Something you can do to help Iraq

Read the Hitchens article here. And send books to:


Nathan Musselman
The American University of Iraq—Sulaimani
Building No. 7, Street 10
Quarter 410
Ablakh AreaSulaimani, Iraq
(+964) (0)770-461-5099

It's important to include the number at the end.

Must Read "Slate" Article on "Africa's Worst Dictator"

I found a very interesting article on Slate.com today (it was posted nearly a week ago) that argues that the (now) infamous Robert Mugabe is not the worst African dictator. Check out the article here.

While the article is quite persuasive, especially as to the American role in propping up Obiang, it raises the more important question: What is our Africa policy? And, why are we allowing Africa to be overrun and controlled by such vicious dictators? I thought that our policy under Bush was that we were going to promote democracy . . . across the globe.

I am not arguing that we should inculcate ourself in every single mess throughout the world. And perhaps it is perfectly rationale to only pick the fights where we have a sustained economic interest. It just seems that, with everything that is going on in Africa today--Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Rwanda (yes, still), we ought to be doing something more. If only to protect our investment in providing drugs for the treatment of malaria and HIV. If only to make those efforts a little more worthwhile. Isn't there SOMETHING we can do? Because Africa is not just a democracy crisis. We are not just dealing with these disgusting dictators. We are dealing with a public health crisis with its heart on the African continent.

Maybe we are doing all that we can do. But something tells me that is not quite right. Something tells me that there is something else we can do, and that we ought to do it--sooner rather than later.

A Blind Squirrel and Bush . . .

In yesterday’s NYTIMES, David Brooks made what appears to be the strongest argument on behalf of the Bush presidency, and Iraq policy in particular. (Though, strong is hardly a word for it.) The argument is that Bush, in his infinite stubbornness went to war in Iraq. His stubbornness frustrated the “purpose” of the war and created a mess. He kept approaching Iraq with the same stubbornness when it came to the “surge.” All of his military advisers and his Secretary of State thought that the surge was a bad idea, yet Bush, stubbornly went ahead with the plan. In Brooks’ words:

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.

Brooks may be well impressed with Bush’s stubborn decision and his willingness to keep pushing the same button, or keep filling in the same oval. His whole argument however, seems to break down to a long explanation of the old saw that, “even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in awhile.”

Yes, Brooks is correct that in politics and throughout history, no one side is right all of the time. However, I don’t think it is too much to ask of an American president that they try and find the right answer. Bush is the guy who sits down to the standardized test and answers “C” on every question. And sometimes he is “correct.” But this isn’t the approach I want from my politicians. I want someone who THINKS and recognizes that sometimes the answer is “C” and sometimes the answer is “A”, “B” or “D” and that all options ought to be, at the very least, considered. Some appreciation of nuance would be nice. The president that always answers “C” is the president that fails.

Tuesday Rant on the Headlines . . .

There are numerous things in the news today that are bothering me, so if you don't mind I am just going to rant a little.

• First, is the uproar over McCain advicer Charlie Black's comments suggesting that if a terrorist attack were to occur between now and the election, it would help John McCain politically. Predictably, this comment has drawn outrage from Barack Obama and strong chastisement from John McCain. But this was absolutely planned by the McCain campaign, this was not a gaffe, this was not a moment of accidental honesty (and it IS honesty) on Charlie Black's part. The McCain and Obama camps know equally that if there were another terrorist attack between now and the election, that it would turn some voters to the more "experienced" candidate in John McCain. McCain has consistently polled a little bit better than Obama on the issue of national security. This is no surprise. The outrage of Obama and the rebuke of McCain was also factored in by the McCain campaign as the "cost of doing business." These were merely transaction costs in an effort to get the issue of a possible terror attack back in the headlines and back into the minds of the American people.
• Next up is the new Don Imus fiasco. I don't listen to Don Imus and I really don't care what he says. That being said, I think it was wrong that he was fired over his Rutgers comments. The comments were, if not plainly, then really close to the line of plainly, racist. They were inexcusable. But, I was under the impression that, in this country, you were allowed to express repugnant thoughts. He even apologized, which okay, maybe you don't want to take him at his word, but he DID apologize and he has paid a price for his comments, a price that was, in my mind, too high. Now, there are new suggestions of Don Imus' racism based on comments he made about the reputed NFL thug, Pacman Jones, being black. Okay, sure there is a whiff of racism when he says that he wasn't surprised to hear that Jones was black. And, it strikes me as a little disingenuous when he starts backpedaling and saying that he said he wasn't surprised because he was suggesting that the cops pick on black people. He then went on to say that the cops arrested Pacman 6 times because they were picking on him because he was black. And Al Sharpton says he hopes Imus means it. 1) Who cares what Al Sharpton hopes or thinks or says more than any other person? (How is it that treating one or two men as the spokesmen for black America is not more perjorative, demeaning and racist than what Imus spews?) 2) Pacman Jones is a thug and he has been arrested so many times because he has behaved in a way that was, shall we say, below reproach? I am not naive enough to suggest that somewhere along the line, his being black, played NO role, but I am suggesting it was not a predominant role. 3) Don Imus is what he is. If you think he is racist, then so be it. Treat him like the ignorant individual you believe him to be and don't listen to him and don't report on him. You ARE allowed to be publicly wrong, racist and ignorant in this country. But, in the words of someone wise, who, quite honestly I forget, the answer to repugnant or "bad" speech is not to shut the speaker down; the answer is MORE speech, by MORE people.
• In the most "gag-me" campaign news I have ever heard, the report came out today that Obama and Hillary will make their first campaign stop together in Unity, New Hampshire, a town where they split the primary 107-107. I am quite sure that there are some people out there who think this is "neato," "cute" or "endearing." I happen to think this is absolutely obnoxious. Instead of cynically pandering to the naive and stupid, those seeking a sign, or a charming anecdote, as this clearly does, why doesn't the Obama campaign make Hillary join him in someplace where he actually needs her, like Florida, or perhaps maybe West Virginia where Hillary trounced him by 41% in a state Democrats CAN win? This is just stupid and only appeals to wild-eyed mush-brains.
• Finally, Focus on the Family's James Dobson is taking on Obama over his interpretation of scripture. Dobson says of Obama, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." Well said James, and perhaps you are right. But isn't that the point Obama was trying to make? That you can in fact take scripture and twist it to fit your own worldview or "confused theology?" Wasn't this Obama's point and isn't this what you have been doing for years? The idea that the Bible speaks out both (or multiple) sides of its "mouth" is neither new, nor surprising, but it underlines a basic point: USING the Bible to ones political advantage is astoundingly moronic. OF COURSE, you can find a scripture passage that "backs up" or "supports" your belief/opinion, but, for the most part, these provisions are contradicted or made ridiculous elsewhere in the Bible (both Old and New Testament) by another passage. This last point was made with typical poignancy in this clip from "The West Wing."

My Hero Tim

I've been wanting to write something over the past several days since the passing of Tim Russert. But everything I wanted to say, seemed to be trite and inconsequential in any scheme of things, whether grand or small. I have watched the voluminous news coverage on NBC and MSNBC and have read about a dozen articles about Tim. Most of the stories have been light hearted and interesting and most have been confirmational of the sense that you always got from watching him.

I wanted to write about him because he was (and is) a hero to me. Why? Because he was one of the guys that worked his tail off and rose to the top. He did so without the benefit of an Ivy League education and the connections that provides. Instead, he proved himself in the crucible of Washington politics to be above "the rest."

I wrote last week in my post about Tiger and Phil, that I love watching genius at work. I love watching people who are the best at what they do. Tim Russert was the best at what he did and I loved watching him.

All of these things make him my hero. All of these are reasons why I watched him nearly every Sunday for the past 4 years. If I knew I was going to miss it, I dvr'd it, or made sure to catch a repeat. For me, watching Tim was appointment television. I hardly ever even referred to the show as "Meet the Press." Rather, I called it "Russert." He was the show and he was politics for me.

I don't think that Meet the Press will ever be the same. I don't know if it will ever be as good. I know that I will keep watching though. With this brilliant election season, how could I not?

I am not afraid to admit that I have shed a few tears over Tim's passing. It is very emotional to see his friends and his family remember him. It is very emotional to hear them say that the guy we saw on T.V. was the real guy. And so, while some may say that the coverage and eulogizing of Tim has been too much, it was just the right amount for me. I have never felt this way before. I have never felt loss from a distance, or shed a tear over someone I have never met. I have never grieved so remotely. To see and hear of others grieving so, comforted me. So for me, the coverage, the remembrances and the tears were in a word: perfect.

"If it's Sunday, it's "Meet the Press."" God Bless You Tim!

Interesting take on Muslims and Obama

Here is an interesting piece from the Detroit Free Press on what Rochelle Riley thinks is the real issue with Obama volunteers asking the two Detroit area women in hijabs not to sit in the front row.

The bigger story is that hateful extremists who used to exist on the fringe of society are now taking over and too much is being done to appease them instead of ignore them.

The news media who worry that the hate-mongers will accuse them of being too kind to Obama have spent as much time on the volunteer's misguided actions as they have on what the candidates will do about the economy.

I hate hippies . . .

I hate hippies almost as much as I hate fascists. This story brings them both together. Oh, and I love the First Amendment too so, this shit is dumb to me. Pun intended!

Ew!

Weird Story

This is a good reader participation exercise. Here is a story from CNN.com.

The topic sentence of the story says it all: "A severed foot -- the sixth this year -- washed up on the shore of a Canadian island on Wednesday, police said."

Reader participation! I want to hear your narratives or your story to "explain" the severed feet washing up on the Pacific Northwest shore. This should be fun.

Great Sports Story!

This is a cool sports story- check it out!

Paris for Obama

According to Maureen Dowd of the NYTIMES, Paris has already decided thew election for Obama.

In the French imagination, Barack Obama is already the president.

To the French, the Democratic primary was the general election.

The word “elite” is not a pejorative here; it’s a compliment. It does not occur to Parisians that Americans will choose the old, white-haired one if they can have the cool, skinny one with the Ray-Bans, John le Carré novels, chic wife and secret cigarettes.

Full Column

Will on McCain

In an excellent OP-ED in today's Washington Post, George Will takes McCain to task for his apparent disdain for constitutional rights, such as the right of habeas corpus. Read the article here.

Some highlights:

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America's democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.

The Role of Sexism in the 2008 Democratic Primary

Brief Note: I have been truant the last couple of days for a few reasons. Thursday, I was unmotivated to post anything on the blog, Friday, we had a power outage in downtown D.C. so there was no work and I was home "studying" for the VA Bar Exam and watching the U.S. Open Golf tournament. And today, I am posting late because for most of the day, my internet connection at work has been down and when it came back up, I was mostly focused on the playoff in the U.S. Open. But I am back, and will shortly have a post up about my hero Tim Russert. My first post however, is about sexism. Enjoy.

Over the last week, since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, there has been a lot of talk about the role of sexism in Hillary's losing campaign. Initially, I downplayed the role of sexism, due to my belief that Hillary is not a great "test balloon" for the proposition of whether a woman can win a major party nomination and the presidency.

I am still of the belief that, notwithstanding sexism, Hillary would not have won the nomination and would not have won the presidency in this election for a myriad of reason. First amongst these reasons, and perhaps the only one that really matters is that on the most fundamentally important issue of our day and age- the Iraq war- she was on the wrong side of history. This is not a slam against Hillary, it is merely stating a fact.

Would Obama have voted against giving the President authorization to invade Iraq had he been in the Senate? My guess is no, but that is entirely beside the point. He was on the record as being against the war or authorization for the war at the time that it mattered and therefore it matters very little that he was not in the U.S. Senate and did not have a vote. Perhaps he would have voted against it. But my guess is that things appear quite differently when one is sitting in those hallowed Senate chambers and that the difference makes it easier to stand on the outside and be against the authorization of the war. It requires far less courage to make that stand outside of the Senate than it does within and Obama has seldom shown that kind of courage. No one can really point to an example of him standing up and voting for or against something extremely popular. This is not a slam on Obama either, it is merely my attempt to put it in some perspective. My overall point being--Hillary was on the wrong side of history and had more of a record to run against (the reason why, until this year, no Senator had won the presidency since Kennedy in 1960). I think this explains Hillary's loss better than "sexism."

Yet, the issue of sexism is the topic of two excellent articles from two writers I respect, taking very different views. I would encourage you to check them out.

Here is Nicholas Kristoff"s article in the NYTIMES from last Thursday.

And, here is Christopher Hitchens' article on Slate.com from today.

I am interested to hear your opinion on the issue. I think that it is too complicated to simply jump to one conclusion or the other, and I think there is a strong critique to be made of both of these articles. Ultimately, I think Kristoff has the better of the arguments, although his fails to hammer home the difference between a subtle bias and outright sexism. I do believe there is a meaningful difference. But Hitchens does well to raise the substantive critique of the uniqueness of Hillary Clinton as a woman candidate for president.

It is a worthwhile discussion, to which there is no easy answer. It is an issue that we will likely continue to grapple with until there is a woman president. Even then, this may not decisively end the issue, but lets hope we can meet back soon to discuss THAT question.

Tiger and Phil (A Post for Josh Terebelo)

If you have no idea what the title of this post is about, you are probably not going to be at all interested in the link I am posting.

Here is that link. A nice little ESPN The Magazine, Rick Reilly essay imploring viewers of Thursday and Friday's U.S. Open head-to-head between Tiger and Phil to cheer for Phil. Reilly argues that you must choose, to not choose he says, is "unamerican."

Here are some samples:

Rooting for Tiger Woods is like rooting for Justin Timberlake to get lucky, Exxon to hit a gusher, Bill Gates to find a twenty on the sidewalk. It takes no imagination. It takes no courage. What's the point? It's 1-to-5 he's going to win anyway, whether you cheer or not. Makes no difference to him. It's like rooting for erosion.

Rooting for Phil Mickelson, on the other hand, is like rooting for the salmon to eat the bear. It takes faith. It takes forgiveness. It takes Tums. Mickelson is a roller coaster in an earthquake. One shot will be so inspired you'll cover your mouth in astonishment. The next will be so Spam-brained you'll slap your forehead in disbelief. It's like watching a blind guy jaywalk across Hollywood and Vine. Your fist is in your mouth the whole way.

Here's how to tell them apart: Woods has the Joe Weider body, the Iron Byron swing, the Green Beret mind. Mickelson's body leans toward Sara Lee. He's carried two drivers—one for hooks and one for slices—but none for straights. He can get it up and down out of an ice cream cart, which is a good thing, because he's there a lot. He might be the only athlete whose catch phrase is, "I'm such an idiot!"

Besides, rooting for Phil is so much more interesting. Tiger's in the fairway. Phil's in a lady's Prada! Tiger's on the green. Phil is banking it off a pine, a boulder and a San-o-let! Tiger makes a 2-footer for a what-else-is-new 4. Phil makes a seagoing 30-footer for a did-you-see-that 4! It's the difference between watching Dow Jones and Indiana Jones.

Look, Tiger needs this major like Yao needs stilts. There'll be a dozen more after this. He doesn't need to prove he's better than Phil. We know. Not counting Stableford or match-play tournaments, these two have entered 157 pro tournaments together. Tiger is 104-50-3 against him. That's not a rivalry. That's avalanche versus twig. That's more one-sided than a Venezuelan election.

My Take: I get what Reilly is saying and it's compelling. I love watching both of these golfers. It is hard not too root for Tiger though, because you frequently see him pull off such amazing shots that you feel you're watching poetry. Phil is the everyday man with a surreal skill set of his own. I like his personality more and find him more accessible and engaging and I wish him well. Given this, who am I going to root for? I still have to go with Tiger, because to me, watching him golf is like watching Bill Clinton give a campaign speech in 1992. It is pure genius and there is something compelling, even better than a good story line, about watching someone who is the best at what they do go out and simply do that. It's like watching Jordan or Gretzky back in the day, only better. Like most people, I will probably always have a softspot in my heart for the guy whose meltdown at Winged Foot in 2006 led to memorable T.V. lines, such as Ari's Temple rant ("I'm melting down like Phil Mickelson at Winged Foot!!!") on "Entourage." However, when push comes to shove between the softspot and my desire to watch pure genius at work, I have to go with genius.

Vetting Vettors? The Garbage has Begun Early!

Silly season is upon us! Jim Johnson, a long-time Democratic V.P. "vetter" has resigned from the Obama campaign where he was serving as an unpaid adviser. Read about it here.

This is nonsense. First off, the Wall Street Journal article has neither meat nor force of fact behind its story. Second, even if the worst of these rumors were true (not terribly worrisome to begin with), who cares? He is a volunteer adviser, vetting the V.P. candidates, not serving in a government position himself. Really? He has to quit a volunteer position because of rumors of (slightly less than) nerfarious behavior?

This is stupid. This is garbage.

Debt, Unemployment and the Growing American Inequities

Yesterday, the two NYTIMES Op-Eds could not have been more relevant to one another. Both columns, by David Brooks and Bob Herbert, were excellent examinations of the growing plight of many Americans. A plight that is not easily fixable and therefore, not readily addressed by either presumptive nominees for the major parties. Please take a moment to check out these articles, they are well worth the read.

Out of Sight
B. Herbert

The Great Seduction
D. Brooks

The Obama Questions . . .

I think that most cannot doubt the political skills displayed by Obama and his campaign throughout the Democratic primary. Even the most cynical and conservative of his critics admit that he has run an astounding campaign and has demonstrated a broad, powerful and deeply intuitive political acumen. The reason people reserve judgment or question Obama is because they just don't know, or don't trust how good he will actually be with policy. To be fair, many of these same concerns can be raised about John McCain as well, who, despite his years on Obama, has very little more in the way of experience in the implementation of policy.

But there are questions and much speculation as to what kind of real, substantive policies Obama supports and how will he implement them. The most important area right now, and the one to which Obama has first turned his attention to is economics. Howard Fineman, in this piece for MSNBC looks into Obama's economic plan he calls "Obamanomics." Some short samples:

In terms of policy, he is not looking to do the unexpected, or the radically new. He made an unspoken calculation long ago: that he, himself, is change enough.

I just listened to the debut of his newly bulked-up economic team during one of those wonkish conference calls for reporters.

And I have to say, if sweeping change is what Obama is all about, I didn’t hear it on that call.
Obama’s advisors were intent on labeling McCain’s economic ideas as more of the same, rather than touting the newness of their own vision.

Here’s Obama’s new crisis management answer:

• $50 billion to unemployment insurance and to states for serving the needy and unemployed.
  
• $10 billion fund to prevent foreclosures.
  
• New “tax relief for ordinary Americans” – that is, those families which earn less than $150,000 per year – with up to $1,000 per family in direct payments.
  
• A recently proposed windfall profits tax for big oil companies
  

If the economy is heading as deep into the tank as some economists think (even, evidently, some of Obama’s), then the plan he announced Monday is little more than a bandage.

Check out the full article HERE

Hitchens on Zimbabwe

Here is a very interesting article with Hitchens taking on Nelson Mandela and the Catholic Church for their lack of condemnation of Robert Mugabe's most-recent crack down.

O-H I-O!!!! (Apparently spelling really IS a challenge for them!)

You probably have heard about this news story from Westlake Ohio (taken from MGoBlog):

A Cleveland-area principal says he's embarrassed his students got proof of their "educaiton" on their high school diplomas.

Westlake High School officials misspelled "education" on the diplomas distributed last weekend. It's been the subject of mockery on local radio.

Now, it is no secret, or shouldn't be, that this blog is no friend of the "state" of Ohio. The reasons why are too numerous to list here. But suffice it to say, this Michigander has not gotten past the Toledo War or, The Ten Year War for that matter.

Stories like the one above make me feel vindicated in my irrational hatred of all things Ohio, Columbus, the community college in Columbus they have the balls to call a "state" university and the football team from the aforementioned community college that functions far more similarly to a halfway house from high school to the state pen, than as a beacon of amateur athletics and intercollegiate competition. (See, Maurice Clarett, Exhibit 1)

Baghdad, D.C.

The news came out today, that to counteract major violence in our capitol's 5th Police District, Mayor Adrian Fenty has signed an Executive Order allowing for a police lockdown and roadblocks of certain parts of that district, known as the Trinidad neighborhood. Read about it here and here.

There are many aspects of this that are troubling to me. First and foremost amongst them are the apparent inconsistencies with the Constitution. The Washington Post article references a similar lockdown in the Bronx in 1992 that survived legal challenges, leading the 2nd Circuit to hold that it "served an important public concern" and was "reasonably viewed as an effective mechanism to deter crime in the barricaded area." This seems more like a court applying the law to the immediate facts without any deference to constitutional standards.

The standard for pulling over a car, or "arresting" (in the most literal sense of restricting someone's movement) is reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior. This principle comes from Terry v. Ohio a 1968 case, and Michigan v. Long (as applicable to vehicle "frisks") a 1983 case, which the Supreme Court still upholds as good law. Surely, Mayor Fenty and the police commissioner cannot rationally argue that the police have reasonable suspicion to stop everyone entering this neighborhood.

On top of the constitutional issues, there is also the issue of police-community relations. This is not a good way for the police to build up their trust within the community, a trust that they need to build and maintain to curb the violence and promote an atmosphere where people aren't afraid to report violence and drugs. The heavy-handed maneuver that D.C. has chosen puts an entire new dynamic into the mix. The dynamic is race-relations, power struggles and roughly analogous situation to the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Many people today are most shocked by the fact that Mayor Fenty has signed off on this program. I for one am not. Mayor's of large cities face a strong dynamic force because they are there, on the ground, facing the pressure every day. Political theories and platforms of all kinds break down when it comes to facing real world challenges. Nowhere is this truer than for a mayor of a large city, especially one with a booming violent crime rate where everyone is turning to you to fix it. And of course you can't fix it, because you can't communicate directly to the perpetrators- and even if you could, they wouldn't all listen. So you do something, anything, and you run it by your lawyers- they give you the go ahead and you run with it, because in politics, the perception that you are doing nothing is far more deadly than the perception that you are doing something unconstitutional. And voters, who are afraid for their lives, are far less likely to question actions that threaten the constitution when their lives and safety are at risk. Therefore, the cost of inaction is much higher to a politician in this instance, than say, the cost of unconstitutional action.

I am not suggesting that this common dynamic is an excuse for Mayor Fenty, but merely an explanation of the forces that drive one to such action. It is precisely because it is easier to go down this path with the heavy hand, as opposed to going in, establishing relationships and working with the community, that we need community groups and local and national legal groups to raise up a challenge to such action.

What D.C. is doing is sad, if not at all surprising. Where once our nation was pictured as the "shining city on the hill, " our capitol is now pushing the line of martial law and a police state mentality. Sure, this one step may be a ways off from that line. But it is one step in the wrong direction and our "city on the hill" is certainly not shining today.

Pound-it-out!

THIS IS AWESOME! As Slate.com points out, what is even better is the press reaction!

The presidential campaign—well, one in particular—has introduced a new greeting to the political world: the fist pound (also known as daps). Last night, we saw perhaps the most high-profile pound of all time, as Michelle and Barack Obama bumped fists on national television before he took the stage.

What’s hilarious is watching the formal, AP Stylebook-loving media trying to figure out what to call it.

In an article about Obama’s body man Reggie Love, the New York Times called Love’s preferred greeting a “

closed-fisted high-five.” Last night produced other assorted references:

“Taking a fist-pound from wife Michelle, Obama stepped to the podium Tuesday”—MTV.com

“Michelle Obama gives her husband, Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Senator Barack Obama, a knuckle-bump as a sign of support before he speaks to supporters.”—Monsters and Critics

“At 09:09:27 Central Time, Michelle Obama gave Barack Obama a pound in St. Paul, Minnesota.”—Lola New York

“I never realized how romantic and respectful and mutually appreciative and loving a frat-tastic fist bump could be. Could it be the new peck-on-the-cheek?”—The Frisky

“... Obama, who was joined on stage by his wife Michelle, with whom he shared a celebratory fist-bump.”—Reuters

“Obama, began with a loving fist to fist thumbs up with Michelle.”—Capitol Hill Blue

“Michelle is not as ‘refined’ as Obama at hiding her TRUE feelings about America—etc. Her

‘Hezbollah’ style fist-jabbing ...”—Human Events

“I loved that moment, when they touched their hands together like that.” --Commenter, bjkeefe

I just cannot wait for the Obama's to go all national television with mine and my girlfriend's favorite- the EXPLODING "fist-bump" "close-fisted high-five" "touch of our hands together like that!"

The Popular Vote

Finally, the Democratic Party has a nominee. It is a momentous occasion to have a major party nominate an African American. I am extraordinarily happy with the nomination of Barack Obama. But this is not my concern today. My concern is with the claim by the Clinton campaign that they won the popular vote. Obviously, this doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but the claim is bothering me today.

I am no mathematician but the popular vote numbers MSNBC was running at the beginning of last night showed Clinton with roughly a 3,000 vote lead in the popular vote. She then proceeded to win South Dakota by a little more than 10,000 votes. Obama then won Montana by roughly 28,000 votes, which would seem to have erased any lead that Clinton had and given it to Obama.

I listened to all of the news reports this morning, along with reading most of the stories about last night's historic events and I have not seen anyone question the Clinton claim that they won the popular vote, or the claim that Hillary made in her speech that she had won more primary votes than anyone in history.

All of these claims by the Clinton campaign are accurate, IF you use some clever math. First you have to count Michigan, but ONLY her votes in Michigan. Obama would have to get nothing from the Michigan vote. This is dubious at best. It is dubious at best to even COUNT Michigan in these numbers, yet she insists on this clever math to claim her popular vote lead. Then, you have to factor in that no vote totals were released by Iowa, Nevada, Maine or Washington (3 of 4 were won by Obama). Real Clear Politics (where most of these numbers come from) shows that if you count Michigan ONLY for Clinton with nothing for Obama and combined estimates from the above 4 caucus states, Clinton wins the popular vote 18,045,829 - 17,869,419 or 47.9% - 47.4%.

However, if you combine the estimates from the caucus states with Michigan with "uncommitted" going to Obama (which is also a problem since he did not win ALL of the "uncommitted" votes) Obama wins the popular vote 18,107,587, 48.1% - 18,045,829 47.9%. If you scrap Michigan altogether, as is probably the best measure and you don't include the caucus states, Obama wins the popular vote. Even if you include the caucus states, Obama wins the popular vote.

The ONLY way Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote is if Michigan is only counted for her. Or, if Michigan is counted for her and the caucus states are not counted at all. Surely, these numbers in no way suggest that the Clinton campaign should be running around, pounding their fists and demanding a V.P. slot, especially when any claim to winning the popular vote is clever and dubious at best.

The BIG Story

For many, the big news of today is that the Associated Press is declaring that Obama has officially gained enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination fight over Hillary. And they may be right, even if it is kind of old news. Apparently, Hillary is going to concede that Obama has the number of delegates to secure the nomination, but she is not going to concede the race or drop out. How does this make sense in a system where Hillary's campaign is on the record many times saying "delegates nominate?" It doesn't. It's stupid. And you can read about it here and here.

What I think is the big story is the Vanity Fair article on our former President Bill Clinton. I read the article yesterday (which you can find here) and was struck by the fantastic nature of the story. I know the Bill Clinton has led a life straight from a fairy tale, but this article is so fantastic that it became harder and harder to believe. And then I went back over it and noticed that there was not a single, named source. Again, I know that the Clintons are powerful and people are afraid of their retribution, but to print a scathing critique of a former President, wherein no one is willing to stand up and put their name behind it is weak.

Slate.com tries to deconstruct the Bill Clinton's critique of the article here. They fail to do so with any insight because they focus on the fact that Bill Clinton just all in all lashes out at the writer and Vanity Fair itself.

This critique, while seemingly getting the point, misses the simple point, and the simple point is this. The piece is garbage journalism befitting a tabloid writer and quite glaringly lacks the credibility one might expect from the husband of Clinton's former Press Secretary.

Disgust . . .

This is the only way I can describe my reaction to THIS story.

The United States is operating "floating prisons" to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained. . . .

"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001.

If true, and at this point, who can honestly doubt the veracity of these reports, this is plain and simple --disgusting and gut-wrenching to see our nation actively engaging in this kind of behavior. It is shameful.

Christopher Hitchens

His Slate.com article today compares Doug Feith's tell-all with McClellan's. Here are some quick hits from the article:

(On McClellan) I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar.

Bertrand Russell's principle of evidence against interest—if the pope has doubts about Jesus, his doubts are by definition more newsworthy than the next person's—doesn't really justify the ocean of coverage in which the talentless McClellan is currently so far out of his depth. For one thing, he doesn't supply anything that can really be called evidence. For another, having not noticed any "propaganda machine" at the time he was perspiring his way through his simple job, he has a clear mercenary interest in discovering one in retrospect.

(On Feith) Without explicitly saying so, Feith makes a huge contribution to the growing case for considering the Central Intelligence Agency to be well beyond salvage. Its role as a highly politicized and bewilderingly incompetent body, disastrous enough in having left us under open skies before Sept. 11, 2001, became something more like catastrophic with the gross mishandling of Iraq. For these revelations alone, this book is well worth the acquisition. (I might add that, unlike McClellan, Feith is contributing all his earnings and royalties to charities that care for our men and women in uniform.)

I don't know Feith, but I can pay him two further compliments: When you read him on a detail with which you yourself are familiar, he is factually reliable (and it's not often that one can say that, believe me). And his prose style is easy, nonbureaucratic, dry, and sometimes amusing. If a book that was truly informative was called a "tell-all" by our media, then War and Decision would qualify. As it is, we seem to reserve that term for the work of bigmouths who have little, if anything, to impart.