It's over

That's the only conclusion you can make after last night's results. When you delve into the math, Hillary has very few (if any) legitimate arguments left. First let's give the sobering reality of cold facts.

Fact: Obama will have a huge pledged delegate lead once the primary season.

Fact: Obama has won at least twice as many states.

Fact: Even adding in Florida and Michigan along with the caucus totals, Obama will win the popular vote.

Fact: Obama has won among Independents in all but 4 states (AR, OK, MA, RI). While Hillary can point to her double digit wins among Independents in Massachusetts and Arkansas, Obama has won by double digits in battle grounds like Missouri (67-30), Iowa (41-17), Virginia (69-30), Wisconsin (64-33), New Mexico (65-29), Nevada (47-33) and New Hampshire (41-31). What's really striking is that Hillary's biggest win among Independents is in Arkansas (home state edge) by 24. Obama's managed to win by bigger margins in several battleground states (VA, WI, NM, IA, and MO). For all of Obama's perceived struggles in Pennsylvania and Ohio (we'll come back to that), people have forgotten he won among Independents in both states (50-48 in Ohio and 54-46). Moreover Obama won Independents 55-45 last night in Indiana. What's striking is that since the Reverend Wright scandal broke, he's actually done better among Independents in two demographically similar states to Ohio.

This leaves Hillary with one argument that we heard repeatedly last night from Clinton surrogates. She does better against McCain than Obama does in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. While true at the moment, it omits the obvious that I hinted at above. There was no exit polling in Florida. However Obama outperformed her among Independents in Ohio and Pennsylvania and he seems to be improving in the key demographics in those states. Moreover Obama does better than Clinton against McCain in all of the following possible battlegrounds: MI, CO, NV, NM, WI, MN, WA, OR, MO, IA, VA, and NJ. In other words out of 15 realistic (16 if you count Arkansas) battle grounds, Obama does better in 12. He wins among Independents in 14 of them. Who's the electable one, again?

Still Beating those War Drums

As if the election weren't providing enough reasons for Americans to collectively pull out their hair, we have that wonderful cauldron of instability, the Middle East. Particularly is the latest in the round of hatchet-wielding rhetoric to gin up support for what is likely some action against Iran. Some stories of note:

US Cites New Evidence of Iranian Support for Taliban

Iran tops state-sponsored terrorism

US Military Chief Slams Iran's 'Irresponsible Influence'

Gates says 2nd carrier in Gulf is 'reminder' to Iran

It seems irresponsible and dangerous for such rhetoric to emanate from the highest levels of American government. If I'm remembering Daniel Ellsberg's critical risk concept correctly, this increase in accusations and movement of ships into the region make war with Iran more likely. The possibility of an accidental launch or mis-step increases (due to misinterpretation on either side). The potential for an Iran first-strike increases because the value of waiting for an American first-strike decreases (the rhetoric increases Iranian fears which decrease their reasons to wait for something that is likely to happen). It puts Iran into a corner.

But, are we dealing with a rogue regime? I don't think so, and it's very easy to see why that is.

1. Russia has faith in the Iranian program and has stated that the country will work with Iran to resolve this issue. A re-emergent Russia, regional power that it is, is a formidable and credible ally to have to counterbalance the pressure from the US, Israel and other allies. This alone ought go go a long way to refute the (mis)perception that Iran is a "rogue" state.

2. Iran seeks to develop stronger ties with regional states. An example is India, which has recently concluded a recent meeting with the Iranian president. Iran is an important ally to India for a few reasons: it is the 2nd largest exporter of oil to India; it has influence in Afghanistan, whose stability is a security concern of India, and, Iran has an influence on India's Shi'ite Muslim India population. Iran is also involved in a pipeline with India (Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline; though the competing Turkmen-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline may have more support). Both of these pipelines will connect the countries (and the region) closer together and allies them with each other which has the potential to undercut American influence (a concern the US already has given the decision by India to meet with Iran and extend a relationship with Iran contrary to American requests and law).

3. Iran has recently transferred its reserve currency from dollars to a currency basket (yen and euros). This decreases the pressure of the American sanctions and economic power on Iran. Iran is also developing energy deals with individual European countries, such as Portugal, Italy and Austria. These deals can decrease the reliance of European countries upon Russia for its energy supply. Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserves and also the 2nd largest natural gas reserves (behind Russia). It presents a valuable alternative to the European countries as well as a valuable resource of energy for Central and Eastern Asia (e.g., India, China and Pakistan).

4. Iranian sponsorship of terrorism is rational, if condemnable. It serves to balance American power in the region; counterbalance Sunni influence in the region; and, permits it to assert influence in its traditional spheres (e.g., Afghanistan). The Taliban is still the enemy, for example, but it is less of an enemy than the US (which is saying a lot, because Iran does not like the Taliban). The same can be said for its support of proxies in Iraq or against Israel: it serves to destabilize the area and permits Iran to assert its role as a regional power.

Iran can be balanced, deterred and engaged diplomatically. It is within the US' regional interests to avoid war and to strike out on a new policy toward Iran.

There is a great fear that this rhetoric, which continues a history of misinterpretations, misunderstandings and miscalculations on both sides since the advent of the Islamic Republic, will lead to conflict.

That's all for now. More needs to be discussed and developed, however.

Why the 24 hour newsmedia sucks (yet again)

What if two of the three major candidates running for president came up with a proposal that was so bad that economists from both the left and right opposed it? Would the 24 hour news media cover the story? Well, we're finding out our answer and the result isn't promising. Hillary Clinton and John McCain crafted a gas tax holiday proposal. From Gregory Mankiw to the Brookings Institute to Paul Krugman and the National Bureau of Economic Research, to Thomas Friedman; this is being hailed as possibly the dumbest economic stimulus proposal ever created. And yet, the news media has barely even mentioned this story. Instead they're focused on Jeremiah Wright who has already been repudiated by Barack Obama. Now maybe it's just me but when the two "experienced" candidates sign on to a terrible piece of legislation while the inexperienced candidate voices opposition, I'd say it's a huge deal. While I may not agree with Obama's choice of pastor, it doesn't personally offend me as much as two candidates using blatant pandering to support a bad piece of legislation. For the news media to miss this story is at best negligence and at worst a bastardization of their duties as journalists. Anyone who didn't cover this story should be ashamed or embarrassed.

Why the Clintons are fighting so hard for now and why Obama must win

One thing that had stumped me until a few days was why Hillary was fighting hard when the math and odds are so clearly against her. Then the Pennsylvania primary happened and I figured it out. Clinton has realized that she's fighting a generational battle. The exit polls bear this out. The under 40 set and the Millennials have decided that Obama is their guy. Now for the Clintons to see the next generation as vehemently opposed to them is dangerous to their SOP. Also the future doesn't bode well because of obvious next step. The currently under 40 set will hold more wealth and be even more motivated if their guy wins. In other words, the Clintons are drawing the line in the sand for the baby boomers to extend the fight for at least one more round. The only way for the Clintons to stop the flood gates is to win now and win ugly to the point that the under 40 set has had their political wills utterly destroyed. This is also why Obama has to win. If he doesn't win the present, an entire generation filled with promise will be totally disillusioned and may never recover. It may not be the reason why he originally chose to reason. However, it's the biggest reason left why he has to succeed and manage to do so while staying above the fray.

The danger of CW and last night (i.e. the conventional media must go)

I have a confession to make. I didn't watch last night's Democratic debate. My thought was that after 20+ debates, nothing new would come out of the next one. Boy was I wrong. Last night symbolized the tipping point of the DC media's relevance and why conventional wisdom is a bad thing. When you read 20 different sources with varying view points all completely ream the moderators of a debate, you know something is wrong. When you find out that the crowd booed the moderators during the commercial break, you know something is wrong. When you find out that the first question about Iraq (the number 1 or number 2 issue according to votes) came almost two-thirds of the way through the debate, you know something is wrong. The first question about the economy came even later. Health care wasn't even asked about. Instead the viewers were subjected to questions about pastors, lapel pins, Bosnia, and Bill Ayres. That is flat out disgraceful. What's even more disgraceful is that the conventional pundits were talking about how Obama was the big loser. Guess what, morons. Look in the mirror for the biggest loser. All of you idiots beginning with the two moderators (Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos) need to go. What's even more disturbing is find out that a clueless hack like David Brooks loved the questions. I'm sorry but David but voters won't give a rip about symbolic issues. They want answers to real issues and very little of the debate was spent on real issues. Hell, if I had been involved in the debate, I probably would've said at one point that the voters want answers to real issues and here's where I stand on ____ while completely ignoring the idiotic questions about lapel pins, etc. However in the traditional media, you'll see the conventional media protecting their own and bringing up more trivial garbage. However, it's time to call out the media for their hackery. Here are some examples of CW from the past 10 years:

1. Howard Dean would be the worst DNC chief ever- What happened. Dean created the 50 state strategy and the Dems took back the Legislative branch for the first time since 1994.

2. Being anti-war would kill the Dems- In reality, the Dems weren't anti-war enough.

I could go on for days. However, this quote that I stole from Daily Kos sums up the problem of the conventional media's conventional wisdom pretty well.

From November of 2002:

FRED BARNES, CO-HOST: [...] I wanted to ask you about something else, and that's someone that you have, you know, criticized very strongly in The New Republic, Nancy Pelosi, the new leader of Democrats in the House of Representatives. What, what's your problem with, with her?

BEINART: I think twofold. First of all, I think that Nancy Pelosi, even though she's now trying to appear as more of a moderate, was really elected by a House Democratic caucus that has moved to the left, and specifically wanted to elect someone as a repudiation of Dick Gephardt's pro-war stance.

And we very firmly believe that if the Democratic Party becomes the anti-war-with-Iraq party, the kind of soft-on-war-on- terrorism party, we really will no longer have a 50-50 nation, we'll have a 60-40 Republican nation. The Democrats will be in a kind of McGovernite wilderness for a generation.

That says it all.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face

Has Hillary Clinton forgotten what party's nomination she's seeking. That's about the only explanation I can think of for making this run at party elder, loved statesman, former Vice President (for Bill Clinton, no less), and un-pledged Superdelegate Al Gore. Think about it, Al is about respect among the Democratic party faithful. Many still think he won in 2000. He managed to win a higher percentage of the popular vote in 2000 than Bill Clinton did in 1992 or 1996. Making a run at him as out of touch seems like the equivalent of political suicide for a Democrat. There's also another aspect of this slash and burn politics that scares me. If this is Hillary will do to a long time friend to score a cheap political point, what would she do to an enemy?

A one year anniversary of sorts and a story

As I told Joe yesterday, I'm in the middle of celebrating an odd anniversary. The day before the Final Four 2007 was the day I came home from a bad situation in Japan. However, the good thing about anniversaries is that they force you to reflect on the events leading up to the anniversary. One thing, I've realized is that my time in Japan is a major reason why I support Obama for President. While over there, I heard Obama was running and was happy in the sense that maybe a strong anti-Clinton rival had the chance of emerging in the Democratic Party. However, it was the next two months (coincidentally my last two) that made me a believer. From the minute he announced he was running for President, one of my roommates (a foreigner) asked me what I thought of this minority candidate. I told him that I would probably support Obama. At that point, he asked me pointedly why only probably. He found Obama's positions on the major issues and pointed out that I shared most of them for the same reasons. He also pointed out that I was worldly just like the Illinois Senator and that some of my drunken comments seemed to reflect Obama's vision of hope. He then asked again why I couldn't say for certain that I would support the Illinois Senator. I told him I would think about it for a month or so. A week later at work, in the mixed level section of my work a Japanese student of mine asked me point blank what I thought of this Obama guy. I didn't answer and asked the room (there were only 5 students) what they knew of him and thought about him. They all thought the world of him from what they had seen and read of his speeches. At that point, I knew why Obama was the right choice for President. Here I was in late February of 2007 and the foreigners were telling me that Obama would restore credibility to the US's image. A few days later, I confided in my roommate that I had become a believer in Obama not just because the US needs him but the world needs him to have confidence in the US, again. Looking back, it's interesting that the rest of the world knew what this country was ready for before we did.

Note to Democrats:

I will not vote for anyone that hires Mark Penn in any campaign related role. Why is that you ask? Because of this incident. That's right. Hillary is officially against a trade deal with Colombia. However, Penn (Hillary's campaign manager, no less) is negotiating with the Colombians on behalf of Burson-Marsteller. This is absolutely shameless and why I hate DLC Democratic strategists. It's impossible to take the high road in ethics debates for Democrats nowadays. The Republicans have a point in that the Democratic leadership really is no different. This isn't even close to Penn's first conflict of interest since the campaign started. At my work place, I have to do all I can to avoid incidents like this. The Penn wing of the Democratic Party goes out of its way to find these COIs. So from on, I'm warning every Democrat. If you embrace Mark Penn or Terry McAuliffe, I will not vote for you.

The Death of the Religious Right -- It Took Long Enough

Special Commentary: How the Religious Right lost its ‘Religion’, lost its way and went wrong

Requiem for the Religious Right

Two good articles that detail my big complaints against the "religious right." The movement has failed immensely and do far more harm than good.

How to nearly cause International Incident for no good reason

Bud Selig once again reared his ugly head of mismanaging something into the ground yet again. This time it was over $900,000.00. Here's what happened, basically last December the Boston Red Sox reluctantly agreed to play two games in Japan against the Oakland A's. Boston made sure to include a provision that not only the players get compensation but so would the coaching staff. About a week ago, Terry Francona began calling the A's about their deal to make sure it was similar. Much to his dismay, he realized that not only was Oakland getting pimped but there was a good chance Boston was as well. Two days ago, he found out that MLB had no intention of compensating the coaching staff in an absolutely disgraceful move. Keep in mind these coaches make between 80K and 175K per year so a trip to Tokyo is going to hurt their bottom line a little if they go out drinking (as I learned all too well over there) or shopping (something tells me Ginza and parts of Ikebukuro were out of the coaches' price range). As a result, Boston protested and refused to play their spring training game and threatened to not board the plane to Narita. Luckily at 12:30 MLB caved and everything was right.

However, this points to a greater issue about MLB. It's small things like this and baseball's permissive attitude toward steroids that make Bud Selig a terrible commissioner. For the compensation attitude to come to this when the commish is making 14 million per year and merchandise sales are going to be off the charts during the Japan series is pathetic. MLB should be ashamed that the Japan games nearly didn't happen due to 20 trainers/coaches not getting what they were promised.

Catholics and the 2008 Election

For those Catholics out there, here are some pieces to chew on while you discern for whom you should vote in this upcoming election.

I Voted for Obama. Will I Go Straight to. . . ?

Heaven Help Us

Catholics at the Ballot Box

DOCTRINAL NOTE on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life


Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States

McCain Foreign Policy Madness

Antiwar Voters Trust McCain to Make Decisions About 'War on Terror'

McCain's "Spiritual Guide" Calls for Destruction of Islam

He cultivates a myth of an elder statesmen while being endorsed (and endorsing) individuals with views that leave one wondering whether or not he is simply old.

The ultimate in double standards

If anyone had ever doubted that the Clintons seem to think rules apply to everyone but themselves, let's examine two recent cases. If you'll recall about a week ago, foreign policy wonk Samantha Power got in trouble for calling Hillary a monster (thank god, I don't work for the Obama campaign). The Clinton campaign's response? Power must go. The Obama campaign responded by firing the eminently respected Power.

Now fast forward one week later to Geraldine Ferraro who said this

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

Aside from the sheer stupidity of the comment, Ferraro was rightly attacked for the thinly veiled racism. Now did Ferraro apologize for her comments? Of course not, in fact she went farther:

Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?

No Geraldine, they're not attacking because you're white. They're attacking you because your comments seemed to come out of 1960's Alabama. That's how the world works. You make a stupid comment. You get called on it. That's called life.

Now any reasonable campaign would figure it's time to cut ties with a rogue surrogate at this point in the interest of consistency regarding Powergate. However, when has Clinton's campaign been reasonable or consistent? Their response:

[W]e reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary. This campaign should be about the leadership we need for a better future and these attacks serve only to divide the Democratic Party and the American people.

That's right. It's Obama's fault that he got pissed at a blatantly racist and utterly stupid comment. Of course, it did open up a huge gap for Obama to take advantage of with this:

"With Senator Clinton's refusal to denounce or reject Ms. Ferraro, she has once again proven that her campaign gets to live by its own rules and its own double standard, and will only decry offensive comments when it's politically advantageous to Senator Clinton. Her refusal to take responsibility for her own supporter's remarks is exactly the kind of tactic that feeds the American people's cynicism about politics today and it's why Barack Obama's message of change has resonated so strongly in every corner of the country," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

So the lesson from the Clinton campaign is call a Hillary a monster, lose your job. Make a blatantly racist comment about her opponent, we'll defend you. In retrospect, Samantha Power got fired for telling the truth.

McCain Recieves A Freaky Endorsement

In case you haven't heard, John McCain has received the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee of the 19,000(!) member Cornerstone Baptist Church down in San Antonio, TX. Pastor Hagee is a controversial religious figure who has made statements that could be perceived, and rightfully so, as anti-Catholic. And he's a Christian Zionist who believes America has a biblical duty to support Israel and has stated that Hurricane Katrina was a preemptive punishment from God for future homosexual activities. And John McCain is happy to have his endorsement.

Here's a youtube from TPMtv.

Why do you support Hillary Clinton? Why do you support John McCain?

To those who support either of those candidates, I ask why? On what grounds can you legitimately and truthfully distinguish between the two candidates?

For those left-leaning individuals who support Clinton over Obama: why? Is it because you believe that she has more "experience" than Obama (a myth that Brian has shattered in previous postings)? If you are attracted to her policies, then to which policies and why are you attracted? Are you a pragmatist who does not want the Republicans to win? If that is the case, I think your arguments are weakest. In numerous polls Obama is shown not only to defeat McCain more soundly than Clinton; but, Obama is relatively more popular than Clinton, as results have shown. In either case pragmatic arguments would favor Obama over Clinton.

For the right-leaning individuals: I have no questions nor words for you but simply to state that you are lost souls.

Why I don't Support John McCain

The emergence of John McCain as the de facto Republican Party nominee tickles me the wrong way. Unlike Brian, this is purely policy-oriented, as there is no threat of a "third term" from the McCain camp. I'll only address a couple of issues:

1. His health care reform plan does not go far enough. An effective alternative to the current system would involve the expansion of the public health care system such as those found in other industrialized countries. Instead McCain's reform plan rests on more traditional conservative free market ideology which has gone far to place us in this mess. On another level, a broader public health care system better serves the common good and improves society; and, to add to that, it improves the competitiveness of American businesses by shifting the economic burden associated with health care from them to the state.

2. His foreign policy is a continuation of the Bush policies. He has spoken of his intention to remain in Iraq, which includes an increase on the troop deployment to the area, as opposed to a withdrawal. He utilizes the tired conservative rhetoric to frame American policy within the heretofore ineffective war on terror; he adopts the qusetionable conservative rhetoric and positions on other middle eastern regimes, particularly Syria and Iran. His policy positions do not reflect the dangerous, ineffective and destructive consequences to American credibility and security of the Iraq War and the War on Terror. Rather, he embraces the War on Terror and seems to import and graft upon our contemporary security policy that obsolete paradigm (missile defense and increasing the size of the military may have been relevant during the Cold War, but in this era they seem misapplied). And let's not forget about the greatest "existential threat" to our time... no thanks.

Because of a stale and dangerous foreign policy paradigm which continues the Bush Administration's wrong-headed policies, McCain should not become president.

Jimmy Kimmel Gets back at Sarah Silverman

My biggest problem with Hillary (a Constitutional dilemma)

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I have a major problem with Hillary. However, I don't think I've ever explained my reasons. They start with a Constitutional issue that has been bugging me. I think all of the following are safe assumptions:

1. If she hadn't married Bill and became first lady, she never becomes a New York Senator. Just imagine, Hillary Rodham Arkansas lawyer moving to New York to challenge Democratic Congresswoman Nita Lowey for the nomination. She would've been lucky to hit 10%.

2. If she doesn't become a Senator from New York, her credentials for President are slightly better than Laura Bush.

3. As first lady, she had zero security clearance. As a result, that 3 A.M. phone call ad tried to remind people that Bill's her husband.

4. In fact, the most qualified person in a Clinton White House would be the first gentleman.

Conclusion: I can't help but think that people are trying to essentially elect Bill to a de facto 3rd term which would be an end run around the 22nd amendment.

I also think this is insulting to other female politicians who have earned their spot due to reasons other than marriage (Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, etc).

Yes, Mr. Buckley, RIP

I concur with Brian's homage to Mr. Buckley. He was a brilliant mind who laid the oundation for the conservative movement. While unfortunate that he is no longer here, that he did not have to witness the complete destruction of the movement for which he was so important by the aliens who have stolen its name, is a silver lining in the otherwise dark cloud. It is with hope that his ideas and his example will live far past his physical time on this planet. God bless and God speed.

RIP Intellectual giant

It probably comes across as bizarre to read a eulogy to a Conservative giant from a liberal libertarian. However, I very much respected the views of William F Buckley Jr. Note that I didn't always agree with them. What's interesting about the timing of his death is that it basically comes at the end of the destruction of Buckley's version of Conservatism. If Ronald Reagan represents the pinnacle of Buckley Conservatism, then one would have to say that Bush Conservatism is its ultimate betrayal. RIP giant, you won't have to see the death of your vision anymore.