Right Wing Nut House

It should be obvious by now that our liberal friends in Hollywood responsible for writing jokes for late night hosts, talk shows, and especially the Comedy Central icons John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are having a tremendous amount of difficulty coming up with nasty, belittling, supercilious bon mots to direct at Barack Obama - the same kind of material they routinely create to lampoon conservatives and Republicans.

Quite simply, they are stuck. They have writers block. They are caught between the rock of political correctness and the hard place of partisan hackery and don’t have a clue how to escape.

Joe Harwood of the New York Times defined their dilemma on Joe Scarborough’s show the other day after the host skewered the comedy writers for being wusses when it came to criticizing Democrats and Obama:

SCARBOROUGH: I just– I never want to hear anybody from ‘The Daily Show’ or any of these other shows ever saying again, ‘We speak truth to power.’ ‘Cause you know what they do? They speak truth to Republicans. Republicans are funny. They have been idiots and jackasses over the past seven years. But, please, don’t be subversive, because you’re not. Because you’re a hack. You’re a hack for the Democratic Party and you only tell jokes about one side. BRZEZINSKI: Joe– No, this is not about being in the tank.

Harwood is an idiot. I have absolutely no trouble lampooning conservatives or Republicans for that matter. What it takes is something that most liberals in Hollywood simply don’t have.

One single independent brain cell in working order.

Beyond Harwood’s idiocy, how about Scarborough’s liberal co-host saying that the reason we don’t hear Obama jokes is because, well, there’s nothing funny about him:

BRZEZINSKI: But I really think you are missing a bigger problem here or challenge, however you want to put it, for comedy writers or for satirists, I hope I’m using the right word there. But my point is that there are layers of what’s politically correct and layers of what potentially could incite the wrong things. When have you a candidate who is black and who has a name people have made fun of and have bad information on the internet on, I think there are layers here that present really great challenges.

“Great challenges?” Are you fricking kidding me? Obama is a walking talking joke book waiting to happen. You could compile an encyclopedia of humor just about the size of his ears. His stick like frame should be made fun of early and often.

And oh my God what some classic comedians would have done with “Obama-worship.” Saturday Night Live’s skits only scratched the surface. There’s comedy gold in them thar worshipful minions that we have yet to see realized in any comedy format.

Plus, it should be obvious to anyone by now simply noting Obama’s reaction to The New Yorker cover that the man possesses the sense of humor of a Tapir. And the creepy way he talks about himself and his movement along with incidents like the “Obama Almost Presidential Seal” all should be supplying plenty of fodder for comedy writers without coming anywhere near any kind of line that would even hint at his race, or his name, or anything else.

Q.What’s the difference between Obama and Dumbo?A. Dumbo hasn’t flip flopped on FISA reform.

Or

Q. What’s the difference between Obama and a string bean?

A. A string bean isn’t a dangerous far left liberal who hangs around with radicals, crooks, and terrorists.

I know readers of this site can do better than that. And I’m prepared to put my money where my mouth is to prove it.

ANNOUNCING THE RIGHT WING NUTHOUSE OBAMA JOKEFEST!

That’s right. You can assist our liberal friends in Hollywood while breaking new ground in comedy history by coming up with jokes, humorous anecdotes, limericks, or one liners all directed towards the Democratic nominee for president Barack Obama.

SUBMISSIONS

Submissions can be in the form of written comments to this post as well as the official contest post I will be putting up later today. Or, I would actually prefer recorded jokes submitted as an attachment to an email. That’s because the best of the lot will be read or played on a special edition of The Rick Moran Show on Blog Talk Radio this coming Sunday at 6:00 PM Central Time.

PRIZES

First Prize - $25.00 Gift Card

Second Prize - $10.00 Gift Card

Third Place - $5 gift Card

DEADLINE

Deadline for entry is noon central time on Sunday.

Send sound files in MP3 or Windows Media audio format only. Attach to email sent to this address.

elvenstar522-at-AOL-dot-com.

It wasn’t exactly a highlight of Barack Obama’s rather uninspiring speech on national security the candidate gave in Washington on Tuesday. But buried under the interminable rhetoric on how the candidate, once president, will be able to wave his magic wand (or perhaps wiggle his nose like Jeannie) and conjure up coalitions of allies to deal with this problem or that (even getting Iran and Syria to cooperate on Iraqi security which would be a magic trick worthy of Merlin), there was a shocking admission by Mr. Obama that he and his Democratic colleagues had been wrong about Iraq for years.

For the first time since the Iraq war began, a Democratic leader uttered the “V” word and “Iraq” in the same sentence. That’s right; Obama called for “victory” in Iraq:

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave – General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq – victory in Iraq – will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

The candidate actually defines the terms of “success” and “victory.” Why is this significant.

Because last year, Barack Obama declared the war a failure and unwinnable:

Senator Barack Obama said Tuesday that even if the military escalation in Iraq was showing limited signs of progress, efforts to stabilize the country had been a “complete failure” and American troops should not be entangled in the sectarian strife.

“No military surge, no matter how brilliantly performed, can succeed without political reconciliation and a surge of diplomacy in Iraq and the region,” Mr. Obama said. “Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks.”

This is at the time Obama was calling for “an immediate withdrawal” of all American troops without consulting the Iraqis, the generals on the ground, or anyone else he says today that he “has always said” he would consult:

“Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,” Obama said in excerpts of the speech provided to the Associated Press.

“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now,” the Illinois senator says.

A strange part of his definition of “victory” that he stated in his Tuesday speech sounds a lot like retreat before complete victory is achieved:”

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we’ll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of Al-Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy — that is what any responsible commander-in-chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq’s future — one that includes all of Iraq’s neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union — because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.

“Achieve success” by “ending this war?” This kind of disconnect from reality reminds me of the new Soviet government in 1917 simply declaring the war was over and marching off the battlefield. They did this because their negotiations with the Germans were becoming all to real with the Kaiser demanding huge chunks of Soviet territory and crippling war reparations.

The Germans watched in amazement as more than 3 million Russian troops abandoned their positions and started the long trek home. Not quite believing their good fortune, the Germans were, at first, rather cautious. But once they realized the Soviets were retreating, they quickly advanced and turned the retreat into a rout. After pushing hundreds of miles into Russia bagging huge numbers of Russian soldiers as prisoners in the process, the Soviets realized their mistake and meekly returned to the bargaining table, giving the Kaiser virtually everything he wanted.

Drawing an historical parallel with Iraq using the Soviet-German history during World War I is probably not fair since al-Qaeda and the Shia militias can no way be compared to the German army on the Eastern front in 1917.

But where I think the analogy is apt is in positing that both the terrorists and the militias will be strengthened considerably by a withdrawal more beholden to some timeline than events on the ground. Since the candidate can’t seem to make up his mind whether he wants to pander to his base by eschewing consultation or whether he wants to pander to rational voters by including such caveats with his timeline, we just don’t know. On Tuesday at least, he was for consultation and for making “tactical adjustments” if necessary.

What if Obama had talked of “victory” and “tactical adjustments” and “consulting generals” during the primary campaign? Sure is a far cry from “immediate withdrawal,” although perhaps he meant he would withdraw the troops immediately after we felt we had achieved victory? I daresay if he had breathed the word “victory” during his contest with Hillary Clinton, he would have been hooted off the stage.

That’s because both legislative leaders of the Democratic party declared the war “lost” more than a year ago. First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on 4/20/07:

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,” said Reid, D-Nev.

And here’s Nancy Pelosi on 2/10/08:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.”

“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”

So has Obama in effect, repudiated the two most powerful leaders in the legislative branch of his own party?

You bet he has. Since neither Reid nor Pelosi have seen fit to come forward and admit that they were spectacularly wrong in their assessment of Iraq, Obama has hung them - and most of the rest of his own party - out to dry. He has redefined the goals in Iraq - albeit incoherently - by stipulating that “success” and “victory” were now the aims of American policy and not withdrawal and defeat which is still the de facto position of the netroots and the far left Moveon crowd.

Why no one has noticed this in the media is probably due to the fact that now we are enjoying a modicum of success in Iraq on all fronts, the political fruits of victory will be spread around to somehow include Democrats. It is impossible to give George Bush and his mostly conservative war supporters all the credit despite the defeatist and obstructionist policies carried on for most of the war by their political opponents. It would be inconsistent with their past reporting of Bush as a boob and incompetent. Room must be found for the Democrats to share in whatever success we achieve in Iraq.

So congratulations to Barack Obama who has now hopped on to the victory train - now that it’s almost at the station and preparing to unload.

UPDATE: CORRECTION URGENTLY NEEDED

How could I be so stupid? Yes I was dropped on my head as an infant but that doesn’t explain how I could have possibly mixed up Samantha from Bewitched with Jeannie from I Dream of Jeannie.

Both my good friend Jim from the site bRright and Early and reader Mike S. were kind enough to point out my error in ascribing Samantha’s magic gesture of the nose wiggle to Jeanie. Of course, Jeanie would cross her arms and bob her head to initiate her magic spells. I apologize for the confusion.

As to which one is sexier, from the vantage point of age, no doubt Samantha is cuter but Jeanie’s costume…ooh la la. Did you know that the network censor refused to allow Barbara Eden’s navel to show?

We’ve come a long way, baby…

Way up on top of the mountain where our messiah-in-waiting is hurling his thunderbolts at John McCain and dispensing manna in the form of soothing bromides and empty platitudes, a distant, ominous rumbling can be heard far below the summit that portends some possible trouble for our hero when his coronation takes place in Denver late in August.

It is an unconfirmed story and indeed, sounds like one of those rumors that are circulated during the dog days of summer in the interregnum between the time a candidate clinches the nomination and the convention. There may be more wishful thinking than truth here but it nevertheless presents an interesting scenario.

Are some Superdelegates having second thoughts about Obama as the nominee?

Big news folks - it looks like our efforts in contacting those Superdelegates are starting to pay off, so keep on writing to them (ok, maybe Donna B’s a waste of time). There are unconfirmed reports, based on phone banking efforts to reach out to Super Ds, that eight previously Obama SDs expressed that, given the opportunity, they would vote for Hillary at the convention.

I heard about an interview Will Bower of PUMA did recently, where he said delegates are starting to say they’ll vote for Hillary in Denver if the DNC did the right thing and ran an open and fair convention. That means a roll call vote with Hillary’s name put into nomination, and on the ballot.

So I shot an email to Bower to ask him where he got that info from, and here’s what he sent me regarding the efforts of a friend of his

“A large phone banking effort to the super d’s combined with Obama’s flips and poor presumptive nominee performance, etc have yielded doubts within the super delegates, enough that 3 elected and 5 DNC members have confided that should they have the opportunity to do so, they will vote for Hillary.”

Maybe this is why BHO and the Toxic Trio are pushing so hard to keep Hillary off the roll call ballot eh? I’ve been wondering what they’re so afraid of now it looks like we have part of the answer.

First of all, even in the unlikely event that this is true, Hillary is going to need at least 100 of those switches to claim the nomination so 8 flippers is hardly anything to get excited about.

Secondly, I can’t believe this is true because there has been no sudden shift in the polls, no big controversy involving Obama, and no calls at all from anywhere in the party that I have heard for a change at the top.

And the number one reason Hillary will not be on the ballot is to prevent an extended demonstration of support for her thus deflecting attention that should be paid to Obama. The messiah will not want to share the limelight with anyone given the extremely limited exposure over the air TV is going to be giving the convention. The “Big Three” can still gather 18-20 million eyeballs in front of the TV compared with cable’s 8-10 million. This means that every prime time minute will be scripted for maximum impact.

I doubt whether the Obama crew is worried that Hillary will stampede the convention and wrest the nomination from Mr. Lightwalker. Instead, the whole roll call of the states thing is extremely time consuming and while a quaint relic of an era when conventions were important, it doesn’t fit in to the modern “production” of what the handlers want the convention to be. Better to have speeches from well known Democrats with Obama surrogates making the rounds of the anchor booths upstairs, hammering home whatever themes and issues are on tap for that day.

This is a pity because the highlight of any political convention for me was to hear each state’s name called and some poor schmuck who had been years toiling in obscurity for the party would get their 15 seconds of national TV exposure.

“Mr. Chairman….Mr. Chairman…The great state of Illinois - Land of Lincoln - Hog Butcher to the World -#1 in production of soybeans - Birthplace of Adlai Stevenson, Paul Simon, and the great Mayor of the great city of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley - Home of Senator Richard Durbin - location of the largest ball of twine in the world - proudly casts all 184 of its votes for its favorite son, the next president of the United States, Barrack Hussein Obama!

And with each state, the bragging would get bigger and more outrageous. Some state leads in the production of potato chips. Another in horseradish. Still another in port-o-potties.

And the hats. Oh, those convention hats. Humongous donkeys or elephants sitting on top of straw hats. Hats with a message. Hats that light up with the candidate’s name. The TV back then loved the hats, couldn’t get enough of them.

Not now. Conventions are rather soulless affairs today with the delegates probably a lot more sober than they were 40 years ago when I first began to watch them. And both sides feature more of their gimlet eyed radicals who somehow manage to make it on screen - no doubt because the networks always love controversy at a convention and the radicals usually disagree with the mainstream.

The convention in Denver will be no different. The networks will seek out Hillary delegates, asking them if they are pleased with the efforts at unity by the Obama campaign. The Obama camp will try their best to put forward satisfied Clintonites but I guarantee you the networks will find several disgruntled Hillary delegates and try and gin up controversy.

Another sure fire way to create a bogus meme will be for the networks to find Democrats who are dissatisfied with the way the campaign is being run. Apparently, that might be easier than one would think:

After a brief bout of Obamamania, some Capitol Hill Democrats have begun to complain privately that Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is insular, uncooperative and inattentive to their hopes for a broad Democratic victory in November.

“They think they know what’s right and everyone else is wrong on everything,” groused one senior Senate Democratic aide. “They are kind of insufferable at this point.”

Among the grievances described by Democratic leadership insiders:

• Until a mailing that went out in the past few days, Obama had done little fundraising for Democratic candidates since signing off on e-mailed fundraising appeals for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee immediately after securing the Democratic nomination.

• Obama has sometimes appeared in members’ districts with no advance notice to lawmakers, resulting in lost opportunities for those Democrats to score points by appearing alongside their party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

• The Obama campaign has not, until very recently, coordinated a daily message with congressional Democrats, leaving Democratic members in the lurch when they’re asked to comment on the constant back and forth between Obama and John McCain — as they were when Obama said earlier this month that he would “continue to refine” his Iraq policies after meeting with commanders on the ground there.

Apparently, the Obama camp wants to arrive in Washington next January not beholden to anyone in the party for their victory. This is all well and good except they might remember the example of Jimmy Carter.

Carter also arrived in Washington as an outsider. And while it is true he owed nothing to nobody, the opposite was true as well; nobody owed Carter a damn thing. Soon, it became apparent that simply being the head of the party meant little if there was nothing tangible to cement the loyalty of those under you. The normal log rolling that any president is forced to employ on legislation in order to get it passed is interrupted and in the end, it was everyone for themselves with nothing much getting done.

If Obama believes he will ride into Washington on a white horse and clean up the cesspool there without the help of his own party - help bought and paid for during the election by assisting the party in electing House and Senate members - then he is tragically mistaken. He could very well turn into a one term wonder like Carter.

Let’s hope he makes a better ex-president than the peanut farmer from Georgia.

There is no doubt that the number one reason Barack Obama was able to defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president was his opposition to the Iraq War “from the beginning.” Even as events in Iraq faded into the background - thanks to the success of the new counterinsurgency strategy and the addition of 30,000 soldiers starting in January, 2007 - Obama kept up his criticism of Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the war while proclaiming to one and all that the “surge” had failed and that a withdrawal of the American military from Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground was our only option.

At the time, it seemed a winning strategy. Polls were overwhelmingly in favor of a withdrawal of American forces while the base of the Democratic party rallied to his anti-war, pro-American humiliation message. In fact, it could be said that Obama’s anti-war position was the cornerstone of his campaign for president.

The only possible risk for the candidate would be if things actually turned around in Iraq and the American people had a change of heart on the willy nilly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Both eventualities seemed remote as late as the beginning of this year.

As it turns out, Obama was whistling past the graveyard with his Iraq policy. With the dramatic military success of the surge and the equally surprising strength shown by the Iraqi government and army in fighting both al-Qaeda and the rogue Shia militias who were responsible for most of the sectarian violence in the country as well as some timid but definitive steps toward political reconciliation, Obama suddenly finds that he has no place to hide and his Iraq policy as relevant as a week old newspaper.

What do you do when the cornerstone of your campaign collapses and you are exposed as being dead wrong about the number one foreign policy issue of the campaign? If you’re Barack Obama, you write an op-ed in the New York Times and lie through your teeth.

Powerline nails Obama to the wall, calling attention to his blatant fibbing about his position on Iraq by quoting the candidate’s own words in the past and comparing them to the lies he wrote in yesterday’s op-ed:

Obama admits that he opposed the surge, and the attendant change in strategy and tactics, that have brought us close to victory. But he somehow manages to twist his being wrong about the surge–the major foreign policy issue that has arisen during his time in Congress–into vindication:

The op-ed lists Obama’s reasons for opposing the surge - and not surprisingly, they are not the reasons he has been touting for more than a year:

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

Oh really? If Obama keeps this up, pretty soon his nose is going to be as big as his ears. John Hinderaker explains:

Actually, however, Obama opposed the surge not because of those “factors” but because he thought it would fail. He said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King show, he said:

[E]ven those who are supporting — but here’s the thing, Larry — even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.

On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.

The fact is, Obama simply has no place to hide when it comes to explaining his position on Iraq. His analysis of the situation is no longer valid - if it ever really was. His policies based on that analysis are no longer operative. He has been exposed as a rank opportunist - an anti-war candidate who claimed to be the only candidate who could bring an end to the war.

Except now the war is ending and there is precious little he can say that would obscure the fact that he was as “spectacularly wrong as John McCain was spectacularly right” as Hinderacker points out.

He had two choices; he could go for door #1 and come clean, say he was wrong, and develop a new policy that would refelct the realities on the ground. Or, he could opt for door #2 and lie, obfuscate, and muddy the waters, trying to hide his original positions.

Monty Hall never gave a contestant such an easy choice.

But Obama’s shameless cover-up didn’t stop there. According to The New York Daily News, Obama has actually scrubbed his website of any criticism of the surge!

Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.

“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”

Oh for God’s sake Wendy, do you think we’re as stupid as liberals? Do you “regularly update the Web site” to cover up your candidate’s most spectacular errors in judgement?

Part of Obama’s furious backtracking on Iraq might be the result of something even I didn’t think was possible. A significant shift in the American people’s perception of the situation in Iraq and what our strategy should be:

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the country split down the middle between those backing Sen. Barack Obama’s 16-month timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and those agreeing with Sen. John McCain’s position that events, not timetables, should dictate when forces come home.

Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, will deliver what his campaign is billing as a “major address” on Iraq today in Washington, part of an effort to convince voters that he could serve effectively as commander in chief. The public is also evenly divided on that question, with 48 percent saying he would be an effective leader of the military and 48 percent saying he would not.

On Iraq policy in general, Americans continue to side with Obama and McCain, his Republican rival, in roughly equal numbers, with 47 percent of those polled saying they trust McCain more to handle the war, and 45 percent having more faith in Obama.

The poll results suggest that months of Democratic attacks on McCain’s Iraq position have not dented voters’ basic trust in his ability to lead the country’s armed forces: Seventy-two percent said McCain would make a good commander in chief.

“The most important number by Election Day is whether a majority of the electorate has achieved a comfort level with Obama as commander in chief,” said Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster who was a strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, and who considers Obama’s 48 percent a strong starting position. “I think this is the one dimension on which he will be tested and where Republicans will try hard to raise big doubts about Obama.”

Obama will be forced to alter his position, moving closer to McCain on Iraq while moving farther and farther away from the netroots who can do nothing but throw tantrums at how they have been betrayed.

Where will all this dizzying manuevering get Obama? Because the press will not call him out for this monumental flip flop - this Mother of All Campaign Backfills - it is not likely he will be hurt very much at all. More likely, the disillusioned left will grumble a bit and still turn out for him in November. Those on the far left always have Ralph Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. For the center, there is only the here and now in politics which is what Obama is counting on with this incredibly cynical move.

Exposing Obama for the lightweight he is will be the challenge for McCain. Hopefully, Obama will continue to lead with his chin on issues like Iraq and make the Republican’s job easier.

The cluelessness demonstrated by many conservatives regarding the comments made by now former McCain economic adviser and surrogate Phil Gramm has been a revelation of sorts. I have discovered that my own brand of conservatism is probably as irrelevant to the mainstream of conservative thought as classical liberalism is to mainstream thinking on the left. There doesn’t seem to be any room in either ideology these days for much in the way of independent thinking and nuance.

If you stray from the merciless orthodoxy imposed by political necessity and a diseased kind of group-think prevalent on both sides, you leave yourself open to the most withering kind of criticism and the ultimate disapprobation shown by your erstwhile ideological allies; you are accused of being the enemy.

No matter. I realize that my take on the Phil Gramm controversy does not comport with that of most conservatives. And the defense of Gramm’s remarks by the likes of George Will and economic historian Amity Shlaes (in the Washington Post no less) show an even greater divide between what I used to think mainstream conservatism represented and my own views. What this bodes for the future, I cannot say. All I know is that this dust-up over Gramm’s remarks has me at odds with most people I considered my ideological allies.

Forget that Gramm’s remarks about America being in a “mental recession” and that our fellow countrymen are a “nation of whiners” were insensitive, crass, stupid, and abominably ill-timed. They were just plain bad politics and trying to justify them as “true” in any sense whatsoever is the heighth of political ignorance.

To chastise your fellow countrymen who are genuinely worried about the way the world seems to be giving way underneath their feet as change and uncertainty sweeps across the country in the form of ever rising energy costs and a housing crisis to which there doesn’t seem to be any bottoming out bespeaks an obliviousness to the political realities of what is happening beyond your own small corner of the world. Your appeal to an economic Darwinism as a model for the American people to follow is as outmoded as it is despicable.

“Shut up and take it” seems to be the message most conservatives want to send to the American people. That and the fact that “technically” we are not in a recession because we haven’t had two full quarters of negative economic growth. This is not only a suicidal political strategy, it shows conservatives with as much empathy for their fellow countrymen as that of a three toed sloth.

Telling people who are genuinely hurting that they are essentially imagining the fact that they are having problems making ends meet because energy costs have doubled or that the idea that we are bleeding jobs in this country shouldn’t cause them any concern, or that affordable health insurance for them and their families is a pipe dream so you better not get sick, or saving for their kid’s college education is an impossibility so plan to go into hock up to your eyeballs, is idiotic. And then accusing them of being spoiled brats for voicing their concerns is so politically tone deaf as to be beyond belief.

No, we are not in a depression and our economic situation is not as dire as it was in 1980. But consider the following and then tell me that the 80% of people in this country who make up the middle and lower classes are imagining how times are tough.

* Payrolls contracted for the 6th straight month in June despite the unemployment rate holding steady at 5.5%

* Wages have grown only 2.8% this year - below the 4% rate of inflation. And you wonder why people are worried about falling behind?

* We have lost 578,000 non government jobs - down every month - since last November. The rate of job loss has increased each of the last three months.

* Decelerating wage increases coupled with a rising rate of inflation reveal a weak bargaining position not only for unions but for most others who count on that pay raise every year to maintain their standard of living.

* 345,000 jobs lost this year in residential construction with another 51,000 lost among non-residential builders. No one has a clue when or where this housing meltdown will end. With a government bailout of secondary mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now a foregone conclusion, things may get even tighter in the housing markets.

* Another 33,000 manufacturing jobs lost. That makes 24 straight months of losses in the industrial sector.

* The number of underemployed workers has skyrocketed; 9.9% of the total workforce is now considered underemployed. Most of these people are part timers who would rather be working full time. The total number of underemployed workers has increased over the last year from 4.3 million to 5.4 million.

* “June’s 5.5% unemployment rate represents a 1.1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate since March 2007, and an addition of 1.76 million to the unemployment rolls.”

* “Workers paychecks are under attack from three sides: diminished jobs and hours, slower hourly wage growth, and faster price growth. Moreover, most workers lack the bargaining power necessary to fend off these attacks.”

(Source: Economic Policy Institute. Quotes are direct from this report)

These numbers are not made up by the New York Times. They are not hatched in the basement of the Democratic National Committee. They are available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics to anyone who wishes to delve into the details of our faltering economy.

To have stood on the deck of the Titanic and pointed to the one half of the ship that was still above water and proclaim that the ship had not sunk yet would have, I’m sure, given absolutely no comfort to the passengers. And yet conservatives have rallied around Phil Gramm, clapping him on the back for “telling the truth” regarding our weak kneed countrymen who just don’t know how good they’ve got it.

Perception is what matters in this case. And regardless of where you believe the American people got their ideas about the economy being in trouble - a biased media, the evil Democrats, or even their own personal experience - telling them they are imagining their economic plight and that if they open their mouths to complain about the doubling of gas prices or the slow torture of watching food prices rise every week at the grocery store that they are akin to blubbering babies only shows that Republicans not only deserve to lose, they must lose for the good of the country.

The American people don’t want handouts. They don’t want government to give them a job or secure their futures. They want to know someone is listening to their concerns and understands their problems. The health insurance crisis is real. It keeps real people awake at nights worrying about their loved ones and their future. Now I don’t truck with a purely government solution to this problem and neither does McCain. But unless we understand how fundamental this concern is to the vast majority of the American people, conservatives deserve to be consigned to the back benches of power until they are educated about what affects the real lives of real people.

What defending Gramm shows is that conservatives live in an opaque bubble where they can only see shadows and undefined shapes outside of their little cocoon. They know that the people are out there but they have no insight into what their dreams and desires might be. They don’t have a clue about what moves them, what causes them concern, what worries they have about their children’s future. They are oblivious to their fears. And to top it off, they appear to be uncaring if they suffer.

Does this sound like an ideology you would vote for? Is this the recipe for conservative victory at the polls?

To demonstrate such ignorance and then be proud of it bespeaks a monstrous disconnect between political reality and the way conservatives have taken values like self-reliance, prudence, independence, and thrift and turned them into a club to beat their fellow countrymen over the head. There are ways to encourage people to practice these values without disrespecting their perception of their own personal economic situation.

Gramm and his defenders have failed to do that and have instead substituted a gross economic “survival of the fittest” critique that demonstrates a singular soullessness when it comes to lecturing their fellow citizens about how conservatives have gleaned the “true” economic conditions in the country and that any other theory that contradicts this revealed truth is evidence of mental disease.

This is not the conservatism of Reagan or anyone I am familiar with. One needn’t disconnect the brain from the heart to be a conservative. But for the defenders of Gramm, there appears to be some faulty wiring that has not only led to turgid logic but also a misfiring of the empathy gene.

Not a good combination if you’re a conservative and expect success at the polls.

Phil Gramm is still one of the smartest men ever to serve in the United States Senate. This despite his clueless statement that the US is in a “mental recession” and that Americans are a bunch of “whiners” about the economy.

Well things may very well look that way to the former Chairman of mortgage giant USB and a guy who gets $50 thousand a crack to regale fat cat businessmen with stories of how stupid our government is and how the private sector is always smarter. I’m sure from the vantage point of someone whose idea of rough economic times is cutting back on the number of manicure’s he receives a week from 3 to 2, things are just peachy.

The former Texas senator can cite figures on why the economy is not in recession from now until Barack Obama takes the oath of office and it still won’t change the fact that the manufacturing sector of our economy is losing jobs faster than Gramm’s prospects for a cabinet position in a McCain administration. This means that Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan are for all intents and purposes, in an economic slide - a real downturn and not one invented by the New York Times or the Democratic party. To tell these people that they are just having a bad dream and to stop bitching gives those with a political tin ear a bad name.

“Technically” not being in a recession is like saying that “technically” I have the body of a Greek god, a mind like Aristotle, and the compassion of Albert Schweitzer - or I would have those things if I bothered to work out, read more, and gave a good goddamn about the rest of you. It’s all a matter of perception. And you can be “technical” all you want and still not grasp the fundamental truth that it doesn’t matter where they got the idea - whether you and Phil Gramm believe it was force fed the American people by a biased media, a sneaky and underhanded Democratic party, or if they read it in a bathroom stall - the undeniable truth of the matter is that most Americans believe the economy sucks and that they feel quite vulnerable at the moment to job loss, a loss of health insurance, and the price of gas making it impossible for them to maintain their standard of living.

Politicians don’t deal in “what ifs.” They leave that kind of thing to fans of the Chicago Cubs. Those who aspire to be president deal with the reality of the here and now. And John McCain, fighting perceptions of his own lack of understanding and compassion towards working folk, cannot tolerate nor can he afford his number one economic surrogate and advisor to run off at the mouth about the American people suffering from some demented notion that times are tough and that they should ignore everything that’s going on around them and be happy.

Things may be fine in some areas of the US but in the absolutely vital states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, there is real, demonstrable economic pain. What’s more, there is a palpable sense of fear in the air in those states. People don’t necessarily want government to guarantee them a job. They want to be reassured that their leaders understand what they are going through and that, true to our traditions and history as Americans - that things will be better in the future.

No, Phil. We are not nor have we ever been a nation of whiners. Whiners don’t build transcontinental railroads or criss cross the country with a ribbon of highways. Whiners don’t win three World Wars (going on 4) or liberate billions from oppression. Whiners don’t stamp the world with cultural icons like Hollywood or even hated McDonalds. Whiners don’t create a $13 trillion economy while the rest of the world stagnates into economic ennui.

John McCain has the right idea of what to do with someone who has so little faith in America, her people, and our future:

“The person here in Michigan that just lost his job isn’t suffering a mental recession,” he told reporters after a town-hall-style meeting at a factory in this city west of Detroit.

And when he was asked whether Mr. Gramm — McCain campaign co-chairman, UBS Investment Bank vice chairman and former economics professor — might serve as treasury secretary in a McCain administration, the candidate replied with a flash of his sometimes tart humor.

“I think Senator Gramm would be in serious consideration for ambassador to Belarus,” he said, “although I’m not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that.”

Talk about throwing someone under the bus, McCain just booted Gramm through the windshield and ran over him. Definite road kill, the former Texas senator has become.

McCain has been straight talking his way across the old rust belt, telling auto workers in Michigan their jobs aren’t coming back, supporting free trade in Ohio, and talking energy in Pennsylvania. Will voters give McCain the benefit of the doubt because he refuses to pander to them? Experience says no, that the American people may not like pandering but they like hard truths even less. Perhaps McCain will get credit outside of the rust belt for telling it as he sees it.

But in those 3 vital states, his candidacy is now an even harder sell thanks to the insensitive, stupid remarks of Phil Gramm.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Public approval of Congress is so low that a few Republican optimists dream of overcoming the structural factors favoring the Democrats, holding steady or even gaining seats. They are dreaming. America has a proud tradition of disdain for Congress.

In the run up to the Civil War, the floor of the US House of Representatives became the very first battlefield as northern and southern members would routinely resort to fisticuffs in order to settle arguments or points of personal honor. It was not unusual for Members to come armed with pistols to the floor, ready and willing to offer satisfaction to those who maligned them.

And you thought our Congress was a mean place today?

While the House floor back then could erupt in violence at the drop of the proverbial hat, the Senate was a different story. Here, the well born members had tradition and ceremony to stand on, preferring to leave the fighting to the riff raff over in the House — until the Spring of 1856.

It was then that the issue of statehood for Kansas roiled the Capitol and men appeared to lose their minds with passion. At the height of this controversy Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner rose to give a speech that skewered slave holders and the “harlot” slavery. Sumner painted slavery in the most sexually suggestive terms imaginable while virtually accusing every slaveholder of raping their female slaves.

One of the most horrifying aspects of slavery to the good Puritans of New England was the “freedom of the slave quarters” granted to southern masters (and their house guests). Sumner’s words were designed to recall that horror and in the process condemn not only the institution of slavery, but those who practiced it.

Sumner even got specific in his condemnation. He named the fire eating senator from South Carolina Andrew Butler as one of the practitioners:

“The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentimcuts of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight I mean the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote, in behalf of his wench, Dulcinea del Toboso, is all surpassed.”

That fellow had a way with words, didn’t he? Not everyone agreed — especially Butler’s cousin Preston who heard of the calumny practiced against his kinsmen and took matters into his own hands. This is from the Official Senate History of the incident:

Representative Preston Brooks was Butler’s South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his “Crime Against Kansas” speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner’s head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.

Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.

For months afterward, Brooks received ceremonial canes from admirers across the South, several engraved with the epithet “Hit him again.” Summner, for his part, spent years in physical therapy and returned to the Senate in time to lead the Bitter End Republicans both during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

What did the American people think of displays like this? Most probably, they were hugely entertained. In a time before radio, TV, the internet, and Bill Maher, politicians were celebrities. And a politician who could deliver a stemwinder of a speech was a superstar. Can you imagine a knock down, drag out fight between say Bono and Kid Rock? The syndication rights alone would be worth millions.

On the other hand, few would pay to see our current lawmakers go at it on the floor of their respective chambers. Somehow, I can’t see Harry Reid gettin’ it on with Mitch McConnell, although Mitch has a few inches and probably 50 lbs on the Nevadan. Then again, Harry looks like one of those sneaky strong, wiry types with arms like banded steel. And don’t let that mild mannered professor look fool you either. As a kid, he would accompany his father, Harry Reid Sr., for long days deep underground in the mines. His father was a hardrock miner — not a job for the faint of heart or someone averse to hard work.

But despite seeing Congressmen and Senators as well known personages, the American people back then saw Congress as a whole pretty much the way we see it today; a healthy republican skepticism for their motives and a tendency to view the entire crew as a pretty worthless bunch. They may have liked and admired their own Member of Congress and Senators. But taken together, the Congress was seen as a bunch of greedy charlatans who were out to enrich themselves and their cronies.

If that description strikes you as apropos of today’s gaggle of congress critters, you wouldn’t be alone. A recent Rasmussen poll is great news for our elected officials. An overwhelming majority of Americans actually agree on something for once. Amidst war, a faltering economy, gas prices that are so high parents are auctioning off their children just to fill the tank, and the prospect of al-Qaeda paying a visit to your neighborhood soon, Americans have come to a consensus on one major issue.

They believe that Congress pretty much sucks.

Rasmussen reports in its latest survey that just 9% of the public gives Congress good or excellent ratings. I said this was great news for our lawmakers because it would be hard to imagine these numbers going any lower. They have hit absolute, undeniable, rock bottom. Just 2% of the public believes that Congress is doing an “excellent” job. Only 7% believe them to be doing a “good” job. Meanwhile, 88% think that Congress is doing a “fair” or “poor” job with 52% believing that 535 marmosets might do a better job than the sorry bunch currently calling themselves our Congress.

The big reason for these historically wretched numbers is the fact that the Congress has done precious little to address the major concerns of the American people. And their number one concern at the moment is the extortionate price for a gallon of gas. Energy costs for the average family have doubled this year and all the voter is seeing from our “Great Men” is handwringing and blame making. Unlike our lawmakers, the American citizen is quite the sensible person and figures that the Congress isn’t going to get anything done by being beastly to each other. They want action and they want it yesterday.

But that just isn’t in the cards with this assemblage up of pirates and grifters. As long as they’re bringing home the pork to their own districts, while making solicitous noises about knowing how tough it is for the average family in this crisis, the average voter will chalk up the problem to “all those other Congressman” and return their Member for another two years so that he/she can rob the treasury some more.

It’s depressing but true that this cycle of stupidity will be repeated once again this year. Historically, incumbent Congressmen are returned at a rate of 98% and though a few Republicans will probably fall in November, it won’t affect that percentage very much. Most Democratic gains will come in the 32 open seats vacated by retiring (or indicted) members. Being an incumbent these days is like getting dealt a straight flush every hand. The only way to lose is if you go to jail or die before scooping up the pot.

Some of my conservative friends point to these embarrassing numbers and take me to task for not believing in a GOP sweep in the fall. The Democrats, after all, are in control of this flea circus and if the Republicans could get swept away in 2006, punished for mismanaging Congress then surely the Democrats should suffer a similar fate, yes?

In a perfect world, such would be the case. CBut we don’t live in a perfect world or even a halfway tolerable one. The aftertaste of 12 years of Republican rule is still being spit out by the voter which is why in the generic vote for Congress, Democrats still lead by a comfortable 47-34 margin. People may be going broke filling their tanks with gas but they aren’t yet ready to blame the party that promises them a bountiful and clean energy future but in the meantime they should sit down, shut up, and suffer in silence.

It shouldn’t be a winning strategy but it will be. And its because people don’t expect anything from Congress anyway that allows this kind of cynicism to win through to victory.

A helluva way to run a country

It’s not making news because after all, reporting on the messiah’s mixed race upbringing and sterling oratory makes for so much better copy.

But someone, someday in the major media is going to wake up and take a good long look at Barack Obama’s campaign and notice something very strange; it is staffed from top to bottom with Chicagoans who have mostly made their bones working for Mayor Richard Daley and the Chicago Machine.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Barack Obama’s campaign is being run out of Chicago. He recently moved most of the Democratic National Committee functions to the Windy City and his campaign headquarters is there as well.

The question the press might want to ask would be is there anything being “run” in Chicago that doesn’t have Mayor Daley’s fingerprints all over it?

Is Barack Obama Daley’s man?

Seth Gittel in the New York Sun:

While the convention will be held in Denver it will give off the greatest Chicago cast since 1996, when Mayor Daley hosted the convention that nominated President Clinton for his second term. The June decision to place operations of the Democratic National Committee in Chicago together with Mr. Obama’s headquarters reinforces the Windy City’s dominance of Democratic politics. The big question is whether American voters will notice.

Mr. Obama has run successfully as a candidate of reform. A former community organizer, he fills his rhetoric with references to “a new and better day” and the omnipresent imperative of “change.” In South Carolina last January Mr. Obama said, “we’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington.”

For the junior Illinois senator, change in Washington is a requirement. But that does not seem to be the case for Chicago, as it seems from Mr. Obama’s support for Chicago’s mayor who has been in power since 1989. Mr. Obama announced his support of the mayor’s reelection effort in January 2007 after Mr. Daley, endorsed him for president in 2006.

[snip]

The reality is that without Mr. Daley’s backing, Mr. Obama would be running a very different kind of campaign. Part of the tactical genius for Mr. Obama’s campaign has been provided by his campaign consultant, David Axelrod, who also is a longtime operative in Mr. Daley’s operation.

A columnist with the Chicago Tribune, John Kass, explained the arrangement in an interview with CNN: “Richard M. Daley is the boss of [the] Chicago Machine. His spokesman was David Axelrod. Their candidate is Barack Obama. Who speaks for Barack Obama? David Axelrod. There’s no such thing as coincidences. Chicago politics doesn’t have coincidences.”

As far as coincidences go, there’s also the woman Newsweek described as the campaign’s “insider-outsider, a trusted friend who can give them a view from beyond the confines of the campaign bubble,” Valerie Jarrett. Ms. Jarrett served as the planning and development commissioner for Mayor Daley during the 1990s. Today, in addition to being a confidante of Mr. Obama and his wife, she’s also the chief executive of Habitat Co., which has drawn scrutiny for managing uninhabitable affordable housing, such as the Grove Parc Plaza complex.

It is amazing to those of us who have followed Chicago politics for any length of time that Axelrod’s close connections to Daley are not a part of the story of this campaign. It’s not that this fact is rarely mentioned. It is that it is NEVER mentioned! Axelrod knows full well the stink that emanates from City Hall could tarnish Obama’s Mr. Clean reputation - a rep that has been created out of whole cloth given Obama’s own connections and pandering to the Machine when it would benefit his career. His endorsement last year of Daley (along with most of the corrupt Cook County slate of candidates) shows just how serious Mr. Obama is about “change.” In short, he’s perfectly willing to change you but when it comes to changing Chicago, the candidate is a weak sister.

The inclusion of Ms. Jarrett in Gittel’s analysis is surprising. She is the invisible woman of the campaign and, as her resume indicates, is a bridge between Obama and some of the Machine’s moving parts. Her stint on the Planning Commission - one of the most powerful jobs in the city - coincides with Michelle Obama’s service on the same board. They also served together on another powerful board, the Landmarks Commission (try to build almost anything or anywhere in the city without the approval of the Landmarks Commission and you run into big problems).

Anyone asking the question how a little known state senator who has served less than half a term as a US Senator could be the Democratic nominee for president only need look at Obama’s friends in very high places in Chicago. This is the story of the campaign. It’s a shame everyone is missing it.

“After you, my dear Alfonse.”
No, no - After you, my dear Gaston.”
(”Alfonse and Gaston” - newspaper comic strip created by Edward Burr Opper)

When looking at the choice Barack Obama must make for the Vice Presidential nominee of the Democratic party, one is struck by the number of high profile candidates who have politely refused to run with the messiah.Reliapundit has compiled the list of “after you” candidates:

EDWARDS HAS SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED.
JOE BIDEN SAYS HE’S NOT INTERESTED, BUT MIGHT SAY YES IF ASKED.
DITTO KERRY.
GOVERNOR TOM STRICKLAND OF OHIO HAS SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED.
SENATOR BAYH SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED - BUT MIGHT SAY YES.
GOVERNOR BREDESEN SAYS HE’S NOT INTERESTED.
WEBB HAS NOW SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED.

RP draws an interesting parallel with the McGovern candidacy where George was so obviously going to lose hugely to Nixon that no one wanted to join him for the death watch. Finally, in desperation, McGovern turned to Missouri senator Tom Eagleton. Eagleton was a fine man, a good senator, but had undergone electro-shock therapy for depression about 10 years previously. In 1972, this was considered a disqualification for high office by most - even though McGovern stupidly backed Eagleton after the news broke and was forced within 48 hours to withdraw his candidacy - and I’m not so sure it would be widely accepted today.

The point being, no respectable potential Veep nominee would touch McGovern’s campaign with a ten foot pole.

The Obama campaign is beginning to smell a lot like the McGovern effort. Perhaps not so much because people don’t think he can win as much as the disaster-in-waiting his presidency could be. Seasoned pols like Governor Strickland and Senator Evan Bayh have politely declined the honor. Now, part of that may be the realization that they would not be Obama’s first choice, although Strickland would probably bring the candidate Ohio and Bayh, Indiana. Ditto Bredesen with Tennssee. And in a close race, any one of those states could help make the difference.

But the “after you” syndrome seems to have infected the campaign as other potentials who would be popular with the party have in effect said, “Don’t call me unless there’s no one else who will do it.”

But why? There are precious few professionals who think John McCain can pull it off. The GOP is in absolute disarray. From top to bottom, defeatism and depression have set in which almost guarantees big Democratic pick ups in the House and Senate.

And yet…

If Obama were such a shoo-in, why are so many candidates for the Vice Presidency taking their name off the chalk board? This is especially true of younger guys like Bayh, Bredesen, and Webb who have all been mentioned as possible presidential contenders some day. Serving 8 years in an Obama administration as Vice President would almost guarantee their ascension to the top spot on the Democratic ticket in 2016.

Are we missing something that these guys have already caught on to?

Obama’s poll numbers are good but taking into consideration all the factors involved, those numbers just don’t add up. With a screamingly bad economy in some parts of the country (and getting worse everywhere else) along with people desperately wanting “change” (whatever that means) coupled with the Republican brand being about as salable as dog food at a convention of gourmet cooks, by all rights Obama should be so far ahead at this point that McCain wouldn’t even be showing up in his rear view mirror.

But that is not the case. Despite a campaign in disarray with many Republican strategists criticizing the organization, the message, the themes, and the scheduling of McCain, Obama can’t shake the Arizona senator. Daily tracking polls by Gallup and Rasmussen have the race closer than the GOP could have dreamed at this point. Gallup has it 47-43 Obama while Rasmussen shows a 5 point Obama lead 49-44.

The big news from those tracking polls is that Obama can’t crack 50%. And the all important electoral college numbers at this point also show Obama lagging although he is doing slightly better than his national numbers would indicate. According to RealClear Politics running count, Obama has 153 solid electoral votes with 85 leaning his way for a total of 238 (270 needed to win). McCain has 93 solid and 73 leaning for a total of 163. The map currently shows 137 toss up EV’s - a number that is expected to grow to McCain’s detriment.

The problem for Obama is that McCain is running better in states like Washington, Oregon, Michigan, and Pennsylvania than Obama is running in some GOP leaners and toss ups. In other words, this is still a tight race in every way despite the perceived advantages of the Democrat.

And then there’s the matter of race that no one is taking for granted. No one can guess what the American people will do when they are faced with making a choice in the voting booth. In privacy and secrecy, with the curtains closed and no one looking over their shoulder, just how tolerant will the American people be? Perhaps a few of those candidates who are saying they don’t want the Veep job believe that in the end, race might make a difference.

Finally, there’s the Hillary factor. Since Mrs. Clinton wants the job, appearing to stand in her way would not be healthy politically. The Clintons have long memories and know how to treat their friends - and anyone they perceive as an enemy.

So I don’t necessarily see “The McGovern Factor” at work in the reluctance of so many A-list Democrats who are declining to serve as Veep on a ticket headed up by Obama. But I find it strange that McCain does not seem to be having a similar problem despite the fact that he finds himself very much in McGovern territory as far as the perception of his chances in the fall.

No doubt Obama will find a candidate - a good candidate - to run with him. But the process by which he chooses his running mate has revealed a hesitation among some Democrats to tie themselves too closely to their presidential candidate. Is it significant? I think it is and I believe one reason may very well be that some Democrats are not as confident of victory in November as they let on.

I am so pleased that our freedom loving president has decided to attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in Beijing, China. I’m sure he is relieved that he doesn’t have to pretend to care about those wild ass Tibetan monks and nuns who just a short while ago were being slaughtered in the streets of Lhasa. After all, if CNN isn’t paying attention, why should he?

We are, after all, into our “Let’s not be beastly to the Chinese” mode this month - despite Beijing’s utter refusal to seriously assist the world in stopping the slaughter in Darfur where they hold sway with the government and continue to supply them arms. The same could be said for most hot spots in the world today where China has chosen - shall we say - a more “pragmatic” approach to international diplomacy. In other words, if the solution would harm Chinese economic interests, better to be a Sabot than pragmatist.

From Iran, to the Congo, to Burma - where western countries tried unsuccessfully to enter and alleviate the horrific suffering caused by the typhoon that hit Burma on May 2 - China has seen fit to block, impede, ignore, and otherwise discombobulate efforts to resolve these problems and protect the peace or save lives.

This is the reality of living with a China that is beginning to flex its muscles on the world stage. Quiescent for 600 years, China is back with a vengeance and while cooperating in a very limited sphere of priorities, the Dragon prefers to go its own way. It is procuring oil deals in the Middle East, trade deals in South America, and beginning to dominate its neighbors in East Asia economically.

And part of this muscle flexing - a very large psychological part - is hosting the Summer Olympics. As much a confidence booster for its own people as it is a showcase for foreigners (who they still see as barbarians), the Games are an announcement that China is back and that she is about to start kicking butt and take names in the international arena. The powers that be on the International Olympic Committee who handed the Chinese this propaganda coup - fabulously wealthy, old monied European dilettantes and obscure royalty - are playing with forces they neither know nor care little about. The Chinese government dangled billions in front of their eyes and that was enough. To hell with human rights said the IOC lickspittles.

True to form, the Chinese recently cracked down on Tibetans who have a slightly different idea about who should be running their country and it does not include the Chinese army and paramilitary units who routinely whack people they consider troublemakers. The death toll from the riots during last March’s uprising was around 55 we are told. What was never announced were the number of people - monks included - dragged out of their houses in the middle of the night and simply “disappeared” in the old fashioned Stalinist tradition. Word trickled out that entire monasteries were emptied and the monks beaten and shot. Some of the more prominent human rights activists are under house arrest or in some Tibetan dungeon somewhere.

But since the New York Times, the Washington Post, and even Keith Olbermann seems to have mislaid their outrage over this blatant violation of common decency and the UN Charter on Human Rights, our brave Sir President feels it now safe to kow-tow to the Chinese and pretend as if “Tibet” is just a place name on a map:

US President George W Bush will attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, the White House says.

Human rights groups and opposition politicians including presidential hopeful Barack Obama had urged Mr Bush to consider boycotting the ceremony.

Beijing’s rights record has come under intense scrutiny since Tibetan protests were suppressed in March.

Troops used force to quell the biggest anti-China demonstrations in Tibetan communities for two decades.

Beijing says rioters killed about 20 people in the unrest, but exiled Tibetan groups accuse security forces of killing scores of protesters.

Even Obama supports a boycott of the opening ceremonies - today. Where he might come down tomorrow on the subject is a different kettle of fish. But for the moment, the messiah is four square in favor of making this small, yet telling statement about what America thinks of the Chinese bully boys cracking down on Tibetans.

But not our George. His compassionate conservative answer to critics?

“He believes he’s going to China to support first and foremost our athletes. He sees this as a sporting competition,” she said.

How touching. Does this make world leaders who intend to boycott the ceremonies hard hearted monsters who don’t support their nation’s athletes?

Some world leaders are missing the 8 August opening ceremony.

Germany’s Angela Merkel is not attending the Olympics. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will be in Beijing for the closing ceremony only.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says his attendance depends on progress in dialogue between Beijing and the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Those talks are going about as well as can be expected - which is to say not well at all. This probably means that Sarkozy will join Brown and Merkel in insulting their athletes by missing the opening of the games.

There are those, such as James Joyner, who don’t care much one way or the other:

I don’t feel strongly either way about this issue. My preference would have been not to award China the Olympics, given not only their abysmal human rights record but also the ridiculous level of pollution in Beijing which puts the health of the athletes in danger. Boycotting the opening ceremonies would embarrass the Chinese government and send a message, I suppose, although it would likely just increase their intransigence and make them less cooperative.

What strikes me as interesting in all this is that Bush has rather clearly, in his second term, become much more cognizant that symbolic gestures and rhetoric have an impact beyond the domestic audience. A boycott would likely play well at home, since both the Left and the Right are united in their distaste for the PRC government, albeit for different reasons. But China is the key player in Asia and their cooperation is essential in addressing many issues of strategic concern to the United States in that region. Thinking through the consequences of thumbing our noses at them, therefore, is important.

Joyner’s assessment of the problem of “thumbing our noses” at the Chinese is dubious in my mind. We are, after all, talking about a small gesture that if the Chinese do indeed get their nose all bent out of shape because of it, only prove themselves to be unworthy of any approbation for having “come so far” as a nation. His analysis also fails to assess the damage caused by our not standing up for human rights and Tibet.

If the Chinese are so paranoid and sensitive about anything marring their precious games (they murdered hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs to “clean up” Beijing), perhaps they should address the reality of Tibet rather than trying to sweep it under the rug - something Joyner inadvertently is encouraging them to do. Bush or no Bush, the news nets are not going to ignore Tibet or the boycott by the Big Three in Europe. Ergo, Bush will be seen as the weak sister in the face of Chinese pressure to conform, to get with the program, and celebrate China’s coming out party.

A small thing? I think not. The symbolism of Bush attending the opening ceremonies will not help us in the slightest despite Jim’s hopeful outlook and as the only major western leader in attendance will give unwanted legitimacy to a government whose own people are suffering under a Communist tyranny. I wonder what the Chinese dissidents - those few not in jail at the moment - are thinking about Bush’s decision?

The fact is, because Tibet and Chinese domestic politics is largely ignored at the moment by the press, Bush feels safe in making his announcement. Out of sight and out of mind.

And for the Tibetans, out of luck as well.