip club.

The girl behind me said she was going to call her sister and brag, because her sister is a huge Bill Clinton fan. In fact, she’s such a fan, her sister named her cat “Clinton.” Again, the jokes write themselves.

Finally, some unidentified woman got up on stage to remind us that in addition to today being Valentine’s Day, tomorrow is a day that’s equally as important – Susan B. Anthony’s birthday! If I now have to go buy my wife some Susan B. Anthony candy and flowers, me and that broad are going to fight.

She went on to say how much Hillary had fought for “kids’ issues.” I started wondering what these “kids’ issues” might be. The biggest issue my son seems to have is not being able to get Mr. Potato Head’s nose on straight. If Hillary can come over and do that for him, she might get his vote. She also remarked how successful Hillary has been at “strengthening women.” Presumably, this was in Hillary’s brief career as a personal trainer.

This woman, whose name I will likely never know, said that while George W. Bush had promised to “invest” in renewable fuels, Hillary had promised to “re-invest” in renewable fuels. So for those of you at home who need to update your liberal language dictionaries, the order of commitment to expanded government programs is now:

1. “Re-investing”

2. “Investing”

On came Congresswoman Hilda Solis of California, who was supposed to impress us because… she came all the way from California! This point is made about five times during the speeches. But I can guarantee no part of Hilda Solis’ trip to Wisconsin was as unpleasant as the time I just spent waiting outside the pavilion. The crowd remains unimpressed, and provides milquetoast applause.

Solis recalled a time long ago in 1992, when Hillary Clinton came to her Congressional district to help her win her first election. “I said to myself then,” said Solis, “that this woman was going somewhere.” Of course, Hillary was about to become the first lady, as her husband was running for President. Thanks, Nostradamus.

Solis pushed the fact that Hillary is going to fight “climate change.” It was wise of her not to say Hillary’s going to fight “global warming” to a crowd that had just spent freezing their asses off for more than an hour outside. “Climate change” lets Democrats claim that any time the needle moves, something’s wrong.

Finally, Solis took a shot at “Milwaukee right wing radio,” saying that “some host” told people the Clinton event in Waukesha was postponed. Without knowing what had happened, I immediately knew who she was talking about, and how likely her charge was to be completely made up. As it turns out, it was.

Before Solis exited, she demanded a “big round of applause for Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk!” The crowd immediately groaned, and Falk, over on the side of the podium, cracked a big smile. “…and President Bill Clinton!” added Solis. The crowd stood and cheered their rock star.

Falk approached the podium, and began talking about Hillary. She said Hillary Clinton was the “first presidential candidate to have a plan for the economy,” which made me chuckle. As if Barack Obama was sitting around a month ago, turned to his advisors and said “Hillary keeps talking about ‘the economy.’ What’s all that ‘economy’ talk about?”

Falk introduces Bill Clinton, who cuts a radiant figure on stage. He is thin, tan, and appears energetic. He launches into a criticism of Republicans’ health care policies. “Raise your hand if you know someone who doesn’t have health care,” he implores the crowd. Nearly everyone does. He reiterates his support for universal health care. Later, he will likely be surprised to realize that he was actually President for 8 years, and never enacted universal health care. No need to point that out now, though – he’s on a roll.

Knowing he has to be extremely subtle in his attacks against Obama, Clinton gingerly rolls out the newest talking point. “Solutions are better than speeches,” he says, intimating that while Obama is a great speaker, he’s short on accomplishments. Much of his talk focuses on this point. (The full speech will likely be available on the internet soon, so there’s no need to go into great detail about its content.)

Clinton’s speech rambles on for a while, and the crowd begins to lose a little air. The guy behind the podium who was inexplicably waving a copy of Clinton’s autobiography in the air for the first 20 minutes of the speech has ceased. Clinton says Hillary is going to help the “victims” of the subprime lending crisis. He says one of his wife’s basic tenets is that we should make the world better “for our grandchildren.” Finally, someone has the guts to look out for the grandkids. He tries to peddle the line that New York State is actually very Republican, and Hillary helps those people anyway. He says the way to turn the economy around is through a better environment. (On the way out of the speech, I ask a squirrel for a job, and he hands me a business card and tells me he’ll get back to me.)

At one point, Clinton looks like he’s going to make a personal concession. “Full disclosure…” he says. Now when someone says “full disclosure,” they’re generally about to tell you something that conflicts with their eventual point. Something like “full disclosure – I have bought several Michael Bolton albums, but I think he doesn’t have any talent.” Something like that. Instead, Clinton’s point is something like, “full disclosure – Hillary thinks we should take care of veterans.” And that’s it. Somewhere, the devious anti-veteran interest groups are shaking their fists.

Clinton closed his speech out by bragging about the $13 million Hillary has raised since Super Tuesday two weeks ago. Obama has raised $32 million in the last month. He said that was enough “to make this a contest.” Obviously, Clinton is pitching his wife as a large underdog – a claim the polls tend to bear out. He ends his speech by saying Hillary is “a problem solver.” I’ll be sure to call her with questions about my Algebra homework.

At this point, I had been standing for four hours. Clinton descended on my side of the barrier, where I was only about three people deep. He reached into the crowd, which surged forward to meet him. His hand actually swung right by my head. I reached up, shook his hand, and bolted.

I walked 20 minutes in the snow back to my car, only to find that I had become the “victim” of a parking ticket. Time to call Hillary Clinton for help.

As I approached the Concourse Hotel in Madison this morning, I noticed something strange. Parking spots. A major presidential candidate was speaking here this morning, and there were empty parking spots right across the street. There may have been even more had the Huckabus not been taking up three of them.

Huckabee faces an impossible road in the Republican primary. John McCain will be the GOP nominee, yet Huckabee soldiers on with little money and no chance. As the Robbie Fulks song says, he’s “forgotten but not gone.”

Yet one of the reasons Huckabee is still standing is his preternatural speaking ability – which is why I was excited to go see him. The hotel banquet room at the Concourse is about half full when I roll in. I eyeball the crowd and put it between 150 and 200 people. (Later, Wispolitics.com would estimate the crowd at 500, which I think is wildly overstated.)

A couple of Huckabee’s campaign workers circle the room. Having worked dozens of campaigns myself, it’s easy to spot a campaign worker. They always have an ill-fitting suit that probably actually looked good when the campaign started – yet months of late nights and junk food have shrunk it two sizes. They have sunken eyes, the complexion of chalk, and no will to live.

Some unidentifiable country music begins to play in the background. Country music and Republican politics now, unfortunately, go hand-in-hand like cheese curds and ranch dressing. After about two songs, I call my sister to make sure we’re actually not married.

I ran into Steve Eggleston, who got some much-deserved national publicity for his post pointing out that McCain only needed 24 percent of the vote from here on out to win the nomination.

One of the things I notice about the event is the lack of security. There are a couple guys talking into their sleeves, but no pat downs or coat checks on the way in. I chat with a reporter and we agree that we shouldn’t check the polls to see who’s winning the race, we just need to figure out how many secret service people are assigned to each campaign. Huckabee’s lack of security detail befitted his long-shot status.

One of the down sides of the New York Giants beating the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl is that it allows Huckabee to stand up and compare his situation to that of the underdog Giants. Apparently, Huckabee used this talking point in a Wisconsin speech yesterday, and it went over like a lead balloon. He had likely forgotten that the Giants had beaten the Packers in the NFC Championship game, which is still a sore subject in the Dairy State. He should have focused on a more pleasant topic, like incest.

Huckabee hits the stage, introduced by Tim Michels – who reportedly ran for something once. Apparently, there\’s evidence on the internet of this. Michels says that while talk radio has gone after Huckabee for not being conservative, Huckabee has been endorsed by the Minutemen. Well, that settles it.

Huckabee starts his speech with a smart move – by appealing to Wisconsin’s desire for national press. He says that if McCain wins, Wisconsin will be forgotten – yet if Wisconsin goes to Huckabee, the national press will blather on about the Badger State ad nauseam. There’s nothing Wisconsin residents crave more than positive press about their state. There seems to be a burning desire to be nationally relevant – and for reasons other than people having sex with corpses.

Huckabee went on to tell a story about singing the National Anthem at Lambeau Field during the 2004 Bush campaign. I stood near the back of the room, which made me feel suspiciously like Travis Bickle at a Palantine rally. Fortunately, my mohawk has grown back in.

He uses his big applause line about how he wants to get rid of the IRS (it might actually be easier to pass a bill through Congress that eliminates the letters “I,” “R,” and “S” from the English language). He indicates his support for a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. When making a point about protecting life, he begins to cite the Declaration of Independence – obviously about to reference the guarantee of “life.” On the way to that point, he says “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” and some woman begins clapping wildly by herself. Apparently, she was a big fan of Self-Evidence. Woo! Huckabee ignored her and made his way to the intended applause line.

When discussing valuing human life, Huckabee used an example that I thought was really good. He pointed out that in the field of battle, our soldiers go out of their way to save their wounded comrades, because we do value life so much. That contrasted nicely with his portrayal of militant Islam, who sends children out to die for the cause. I hadn’t heard the whole sanctity of life argument posed that way before, and thought it was a nice touch.

Huckabee pointed out that he was the first male in his bloodline to graduate from high school. I never understood how this was an effective talking point. Should be give politicians credit for the fact that their family members are uneducated? Should I be ashamed that my father is a lawyer? Wait – don’t answer that.

The applause dies down as Huckabee goes on, until he gets to immigration, which perks the crowd up. He then introduces a 14-year old kid who claims to have made 1,000 calls on Huckabee’s behalf. The crowd oohs and ahhhs, while I cringe. How does this kid not have time to do regular 14-year old kid stuff? Buy that kid a Playstation. Obviously, his family didn’t get the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition this week – that little guy would have spent more time in the bathroom than on the phone.

The single most asked question of Huckabee these days is “why are you still in the race?” But when you see the flood of press that still follows him around, you can understand why. When is Mike Huckabee going to ever have a national stage like this again? Politicians like to be heard – why wouldn’t Huckabee keep talking as long as the media are paying attention?

In closing, Huckabee has said he’s staying around until the convention. Someone call Mitt Romney and ask how that promise went.

In a sea of fascinating storylines having to do with the 2008 presidential race, I think Barack Obama\’s troubles with Latino voters has to be among the most interesting. According to some reports, Obama lost the Hispanic vote in places like California and Arizona by nearly 40 percent. Yet nobody has really provided a decent explanation as to why that might be the case. Most media reports gloss over any real reasons, because they may be afraid at what they find. In fact, by reporting that \”Hispanic voters won\’t vote for Obama\” without providing a rationale, it really stains the reputation of Latinos and brands them as bigots.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, himself of Hispanic origin, took a weak stab at it by saying Latino voters appreciated the fact that the Clintons appointed Hispanics to cabinet positions. This, of course, is complete nonsense – if there\’s one trait that brings Americans of all nationalities together, it is a complete lack of knowledge of anything regarding cabinet appointees.

Last night, after my Obama moment, my buddy and I went to have a few beers. As is our custom, we left the bar at about 11:00 and headed to our favorite Mexican restaurant on Madison\’s west side. (Here\’s a hint – you are able to obtain a burrito as big as your head there – provided your head isn\’t freakishly large.) As we sat down to inhale our steak burritos, I happened to catch a glimpse of a \”Voz Latina\” newspaper. On the front page, there was a huge picture of Barack Obama, accompanied by this story:

Obama: Indocumentados no son responsables de problemas economicos

\”Atributir esos problemas a los inmigrantes es buscar un chivo expiatorio\”

LOS ANGELES – El precandidato democrata Barack Obama sostuvo el jueves que la desocupacion y la inseguridad economica no son generados por la presencia de indocumentadoes en el pais.

I took three years of Spanish in high school, so I can pretty much get what that is saying – Obama is reaching out to Hispanic voters by telling them illegal immigrants aren\’t the cause of America\’s economic problems. But it was bugging me that I couldn\’t understand exactly what it was saying. For all I knew, Obama made this statement about illegal immigrants, then started juggling flaming meatballs. So to figure out what the article said, I asked for help.

I walked up to the two young men at the front of the store – one was working the grill and one was working the register. I asked the guy at the register if he could read the first part of it for me \”en ingles.\” He chuckled a little, then looked at the front page of the paper that I handed him. It was clear he didn\’t speak much ingles himself. He started out, \”uhhhhhh…. inmigracion…,\” and then he stopped. He started pointing to the picture of Obama and saying \”NO, NO, NO!\” I asked him if he liked Obama, and he again said \”NO, NO, NO!\” (Of course, he may have been doing an Amy Winehouse impersonation.)

He repeatedly pointed to Obama\’s picture, and started saying \”No inmigracion.\” His buddy cooking the burritos agreed with him. He then pointed to a picture of George W. Bush on the page, and said \”Yes.\”

It didn\’t take too long to decipher what he was saying. He didn\’t like Obama because he thought Obama was too weak on immigration. These guys (who essentially admitted to us that their legal status was, um…. questionable) had come to this country and made a decent living for themselves. Now, they are all for shutting the borders down, knowing there\’s always going to be a poor Mexican worker willing to do their job for less money. And they really don\’t want the competition. That\’s why they both had such a favorable opinion of George W. Bush – his plan let them stay here, and eliminated the competition from the South.

I asked one of the guys (in my broken Spanglish) if he had any familia back in Mexico that he wants to come to the U.S. He said he did, but they can stay there as long as he sends them money. Basically, he doesn\’t want to upset the system he has going for him right now. He also said that Mexico is on the rise, and that soon all the white Americans will want to live there. He mentioned that all the Americans that do live there have really big houses, and that he doesn\’t like that.

All in all, those guys were really honest and forthright about their views on inmigracion. And they seemed ecstatic that someone would actually care what they thought. But our discussion was fascinating, in that it started to explain some of the Hispanic dislike of Obama – something the media might pick up if they would just go ask regular Latinos what they think. 

Oh, and the burrito – delicioso.

Tonight, I stood face to face with Barack Obama. 

My lefty buddies implored me to head down to the Obama rally at the Kohl Center here in Madison.  Me being the political enthusiast I am, I agreed – thinking, at the very least, I\’d get some good fodder for a blog post.

I met my buddy Barrett and his wife JJ at the coffee shop they own on Regent Street.  The plan was to walk down to the Kohl Center from there.  We had heard the line to get in was enormous, so we thought we\’d wait as long as possible to head down.  Rumor had it that speakers would begin at 8:00, so we decided to walk down at 7:30.

As we approached the corner of Park and Regent (right next to the Kohl Center), we were met by some people who said that they weren\’t letting anyone else in to the rally.  I couldn\’t believe my ears – the Kohl Center seats nearly 20,000 people.  But they said they were turned away.  One guy said he had talked to a cop who said Obama\’s caravan would be driving by that very corner soon.  The fact that the police had blocked this area off gave this guy\’s story some credibility.

Suddenly, down Regent Street, someone saw some cop cars and buses coming.  One could only guess that this was Obama\’s entourage.  I figured there would be a bunch of cars, then Obama\’s limo, with tinted windows, and the whole thing would be a lost cause.  But we waited.

A police car drove by us and took a right.  Then a large black SUV took the same right.  I looked in the passenger side back seat, and saw Obama smiling and waving.  He was ten feet from me.  He waved at me.  I waved back.

The women in our little group shrieked with delight.  Barrett\’s wife almost melted at the sight of the now-presidential frontrunner.  Previous to tonight, she had fed us a line about how she was undecided in the Democratic primary.  But it\’s pretty clear that Obama smiling at her sealed the deal.  Apparently, the leader of the free world will be chosen based not on any of his actual plans, but on the fact that he drove within ten feet of some adoring female fans.

As a counter, Barrett and I decided that we will fawn in a similar way over Hillary Clinton whenever she makes an appearance in Madison.  Imagine how ridiculous that would be – Hillary waves at me and suddenly I become putty in her hands.  Certainly the best way to pick a president.

Having been turned away from the Kohl Center, we decided to watch the speech downtown at the Old Fashioned restaurant.  It was eerie how the whole bar stopped to watch the speech – unlike anything I had seen.  I couldn\’t believe, based on the video from the speech, how many people were actually there.  I had read a press report about Obama\’s popularity that cited an attendance of 6,000 at a speech he had given in Missouri.  If he truly did fill up the Kohl Center, this speech had to triple that.  Absolutely amazing.

Barrett joked that Mike Huckabee will probably hold his first Madison campaign rally at the Old Country Buffet on East Washington.  I couldn\’t disagree.

During political campaigns, the chattering classes can be deafening with their pronouncements about how \”historic\” or \”groundbreaking\” the current campaign is. Yet history will almost always tell us otherwise.

In 1888, Oxford professor (and American government enthusiast) James Bryce wrote \”Why Great Men Are Not Chosen President.\” European authors are often the best observers of things Americans may not see in ourselves (Tocqueville being the most famous example.) Despite being 120 years old, modern conservatives will immediately sympathize with some of Bryce\’s observations as to why Americans end up with less than stellar presidential candidates. The following selection is a little lengthy, but well worth the read (my emphasis has been added.)

Several reasons may be suggested for the fact, which Americans are themselves the first to admit.

One is that the proportion of first-rate ability drawn into politics is smaller in America than in most European countries. This is a phenomenon whose causes must be elucidated later: in the meantime it is enough to say that in France, where the half-revolutionary conditions that lasted for some time after 1870, made public life exciting and accessible; in Germany, where an admirably organized civil service cultivates and develops statecraft with unusual success; in England, where many persons of wealth and leisure seek to enter the political arena, while burning questions touch the interests of all classes and make men eager observers of the combatants, the total quantity of talent devoted to parliamentary or administrative work has been larger, relatively to the population, than in America, where much of the best ability, both for thought and for action, for planning and for executing, rushes into a field which is comparatively narrow in Europe, the business of developing the material resources of the country.

Another is that the methods and habits of Congress, and indeed of political life generally, seem to give fewer opportunities for personal distinction, fewer modes in which a man may commend himself to his countrymen by eminent capacity in thought, in speech, or in administration, than is the case in the free countries of Europe.

[…]

A third reason is that eminent men make more enemies, and give those enemies more assailable points, than obscure men do. They are therefore in so far less desirable candidates. It is true that the eminent man has also made more friends, that his name is more widely known, and may be greeted with louder cheers. Other things being equal, the famous man is preferable. But other things never are equal. The famous man has probably attacked some leaders in his own party, has supplanted others, has expressed his dislike to the crotchet of some active section, has perhaps committed errors which are capable of being magnified into offences. No man stands long before the public and bears a part in great affairs without giving openings to censorious criticism. Fiercer far than the light which beats upon a throne is the light which beats upon a presidential candidate, searching out all the recesses of his past life. Hence, when the choice lies between a brilliant man and a safe man, the safe man is preferred. Party feeling, strong enough to carry in on its back a man without conspicuous positive merits, is not always strong enough to procure forgiveness for a man with positive faults.

A European finds that this phenomenon needs in its turn to be explained, for in the free countries of Europe brilliancy, be it eloquence in speech, or some striking achievement in war or administration, or the power through whatever means of somehow impressing the popular imagination, is what makes a leader triumphant. Why should it be otherwise in America? Because in America party loyalty and party organization have been hitherto so perfect that anyone put forward by the party will get the full party vote if his character is good and his “record,” as they call it, unstained. The safe candidate may not draw in quite so many votes from the moderate men of the other side as the brilliant one would, but he will not lose nearly so many from his own ranks. Even those who admit his mediocrity will vote straight when the moment for voting comes. Besides, the ordinary American voter does not object to mediocrity. He has a lower conception of the qualities requisite to make a statesman than those who direct public opinion in Europe have. He likes his candidate to be sensible, vigorous, and, above all, what he calls “magnetic,” and does not value, because he sees no need for, originality or profundity, a fine culture or a wide knowledge. Candidates are selected to be run for nomination by knots of persons who, however expert as party tacticians, are usually commonplace men; and the choice between those selected for nomination is made by a very large body, an assembly of nearly a thousand delegates from the local party organizations over the country, who are certainly no better than ordinary citizens.

[…]

It must also be remembered that the merits of a president are one thing and those of a candidate another thing. An eminent American is reported to have said to friends who wished to put him forward, “Gentlemen, let there be no mistake. I should make a good president, but a very bad candidate.” Now to a party it is more important that its nominee should be a good candidate than that he should turn out a good president. A nearer danger is a greater danger. As Saladin says in The Talisman, “A wild cat in a chamber is more dangerous than a lion in a distant desert.” It will be a misfortune to the party, as well as to the country, if the candidate elected should prove a bad president. But it is a greater misfortune to the party that it should be beaten in the impending election, for the evil of losing national patronage will have come four years sooner. “B” (so reason the leaders), “who is one of our possible candidates, may be an abler man than A, who is the other. But we have a better chance of winning with A than with B, while X, the candidate of our opponents, is anyhow no better than A. We must therefore run A.” This reasoning is all the more forcible because the previous career of the possible candidates has generally made it easier to say who will succeed as a candidate than who will succeed as a president; and because the wire-pullers with whom the choice rests are better judges of the former question than of the latter.

So while pundits continue to express disbelief about whether a certain Republican is the right choice for the party, remember how little things have changed over the last century. While we all sat on our couches and watched Super Tuesday results last week, we didn\’t know that Bryce essentially called the Republican primary over 120 years ago. The GOP found their \”safe man,\” and they\’re riding him into the general election – adhering strictly to the script.

(Interestingly, Bryce considers the \”brilliant\” man to be the one who has criticized his own party and made enemies.  Yet in this race, it turns out somehow that the candidate that has gone that route has also become the \”safest\” pick.) 

During political campaigns, the chattering classes can be deafening with their pronouncements about how “historic” or “groundbreaking” the current campaign is. Yet history will almost always tell us otherwise.

In 1888, Oxford professor (and American government enthusiast) James Bryce wrote “Why Great Men Are Not Chosen President.” European authors are often the best observers of things Americans may not see in ourselves (Tocqueville being the most famous example.) Despite being 120 years old, modern conservatives will immediately sympathize with some of Bryce’s observations as to why Americans end up with less than stellar presidential candidates. The following selection is a little lengthy, but well worth the read (my emphasis has been added.)

Several reasons may be suggested for the fact, which Americans are themselves the first to admit.

One is that the proportion of first-rate ability drawn into politics is smaller in America than in most European countries. This is a phenomenon whose causes must be elucidated later: in the meantime it is enough to say that in France, where the half-revolutionary conditions that lasted for some time after 1870, made public life exciting and accessible; in Germany, where an admirably organized civil service cultivates and develops statecraft with unusual success; in England, where many persons of wealth and leisure seek to enter the political arena, while burning questions touch the interests of all classes and make men eager observers of the combatants, the total quantity of talent devoted to parliamentary or administrative work has been larger, relatively to the population, than in America, where much of the best ability, both for thought and for action, for planning and for executing, rushes into a field which is comparatively narrow in Europe, the business of developing the material resources of the country.

Another is that the methods and habits of Congress, and indeed of political life generally, seem to give fewer opportunities for personal distinction, fewer modes in which a man may commend himself to his countrymen by eminent capacity in thought, in speech, or in administration, than is the case in the free countries of Europe.

[…]

A third reason is that eminent men make more enemies, and give those enemies more assailable points, than obscure men do. They are therefore in so far less desirable candidates. It is true that the eminent man has also made more friends, that his name is more widely known, and may be greeted with louder cheers. Other things being equal, the famous man is preferable. But other things never are equal. The famous man has probably attacked some leaders in his own party, has supplanted others, has expressed his dislike to the crotchet of some active section, has perhaps committed errors which are capable of being magnified into offences. No man stands long before the public and bears a part in great affairs without giving openings to censorious criticism. Fiercer far than the light which beats upon a throne is the light which beats upon a presidential candidate, searching out all the recesses of his past life. Hence, when the choice lies between a brilliant man and a safe man, the safe man is preferred. Party feeling, strong enough to carry in on its back a man without conspicuous positive merits, is not always strong enough to procure forgiveness for a man with positive faults.

A European finds that this phenomenon needs in its turn to be explained, for in the free countries of Europe brilliancy, be it eloquence in speech, or some striking achievement in war or administration, or the power through whatever means of somehow impressing the popular imagination, is what makes a leader triumphant. Why should it be otherwise in America? Because in America party loyalty and party organization have been hitherto so perfect that anyone put forward by the party will get the full party vote if his character is good and his “record,” as they call it, unstained. The safe candidate may not draw in quite so many votes from the moderate men of the other side as the brilliant one would, but he will not lose nearly so many from his own ranks. Even those who admit his mediocrity will vote straight when the moment for voting comes. Besides, the ordinary American voter does not object to mediocrity. He has a lower conception of the qualities requisite to make a statesman than those who direct public opinion in Europe have. He likes his candidate to be sensible, vigorous, and, above all, what he calls “magnetic,” and does not value, because he sees no need for, originality or profundity, a fine culture or a wide knowledge. Candidates are selected to be run for nomination by knots of persons who, however expert as party tacticians, are usually commonplace men; and the choice between those selected for nomination is made by a very large body, an assembly of nearly a thousand delegates from the local party organizations over the country, who are certainly no better than ordinary citizens.

[…]

It must also be remembered that the merits of a president are one thing and those of a candidate another thing. An eminent American is reported to have said to friends who wished to put him forward, “Gentlemen, let there be no mistake. I should make a good president, but a very bad candidate.” Now to a party it is more important that its nominee should be a good candidate than that he should turn out a good president. A nearer danger is a greater danger. As Saladin says in The Talisman, “A wild cat in a chamber is more dangerous than a lion in a distant desert.” It will be a misfortune to the party, as well as to the country, if the candidate elected should prove a bad president. But it is a greater misfortune to the party that it should be beaten in the impending election, for the evil of losing national patronage will have come four years sooner. “B” (so reason the leaders), “who is one of our possible candidates, may be an abler man than A, who is the other. But we have a better chance of winning with A than with B, while X, the candidate of our opponents, is anyhow no better than A. We must therefore run A.” This reasoning is all the more forcible because the previous career of the possible candidates has generally made it easier to say who will succeed as a candidate than who will succeed as a president; and because the wire-pullers with whom the choice rests are better judges of the former question than of the latter.

So while pundits continue to express disbelief about whether a certain Republican is the right choice for the party, remember how little things have changed over the last century. While we all sat on our couches and watched Super Tuesday results last week, we didn’t know that Bryce essentially called the Republican primary over 120 years ago. The GOP found their “safe man,” and they’re riding him into the general election – adhering strictly to the script.

(Interestingly, Bryce considers the “brilliant” man to be the one who has criticized his own party and made enemies.  Yet in this race, it turns out somehow that the candidate that has gone that route has also become the “safest” pick.) 

Some observations from the big primaries last night:

1. Endorsements are meaningless. How\’d the Kennedy love-fest work out for Obama in Massachusetts? How much time did the media spend covering how \”Camelot\” had blessed Obama? I\’m waiting for CNN to break into their programming to announce how wrong they were with the same fervor. \”BREAKING NEWS! Remember that Kennedy endorsement? Uhhhh…. never mind.\”

2. Money isn\’t meaningless, but it\’s close to it. Mitt Romney flooded the southern states and California with campaign ads and finished third in a great deal of them.

3. Rush Limbaugh\’s name was invoked dozens of times on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, as if he is somehow the King of Conservative Nation. The election results last night showed that not only is this not the case, the coverage demonstrated that networks are only willing to understand conservatives at the most surface level. As if conservatives are more easily led around by popular entertainers. I\’m anxiously awaiting the news stories about how split the Democratic Party is because George Clooney endorsed Obama.

4. CNN spent the entire night dicing up the electorate to tell us how various ethnicities voted. I waited patiently by the TV for them to call out my group – how did lumpy Catholic white guys vote? Who won the Brazilian amputee vote?

5. Bill Richardson showed up on TV sporting a horrific beard. It looks like after he dropped out of the Democratic primaries, he\’s been sleeping under some high school football bleachers in Las Cruces, clutching a bottle of Wild Irish Rose in a paper bag.

6. For a long time, I\’ve taken offense to the media\’s portrayal of Evangelicals as single-issue, myopic voters. After Huckabee\’s big victories in the south, I think I may be less right than I thought.

7. Several TV commentators mentioned that McCain might want to consider Jeb Bush as a running mate. This is actually a great idea, if John McCain plans on spending next January golfing.

8. As far as vice presidential candidates for McCain, I still think Charlie Crist is the leader in the clubhouse.

9. Hispanics really don\’t like Obama. Formulate your own hypothesis as to why – but it\’s undeniable. That spells bad news for Obama in Texas, which he really needs to win to make up some ground.

10. Obama tended to win the states that traditionally vote Republican in the general election (Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Georgia, Alabama). I don\’t think this is a small point. In states with a weak, or nonexistent, Democratic party, Obama did well. In states with an entrenched Democratic bureaucracy, Hillary wins. This suggests that Clinton fares better among the more hard core activists.

11. On Monday night, John Kerry spoke at an Obama rally. He said that under President Obama, there would be no more Abu Ghraib. Listening to Kerry pronounce \”Abu Ghraib\” gave the listener a glimpse at what it might actually be like to be in Abu Ghraib. He mangled it, as if he had only ever seen the word in print. Wonder if he\’s ever gotten around to learning how to say \”Genghis Khan.\”

Also, it appears that one of Obama\’s big talking points is that he will \”close Guantanamo.\” I\’m not in the business of offering political advice, but I would suggest that Obama drops this as a talking point. There are terrorists in Guantanamo – and if they\’re not there, they\’re going to be somewhere else. Like living in the U.S. People understand that.

12. I watched Mike Huckabee shuffle from network to network to network doing interviews. And in each interview, he had a fresh observation or one-liner. I don\’t recall him repeating any of his points. Just a fantastic speaker.

13. I hadn\’t watched Chris Matthews probably since the 2004 elections (I never watch Hardball or the O\’Reilly Factor or any of those goofy shows). Now I remember why. I felt like I needed to keep a towel handy with him spitting at me so much.

The second biggest story of this weekend (behind Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina, which yielded an almost Saddam Hussein-style landslide) seemed to be the flurry of endorsements granted in the last couple of days.  Desperate for anything newsworthy, national news outlets stopped just short of cutting into \”To Catch a Predator\” to announce news that (gasp!) Dick Cheney\’s daughter had endorsed Mitt Romney.

I\’m not a big believer that endorsements mean anything.  I mean, who really cares if Caroline Kennedy is voting for Barack Obama?  Who says to themself, \”well, someone who shares Dick Cheney\’s genetic material likes Romney, that should pretty much counteract the fact that he\’s switched his position on every issue that means anything to me.\”  And what\’s the deal with presidential daughters that makes them qualified to tell me who to vote for?  Should we get Jenna Bush on record?  (Breaking news: Jenna Bush endorses Beefeater gin to get your buzz on!)

They keep telling me what a big deal it is that Florida Governor Charlie Crist endorsed John McCain (Crist had previously endorsed spray-on tanning bronzer.)  All that really tells me is that McCain sent enough Facebook messages to Crist begging for his endorsement.  (Charlie Crist – You\’ve been SuperPoked!)  Honestly, who knows what kinds of deals are swung behind the scenes to garner endorsements – rarely do they have anything to do with philosophy or ideology. Let\’s just say if elected President, McCain probably won\’t have to wait long for a call from Crist asking if there might be any cabinet appointments available.

The biggest endorsement of all came when Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama.  Kennedy might actually be a big enough name to move some votes in Massachusetts – but I pity anyone who decides their vote based on the recommendation of anyone else, even if they are a Kennedy.  Also, imagine the conceit involved in offering up an endorsement – thinking that somehow you have the expertise and moral authority to tell other people how to vote.  I value the opinion of the guy who makes my sandwiches at Quizno\’s more than I do any elected official. 

——————————————————————–

This election cycle is bizarre in that campaign \”strategy\” seems to be deciding who will be the nominees.  One thing I don\’t understand is how voters tend to make up their minds on who to support based on a candidate\’s physical proximity to where they live.

Take, for example, Rudy Giuliani, whose strategy has been to focus mainly on Florida, while campaigning lightly in New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa, and South Carolina.  Who are these voters that say, \”Boy, I really like Rudy\’s leadership and conservative economic values, but I just wish he had spent a little more time near my house?\”  What does where a candidate campaigns have to do with what kind of president he (or she) will be?  In the internet age, you can get as much or as little information about candidates as you want.  It\’s not like people in South Carolina had never heard of Giuliani because he didn\’t show up there very often.  People weren\’t saying \”who is this bald man from the north coming to offer us prosperity?\”  They rejected him because he committed the sin of not kissing their behinds for a week straight.

I\’m wondering how the \”presidential proximity principle\” will be applied in the future.  For instance, Mitt Romney spent a ridiculous amount of time campaigning in Iowa.  And Iowa is only a couple hours away from where I live in Madison.  All that separates Iowa from Wisconsin is an imaginary line that makes some of us \”Iowans\” and some of us \”Wisconsinites.\”  By that standard, should I vote for Romney because he spent more time closest to where I live?  Or do I have to wait for the week of the Wisconsin primary to see who spends the most time in Wisconsin?  Is John McCain\’s stance on campaign finance reform suddenly going to become more palatable to me when he\’s waving at me driving down West Washington Avenue?

It does appear that the GOP race is narrowing to a two-man race: McCain versus Romney.  Naturally, both have significant downsides with traditional conservatives.  McCain has taken unspeakably bad positions on important issues, but he\’s most right on the issue that matters the most: the war in Iraq.  Romney has flip flopped on so many issues, it\’s hard to believe he\’s the same person that held office in Massachusetts.

The bottom line with Romney is that it\’s clear he had to take some of the liberal positions he held in order to be elected governor in a blue state.  In the end, was Massachusetts better off with Romney as governor?  Probably.  He could have remained ideologically pure, but it would have cost him his election.  For instance, I believe Romney has always been pro-life.  But he had to support abortion rights to get elected, where he could then have the power to shape policy.

Yet some of these flip-flops look terrible during the current campaign, and they could cost Romney dearly in a general election.  For conservative voters in the late-primary states, voting for Romney is like crawling back to an old girlfriend who cheated on you.  But your pathetic life has become defined by Playstation, pizza boxes, and Victoria\’s secret catalogues.  So you cross your fingers, make the call, and hope she doesn\’t do it again.

——————————————————————–

On the Democratic side, all sides involved want to make the race about things that matter the least – race and gender.  Obama loyalists are decrying the Clintons\’ use of \”racial code words\” to denigrate their candidate.

Personally, I think all the charges of racial manipulation by Team Clinton are overblown. Basically, the media had the script to this campaign written well before it even started.  It was RACE VERSUS SEX!  And now that Bill Clinton has opened up his assault on Obama, it has to be about RACE!  Somehow, Clinton calling Obama\’s position on the war a \”fairy tale\” is a RACIAL CODEWORD!  (If you don\’t find anything racially insensitive about Hillary Clinton giving LBJ credit for his work on the Civil Rights Act, then you haven\’t been properly trained in the fine art of perpetual grievance.)

Granted, Bill Clinton made the point that \”Jesse Jackson won South Carolina\” in an attempt to downplay the primary\’s significance.  But comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson isn\’t an insult because Jesse Jackson is black – it\’s an insult because Jesse Jackson is a clown.

——————————————————————–

Barack Obama\’s speech after his victory Saturday night gave me chills. He doesn\’t say anything philosphically that hasn\’t already been said, but he is a rhetorical mastermind. He uses wonderful examples, and his cadence and command of his audience are stunning.

How ironic is it that Hillary Clinton is now the victim of the same traits that her husband used to vault himself into the presidency? Obama\’s charm, good looks, and forceful speaking are the very tools Bill Clinton used to separate himself from more practical candidates like Paul Tsongas. Effectively, Obama has turned the script around on the Clintons – ironic, since nobody actually believes Hillary would be in this position without that very strategy in the first place.

One of the ironies on Obama\’s side is how he has to go out of his way to proclaim his love of Christianity and of Jesus Christ. These moments in debates seem to get lost, but they are fascinating. Obviously, the rumors of Obama\’s religious leanings are out there, so he has to make a point of giving some love to \”JC\” when he speaks. And it seems completely out of place. It\’s as if he took some time in the middle of a debate to discuss his love of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. On the other hand, when Republican candidates express their love of Jesus during debates, they are roundly mocked.

As a final word, anyone who utters the term \”Barack Hussein Obama\” is an idiot. There are no exceptions to this rule. You all know why.

(That being said, after the events of 9/11, I would have put $1,000 on the fact that someone named \”Murderer Pedophile Terrorist\” woud be elected president before someone named \”Barack Hussein Obama.\”)

With Barack Obama\’s meteoric rise topping the news these days, many people have forgotten the bizarre series of events that paved the way to his stunning ascendance. It\’s especially interesting given that some personal and minor details, thought at the time to be insignificant, could now eventually shape the world we live in – given that Obama has a realistic chance to win the presidency. In retrospect, Obama\’s presidential run was the candidacy that almost never happened.

Back in 2004, Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator with some modest accomplishments on his resume. He spearheaded welfare reform in the Illinois statehouse, and took the lead in passing a law that required interrogations in murder cases to be videotaped.

After unsuccessfully challenging strong Democratic incumbent Bobby Rush in a Congressional primary in 2000, Obama returned in 2004 to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald. Obama emerged from a crowded Democratic primary that included multi-millionaire Blair Hull, who spent $29 million of his own money in the primary alone (including paying homeowners $75 a day to keep his signs in their yards). In an 8-candidate race, Obama garnered 53% of the vote, routing his opponents.

Yet despite running away with the primary, Obama still had a formidable challenge in Republican Jack Ryan. Ryan was an impressive candidate – attractive and wealthy, with law and business degrees from Harvard. After making a fortune at Goldman Sachs, Ryan left to teach in an inner city school.

Yet Ryan had a problem – during the campaign, he was going through a messy divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, of \”Star Trek: Voyager\” fame. Details of Jeri Ryan\’s testimony contained lurid details about Ryan forcing his wife to go to sex clubs in Paris. These details were toxic to Jack Ryan\’s campaign, and he saw his poll numbers plummet – eventually, Republican leaders pressed Ryan to quit the race, fearing he was toxic to the statewide ticket.

Eventually, Ryan bowed out, leaving the Illinois Republican Party to find a candidate to run against Obama. This led to the national embarrassment of Alan Keyes moving to Illinois to run. Naturally, Obama won 70%-27%, buoyed by his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

The rest is history. Certainly, Obama deserves all the credit for the way he has excited Democratic crowds around the country – leading to his rout of Hillary Clinton in Iowa. And he may have beaten Jack Ryan on his own. But it\’s fascinating to think that the salacious testimony of a woman scorned could one day fundamentally alter the path of the world in which we live. Without it, Barack Obama could still be sitting in the Illinois statehouse, planning his next political move.

***

UPDATE: Charlie Sykes discussed this post today on the air.  Listen to it here.

Neil Heinen has his metaphorical undies in a bunch because he believes the Wisconsin Legislature has sat on its hands for the last year. In a tortured attempt to shoehorn this point into a Christmas theme, he says:

These lawmakers saw the upcoming elections under the tree, all wrapped up with a card that said \”To Help You Get What You Really Want Next Year — Re-Election.\” Inside the box were instructions to avoid enacting a statewide smoking ban, avoid extending health care to all and above all avoid reforming campaigns and elections. So exchanges are in order. Return to sender and the maybe jump right into New Year\’s resolutions like \”Do what\’s best for the citizens of this state, do what we were elected to do, act like public servants, and justify the public\’s trust in us.\”

Basically, the Legislature has been ineffective because they didn\’t enact all the nutty left wing BS he favors.

Perhaps he is unaware that the Senate\’s attempt at cramming a $15.2 billion government-run health plan into the budget jammed up the Legislature for months. Thus, the \”health care to all\” which he so craves actually caused a great deal of the inaction which he criticizes.

Furthermore, Heinen just naturally assumes that all of these initiatives he espouses are just \”no-brainers.\” Taking away a citizen\’s individual freedom to smoke just makes sense, right? Why can\’t Wisconsin enact a health plan that will cost low income workers jobs and drive business out of state? Shouldn\’t we be in a rush to spend taxpayer money on campaigns and enact laws silencing citizens who want to have a say in the political process? What gives?

Laughably, he blames all this \”inaction\” on the fact that there\’s an election coming up in 2008. (Hope he has this same script ready for 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, etc.) It\’s an assertion without any foundation in reality. Are we to believe that Senate Democrats, in inserting their bogus \”Healthy Wisconsin\” plan into the budget with one day\’s notice, weren\’t doing so with an eye towards the next election? Are the only ones being political the ones that opposed throwing out the state\’s entire health care infrastructure with about 8 hours\’ notice?

Furthermore, he thinks the inability of the Legislature to do the work of the \”public\” is the result of… elections?  (For astute political observers, \”elections\” are the process by which \”the public\” actually gets to tell government what they want.)  Apparently, the public can\’t be trusted to vote for legislators who do the work of the public.  Ironically, universal health care is only a vibrant issue right now because Democrats think it\’s what the public wants – and they plan to exploit that fact in the upcoming elections.  Without voting (commonly known as \”democracy,\”) legislators wouldn\’t give a damn what \”the people\” have to say.  So what\’s the alternative to elections?  Neil Heinen gets to pick our leaders until they agree to double the state\’s tax burden? (In the name of \”the public,\” of course.)

I recognize that spending this much time deconstructing a Neil Heinen editorial is about as constructive as a college student who gets high and pens a 10-page paper on \”The Epistemology of Winnie The Pooh.\”  But this is just indicative of the fraud that continues to be local television news. Basically, all you need is a handful of talking points, and your career is set for a decade – it doesn\’t really matter if they\’re all contradictory.

This week George Will offers the counterpoint to this nonsense, as he lauds the \”Do-Nothing Congress.\”

During presidential campaigns, accusations are flying around so fast it helps to go back and examine the basis for many of the charges you hear. As Mike Huckabee surges in the presidential polls, I thought it would be instructive to go back and look at what the people of Arkansas thought of him as governor.

Huckabee\’s biography in the 2006 Almanac of American Politics pretty much says it all.  In fact, it\’s one of the more negative biographies you\’ll find – with some amazing stuff:

Huckabee started making astonishing mistakes; his job rating plummeted from 70% to 50%. Huckabee had a penchant for granting pardons; one felon he paroled in 1996 committed a murder in Missouri. In July 2001, he commuted the sentence of the stepson of an administrative aide in the governor\’s office whose criminal record went back to 1972. In June 2002, he fired the head of the AASIS (Arkansas Administrative Statewide Information System) project, who promptly told reporters he and other employees had been pressured for campaign contributions and that Huckabee had tried to stifle news of cost overruns–nearly 100%–during the election year. Huckabee also had been in the practice of receiving large gifts; he reported a total of $112,000 in 1999, which included $23,000 in clothes from one state appointee. Huckabee responded–in an election year!–with a lawsuit to allow him to receive more gifts and another lawsuit to stop the state ethics commission from investigating him.

Another self-inflicted wound came in March 2002, when Huckabee\’s wife announced she was running for secretary of state. Janet Huckabee was known for her daredevil antics–bungee jumping, skydiving, jet skiing, kayaking–and for her oversight of the two-year renovation of the Governor\’s Mansion, a time when the Huckabees lived in a triple-wide on the mansion grounds. She insisted on a 24-hour state police detail while campaigning across the state; when that was challenged, she at first said she had no control over it, then promised to pay the cost, then said she would pay only up to $500. Meanwhile, Jimmie Lou Fisher, with teachers\’ union support, called for spending $133 million more for education; she said she would find the money from waste, fraud and abuse, or perhaps from a lottery (though she opposed one). She got more mileage by attacking AASIS and criticizing Huckabee\’s grants of clemency and acceptance of gifts. Mike Huckabee won by only 53%-47%, while Janet Huckabee lost 62%-38%. Huckabee called the campaign \”a kidney stone that takes six months to pass.\”

[…]

In January 2004 the state Supreme Court hired two former justices as special masters to redesign school finance if the legislature failed to act; consultants had already proposed an $847 million increase to the $1.7 billion state education budget. In February 2004 the House approved a $377 million sales tax increase, with consolidation of districts with less than 350 pupils; Huckabee let it become law without his signature. Criticized for supporting the largest tax increase in Arkansas history, Huckabee said, \”Pure conservatism means lean and responsible government, not mean and irresponsible government.\”

[…]

Huckabee made news in other ways. Diagnosed with Type II diabetes in 2003, he lost some 110 pounds over the next year or so. He quit eating fried foods and sweets and started exercising regularly; he showed his progress by toting a 90-pound girl around a school gym. In May 2004 he started a Healthy Arkansas initiative, to discourage bad eating habits and smoking; no smoking was allowed within 25 feet of state buildings, and the state started paying for nicotine patches. Parents were given children\’s health report cards. He started a Get Five fruits and vegetables a day initiative and eschewed an old favorite, fried Twinkies. Huckabee said he wanted government to \”model healthy behavior,\” but he still opposed a ban on smoking in restaurants.

What?  His wife ran for statewide office and went negative on her husband to pick up votes?  This sounds more like an episode of \”The Beverly Hillbillies\” than a presidential campaign.

Which really is too bad – people looking for a viable alternative to the GOP presidential frontrunners thought they had one in the likeable Huckabee.  Unfortunately, despite his new devotion to physical fitness, he may not be able to outrun his Arkansas past.

According to this New York Times article, African-American women are having trouble deciding which meaningless characteristic means more to them in a presidential candidate: race or sex.

When reading the article, one expects interviews with black women who can\’t decide whether Barack Obama\’s race or Hillary Clinton\’s sex makes more of a difference when deciding which candidate to support.  In fact, hairdresser Clara Vereen, the star of the article, actually gives reasons why not to support each:

Part of being real, said Ms. Vereen, whom everyone calls Miss Clara, is worrying that a black president would not be safe.

“I fear that they just would kill him, that he wouldn’t even have a chance,” she said as she styled a customer’s hair with a curling iron. One way to protect him, she suggested, would be not to vote for him.

I wouldn\’t even begin to try to explain the African-American community\’s feelings toward Obama – but this seems bizarre.  The best way to protect his life would be to refuse to vote for him?  In a way, this is ridiculous – but on the other hand, it unmasks the deep distrust of whites that still boils below the surface in the South.  How is Obama supposed to pick up traction if blacks either don\’t believe white Americans will vote for an African-American, or that they will kill him if he\’s elected? 

Clara says about Hillary Clinton:

“We always love Hillary because we love her husband,” Ms. Vereen said. Then she paused. Much of the chitchat in her shop is about whether a woman could or should be president.

“A man is supposed to be the head,” she said. “I feel like the Lord has put man first, and I believe in the Bible.”

So rather than being an article about how the positive aspects of sex and race might pull black female voters in certain directions, it actually exposes the fact that gender and color might actually work against both candidates in some aspects.  It was probably a surprise to the New York Times that many of the women to whom they spoke didn\’t fall into a neat category, as the headline suggested.

The underlying theme of the article, I think, is the unexpected complexity voters have in their attitudes towards candidates.  It\’s not a case of \”I\’m voting for Obama because he\’s black\” or \”I\’m voting for Hillary because she\’s a woman.\”  There are reasons – no matter how unrealistic – that people support candidates, and they don\’t necessarily conform to traditional views of identity politics.