Lets pick a president!

As we prepare to turn into the official election year of 2008, I have a few observations:

• I'm beginning to think that the consiglieri was right, and I was wrong about the impact of the assasination of Bhutto on the election. I thought that it may make a big difference in Clinton's support, though it has not appeared to translate into better numbers. (I will take back my public concession to the consiglieri if Clinton wins Iowa!)
• My multi-talented formerly unemployed j.d. co-worker/friend makes an interesting point when she remarks about the ridiculousness of Clinton's "closing argument", which boils down to one word--"EXPERIENCE". I am of the opinion that this is merely a ploy for people to forget that they are voting for her and not her husband. Which of course is condescending, cynical and ridiculous. Are we really supposed to give her the "time-served" credit for her husband's years in public office? Oh, and of course we're only supposed to give her the credit for the good things and none of the blame for the bad things of the governorship and presidency--thats a convenient argument but ultimately absurd. She should just run on her 8 years as a Senator, which have been by all accounts, more impressive than her chief rival Barack Obama. I love Bill Clinton, but I'm beginning to believe that insecurity runs in the marriage.
• Mike Huckabee's performance on Meet the Press on Sunday was again an impressive display of what an impressive candidate he has become. I think the strongest argument for his candidacy is that he is not some idiot, evangelical--that he can hang with the "big boys". This should not surprise anyone though and it shouldn't be a ground to support his bid--anyone who listened to the remarks of Hillary and Bill about his performance in Arkansas politics, knew that the guy had some considerable skills (even though I'm quite certain they never expected him to take off quite like this).
• The only rational grounds for supporting Huckabee is that it pisses off Ann Coulter .

My actual predictions for Iowa:

Republicans: Mitt Romney (gag me)

Democrats: Hillary Clinton (less-than-gag me)

Incidentally, those are also my predictions for who will win the nomination.

ADVISORY: THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE A REVERSE-KARMIC EXCERCISE

Bhutto is gone

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Christopher Hitchens on Bhutto http://www.slate.com/id/2180952/

Sasha Khan first hand account on the fall out in Pakistan http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071227/NEWS07/71227049

I cannot pretend to understand this part of the world. It seems that it is filled with one tragedy after another. President Musharraf has been a U.S. ally in the "war on terror" yet he has recently ruled the country by martial law and has only of late rescinded his military title.

Bhutto had been heralded a people's hero of sorts...the first woman ever to be elected to lead a Muslim country at the age of 35. Daughter of an executed former leader who did not fear reprisal and challenged the status quo.

Yet, she also spoke out both sides of her mouth--proclaiming democracy on one hand, while retaining an iron-clad grip on her party even while in exile. Her husband, the finance minister in her administration has been thrown in jail for corruption and his actions have led to corruption charges against him and his wife in several countries around the world.

Yet, for all of that- it appears Bhutto was a heroic, if tragic figure. Surely there was hubris accompanied with great talent and leadership there. She provided hope, even if it was an old hope. But now she is gone--unsurprisingly taken by an assassin's bullet in another one of countless acts of cowardly terrorism.

I find myself not knowing quite what to think about it all...mostly I find that I simply cannot, in any way pretend to understand this part of the world.

While CNN has their famous (-ly infamous) Youtube debates- the Cynical Political brings to you today a Gchat debate about the Republican side of politics between myself and my consiglieri.

The level of sophistication may be somewhat lacking...however, certainly no more so than the Youtube debate.

Enjoy~ As always, please jump into the debate and give your comments!

ME: i really want fred thompson to drop out and give his support to mccain

Consiglieri (CON): that would be nice

if mccain voters would just transfer

ME: it crystallized in my head last night that the only chance

(in my mind)

that the republicans have to win is if they nominate mccain, or the

dems nominate hillary

CON: or both

i think rudy can win a general election

ME: what have you seen in his campaign that would

make you believe that?

CON: what we've already seen doesn't matter

it what comes later because ppl dont remember this far back

ME: yeah, but hasn't he shown an ability to get out of his own way

he keeps tripping over stupid stuff

he needs someone to come in, clean house with the campaign and shape the ship up

CON: so did john kerry

and someone will if he has the full support of the GOP

ME: but the candidate himself has to be amenable

and kerry KEPT making dumb mistakes

CON: kerry IS a dumb mistake

and rudy proved to be amenable

he is a republican who won the mayorship of one of the most liberal

cities in the country with a population as high as several states

ME: what is acceptable behavior in NYC, is not necessarily

acceptable behavior in red state america-

i think a giuliani candidacy puts a lot more states in play for the democrats

which i welcome of course

CON: i think it also puts a lot more states in play for

the republicans - say new york

if you get ny, you may get nj and CT

ME: if obama got the nod- can you imagine him on

the trail talking the lord and his dreams from his father...

juxtaposed with rudy talking about judy, his kids who hate

him (and support obama) and his buddy bernie kerick

in conjunction with 9/11!

CON: 9/11

9/11

9/11

and the bible belt loves it

ME: and they will just ignore judy?

CON: everyone has for so long

ME: in new YORK...

he gets the nod...and this all gets re-lived...re-examined...

CON: i just think hes centrist enough to win

you figure each candidate should get 40% in any normal election

thats the party's base

leaves 20% of independents that really decide the election

someone in the center, guiliani, is going to do much better than

someone on the far right, bush or huckabee or the nuevo mitt,

and have a better chance to win

for the same reason a mccain can win

except mccain is about 100 years old and has some weird

chipmunk thing going on in his mouth

ME: but that chipmunk thing is cute...he's dimply and

grandpa-y...oh, and he can get the base out since he is

right (for them) on the war and taxes...and he behaves younger

than the lothario rudy g

CON: if he runs, people will have to like his vp candidate

alot more than usual

cause he looks older than he is, and hes pretty old for

president nowadays to begin with

ME: ronald-f'in- reagan

CON: NOWADAYS

which, mind you, is because reagan was braindead for 6 of his 8 years

ME: okay, so to wrap this up- you think rudy g could

win a general...but who do you think will ultimately be nominated?

CON: at this point i want to say huckabee and instantly shudder

ME: you don't think he will fall off after finishing last in NH?

CON: i dont think he'll finish last in NH

and then no, he will dominate the south

ME: what about a scenario whereby romney comes in a

close second in IA, wins NH by a sizable margin and then

catches rudy in florida? thats what i see happening...i think...

today anyway in this hour

CON: and when huckabee wins SC?

ME: im not convinced mccain won't win sc,

especially with a good finish in NH

notice that neither of us think rudy wins any of the first states?

CON: yeah i think hes done

ME: and he is still the "national" front runner...if he

pulls it off, i think it would legitimately shift campaign

strategic dynamics

CON: no he isnt

"huckaboom" caught him

ME: no, well not as of sunday anyway

[link that shows Huckabee has tied Giuliani]

ME: damn- now i am truly frightened...can you imagine a

huckabee-obama campaign? would it be a classic,

soft-spoken "nice-off" with only undertones of back

biting by unnamed sources?

CON: there may be some gentle petting

ME: huckabee: im nicer and love more of jesus than you do

obama: well, mike, you love more of a lot of things obviously

CON: well obama is a moslem rremember

according to hilary

ME: which, if hucks has a problem with mormon,

he'll sure have a problem with the mohammeden

CON: well at least you can argue islam isnt a cult

ME: thats a straight shot to 1600 PA Ave

CON: amen

Some interesting reading...

My consiglieri pointed this blog entry out to me--sounds a lot like my take on McCain and Romney with a little for you Ron Paul fans:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/ron-paul-for-th.html

This next piece is by my favorite writer of late- Christopher Hitchens. Beware Huckabee fans, it is a bit brutal:

http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/

And here is the full-text of Maureen Dowd's Column in the NYTimes yesterday--seriously one of the funniest articles I have read in a long time...


By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: December 16, 2007

With the Iowa campaign in wild flux — and in the case of Hillary, acid reflux — The Des Moines Register decides to hold a tie-breaking debate with the two Democratic front-runners.
Carolyn Washburn, the phlegmatic editor of the paper, once more moderates.

WASHBURN: Senator Clinton, I’d like you to start us off by explaining why your campaign has been getting down and dirty with someone so clean and articulate?

CLINTON: I apologized to Senator Obama. I absolutely did not authorize or condone the remarks made by one of my co-chairs in New Hampshire about my distinguished colleague’s youthful indiscretions. If primary voters don’t care that he did “a little blow,” then my goodness, why should I? Even if he had packed a straw full of the white rabbit and had a snow bunny blow it in his ear, who would care, for Pete’s sake? I only wish I knew all that colorful chasing-the-dragon lingo. Senator Obama certainly has a lot of street cred, even if it isn’t Main Street. We owe it to the good people of Iowa to stick to critical issues like the economy, and how to get a fiscally responsible budget like we had in the ’90s, the ’90s, the ’90s —

WASHBURN: Snap out of it.

CLINTON: Sorry. Anyway, even if Senator Obama were still riding the snow train, I would not allow any revelations about it to sully this campaign. I’m not sure who that young man in a hoodie was that Barack was talking to outside tonight, before the debate. I’d seen the young man earlier, standing around in the shadows outside. But that’s neither here nor there. Even if I had been able to see whether any money was exchanged, or who was selling to whom, I would not allow anyone in my campaign, even that scamp Mark Penn, to use the word cocaine, cocaine, cocaine —

WASHBURN: Senator!

CLINTON: Continuing in this vein, I just want to conclude by saying, both in terms of experience and illegal substances, I am vetted. I am tested.

WASHBURN: Senator Obama, what would your priorities be as president?

OBAMA: I will pass a health care bill because I am not a polarizing person whose negatives are completely off the charts, and I’m certainly not threatening to drag down the whole party at a time when we should be killing the Republicans.

WASHBURN: Are you referring to Senator Clinton?

OBAMA: Most certainly not. I want to bring a new kind of politics to Washington that can reverse the polarizing atmosphere of the ’90s, the ’90s, the ’90s.

CLINTON: Don’t bogart the time, Barack. I’d like a hit. Carolyn, shouldn’t there be some timing device to let my young friend know when he’s going over, something that would go “BONG!”

OBAMA: I know what you’re doing, Hillary. I wasn’t born yesterday. She wants Americans to think I’m so young and green that I can only run for White House intern. It would be a stain on me to sink as low as her.

CLINTON: I don’t appreciate that crack. If you’re going to needle me, Senator —

OBAMA: In turn, I would like to reply that what this country really needs is change —

CLINTON: Change is mine now, Senator Belushi. Bill and I stole it weeks ago. Some people believe you get change by hoping for it. Some believe you get change by snorting it. I believe you get it by working hard.

WASHBURN: Can you both please describe the key features of what you consider to be the best education system in the world?

CLINTON: Well, I know that some of my supporters have been spreading gossip that Senator Obama loves the madrassa system for pre-K through terrorist training camp. But there is not a gram of truth in those accusations. We shouldn’t inject intolerance into this race.

WASHBURN: I would like to talk about the Peru free trade deal that was signed on Friday. You both missed the vote.

CLINTON: Oh, Barack should take that one. His views on Peruvian are positively flaky.

OBAMA: You’re the flaky one, Hillary, backing up the president when he wanted to rush into Iraq and wage this trillion-dollar war.

CLINTON: It’s no wonder you didn’t want to go into Iraq, Barack. There are no free bases there.

WASHBURN: All right, you two. We’re out of time. Have a Merry Christmas and —

CLINTON: And I am sure that Senator Obama is dreaming of his usual White Christmas. Hitch up the reindeer!

WASHBURN: As I was saying, a Happy New Year.

CLINTON: He gets no kick from Champagne ...

I'm just hoping Romney is cynically pandering...

It amazes me time and time again to watch an obviously intelligent Mitt Romney continue to stumble over an obstacle like religion. With his education, obvious business acumen and his "gift" of "seamless" political tectonic plate shifting, it is stunning to watch him stumble over the "religious issue" time and time again. His speech in College Station did not clear up this issue, in fact it may have clouded it even further. Is Romney merely pandering or does he honestly believe that, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom"? He was asked about this by Tim Russert on Meet the Press this morning:



RUSSERT: "Freedom requires religion." Can you have freedom without organized religion?


ROMNEY: Well, I was paraphrasing and underlining, if you will, a quote that I'd just read from John Adams, who said that our constitutional form of government in this nation would require morality and freedom to be able to survive. And, of course, George Washington said virtually the same thing, that we were a nation that required a level of morality and religion in order to be a great nation and survive. And I think there's truth to that, that the--that the great experiment of democracy, the experiment of America's freedom has, as its basis, a sense of morality and a recognition that religious foundations are part of that, that morality.



Romney was paraphrasing and underlining an Adams quote he had just read? What does that even mean? Does that mean his speechwriter put that in and Romney decided he liked it? Why was he just reading a quote . . . without context? Is that in the Book of Mormon? Surely he could not have read about Adams (or any of the other Founding Fathers) and walked away with the impression that they conflated religion and morality. Certainly Adams and others spoke of morality as being essential to freedom, but never did they mistake morality for religion or religiosity.

And so the point Romney made by interchanging the words morality and religion is a dangerous one for one of two reasons; either he believes it, or he is cynically pandering. It could be dismissed as a simple misstatement but he did not merely misstate Adams--he twisted Adams. Besides, it appears to me that Romney is far too intelligent to make such a dumb mistake. One could argue then that the only conclusion that makes any sense is that this is what Romney truly believes. Perhaps this is even the unspoken signal Romney intended to give the christian right-- code words that he too, like W. Bush, can speak their language. This is troublesome for Romney. Whereas Bush can come off as more believable, since he actually walks around with born-again fervor and the false, messianic confidence that his every decision is guided by Jesus, Romney looks more like a cynical panderer.

Most in the christian right DO conflate religion (theirs) with morality (also theirs). Romney was speaking language (again theirs) that he appears too educated to believe. Certainly he is too intelligent and educated to believe that this is what the Founding Fathers believed. Perhaps not though and maybe Romney's religion is a cause for concern. Perhaps he is a true believer cut from a Huckabee/Joseph Smith cloth. But looking at his past, this seems unlikely. Romney may be a fervent and devout Mormon, but more than anything, what he believes in is getting elected. Romney has made a career of cynically shifting his positions from one election to the next in order to pander to the base he needs. In Massachusetts that was the pro-choice, gay crowd and in the Republican Party in America, that is the christian right.

After almost 7 years of a true-believer in the White House, and observing the result of conflating religion and morality in other parts of the world, such conflation seems absurd and dangerously anachronistic. I have to believe that a man as obviously talented and intelligent as Romney cannot honestly be a true-believer in the idea that religion and morality are the same. I am much happier believing that Romney is merely a cynical panderer rather than a true-believer that Freedom requires religion.

Polls Pushing Clinton to Panic?

1) The dominating political theme of this week in news has been Hillary Clinton's precipitous fall from the top of the polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. In the latter two, as recently as November, Clinton maintained double-digit leads. It seems that the dramatic drop in her poll numbers (or perhaps the dramatic drop in undecideds and dramatic rise of Barack Obama's numbers) has caused the normally "cool as the other side of the pillow" Clinton campaign to panic.

The clearest sign of campaign distress in Clinton city was this week's assertion by campaign Co-Chair Bill Shaheen (the husband of former New Hampshire governor and current senate candidate Jean Shaheen.) Shaheen questioned Obama's fitness as the Democratic nominee because he "feared" that "Republicans" might use his previously admitted drug use against him, proceeding to "explain" what he "feared" they might ask. This was an old, see-through campaign trick--all the way through his resignation and chest beating that HE and HE ALONE came up with the idea to mention it to the press.

Meanwhile, in Obama-ville, the young, rising star has finally stopped playing the role of the rising star and is starting to look like a front runner. He is also, for the first time, starting to look like he might actually want to compete and perhaps win this little election thing he has entered. For some time now, writers such as Andrew Sullivan have been commenting on all of the positives that could come from an Obama presidency. What has been lacking is any sense that Obama himself wants the job and is willing to do what it takes to get it. No one has EVER questioned Hillary's desire to have the job. Finally, Obama has responded with some desire a and confidence as well. His newfound confidence was on display in Thursday's final debate in Iowa when he was asked about the number of former Clinton administration foreign policy advisers that he has working with him. The question caused a chuckle amongst the other candidates, most notably Clinton whose mic seemed to carry her laugh (what Chris Matthews has dubbed her "cackle") above the others. Obama turned confidently and said that he was looking forward to Clinton advising him as well. It was a moment for me that stood out because it seemed to be the first time Obama has seized control of a debate and looked like a front runner. In the past debates, even when Obama or John Edwards landed punches, Clinton clearly stood out with the confidence of a front runner. No longer. The metamorphosis in this campaign has been amazing, enjoyable to watch and sudden, if not unexpected.

2) It is interesting to juxtapose this year's Democratic race for the nomination with that in 2004, especially in Iowa. In 2004 the early leader in the race was Howard Dean, the little known governor from Vermont who maintained an amazing, insurgent campaign. He led the polls in Iowa for several months before the election. It wasn't until he allowed himself to get dragged down into the mud with Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt that his lead began to slip. Over the final two weeks, with Dean and Gephardt slugging and slinging it out--John Kerry (who had a well-organized ground attack) swept in and took Iowa on his way to the nomination. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about watching Dean in that election was the personality aspect. He knew he was an insurgency in the party, he was energizing the party--but he never expected he could win. When it started getting close and he maintained a lead and it became clear that he COULD in fact win, he panicked. He allowed himself to get into fights and scraps that a front runner has no business allowing themselves to get into. His demise was culminated in his infamous scream.

Compare that to Barack Obama, whose convention address in 2004 alighted his 2008 candidacy. Because of his name recognition and "status", he was immediately considered a contender and a top-tier candidate. When he entered the race, there was very little, if any, doubt that he could possibly win. However, he has spent much of the past year well-behind Clinton in the polls. He never developed a sense of urgency, driving on-lookers like me crazy. Instead, he kept going on easy and steady does it. As actual voting gets closer, its beginning to sink in, much like it did with Dean, that he could very well win this thing. The difference between the candidate's reactions is telling about the men. Dean panicked and began to behave the scrappy insurgent he always was. Obama is just gaining more and more poise and confidence and beginning to behave like the fron trunner he always was.

Don't look for Obama to allow himself to take his eye off the ball and get dragged into a street fight with Clinton (the highest hopes of the Edwards campaign.) He seems more than happy to stand at the podium and be gracious to Hillary, to extend his imprimatur to Joe Biden and to confidently fight off the inside pitches and take advantage of the fastballs right down the middle. He is in fact, more than happy to be at home in the front runner position he always knew he would be in since kindergarten.

Introduction

This post is all in the way of serving as an introduction to me and the idea behind this blog. I suppose blogging has become a rather "fad thing" to do of late but I find myself wanting to write more and more and looking for a vehicle by which to do so. And so, I have chosen this forum.

Who am I? I am a 1st year attorney living in Alexandria, VA and working in Washington, D.C. I am a graduate of the University of Michigan and Wayne State University Law School. I am a huge University of Michigan sports fan--particularly football and basketball. I love all Detroit sports teams as well as the Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots. Politically I am left-leaning, but not a leftist. I am a Democrat, but more of a Bill Clinton, Blue Dog Coalition Democrat. I will probably vote for Barack Obama or the Democratic nominee, unless the Republicans nominate John McCain who I think is the candidate with perhaps the most integrity in combination with the facility and ability to be extraordinarily effective.

As for the content of this blog, my goal is to write on current sports/societal/political goings-on. I will of course give my opinion, which will be, in part, formed through my reading the opinions of others. When that is the case, I will do my best to cite the source of an idea. I welcome, in fact I am asking for comments because it is always more fun getting feedback and engaging in a give and take.

Lets get it started!

Did Mitchell Tag Obama?

The "Mitchell Report" was released today--detailing the former senator's findings on the use of banned substances in Major League Baseball. 86 players with 109 All-Star selections amongst them were named in the report. This report held no punches--they even named my favorite pitcher of all-time Roger Clemens in the report. Thankfully that mistake was cleared up by Roger's attorney!

What does this report actually mean for the game of baseball? Likely, the report doesn't mean much...certainly not in the way of punishment of the players named. Even Mitchell urged restraint on the part of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig when he essentially suggested that no punishments should be handed out on the basis of his report. (Which makes you question how much he stands behind his report.) In any case, while sports outlets such as ESPN attempt to make this the biggest story in sports (possibly history), it likely doesn't mean much to the everyday fan. I'm sorry but I don't think Joe Schmoe, the real estate agent from St. Louis is going to give up his Cardinals season tickets because a former pitcher, turned sudden power-hitter, Rick Ankiel, was named as a potential "banned substance" user in the "Mitchell Report".

From the fans perspective, not much has changed. From the leagues perspective, not much has changed. The fans have had a while now to get used to the idea that their once "Jack and the Beanstock" heroes of the diamond who magically turned into Mark McGwire (oops, I meant Paul Bunyan) overnight, may not be doing so, "banned substance" free. The league for their part has made every effort to fight the good fight (and by fight I mean--do absolutely nothing worthwhile) with their toothless policies and empty rhetoric. I believe the most severely punished MLB player to-date is Neifi Perez--the journeyman infielder, best known in my book as "the guy who made the amazing play at short to save Verlander's no-hitter". But rest assured- they caught Neifi and his name is in the "Report" and they're checking that list twice, finding out who is naughty and nice and sending it on to Santa.

The bottom line of this whole debacle is that once again, the serious part of sports--the actual hands-on, minutiae has been turned into a national spectacle with flashing bulbs and bold print, but at the end of the day--no substance. It is time for MLB to hang up their spikes in the fight against "banned substances". Sure, Bud says that the report is a call to action...but really Bud? You needed a report to tell you that action was needed? How about the sudden spike in home run numbers? Was that the result of "banned substances" in the balls themselves? Surely there is another retired Northeaster Senator to whom we can give the issue and have him issue a report!

The "Report" is nonsense. I don't care about the report or what it says about who was cheating when with whom or with what. A few years ago, during spring training, MLB conducted random testing and found well over a hundred players using "banned substances" and this report names only 86. Many of the players named are retired and certainly almost none of those named will face any consequences. Sure, there will be more testing, perhaps even stricter testing. But if history has alerted us to anything, it is that only the Neifi Perez's of the world will get caught by the testing because--they can't afford the good stuff. The drugs will stay ahead of the tests because players care more about getting ahead than the league cares about getting rid of the use of these substances.

Oh well! The "Report" makes us feel good. Something is being done about this horrible example to our children. Selig says that we are cleaning up the sport. And while that remains very unlikely Bud, at least we've cleared up that whole Lenny Dykstra thing.

NEXT UP: Should Senator Obama have been named in the "Mitchell Report"? Hillary's [former] campaign co-chair Bill Shaheen weighs in.



Listening to: "Don't Drive Away" by Gratitude