I Hope They Have Dry Erase Boards in Heaven

I want to say something about the death of Tim Russert.

The thing is, I don't quite know what to say.

The news hit me pretty hard, which is odd, because I can't say that I ever thought of Tim Russert as someone I liked or admired. Not that I disliked him. Looking back, I think I did rather enjoy seeing him on the television when I'd turn on the news, as opposed to so many other faces, who induce feelings of nausea or disdain when I see them. I would usually stay and watch Tim, whereas with most other people, I'd change the channel.

Still, Meet the Press wasn't exactly a mainstay of my existence. I'd watch it if I happened to flip past it, almost always in repeat, but I didn't set my watch by it.

Perhaps it was the sudden-ness of it all that made it strike me so hard. The man was the same age as my father, and one day he just up and drops dead, without warning, at work. Not just that, but despite the fact that he may not have meant all that much to me, he was definitely a staple of the network I watch when I am going to watch the news. It's odd that he died this week, because earlier in the week, I had been reminiscing with a friend of mine about Russert and the 2000 election and his famous dry erase board. This election will not quite be the same without that.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize that Russert was more important to me than I realized. I guess I sort of took his presence for granted. Of course, when watching coverage of election returns on MSNBC, Tim would be there lending his voice to the day's events. His interest and fervor for politics is something I really relate to, though he parlayed it into a very successful career whereas I dabble in it as a hobby from time to time. The more I think about it, the more I realize that I'm really going to miss having him on the air. Perhaps this is why it struck me so surprisingly, because I'd never honestly thought about it before.

When I first read the news, it was on a message board, and I thought the person must have gotten it wrong. So I looked elsewhere to confirm it, and felt extreme shock and even a little sadness. I watched some of the coverage when I got home from work and listened to all the nice things everyone had to say about him. The way they described him, he seemed like an affable guy, but also a tough journalist. Then again, you rarely hear many bad things about people once they die. Unless it can't be avoided. Then again, Tim must have done something right in his time here on earth if his death would enable me to watch Keith Olbermann's show without wanting to vomit.

Of all the things I've read and heard, I think I appreciated Gwen Ifill's tribute the most. She doesn't shy away from being critical of him when she feels it's warranted, but the overall tone is one of affection and respect.

Rest in peace, Tim. You will be missed.

Quote of the Day

I don't recommend this approach, but Obama could do what men have always done when it turns out they're really not that interested: nothing. Hillary can have her friends tell him she'd love for him to call; she can try to let him know how great they'd be together. She can wait for the phone to ring ("You gave him my home and cell numbers, right, Lanny?"); and when it doesn't, she can rage that he's immature, or intimidated by strong women, or not ready for a relationship. But then one day she'll find out what everyone, all of a sudden, already knows: He can commit because he's actually chosen someone else.

~Emily Yoffe, advice columnist for Slate's "Dear Prudence," on how Obama can reject Hillary as his running mate

Finally, Someone Else Said It

Before all the Dem Veep talk was about Hillary, all anyone could talk about, it seems, was Jim Webb.

Finally, someone aside from me, thinks that would be a bad idea.

Of course, Tim Noah has lots of good reasons why he thinks Webb isn't a good choice for Obama to make as a running mate. I just plain don't like the guy.

Perhaps this reason espoused by Noah comes close to being an actual justification on my part, were I inclined to look for one:

Is Obama too cautious and detached? Webb is famous for speaking his mind. (Elizabeth Drew, the New York Review of Books, June 26, 2008 issue: "Like a boxer or a military man, Webb decides on his targets and charges straight at them.")

It's this last characteristic that's the problem. Webb, 62, is a bit of a blowhard.

Also, Noah points to this bit of pettiness...which shows Webb to be pretty immature for his age.

But I can't really point to that as a reason I don't like the guy, because I didn't know about it until just this second and my dislike for him is something that's been around for a while and resurfaces every time I hear his name. I just plain don't like him, and in an election year, and particularly an campaign like Obama's, that's all about change and being optimistic, Webb and his brand of bitter, blowhard politics may not be the best way to go. It's honestly hard for me to say I prefer him to Hillary, even, if that says anything about how profound my dislike for him is.

Do yourself a favor, Barack Obama, and just stay away from both of them. You can pick pretty much anyone else. But I just really don't want to see either one of them polluting the airwaves even more than they are already polluted. If you really want to be the change that we can all believe in, prove it in the most important decision you'll make as your party's nominee.

I won't be holding my breath.

Adieu, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Adieu.

Well, folks, it's finally over. Hillary has accepted that it is not her entitlement fate to be President this time around.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I didn't get that quite right. It's actually not over until Saturday. What should have been over on Tuesday, or, if you want to be techinical, long before Tuesday when everyone knew she had virtually no chance of winning the nomination, is now being dragged out until Saturday.

I think the official reason for dragging this out is that Hillary needs time to come to terms with her loss before stepping out of the race officially.

No, I'm not making that up.

I suppose it is understandable that a normal person might need to take some time after the whirlwind of a strenuous primary campaign before moving on to the next thing. I could argue that Hillary is far from a normal person - and you can take that however you wish because I really don't care anymore - but even setting that aside, I would definitely argue that she'll have plenty of time to go through all the stages of grief after withdrawing from the race. In fact, she'll have nothing but time, right?

I'm also made increasingly nervous by all the media speculation that Hillary might end up being Obama's VP. I still think it's highly unlikely, but the fact that it's all anyone can talk about is enough to give one pause. I really hope that's not the case, because I'd really just rather see as little of Hillary Clinton as possible from here on out.

So, I'll go ahead and say goodbye. Goodbye, Hillary. It's been swell. Now, please try to be graceful for once in your life and just go the hell away.

The Woes of Hillary Clinton

Just how bad are things for Hillary Clinton?

Let's check with Slate's Hillary Deathwatch:

And if that's not enough, let's check in with Jeff Ellis while we're at it:

Hence, there are two lessons that one can take away from today's Puerto Rico primary.

1) 33% of voters will still vote for Barack Obama even after he essentially blows them off.

2) Hillary Clinton is apparently the favored candidate of primary voters who don't have to pay federal taxes.

Poor Hillary. Of course, if she'd just bow out gracefully (though it's much too late for that now), all of this merciless mocking wouldn't still be going on because we wouldn't have her to kick around anymore.

Of course, at this point, when she finally does bow out (assuming the decision isn't ultimately made for her), then we can all just mock her for not doing it sooner. Then, hopefully, she'll disappear.

The Marriage Decision

As you may have heard, yesterday the California Supreme Court became the second state in the union to hold that gay marriage is a constitutional right.

In reality, neither one of these cases hold that at all, though that's the way it is presented. What the California Court actually said (and, bear in mind, I have not read their actual decision though I have read quite a few quotes of it in various news sources as well as descriptions and dissections of it from sources I trust) is that marriage is a fundamental right (which is true), and that as such, access to that right shouldn't be limited solely to straight persons.

I think that this is absolutely the right decision, on equal protection grounds. And the religious arguments just don't hold water to me, even though on some level I find my sympathetic with them. Ultimately, though, many things that are "sins" are legal (just look at divorce, for example), and since, from the Christian perspective, all sins are considered equal in God's eyes, I see no reason why one "sin" should be singled out by Christians as worse than others. It's time for Christians to step up and live up to their name by attempting to be more Christ-like, and this would be an awesome place to start.

I will not, however, be holding my breath.

The decision is right, legally, and just not that radical at all, if you think about it. Marriage is a well-settled fundamental right, and to deny anyone access to that right without a really compelling reason is completely unjustified under the Constitution.

(The U.S. Supreme Court really must be hoping that the talk of a public referendum to amend the California constitution to prevent same-sex marriage isn't successful, because then this will become an issue of federal law and will soon work it's way up to them. I know this is one the current court, for the most part, simply cannot want to touch.)

Speaking of which, it never ceases to amaze me how little people understand the law. It's one thing if you're aware of this fact, and don't try to speak as if you do. But I was listening to the radio yesterday, just after the decision came down, and a right-wing radio host of some regional renown was on discussing the case. He seemed to suggest that even if the constitution of California was amended to prevent gay marriage, that the same California Supreme Court could still reach the same decision, which is simply not true. The decision of the Court was based on the California constitution, so if that document was amended, then it would render the decision null and void. Then, the matter would become a federal issue, as I stated above. The question would become whether the amendment to the California Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution.

I'm curious, now that I think about it, whether such a case has ever been filed. (I suspect one has not or, if it has, it hasn't made it very far.) A number of states have gay marriage bans enshrined in their constitutions at the moment so there could easily be a test case out there for this somewhere. California could be a good place to test case this issue because, in federal court, it would eventually make it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, known for its willingness to make "activist" decisions like this.

This same host, after making this erroneous statement, went on to say that he favors civil unions or domestic partnerships, and doesn't at all have a problem with gay people (obviously, I wasn't listening to Michael Savage), but that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. He didn't offer any support for this position. He merely asserted it as if it were a fact.

I guess I just don't understand why this decision is so controversial, at least from a legal perspective. (The only thing that is slightly controversial is the court's holding that sexual orientation is a suspect class that warrants strict scruitiny of laws discriminating against it, a distinction normally reserved for classes such as race and national origin and, to a lesser extent - at least when talking about the federal constitution - gender.) If marriage is a fundamental right, and it's hard to argue that it isn't, the the rest follows quite naturally, whether it fits with "tradition" or not.

What's Good for the Country Is What's Good for the Candidates...Both of Them

Andrew Sullivan, who I still like a lot despite the fact that he tends toward hyperbole - while meaning to be completely serious - which really kind of annoys me, has links to a couple of post debating the merits of the proposed McCain-Obama summer debate series. On the con side he proffers this piece by Noam Scheiber:

McCain has several big disadvantages vis-a-vis Obama. He faces a massive enthusiasm gap and will have trouble attracting large crowds. He's in all likelihood going to be massively outraised and outspent, making it hard to get his message out. And, possibly as a result of the previous problem, he'll be cast as a right-winger determined to continue George Bush's policies.

The unmoderated debates would help him overcome all three problems. They'll draw big crowds and generate lots of buzz. They'll help him get his message out for free. And, just by virtue of appearing frequently at Obama's side and having a civil debate, they'll make him look much more moderate than the Obama campaign wants him to look.

I don't see the upside for Obama.

On the pro side, there is this argument from Hendrik Hertzberg:

Another reason, tactically speaking, for Obama to say yes to McCain’s proposal is the dampening effect a series of buddy-movie faceoffs could have on the campaign of character assassination that is sure to be conducted by Republican surrogates and 527s. McCain and Obama both speak of their desire to have a civil conversation. Both say they want to reach across ideological and party lines. Both say they don’t regard their opponents as enemies. A series of face-to-face discussions would make it a little harder for the partisans of either candidate (I’m talking about you, Republicans) to run a parallel campaign of lies and slanders, and would ratchet up the pressure on the intended beneficiary of such a campaign to put the kibosh on it.

Obama’s right. It’s a great idea.

All of that is well and good. And I guess each side has to look at it from the perspective of how it would benefit them.

But really, at the end of the day, I'd feel much more comfortable if the real concern were not whether it was good for Obama but whether it was good for the country. Surely, it's good for the voters to have this kind of open and honest exchange of ideas from the two major party candidates, one of whom will ultimately be the next President of the United States. And since both the candidates seem to want that kind of a dialogue, and most of politics is one big gamble anyway, why not just do it. It seems really cynical for all of these commentators, who in reality are the ones supposed to keep the politicians in check and keep them honest and be looking out for the interests of the public instead of the bottom line, to be so focused on what's good for Obama rather than what's good for the country.

It's almost as if they've decided that Obama is what's good for the country and since we, the public, are too stupid to come to that conclusion on our own through a series of civil and unmoderated debates, they've got to take matters into their own hands and declare that Obama should do it only if it "helps" him...and never mind whether it's the right thing to do.

Obama's instincts are right on this one, and his supporters should support that, rather than falling brazenly at the altar of political expediency.

Beatty Gets It

It's a sad state of affairs when the person who makes the most sense when it comes to John McCain is none other than Warren Beatty:

I’ve known John McCain for a long time. He always said he was a conservative. He was a conservative. He is a conservative. It seems that people should take John McCain for what he says he is."

I wonder why the so-called conservatives can't grasp this.

Link via Jeff Ellis.

The Assassin Vote

This is just plain wrong. Still, it's funny as hell.

Slate Readers Stick a Fork in Her

Check out the results from Slate's Obama Doomsday Scenario Contest.

My favorites:

He shot Alexander Hamilton. And there's video.—Andrew Rice

Hillary sheds two tears.—Jon Cowan

One of the lesser-known consequences of quantum physics is an event called “quantum tunneling.” Here's how it happens: At a campaign stop in West Virginia, completely out of the blue, the aggregate wave functions of all the particles in Barack Obama's body end up instantaneously transporting him through the entire Earth and leaving him treading water somewhere in the Indian Ocean, or leaving his various particles scattered inside the mantle. The odds of this occurring are such that any macroscopic object tunneling through any barrier is highly unlikely in the lifespan of the universe, but it could occur!—Michael Blessington

Please Die Already, Hillary Campaign

I'm sitting here right now watching Hillary Clinton's "victory" speech. I put it in quotes because she is treating it as a true victory speech, not really in the fake way that politicians do even when they know it is hopeless, but in a really genuinely delusional way. She's treating Indiana as a win even though it technically hasn't been called yet.

Now, when it comes right down to it, she will probably end up being the winner in Indiana. But the win there isn't nearly as decisive as it should have been and it isn't final, so her posturing and grandstanding right now seems especially obnoxious in that light.

As I sit here watching her, I can't help but think of all of those conservatives and Republicans, led by their overlord Rush Limbaugh, who really want Hillary to get the nomination because they think it will be easier for McCain to beat her. A friend of mind said as much last night.

Well, all I can say to that, is this: Be careful what you ask for. This seems to be especially prudent when Hillary Clinton is involved.

It's not that I don't want McCain to win in November. I mean, I will mostly likely be voting for him, no matter which Democrat comes out ahead. And I, too, used to think that she would be easier to beat.

After having watched the past few weeks of this election, though, I must say, I'm not so sure. To see what Hillary has done to Obama, when for all intents and purposes this thing was "over" months ago, should give anyone viewing it pause. Conventional wisdom may say that Hillary will lose to McCain in November (and I'm not at all sure that it does, at this point), but Hillary has shown herself to be incredibly tenacious...and I don't mean that as a compliment.

Mostly, though, the thing that frustrates me is that she simply doesn't deserve to be the nominee. And if she is, quite frankly, it will really piss me off, even if it does make it easier for McCain to win in November.

Hmm...well, she did just throw in a comment about working for whoever ends up being the Democratic nominee. So that's something, I guess. Perhaps she's not as crazy and delusional as I think she is.

I won't be holding my breath though.

NOTE: My title does not indicate that I want Hillary to die. Just her campaign. Please, lady, just go away.

UPDATE: The pundits are saying that her speech sounded like a concession speech. They seem to be ready to stick the fork in her...again. I didn't hear the concession aspects. Perhaps she hit those notes while I was typing so I missed them. But if she did indeed sound more conciliatory, then I say good for her.

Gore's Next Move

Al Gore could have run for President this time around. If he had done so, he would probably have secured the nomination and been the next President of the United States.

Instead, he's decided to make a sequel to his movie.

I leave you to decide whether that's the right call.

Link via Andrew Sullivan.

Elitism and Politics

So, I was watching some of the "news" this morning concerning Hillary's "big win" in the Pennsylvania primary yesterday.

(Sorry for all the scare quotes. I'm in an ironic mood, I think.)

On MSNBC this morning,

(I like to give "credit" where it's due)

...they showed a clip of Barack Obama speaking last night from Indiana.

(Psst, Barack - I know you candidates typically like to avoid hanging around in states you aren't going to win for election night. I really hate to be the one to tell you this, but you aren't supposed to win there, either.)

What he had to say sounded fine, but in the interest of full disclosure, I wasn't really listening all that closely. After the clip, the "illustrious" commentators started in on the clip.

Joe Scarborough started us off, with some rambling nonsense about how one time he was running for something against some other guy who was kind of an elitist and he didn't have to come right out and call him an elitist because he had that folksy way about him and just in walking up and shaking hands with people and talking with them they could see the difference.

(I say rambling because he seemed like he didn't really want to talking about it. Perhaps even he realized that what he was about to say was completely useless.)

Then, Chris Matthews started in, talking about how Obama's "elitist" shtick isn't going to play in a place like Indiana.

Um...okay.

It's hard to know where to start with this.

First of all, I think this statement is vaguely - no, make that patently - insulting to people from Indiana or Pennsylvania or West Virginia or wherever it is that he thinks Obama isn't going to "play" well, rather than being insulting to Obama himself. He's basically saying that the people in those states are too "simple" to really get a complex, nuanced guy like Obama.

Yes, it's true that when asked, a lot of people, and not just in those few states I've mentioned, will say they prefer a candidate who is more like them. It's the candidates and the media who assume this means simple and folksy, so that's how they try to present themselves, just as they try to paint their opponent as elitist and out of touch.

I actually think that what Obama does is pretty smart. He doesn't talk down to people, or assume that he's got to act stupid or home-spun or in any way other than his own. He comes across as very genuine, and also very intelligent, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

(Yes, I do realize that Obama had a bit of a misstep on this issue recently, which has led to this latest bout of calling him elite in the first place. His choice of words was somewhat unfortunate, especially since he does not often misspeak. But the point he was trying to make does not really make him sound all that elite, and in fact, shows the opposite, that he cares about the plights of those who may not be like him and understands why it is that they can be the way they are sometimes.)

The larger problem, though, is that I'm really quite shocked that Hillary Clinton is daring to paint herself as non-elite (or at least as less elite than Obama), and that the media is actually letting her get away with it. I would never have thought that I'd see the day where Hillary manages to come across as a down home girl and the media does nothing to call her on it.

This is especially egregious given that before they started talking about this, the same network played a clip of Hillary on some morning show talking about her "strategy" going forward.

She said that now it is up to the delegates to decide whether she or Obama would make a better candidate and opponent for John McCain. She also said that she has managed to put together impressive wins in states that are going to be crucial states for Democrats to win in November, whereas Obama has won a bunch of states that Democrats don't have a prayer of winning.

Um...okay.

Let me get this straight. Hillary goes on television and basically disses entire states where people showed up to vote in the Democratic primary, telling them that their votes don't really matter because the Democrats won't be able to win their states in November, and instead suggests that the delegates should override the popular vote and the will of the majority of those who voted in the Democratic primaries and instead vote for her to be the nominee.

Yet Obama's the one who is the elitist?

Something is very wrong with this picture.

For more on the Pennsylvania primary, check out Jeff Ellis' blog. Particualary this post, which has so many funny quotes about Hillary that I couldn't pick just one. I've taken to calling her just "Hillary," as opposed to Hillary Clinton, because I am refusing to take her seriously any more as a candidate. I hope that she doesn't manage to somehow steal this nomination from Obama. I really can't stand to look at her or hear from her anymore.

Starbucks Statistics

A somewhat statistical analysis of elitism and voting preference.

It's all in good fun, but I did find it interesting to read since I'm actually taking statistics this semester, and I actually recognized a lot of the stuff.

It's also interesting because it grapples with an issue that I dealt with on my old blog months ago: what exactly is the plural of Prius? (I prefer the more elegant "Prii" to the clunkier "Priuses," in case you were wondering.)

Speaking of the Prius, I must say that, as a car, it's rather grown on me. I saw a reddish one the other day (it wasn't sports car red, it was a nice deep, respectful red), and, for the first time, I actually thought that I might like to have one.

Back to the statistics, though. It's interesting because when I read it through the first time, and especially when I first looked at the charts, I thought, "Wow, I haven't learned a thing in my statistics class, have I?" I mean, it looked and sounded like a bunch of gibberish to me. Now, it's only a basic level class, but still, reading this, I felt like it looked sort of familiar, like I should understand it or something. But as I looked at it more, I realized that it did kind of make sense to me.

So maybe I have learned something after all.

Link via Andrew Sullivan.

Something about McCain

Slate offers a repeat of a McCain anecdote that originally appeared in the New York Times Magazine in a profile by Michael Lewis. It's a pretty good story.

Pay for What You Get

I saw this headline earlier today, and didn't think that much of it. But then I heard it on the radio, and something about it really cracked me up.

Apparently, some wily Obama operatives lured some impressionable Indiana University students from a Clinton campaign rally by giving away free tickets to a Dave Matthews concert. (Read on to realize that the way this is being played isn't exactly the way it is.)

The most surprising development here: that college kids still like Dave Matthews.

Less surprising: that college kids' votes can be so easily bought:

Jason Schechtman, 19, Deerfield, Ill., a student at IU, got his tickets about 8 p.m. after waiting more than three hours. He met folks in line who said they'd left the Clinton rally to wait for tickets.

"I was leaning toward Obama, but this sealed the deal for sure," he said. "The Obama campaign announced this right as (Bill Clinton) was about to speak, and it brought everyone from over there to over here."

Then again, this is unfair of me. I know of one person who might be willing to switch their allegiance to McCain to Obama to get to see Dave Matthews in concert, and this person is a long way from college. Actually, I probably know more than one person who would be willing to do so, I just don't happen to know who they are planning on voting for, though, if I had to guess, I'd have to say McCain. I doubt any of them are planning on voting for Obama, though they might change their mind once they realize that Obama and Matthews are so tight.

The guy that was talking about this on the radio mentioned that these tickets can't be cheap. But given that Matthews has endorsed Obama (yawn), this is less impressive. Oh, yeah, and the fact that the concert is actually an Obama event and THE CONCERT IS FREE.

It's not exactly bribing for votes, then, is it?

Like a Horror Show Monster, Gore Just Won't Die

Say it ain't so.

Jeff Ellis has blogged twice about this now, so I am not going to be able to ignore it anymore. It seems that some people have been kicking around the idea that Al Gore should step in and offer to be the Democratic nominee for President, thereby saving the party the continued degradation of the Clinton-Obama fight.

I really don't think this will happen, but I also can't say it would seriously surprise me if it did. Mostly, I suppose with as crazy as this campaign has been, it would just be par for the course. I can't honestly imagine why Gore would want to be President. I mean, obviously he really doesn't or he would have run in the first place. But he seems to have a pretty good life, without all of the attendant stress that comes along with being President, so why he's want to go and ruin it beats me.

Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part when I say I don't think it'll happen. I mean, I don't, but I also really don't want it to.

There are any number of reasons for this. But the one that came to mind first actually kind of surprised me a little bit.

It just wouldn't be fair.

It strikes me as incredibly unfair to both Obama and Clinton for a bunch of people to be suggesting that Gore should swoop in to save the day. Gore could have run for President, but he decided not to. I presume he had reasons for that, reasons which probably haven't changed all that much. And if they have, well that's just too darn bad for him. You snooze, you lose. He had his chance, and now it's too late. It's not fair to these two other candidates, who have been fighting with everything they have to secure the nomination for themselves. Like them or not, they have both put in a tremendous amount of effort into their respective quests to become the next President, and they both feel like they are the best person for the job. To completely thwart the process, which is working the way it is supposed to, in order to install a new and more palatable candidate, unblemished by the fight, would not exactly be a blow for the kind of change the Democrats are promising to bring to the country in this election. Talk about disregarding the will of the people. It would make all of the previous primaries completely useless. People talk about Hillary Clinton and the fact that she seemed to expect a coronation just because of who she is, but at least she went through the proper process to get there. Gore's been sitting on the sidelines, eating bonbons and winning Oscars (not to mention completely unwarranted Nobel Peace Prizes) and hanging out with celebrities while Obama and Clinton have been gutting it out state by state.

I would also lose a lot of respect for Obama if he were to participate in such a farce.

Some Thoughts on Hillary Clinton

Before I launch into the post, I have to make a disclosure at the outset. A part of me wants to like Hillary Clinton. Perhaps it's the contrarian in me. Most everyone I know absolutely cannot stand her, so that immediately makes me want to argue with them and say, well she's not so bad. So there is definitely this part of me that wants to like her, even if I would never vote for her.

But even I can't delude myself into looking past all the negative and actually liking her or thinking she'd be a good President, so I know there must be something seriously wrong with her.

There are a couple of interesting items in the NY Times that really illustrate this point.

First of all, she's finally spoken out about the issue with Obama and his pastor. A week too late, at the very least. If she was going to say something, she should have done it sooner. Of course, she was doing the right thing by keeping her mouth shut, which earned her a modicum of respect in my book, but now that she's gone and opened her mouth on it, well, let's just say that moment was nice while it lasted. She just looks weak and desperate now.

The Obama camp suggests that her sudden speaking out has to do with her ridiculous statements about being subject to sniper fire in Bosnia, and her even more ridiculous defense that she was sleep deprived and she merely misspoke...for the first time in 12 years. (She also said that occasionally, she is a human being, which makes you wonder just what the heck she is the rest of the time?)

However, I think her attack now is less about that specific story and more about the fact that her chances at being the Democratic nominee have dwindled to just about nothing over the past week, despite the major heat Obama has taken over Wright's comments and the heat he continues to take in many circles over various things contained in his speech. (For an interesting take on the speech that I don't really agree with, check out Christopher Hitchens' latest column. Also see Andrew Sullivan's response, which is more in line with my way of thinking, though it pains me to say it.)

This David Brooks piece really says it all. He's absolutely right that what she is doing now is potentially devastating for her party in this election, and if she really cared about electing someone who would change the way things are and be most in line with her own way of thinking and her own vision for what this country should be, then she would step out of the way and let Obama go forward unscathed.

But she simply won't do it, and I can come to no other conclusion that it all comes down to arrogance and selfishness. It makes her such an unattractive candidate because it becomes all the more clear by her actions that she really doesn't care at all about "the people," only herself and her own ego.

It doesn't matter to me much one way or the other what she does, as I'll probably be voting for McCain in November. But still, I can't help but be appalled by her actions and also can't help but be increasingly glad that she will almost certainly NOT be the Democratic nominee, which means there's no way she can be President come January 2009. I suppose she could always return later to try again, but I really think her actions are precluding even that as a possibility.

Obama & The Speech

I've been meaning to blog about this for a couple of days now, but I've been a little busy so I'm only just now getting around to it.

I must start by saying that I do find the comments of Obama's former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to be more than a little disturbing, and the fact that this man has played such a large part in the shaping of the Obama we see before us today does give me pause. Ultimately, though, I have to give Obama tremendous credit for handling this the way he has. I think the knee-jerk response of most politicians in his position would have been to drop the guy like a hot potato and to put as much distance between them as possible.

But Obama recognizes that there is more to a man than just a couple of speeches or sermons or a skewed view of the world. He understands that people are complex creatures who are a mix of good and bad, and we shouldn't just write those people off and out of our lives because they have said and done some controversial things and we have decided to run for President. He also understands that there is usually a reason a person develops a skewed view of the world, and while this doesn't make it right, it does make it easier to understand, especially when looking at the person as a whole rather than just one segment of their life's work and accomplishment.

I do not excuse the Rev. Wright's comments. I find them repugnant. But I also know that I cannot begin to truly comprehend what it's been like to be him in the first place. They say you shouldn't judge someone until you can walk a mile in their shoes, and I think that's pretty good advice. It's true that we should all aspire to rise above our circumstances, however unfair they may be, but that doesn't mean we can all sit around and look down at others who fail to do so, especially when we have no concept of the events and experiences that have led them to that point.

This is why I'm most angered by the people who have called into question Obama's Christianity. I believe that his is probably the most genuine Christianity we've seen from a politician running for President. It's certainly a lot more Christian than the mealy-mouthed platitudes offered up by President Bush.

I did not listen to Obama's speech on Tuesday. I tried to, but I was at work and I didn't want to disturb my co-workers. But I did read the full text of it later, and I must say that I was pretty impressed.

Then, this morning I caught this post on the women of Slate blog, and knew could wait no longer to blog about this story.

Honestly, that surprised me. I'm not a Huckabee hater at all, but I certainly have a lot more respect for him after reading this. I think if McCain's looking to complete his ticket with one of the other Republican candidates, he'd do a lot better with someone like Huckabee than with someone like Romney. I was particularly struck by his measured response concerning the statements by Rev. Wright. Then again, it shouldn't be so surprising, because it is a true Christian response. It's just so rare to see any politician actually represent actual Christian values, rather than paying lip service to a few key issues while continuing to act in a manner that is decidedly un-Christian. Maybe Huckabee is the real deal after all. I have a friend that really supported his candidacy, and while I still don't think I could have myself, I'm starting to see a little bit of why she liked him so much.

I also appreciate how the other major campaigns have largely stayed away from this issue. Of course, it's very difficult to know just how to handle it, but with all the righteous anger floating around out there at the moment, you'd think

And once again, the denizens of the shrill conservative movement, the jokers of talk radio, once again have no candidate or former candidate who speaks for them, as they all choose to take a measured response or else make no response at all, rather than letting to vitriol fly. This, my friends, can only be a good thing.

I was also surprised by another response to this whole thing: my father's. When I got home from work on Tuesday and was getting something to eat in a hurry before rushing off to class, my father was watching the news. I guess they were talking about Obama and his speech and the flap over Wright's comments. As the story wrapped up, he decided to try and engage me in a conversation.

"What do you think of Obama?" he asked.

I paused, because the truth is I really don't enjoy talking politics with my family very much. It's not that they are too conservative for me (though, in truth, they probably are that, too), it's that they're too much of a particular kind of conservative for me. They tend to be a little knee-jerk on certain things, and very absolutist, which makes it incredibly difficult to have an actual conversation with them.

I will say, though, that my father is generally more open-minded and willing to have a discussion than my mother is. This is probably because he was raised by fairly liberal parents as opposed to...raised by incredibly not liberal parents. Still, it wasn't something I really wanted to discuss all that much.

I also didn't quite know how to answer, so I did what I always do in that situation: sputtered and stalled. He repeated the question again, so I stopped and thought about how much I should say and how I should word it.

"I think he's interesting, and I think he'd make a better President than Hillary Clinton," I offered, knowing my father would surely agree with me on the latter point...which he did.

We actually then proceeded to have a short conversation about Obama, and I was quite frankly really surprised how interested my father seemed in him and how unbothered he was by all of this Wright stuff. Maybe he just doesn't know that much about it, but that wasn't the impression I got. It was all very strange.

All the Veep Nonsense I Can Stand for One Week

In the midst of all the bigger news stories out there this week, I happened to hear mention that Mitt Romney, a man I really hoped would just gently and graciously slip out of the picture for now and always, has publicly stated his willingness to accept the VP slot on the Republican ticket should McCain offer it.

What it is with the hubris and vanity of these guys and gals when it comes to being Veep? First, Hillary says that she and Obama would make a dream ticket, presumably with her in the top spot, even though she's still trailing in the delegate count and most people say her chances of actually securing the nomination are incredibly slim. Even the conservatives who are pushing for their acolytes to run out and vote for Hillary in the primaries (you know who I mean - interestingly, the Google search I did to get that link turned up this article as well, with its truly cringe-worthy premise) don't seem to think she actually has a chance of securing the nomination, even though that's clearly the outcome they'd like. Instead, they seem to just want to keep the Democrats fighting each other as long as possible so that they look bad and will be kept off message, thus lending McCain an advantage. I could be wrong, but the assumption seems to be that Obama, at the end of the day, is still going to walk away with the nomination.

As for this Romney thing, all I can do is sigh and roll my eyes. First of all, duh. Of course Romney would be willing to accept the spot if it's offered. What the hell else is he going to do? He'd fall all over himself trying to accept it before McCain changed his mind. I love how he frames it, though, almost as if he'd be willing to go out of his way and do McCain a favor. How sickeningly presumptuous of him to even suggest that he should be under consideration.

Second of all, and most importantly, I really hope McCain doesn't choose this route. So, John McCain, if you're reading this, do not, under any circumstances, even think about making Mitt Romney your running mate. No one likes him, and it would only hurt you in the end. I know you may feel like you need to do something to reach out to the base, but trust me, there are better ways than elevating some two-bit hack who never should have been in the running in the first place. There's a reason he didn't get the nomination. He should have won it easily and handily, and he didn't, and that's because he, quite frankly, sucks.