Centerfield

Texas County Convention HELL, Part I

We'd been trained and everything. Both Obama and Clinton campaigns held training sessions, and we went to one at a big, rich house in the Hill Country for ours. Caucus votes, which we were casting, for the next stage, the State convention, are allocated by which delegates get the most votes within the caucus. Each caucus decides on its state delegates on its own. It also covered strategy tips like making the other candidate vote first so you can know how to allocate your votes to maximize votes won.

--

The Obama campaign warned us to show up early, at 7:00, before the crush set in. I take a long time to wake up, 1:30, which would've meant waking at 5 to make it by the convention center by 7. We got lazy, and decided to aim for 8, still two hours before the convention started. That meant leaving at 7:30. Except, this time we hit a traffic jam a couple of miles out - half of Austin going to the convention. We crept along, the baby starting to cry, and then going to sleep (whew!). We got there at 9:15 instead of 8. It took us another 15 minutes to understand how the lines worked (there were some decoy lines of people who didn't get it).

--

They gave my wife delegate credentials, but told me there was nothing for me, and that I should go to the convention skybox to do credentials challenges. We went to the skybox, and went inside to a bunch of yelling. I asked about credential challenges, and they pointed at one of the yellers, with a notepad in hand.

"Put your information down on the sheet, and wait here for your precinct number to be called," said a woman.

I went up to the man, and the same voice continued, "SD14?" No, I'm in Senate District 25, and said so.

"Oh, that's on the other side of the partition," she continued.

I went, and was relieved to see it was much calmer there. People pointed me to the man with the corresponding sheet. I suggested my wife go to the floor and find out what they knew there, and call me when she found out anything. I saw men with buttons with my precinct number with two women, and joined them. It turned out the two women were also in my precinct and my pickle, except Clintonistas. Eventually, our number was called. We walked over together to present our cases.

--

During the whole convention, I kept being frustrated at the pointlessness of many waits and wanting to run for whatever job runs the convention just to bring it from the early twentieth century to today's way of doing things. I guess it's the same impulse that gets parents to adopt troubled kids.

--

Tune in to the same bat-blog and the bat-time for the next episode. Will your intrepid blogger get to join his wife and kids today, or will he be stuck outside the whole day? Find out in the next episode,

Texas County Convention HELL Preview

We just woke up from an 11-hour snooze following the convention. More when I have time to write it up.

A would-be delegate was thrown out of the convention for breaking the rules. He was a REPUBLICAN caucus chair (PARTY cross-dressing!). I'll let you decide what his motivation was.

You can also decide how democratic our caucus results were - our original caucus was 2/3 Obama. We had five state delegates to allocate, and gave four to Obama. It's harder to turn out time after time when you're there to lose, I guess. Also, I think many find it easier to turn out for hope (Obama) than for fear (Clinton's approach, IMHO).

Texas County Conventions Tomorrow

Texas' county-level conventions will be held tomorrow. As I mentioned before, the Profesora are delegates; I plan on reporting on what I see. The Burnt Orange Report reports that a dirty trick might be up, that people are being told tomorrow's convention is cancelled. The Burnt Orange Report also will report on results tomorrow as they come in. Check the Burnt Orange Report page tomorrow for results.

All over Texas, county Democratic officials (I'm in Travis County) have been scrambling for spaces big enough. Here in Austin, we do have a few possiblities; the party here has booked the Austin Expo Center, also the Austin Ice Bats' home field. We've been warned that the Expo Center right now smells like its last gig, the animals in a rodeo.

Austin, as in my precinct, went for Obama 3:2. His style matches the city's well, and it is a young city. Tomorrow's work will be about the equivalent of something like 32 natl-level delegates, though over 10,000 will crowd the Expo Center tomorrow. It's mostly about turnout, I guess.

I probably won't post tomorrow, because I'm less of a liveblogger than a slow gasbag, and will be too tired to think of anything else.

The Day Barack Obama Became the Democratic Nominee

Senator Bob Casey endorses Senator Obama.

This helps with Catholics, it helps with lower-middle class Reagan Democrats, it helps with white voters... it may either vault Obama to a win in Pennsylvania, or at least make it a close race which is just as damaging to Hillary in my view. It is a very good day for the Obama campaign.

Open Family Worries Thread

Being a capitalist roader in good standing, I'm worried about my kid going Commie.

He's been sighted twice with Mao's Little Red Book; the Profesora has a Spanish-language version on her lower shelves. He was positively devouring it; it's surviving OK because it has a plasticish cover. And all this before he can even read!

I'm also worried about a cousin who has a construction business.

So, what grief and worries have your families been giving you?

Will Hillary Drop Out After PA?

..in the likely case she's still behind in the popular vote? If it were me, that's where I'd drop, because that's the last spot it's mathematically possible (if unlikely) for her to catch up in either popular count or delegates. But Hillary I ain't. I think she's trying to catch up in popular, which is less hopeless, but still gonna be real, real, real tough.

Mostly, I'm still happy at the idea of getting the biggest media boost of decades from any natl convention. Gov. Bredesen of Tenn is nervous about the circular firing squad and has suggested a compromise. Though that'd seem to take away the show, so it might be the worst of both worlds.

So, whaddya YOU think?

UPDATE: Remember, the circular firing squad looks even worse on the other side (hat tip, Greg's Opinion).

Yoko "Misspeaks"

Hillary Clinton says she "misspoke" when describing an arrival overseas under sniper fire:

In a foreign policy speech last week at George Washington University, Clinton used the description of a dangerous arrival to bolster her argument that she has the foreign policy experience needed to be commander in chief.

She said when she arrived in Bosnia on March 25, 1996, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

But news video footage of her arrival at Tuzla shows Clinton, then the first lady, calmly walking from the rear ramp of a U.S. Air Force plane with her daughter, Chelsea, then 16, at her side. Both Clintons held their heads up and did not appear rushed.

This doesn't sound like a "misspeak" to me. You misspeak when you call Bob Tim or say you went Tuesday when you were there Wednesday. You don't misspeak when you describe something that didn't actually happen, or that happened differently from how you've portrayed it. Maybe it's a case of a "misremember" like what Roger Clemens says Andy Pettitte did.

But what it feels like to me is a plain old-fashioned embellishment. Not that big a deal. A clever little white lie until exposed. Who cares. But it's as good an opportunity as any to point out this:

Hillary Clinton had about as much to do with Clinton Adminstration foreign policy as Yoko Ono had to do with composing the lyrics for Abbey Road. In other words very little, and possibly nothing at all.

Financial Crisis Update

In my last article, I was just guessing about reasons why it's extended, truthfully, because I haven't seen any better reasons. Modeling risk changes IS probably a big part of the mix for the slow part of the crisis. But now we have, at long last, a bigger problem coming out.

The Economist this week published an article suggesting that serious overleverage is afoot. Leverage is the ratio of loans to capital at hand. If it's too big, it's hard to resist financial trouble. The article's freely available to nonsubscribers, so far. They give numbers that suggest Merrill is 50:1, and Goldman is 28:1. Note, an earlier Econ article had the now-deceased Bear-Sterns at roughly 30:1. This article talks about some of Bear's problems in some detail.

Here in Austin, you might be interested to hear that home prices haven't dipped atall. That's presumably because we're way off the national home price curve. Our low point came after the 2000 tech bubble burst, because computers and software are where most of Austin's money are. But the home sale rate has certainly taken a dive.

The Economist's suggesting bringing the Glass-Steagal sepation between banking and other services back. I remember banks were having trouble making money in that environment. My inclination is to raise reserve requirements instead. Your thoughts?

Try Two At Better General Picking

OK, so maybe putting generals on popular ballots might not've been the best idea since sliced bread.

So, here's another try at the same problem. So, if you remember, my goal is to get ept military leadership more often than now to cut down on embarrassments like Vietnam and Iraq's nonoccupation. So far, we've only had really good military leadership twice: in the Lincoln Administration, late in the way after Lincoln had slowly gotten rid of the underperformers, and in FDR's day, when he used Pearl Harbor as an excuse to get rid of the inept on top.

My next suggestion is choice by an Academic Senate of each service's academy (Annapolis for Navy, etc). Academic Senates are groups of representative professors voting on university issues. These Academic Senates should pick all general officers, so we get good people instead of those smart enough to make their bosses nervous about ending up junior to them if they promote them.

Such Senates should actually be familiar with much of its services' talent pool, and be good at picking thoughtul men with good strategic ability, unlike the electorate at large that was my last suggestion.

Joint Chiefs and the Sec'y of Defense could be picked in a similar spirit (please, no more Rumsfelds!). These Senates, along with the President and chairs of the House and Senate Armed Service Committee, would pick delegates to a Joint Military Senate, which would vote on whom the various Joint Chiefs and their chairman should be.

This should be constitutional. Congress would have to pass the appropriate legislation to change to choosing generals by academic committees. The Senate would have to pass legislation to require Presidential Sec'y of Defense nominees to pass the Joint Military Senate before considering them itself.

Several measures would have to be taken to prevent influence by fear of reprisal from unhappy candidates. Service academy funding and promotions would have to be unwound from any grip of the services, and be done strictly internally and through Congress.

It'd be better if there were some way of getting the incompetent OUT faster. Rumsfeld might've seemed like a good candidate BEFORE he served this 2nd time, after all. Maybe the Joint Military Senate could be given an impeachment capability for incompetent generals like Franks and Sanchez? But we'd see lots of misuse, since DC often loves investigations more than solving problems. And it'd be unconstitutional for them to impeach SoDs. Your thoughts?

Well? Is that better? Oh, and Rumsfeld's hardly been the only bad Sec'y of Defense. One reason DC burned to the ground in the War of 1812 is that Madison's Sec'y of War left the city UNDEFENDED. And American militaries have always done better the farther from DC they were.

Open Saturday Thread

Why not?

Well, OK, yesterday didn't feel terribly weekend-like to me. We got cried at alot.

But, I rounded the day out with Tully's excellent Irish Coffee recipe. Thanks for posting it, Tully!

Plus, I did get to check out the new nearby liquor store. It's nothing spectacular, but it is nicely businesslike - they used ALL the space, and have several nice choices of everything I looked at.

I approve of using ALL the space. In San Diego I remember seeing an annoying number of stores that missed using alot of space, and being annoyed with the lack of selection and never wasting time there again. The worst offender was a music store that used 1/2 its floor space and only had short shelves, using 1/2 to 1/3 the vertical space. If they'd used it all, I'm sure it would've been a pretty nice place instead of a waste of time. And it would've given them a better return on their rent, I'm sure.

Maybe Privacy Rights Matter After All?

The recent State Department illicit looksees at each of the Presidential candidates' records, and an earlier look at Candidate Clinton look are pretty good exhibits of why it's a good idea to make it hard for the gummint to look peoples' personal data.

I do want to give all due credit to the State Dept for stomping on this. Secretary Rice called each candidate today to express her unhappiness.

And, having seen the boredom of gummint data-entry people in person, I see no reason necessary for this beyond said boredom. The Clinton violation did turn out to be partisan, but I'll wait for the investigation results. ALTHOUGH, this is the same Inspector General who saw no reason merceneraries should have to be responsible to their employers or anybody else, so I've got doubts he'll add much.

Of coures, if it were in the CIA or NSA, the news'd probably be quashed. What I want to know is, what kind of safety measures are being used in CIA and especially NSA.

We know from FOIAs and IG reports that FBI systems have plenty of safeguards (after many FOIA requests and lawsuits), and that they're being ignored in many FBI groups. I'm deeply dubious that agencies like NSA that regularly have their FOIA requests and audit reports suppressed for secrecy will perform as well as those that have some exposure.

Current Market Trouble Bad, And About DEBT RISK, Not Subprimes

The subprime housing thing was just a trigger. I'd get over thinking too much about it.

It looks to me like the problem persists because of a sudden need to rethink what bonds and debt-related instruments to sell and which to deny. I mean, there was a whole class of thinking and of software that used to just look at the Moody's rating to decide on defaulting chance. Not anymore! And the rating companies have become too conservative in reaction to their big subprimes mistake.

So, to do business in the new environment, EVERYBODY has to come up with new models, and, no doubt, rewrite lots of software. And there'll be some bugs, &c&c.

And, another complication might be that companies have to guess how far the real estate bubble might burst and factor that into their calculations. And the fact that different regions and different kinds of real estate have different levels of bursting.

Another complication, of course, is FEAR. The Economist writes that DEBT (bonds, mortgages, and other kinds of loans) is seen as a four-letter word. Far too many are now afraid to get their hands into the icky, now that it's burned them and it's all so complicated. People with that viewpoint will look for excuses to set their risks too high, and thus overprice offers or refuse to issue them in reasonable time. Fear also is involved in widening the risk-evaluation problems beyond where they should be, classes of complicated debts and subprimes in particular, to every kind of debt.

This doesn't seem like something that can be fixed quickly. Really, we need three steps at this point. Some leaderly Wall Street firms have to invent a new set of broadly held perspectives on complex debt instrument risk (the real problem), and sell bonds on reasonable terms. They also need to capture enough of the market to force fear-bound firms to shape up a bit. Six months? A year? Two?

The other question, I guess, is how bad things'll get. The problem is that you need money to do almost anything, The wide Street mental contagion to MOST debts is very bad news, indeed - Until recovery, it's only going to be reasonable to raise lots of money by selling stock. That's hardly an option in today's world for building sewers and roads. And not all firms are in a good position to sell stock - if they don't have savings, they could fail. At best, many companies, govts, and organizations will be doing alot less. A recession is likely, because firms needing bonds to get through a rough patch are likely to fail, which will shrink the economy. i don't see a depression, though.

Oh, and if you or your friends or family are in construction, I'm really, really sorry, because now not only is there a pricked bubble, BUT D-E-B-T is how most construction projects are paid for these days. There'll be decidedly fewer of them for awhile.

More Evidence McCain Isn't Paying Attention In Iraq

An unpromising McCain Iraq oopsie. Yglesias on it here.

I've been writing for awhile that I didn't believe McCain's been paying attention in Iraq, because he's failed to say word one on American failure to provide a competent occupation. You can't understand Iraq without understanding that.

Note; I think the McCain of the fiery "Iron Triangle" rhetoric in the 2000 elections would've paid attention. But I'm of the opinion that Rove's public pressuring of him to anger got to him in a deep way. Now I wonder if he's sure he wants the job, looking at him.

Arthur C. Clarke Is Dead

One of my favorite and most inspiring authors died yesterday - Arthur Clarke, a science fiction author. He also invented communications satellites, which we've all seen broadcasts over. I thought of him alot when I worked on some software to use for prepushing Internet content over satellites.

Several of the obituaries have noted that he was an inspiration to many. That includes me - his work definitely helped push me in the direction of becoming an engineer.

I have no idea what the kid will become, but I do know I'll try to interest him in Clarke's books at the right age. And I suspect the odds are good, if he continues to be interested in reading - the books were already a generation old when I was reading them, and they still spoke to me without trouble.

Goodbye, Dave^h^h^h^hArthur.

UPDATE: some links

NCAA Pools - Open Thread

The formula to winning an office pool is to (1) pick the right upsets, and (2) predict the eventual winner. Here are my first round upset predictions, and my pick for the champion. Please offer your thoughts in the comments.

Round 1: St. Joe's (11) over Oklahoma (6); Siena (13) over Vanderbilt (4); Davidson (10) over Gonzaga (7); and Temple (12) over Michigan State (5).

Champion: UCLA.

Tully's Circular Firing Squad Up And Going

It's official: the firing squad is up and running.

More here (Tully and, ooh, Kissinger, in the threads :-))! Henry's comments are about as likely as his, er, realism.

Now I'm finally starting to finally get a little worried about the long primary.

Pretending Rev. Wright's On The Ballot

Clearly Rev. Wright's a threat to Christianity and Western Civilization if his poodle, Obama's elected.

Molly Ivins documented that Bush II had a big friendship with an IMHO more extreme pastor, The evidence from the last two elections is that most Americans are skeptical about making their political decisions based on whom a man hangs with. After all, MOST people older than 15 have buddies that wouldn't look good in a campaign, either. YAWN.

Whadja ask? Has any commenters on the web actually talked about changing their votes because of Wright? Sadly, the people seem not to understand their true peril. They've been fooled into believing they're just voting for Obama. !!;-)!!

It'll be interesting to see what the most interesting made-up Wright peril is in the coming months, especially revving up to November. So far, the field's pretty boring, with Clinton supporters ever-so-coyly suggesting that other parties might take a more serious view. So far the righties' best effort I've seen so far has been on Mama, suggesting that resentment against being brought up Leftie and against being, er, abandoned, with only Grandma and Grandad around, must clearly lead to kiddo trying to bring the mighty United States down by stealth and treachery.

UPDATE: Here's what Obama has to say about it. Probably worth looking at.

Knowing Yer Enemy: Iran And Communist States Are Politically Oligarchies

We liked to talk in the Cold War about how our opponents were Communist Dictatorships, and today about how Iran is an evil theocracy or dictatorship. But neither is true. The "evil" bit seems reasonable to me, but they aren't/weren't dictatorships, but oligarchies.

Actually, in the early stages of each state, that was fair enough - I don't think too many people ignored Lenin, Stalin's, Mao's, or Khomeini's orders - the conquences tended to be bad. They WERE dictators. But after that, powers had a way of balancing at least somewhat just to make sure tyranny didn't happen again. The chief executives couldn't just do whatever they wanted. That's still true.

This post will say some nice things about oligarchy, so I want to first it make clear that I think republican representative democracy works much better. Representative democracy has a decidedly better human rights, economic, and research record.

Oligarchies have structures with balancing powers, just like the American Presidency, Congress, and Judiciary. An executive must convince several people to do anything serious instead of ruling by whim. And, even when the executive of a state passes within a family, there's a powerful elite to rule when idiots come to power. Oligarchies are capable of self-reform. Rome upgraded itself gradually into having elected executives and lower house. China hardly looks like the same nation as under Mao.

Oligarchies mostly have some kind of aristocracy with special rights. Often they're the only electors. In Communist states, it's the Communist Party.

Oligarchy was invented in Classical Greece, where it was massively successful, notably in Sparta. This post is really a response to me reading classical Greek historians, and thinking, hey, that's still going on today. It outperformed direct democracy in the issue of empire. Athens and other city-state democracies of the day were mostly richer and more innovative than Sparta.

Athens was at a loss when the cities started conglomerating by conquest into bigger states. Athens had sucess twice growing empires, and lost it both times, and then was conquered by Macedonia; that was the end of Athenian democracy until Greece escaped the Ottoman Empire.

Each time, Athenian citizens grew arrogant and lost their empire by making stupid decisions, like the City of Washington, DC does, and having poisonous internal politics. Oligarchies grew arrogant, but still chose decent generals, because of their better checks and balances. We do better because we have many cities, only one of which has the arrogance of an imperial city. To be president, you have to win mostly non-Washingtonians, and there is no imperial-city vote in Congress. No native Washingtonian has ever been elected President.

Rome was founded as an oligarchy (they called it a republic), with a monarchy and nobly-elected Senate to keep each other in check, and grew more liberal as time went on. Their rise went on for century after century until about a century after the Republic fell and was replaced by a much worse-performing monarchy, the Empire, After that, it slowly shrank and grew more and more static and unadaptable.

Over centuries, oligarchies tend to acquire limited notions of human rights. Human rights, including voting rights, do grow over time, but the idea of equality is mostly absent. The aristocracy keeps some advantages over the centuries.

Discounting Petulance

Instapundit has sent folks to visit Classical Values' crowing about current dissension in the ranks of the Democratic Party:

This is just peachy. For McCain. I like that. To find out what rank and file Democrats are thinking about this read the comments here. An example:

Seriously as a Democrat, if Obama were to represent our party I would rather vote for McCain in the General Election. Obama?s connections to radical mentors to which he openly admits raises serious questions about his motives. I will not be party to any person connected in anyway to radical racist anti-Semitic groups.

Another goody: If Clinton takes the nomination, I'm voting for Nader.

It looks to me like this election will come down to party unity. Something the Democrats seem to be avoiding for the time being.

So folks in the GOP column are taking the same measure of pleasure from internal democratic dissension as folks in the Dem column have been taking from internal GOP dissension. But will such petulant threats still have legs come November? My gut says they mostly deserve to be discounted. Most of the chickens will come home to their traditional party to roost, although some may decide to stay home.

The question is "how motivated is each side's partisan base?" At the outset, I'd like to ask folks out there what they think on that matter.

It's an open question to me how many socon GOP partisans will stay home. McCain is as strongly identified among these folks as a RINO as any GOP pol in recent memory. But either Clinton or Obama will surely provide ample motivation for socon turnout.

Will petulance from the dem loser's supporters endure from August into November? With anti-GOP admin sentiment as high as it could be, I have my doubts. But there will be less time than usual for such sentiment to fade should the battle carry right onto the convention floor.

Mileage may vary, but my gut says that Obama supporters are more likely to behave petulantly. So many Clinton supporters back her because she's a ruthless fighter, and they want to win. They'll back their team. meanwhile, Obama supporters are now nurturing a strong and growing loathing of the Clinton campaign, and they may well bolt for the progressive fjords if Hillary orchestrates a convention win via superdelegates.

Now I don't think that's going to happen. But if it does. let's not forget that Gore's 2000 Nader-induced loss is still pretty fresh in the memory. Would disgruntled Obamites really behave so as to enable a McCain presidency that would extend GOP executive rule to 12 years?

I dunno. they might rabbit, they might. What do you think?

Fratricide

Because my instinct is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I have not previously bought into the "Hillary will do anything even if it destroys the party" talk. However, columns like this have nudged an evolution of my opinion in a direction that is not favorable to Mrs. Clinton.

Hillary Clinton, you sure don't make it easy.

Since 2005, I've written $7,100 worth of checks to the person I considered most qualified to be the junior senator from New York and, later, president of the United States. In February, I was elected a Clinton delegate in the neighborhood-level caucuses, and looked forward to trying to be appointed a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. . .

Sen. Clinton, I can no longer count myself in your ranks. . .

Open Lawsuit Thread: Can I Sue For A Laser Cannon, Too (UPDATED)?

After all, they're suing for one in Israel. Forget that wimpy healthcare stuff the politicians've been promising - this is the good stuff.

I've been trying to guess if these are any good for toasting marshmallows. Unless there's a low setting, it might be hard. After all, it's coherent light and all that, so it mostly sticks together, and a direct hit probably means a hole, not a toasting. You'd probably have to get it right at the edge to get a nice next-to-beam effect from heated air molecules.

What do YOU want to do with yours?

UPDATE: 12:30, 3/14/08: Yes, this is one HOT topic! Hot off the presses: Or You can buy your own from Boeing.

Why The Loss of Speaker Haster's Seat Is a Good Sign For Dems

You probably already have read that physicist Bill Foster just picked up former Speaker Hastert's House seat. To be sure, Hastert himself had decided not to run again, so it's not as though such a senior member and good politician as Hastert was displaced.

What the newspapers haven't said so much about is how it came to be lost. A clumsy extremist, dairy magnate and perennial candidate Jim Oberweis, was chosen to face Foster over a more moderate and probably epter Republican. That seems to me like a classic sign of a broken Republican coalition. After all, last time the seat was won by a good, moderate politician.

Lighter side

Why not Carly Fiorina?

McCain has got some serious problems when it comes to picking a Vice President. If he goes with someone young, they'll bring up the fact that he is old. If he goes conservative, they'll bring up the fact that he has problems with the base of his party. If he goes southern, they'll point out that he lost some of those states to Huckabee in the primary. Why not go outside of the box?

Notice that former Hewlett Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina, was appointed to be McCain's campaign chairman yesterday. Why not Vice President Fiorina?

The former HP CEO is, among other things, the only woman to ever hold that position in a Fortune 500 company. She is widely celebrated in the private sector, tough, talented, articulate, and can address the questions about how to create jobs in the current economy. In other words, she can fill the gap McCain has on economic matters.

Take a look at Fiorina on some issues.

On the Democrats moving further away from free-trade:

"It concerns me tremendously." She explains, "What is lost in the talk about free trade are the facts of free trade. The facts of free trade are that it creates jobs and opportunity. The facts of free trade are that in addition to creating our opportunities it also creates opportunities for our allies." She notes that in the case of countries like Columbia who we wish to cooperate with us diplomatically and fight the drug war we "need to give them the incentive of market opportunities with the U.S." Likewise, she notes that in Africa "we can't expect to lift their economies out of poverty" without access to American markets.

On economic growth:

Fiorina agrees with McCain's approach: "Make the R&D tax credit permanent. Incent innovation. Don't tax technologies that drive innovation." She further explains, "The corporate tax rate makes a difference. Our corporate tax rate is higher than anyone's but Japan." She also urges that we "need to invest in industries with innovation like space, green technologies." She notes that she has just returned from Abu Dubai where they are investing $150B in a "green island" and that China invests billions in space. The lesson she says is "innovation is how you grow" technology and the economy at large.

Health-care reform:

She says, "John believes in free markets. Mandating health care is not the way to go." She explains that McCain's approach is the correct one: make healthcare "affordable and accessible." She notes that his plan to "provide tax credits to families, support walk-in health clinics and improve health care for veterans" are all moves in the right direction. (As for veterans, she says that the current system is absurd where veterans to be force"to stand in line to stand in line to make an appointment.") She says that other policies which will bring down costs include allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines and allowing drug importation. By encouraging health care providers to "focus on outcomes" and directing resources to the top five diseases we can also increase quality and reduce cost, she explains.

Well done. Sounds very, well, Vice Presidential.

Geraldine Ferraro: (D) Superdelegate: Racist (Sexist?) And Elitist

Geraldine Ferraro, former Veep candidate, has been making some remarkably offensive remarks over the course of this campaign. The latest:

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "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." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

This looks racist to me because Ferraro admits of no possibility that this black man could possibly be winning because he's a good politician. The press couldn't possibly like Obama because, like any really good politician, he's likable.

Nor, as Kos points out, does this line of thinking seem to be new in her. She made a similar remark in '88 about Jesse Jackson.

I'm also disappointed in the prejudiced and conspiratorial nature of her remarks about the press. The press HAS been making some sexist remarks, But the notion that it's been uniquely hard on Clinton simply holds no water. That honor, I suspect, would go to Buchanan, who fathered a child out of wedlock and was the only President to be a bachelor. Nor does the press select our Presidents; there isn't even a press elector.

I'm also disappointed in her for recently coming out in favor of superdelegates for elitist reasons, Democrat or no, she likes the idea that some people (like, say, her) have more power than the people, and was heavily involved in creating them in the first place. Her piece is full of excuses why she thinks it's OK to ignore the voters.

For superdelegates to be a reasonable system, I'd say the holders of those positions should show superior political knowledge. But Ms. Ferraro's sexism theory shows she has no understanding of the coalition-alienating that's been going on all campaign. Nor do you want to show that your candidates' supporters are racist, elitist pigs, nor attack the media until the election's over (ESPECIALLY if you believe they choose our Presidents). How does Ms. Ferraro's performance justify her privilege?

I'm unhappy to see such a small woman having such a big role in my party, Hillary has had the class to disavow this, but only the fact that the remark was personal, not its racism, and she isn't disavowing the racist. The Kos thread suggested that the Clintons are trying to pick up PA racists. I think she's cutting off her likely superdelegate count, though, making it likely useless for her. It's not the first time her campaign has race-baited. How stupid does she think superdelegates are?

UPDATE: Yep, it's deliberate. Campaign Manager Maggie Williams clearly race-baited:

... called the criticism of Ferraro "false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary."

You were right, Tully. I thought she'd be nasty, but not this bad, and am happy I switched my support before the TX primary. I'm even more convinced this is going to cost her in SD count, since it's blatant now, and we Dems feel racism is an important issue.

UPDATE 2: OK, Ferraro's out. That's more like it - now I take back my race-baiting accusation.

I was so angered by what Ferraro had to say that I probably let it get to me too much. The post ended up both immoderate and careless as a result. More in a comment inside.

Kranky's Delegate Projections

Kranky's getting tired of debating the moral rectitude of various possible actions of superdelegates (SD) come convention time. I'm ready to guess that the opinion split we're seeing in the wonkosphere will be roughly duplicated by the SD unless the candidates' win patterns break. Because I've got a bit of detail below, I've boldfaced the cut-to-the-chase bits below, in case folks want to skim or skip. If you skip, note here that PD is short for regular pledged delegates.

When Obama wins Mississippi, it will leave the win patterns for both candidates intact. When HC wins PA after BO closes the gap but fails to catch up, that will also leave the win patterns for both candidates intact. As will BO's wins in the majority of smaller states. As will a split of NC for BO and IN for HC. All of that will leave the current PD count in the same ballpark it sits today.

IOW, right now it's not about any one state unless HC loses PA, which seems unlikely today. It's about the summary outcome of regular pledged delegates (PD) in all the remaining primaries and caucuses, and how that effects the views of the undecided and waffling SD.

It's currently unlikely that the SD are going to vote as a block or landslide in one way. Much more likely, they'll split along some sort of percent line like 60-40 or 55-45. Because mileage will vary among these folks just like it does among us folks. Let's grant them non-lemming status for now, OK?

BO is ahead by around 140-150 delegates right now. If HC wins PA by 5 or 10 percent, she'll pick up a few SD, but that will probably only equal what BO gains in the smaller states he carries. BO and HC will likely split the other remaining big delegate states, IN and I think NC. So the PD deficit projects to remain stable, excluding what happens to the 360-something delegates FL and MI. If both states get together some sort of half-baked do-over, the best guess is that HC can pick up good ground in FL and slightly lesser ground in MI. With about 360 delegates at stake in those states, HC could pick up 50-80 delegates if she wins by a margin like 55%-45%.

Why is that important? Because she needs that sort of margin to get her PD deficit down to the mid to high double digits. If she can get it that low, THEN she can win at the convention with a similar 55-45 split among SD. If BO can stay 100+ delegates ahead, then Hillary starts to need closer to 60% or even more of the superdelegates.

Which starts to be a real uphill climb.

Here's the big finish, folks:

IOW, if HC has mo at the convention because she only trails in PD by 50-75, she can overturn the PD count with a 55ish% SD majority. If her PD deficit is even smaller, then she has even bigger mo and needs an even smaller SD majority to steal the nom. But if BO keeps his PD lead in the triple digits, Hillary's mo is debatable, and she'll be hard pressed to carry the SD by more than a few percentage points.

Minnesota Senate Race

The race in Minnesota for the Democratic candidate to face incumbent (and former Democrat) Sen. Norm Coleman has abruptly ended. The Democratic candidate will be Al Franken. Does God hate Minnesota? Wasn't Jesse Ventura our practical joke? Can't we laugh at somebody else this time?

Obama Supports Earmark Moratorium

Instapundit is reporting this:

... Sen. DeMint's office emails: "Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) has agreed to cosponsor the DeMint-McCain earmark moratorium amendment. "

OK Mrs. Clinton. Belly Up and take your medicine. Get on board!

UPDATE...Hillary: "Me, too!!"

Spitzer

Unbelievable.

The Dollar Aint Worth a Plug Nickel

There are still quite a few folks out there who don't know how much the dollar's decline has impacted oil prices. They've noticed that the oil bone is connected to the gas bone, thus $3+ per gallon for gas. And they're starting to notice that the gas bone is connected to the food bone, thus the reappearance of inflation in food costs at a newly troubling rate. But much of these troubles can be traced back to the dollar's steady and lengthening decline.

Larry Kudlow says it's time to resurrect King Dollar

Right now the greenback is in virtual freefall. It's a disorderly drop that's picking up speed. In the last month the dollar has fallen 5 percent. Over the past two years it has declined 30 percent against the euro. In the past six months it has dropped nearly 20 percent versus the yen. Measured in terms of a basket of industrial currencies, the dollar is now below its 1970's level.

Consequently, for the first time in a decade I've become genuinely worried about inflation. Over the last year and a half, consumer prices have climbed from 1.5 percent to nearly 4.5 percent. Prices are rising today faster than average hourly earnings for the non-management workforce. As real incomes go down, so goes the consumer.

...

Inflation is the single biggest cause of recession, and it may well be tipping the U.S. economy into negative territory. It's also the cruelest tax of all. Inflation robs consumer and wage-earner purchasing power. It erodes business profits. It reduces the real worth of investor portfolios.

Think of this: The capital gains tax is not indexed for inflation. So the effective tax rate on real capital gains has jumped from 22 percent to 37 percent since September. This inflation-tax penalty has emerged despite the fact that no new tax legislation has been passed in Washington. It also has occurred exactly while the stock market has fallen about 15 percent. Coincidence? I think not.

Bringing back the value of the slumping dollar sounds like a swell idea. The $64 question: anyone know how we do this without effing up something else?

the blunderbuss denial

Mickey Kaus has noticed the same embarrassing and weak debate technique that John McCain repeatedly uses when he's been pinned down on facts that are not to his liking:

It doesn't look to me like John McCain was "unhinged" or "irate" or losing his "cool" in his recent videotaped airplane confrontation with the NYT's Elisabeth Bumiller. He was simply employing the debating tactic he often uses when confronted with a question he can't answer safely--which is to bully and intimidate and interrupt the questioner, using up all the available conversational space until the "questioning" moves on. (To get a word in edgwise, whoever is confronting him would have to be ready to engage in an undignified shouting match, which most are unwilling to do.) McCain used the same technique in the Republican debates when confronted with questions he didn't want to answer on immigration.

Because this is intentional, strategic behavior it isn't a sign McCain is unstable or uncontrolled or overemotional or irrational. But it's a sign that, no less than Obama, he may have been underprepared for the fall campaign by his charmed life as a national press favorite. McCain's bullying evasion is the second campaign tic--the first is his habit of reflexive, righteous blunderbuss denials**--that he's apparently been able to get away with over the years. Neither is likely to hold up over a multi-month presidential race. And the bullying, unlike the righteous denial, doesn't even temporarily make McCain look good.

The blunderbuss denial, ROTFL That's perfect. He did the blunderbuss when he got caught misleading folks about Romney's Iraq policy during one of the debates. He needs to come up with a better way to handle these moments.

Because he's only weeks away from a "let's do the blunderbuss" clip on youtube, showing McCain's greatest hits where he bullies his way through legitimate questions he is unwilling to answer.

Take the Reserves Off Long-Term Foreign Duty

As a active reservist grumbled in today's Statesman letters section, it's grossly unfair to send RESERVES to Iraq year after year,as often as active duty troops. They're very patriotic men, and have been soldiering on, but it's not really what they signed for, is it? Historically, signing on to the reserves has meant lifetime training and occasional duty, mostly to deal with unexpected, occasional, short-lived crises. Now it's harder and harder to tell the difference between the active military and reserves.

This has been going on since Bush I, who was smart enough he really shoulda known better. In my judgement, he was in a bad spot, manpowerwise, but I blame him for not establishing some system to solve this longer-term. Strategypage has some arguments for the practice:

Most people in the IRR [Internal Ready Reserve] are there for four years, to finish out the eight year obligation incurred when they enlisted (usually for four years of active duty.) The IRR has existed for nearly half a century, and had never really been used until the last four years. The current situation appears to be exactly what the IRR was designed for, and the army plans to use it heavily. . . .

I don't see it. I mean, if they were in shape to endure a multiyear separation from their families with low pay, wouldn't they still in the ACTIVE MILITARY? We've forgotten what the idea of RESERVES is.

... But when there's an emergency, and a call for reviving the draft.,..

The only emergency here is bad leadership. Either of the Bushes, or Clinton, including Bush II, could have taken action to increase the active military so we aren't being cruel to the men we depend on. I'll betcha we still have no plans to use the new planned brigades to take IRR off active foreign duty.

There are two reasons this keeps happening. First, we sign on to more and more multidecade peacekeeping and occupation missions as time goes on. The other reason is that at this point, more American troops are needed to occupy countries like Iraq than to conquer it in the first place.

Dean and Obama vs Clinton On Party Organization?

There's an interesting article in The Nation on the new, Deaniac, bottom-up, Democratic organization, beholden to small donors, vs. the Clintonian traditional top-down view, beholden to big donors. This is an importart adjunct to the public Obama vs Clinton battle that we see and hear on our airwaves, because Obama's on Dean's side. Obama's organization looks distinctly like Dean's. The Clintons've been talking about redoing party organization, and that's added alot of bitterness about the Clinton organization and their chief strategist, Mark Penn.

For a few weeks now, I've been reading bitter posts about Mark Penn, as bad as conservative posts on the French, and not understanding what was up. Well, now I finally understand, and am with them.

And, after reading this article, I now understand how Penn came to lose his cool and start the mistteps that've probably lost the race. He's running a classic, centralized, old-style campaign, of course, and grew paranoid when it looked like his campaign would be outmaneuvered by new, Internet- based, self-organizing, campaign styles. It means Penn himself, the DC political master, must fear obsolescence. Bwahaha!

Now pending: I now have hopes of writing a full article on why the Clinton campaign lost its frontrunner status.

Obama Has Probably Won Texas

It looks like Obama, and not Hillary, has won Texas. All due to the caucus, just as Clinton feared. Now, in my caucuses, as I said above, there was no split decision, so I am surprised.

Was it a fraudulent decision? Probably not. Most caucuses did go down honestly, though a minority of caucuses almost certainly did go bad due to nasty action, from both sides. Although, I have to admit that the nearness of the result made it more liable to cheating. I'm not so fond of caucuses, but we have to stick with the rules we start with, and they do acknowledge the will of real voters.

Minor Incidents

Both McCain and Obama have had little incidents in the last week that led to questions about their temperment and their ability to field challenging questions. I read about both of them before I saw them. They were trumpeted all over the left and right sides of the blogosphere, where there was much huffing and puffing. And then I caught the actual clip of the Obama interview a couple days ago ... and the McCain thing on the network news last night.

I was surprised to see it after reading about it, in both cases. Neither seemed much out of the norm for a politician. McCain wasn't red in the face, and while he was curt and a touch peeved, he wasn't gesturing wildly, or stomping his feet, or anything that would suggest a tantrum or a fit of some kind.

Obama was chiding the reporters who had been interviewing him and complaining that their questions had been asked and answered. But he was actually smiling kind of impishly when he said "come on, guys," and explained calmly that he had other stuff on his schedule as he walked off. It actually seemed unusually smooth to me, as these things go.

Of course, blogs on the left and right are busy making issues out of one of these incidents, but not the other. What's a little more curious, to me, is to read blogs in the center and see a lot made out of one of these incidents. For those who posted about one of them, I would ask, did you post about the other too? Why not?

In a broader sense, I want to put the question on the table. Do we hold candidates to roughly the same standards, or do we get so wrapped up in one side or the other that we start to play favorites?

Friday open thread

Anything that you feel the need to get off your chest?

Caucus-Blogging

We could tell there would be a serious crowd a block away from the school that hosts our poll. There were clear crowds of people walking in its direction. Earlier in the day, the Profesora'd pointed out that its location was obvious from the thickest ring of political signs we've seen yet, but now we could see crowds converging. I wasn't surprised to see the crowd. Politics is popular in Austin, for the same reason films are big in LA, and books are big in NY, because it's a big local industry. And this was a once-in-a-geneartion event.

Sure enough, the school was full to bursting. The line ending up snaking all through the medium-sized school and going out the back door. The biggest problem I saw was that they escalated numbers of registrars too slowly. There were two when we came in - one for Clinton, one for Obama. After far too long a wait, they doubled the registrars. After another half hour, they doubled them again to eight, and then things finally went quickly. We got there at 7, the event was supposed to start at 7:15, they opened doors at 7:45, and they finally finished with the line, and the caucus finally revved up up at 9:30. Toward the end, delegate volunteer sheets were sent around on each side.

I was expecting they'd put us in the cafeteria, with those kinds of numbers, but they thought of a different high-capacity spot: the auditorium. Like a wedding, the room was divided into the two sides.

The kid was there, fascinated at the scene and refusing to sleep. He was nothing like the only kid there, of course. My Mom told me that I got to watch Armstrong land on the moon at the kid's current age. No doubt I also refused to go to sleep.

When we got inside the school, we could see that there was a bigger Obama crowd than Hillary crowd, about 2/3 Obama, I estimated. The Hillary crowd, unsurprisingly, was unhappy at being outnumbered, but was classy about it. I wasn't surprised - Obama clicks well with Austin culture and ways of doing things, and I'd projected that kind of ratio months ago. There were no undecided or unpopular-candidate voters there.

The caucus was in a formal meeting style, using Robert's Rules of Order. It first elected a chairman and secretary (from the Obama side). Then we split into sides, and each side agreed to accept the written delegate lists. We elected a delegate secretary to take responsibility for the delegate lists.

The count ended up being 0.66 for Obama - exactly as I'd guessed, bwahaha. Obama got 39 next-level delegates, and Hillary 22, of which they were having more trouble filling (we had 39 delegates and 6 alternates, and they had 19 delegates). Most people had gone home after just signing in to get their names in, and I guess it's a little emotionally harder to hang in there when you're a polical minority, so no surprise more Clinton supporters left. Unlike elsewhere in TX, our caucus results were very like the primary results - 64% instead of 66%.

I was proud of my caucus - aside from adapting slowly to the 20x attendance growth from all earlier experience, it went smoothy and calmly. The adults acted like adults. As near as I could tell, both sides were treated fairly. Both sides had plenty of trained help. I'm sorry for those who had different experiences. The Profesora, says, rightly, that the caucus system lends itself to trouble. We'd both prefer a straight primary, fun as the night was. We both both agreed to be delegates, so hopefully there'll be a followup County-Convention-blog, though we were warned that it's boring. The Profesora was bugged that she'd been undecided when she woke up, and now she was a delegate. I told her, "democracy in action."

Long Primaries Are All Good

I like this long (D) primary season.

Primaries mean seasoning. I expect that likely continues true even long. Maybe Bush II could've used a long primary season?

They also enhance the brand. They keep our party in the media eye, and means whomever wins will have more buzz around him and is likelier to win.

They do more money spent in primaries that could've been spent in nat'l elections. OTOH, the improvement in the (D) brand from long primaries probably improve fundraising opportunities.

Best, of all, it's more fun this way! Of course, I might feel different if I was a candidate....

Remember the Do-over?

Remember the Do-over? I do. We'd play street hockey using rocks or whatever for the goalposts of the net we couldn't afford...

Kritter: It was over the post!

Wally Tosi:No way, it was in! That was a goal!

Kritter: Oh you're so full of it, it went right over the post.

Wally Tosi:Give me a break, it was WAY in.

Kritter: Well, it wasn't WAY in.

Wally Tosi:Yeah, but it was definitely in.

Kritter: No it wasn't, it went RIGHT over the post.

Then the Beemer says "OK, take it over." Good ole Stanley Beemish.

And we would. Because we wanted to play. Not bicker. Was it perfect justice? Of course not. "Because it was in! No it wasn't, it was over the post." Get it?

So now some folks want a do-over to resolve the issue of the FL and MI. I'm down.I wanna play, not bicker. But do-overs are rare in the grown-up world, Usually the best you can hope for is a note saying "we're sorry you lost because we effed up. Our bad."

The unanswered question regarding this remedy is “can they do it?” What has to happen for a re-do to occur? Are there arcane laws against it? Could the GOP push the rules and regs to prevent it, preferring to force dems to stew in their own juices?

You could argue the dems deserve to stew. I said at the time that the unseating of the FL and MI delegates was utterly idiotic, and now it’s bitten the party in the ass about as badly as it possibly could have. Problematic as it is, I have a deep appreciation for the poetic justice of it. It was an act of grand hubris for the party to tell these states they couldn’t have their primaries when they wanted to, and then to punish them. After all, who PAYS for these primaries?

That raises another worthwhile issue. If the dems want a do-over, who has to sign off in each state, and who pays? Both states are well within their rights to tell the democratic party that if they want a do-over, the party can pay for it. They already got their freebie, and it was rejected. If it was my state, I’d make the party chairman hand-deliver the state one of those big giant checks to pay for the new election, along with a public apology.

let's see, there's the hook and lateral...

Let's see, there's the hook and lateral, the fumblerooski, the shuttle pass, the statue of liberty, the double reverse, the halfback option...

Jason over at Donklephant has a GREAT round-up of the plays left in Hillary's playbook, now that she has remained tenuously viable by winning TX and OH.

In the aftermath of her long-expected victories in Texas and Ohio, many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters are reveling in long-awaited cheering sessions and drawing convoluted scenarios for her nomination. Unfortunately for them, however, Clinton remains behind the eight-ball on the only metric that matters — delegate count. And she can’t beat math. There are few opportunities available for Clinton to make up the 100-vote lead that Obama holds among elected delegates.

Read it all. Jason covers it well. The only thing he doesn't really cover is the unknown surrounding how much Hillary's new momentum could affect things. If she gets closer in delegates via sustained momentum and Obama limps into the convention, the superdelegate split could be a bigger wild card than Jason forecasts.

A Long Post About a Tough Choice

In the final days of this primary campaign, the major currents of the debate were flowing in ways that frustrate someone like me who looks for a well thought out variety of policies rather than a straight liberal or conservative ticket.

Of course, there's some inevitability to that flow away from the center in our two party system, where the base in each party exercises its greatest influence on primary day. But the flow of those currents toward the ends of the spectrum is stronger these days, I think, as we find ourselves at the tail end of two administrations that sparked the most divisive kind of controversial issues. Impeachment and preemptive war have dominated the last 10 years of American political life, drawing the deepest kind of passions from the ends of the spectrum, and inevitably fueling growth in the left and right movements.

Here in Ohio, we've had to watch both Hillary and Obama tune their political pitch to their supposed opposition to free trade. It's not enough that they oppose the war, support health care reform, oppose the Bush tax cuts, etc. They're racing to prove who can approach that 100% liberal agenda standard that core Democrats salivate over.

So the candidates help us erect this kind of alternate political universe. In the fantasy political world, Hillary and Obama are passionately committed to major reform of our free trade system. In the real political world, Obama is signaling otherwise to Canada, and Hillary's husband was the passionate free trade advocate who got NAFTA through Congress in the first place.

Neither of these candidates is John Edwards or Dennis Kucinish, who would actually have gone after NAFTA. In the real world, Americans will have to find more ways to compete in a tough world market. That's the real-world issue, but we're getting all hot-and-bothered about the fantasy issue.

I've had to watch McCain criticize his opponents for even the hint of a consideration of timetables when it comes to Iraq, even as our current Iraq policy leans too heavily on the ongoing sacrifice of our men and women overseas. I suspect McCain sees rather clearly that a major shakeup is needed in Iraq policy, but he can't let anyone talk about it. His political fortunes depend heavily on his ability to look like the toughest candidate on Iraq, to protect him from the backlash of his other less orthodox policies. So politics, in this current fantasy world, requires a heaping helping of unreality.

In addition to the fanciful major currents of the debate, however, we have some minor currents and hints that suggest these candidates will take us somewhere else.

The minor current is Obama's people talking to the Canadians about free trade, which then requires denials in the strongest language, but which reflects the status quo, and probable future, in U.S.-Canadian relations.

Another minor current was suggested by Ohio Governor Ted Strickland on CNN yesterday evening, when he emphasized Hillary's interest in a responsible Iraq policy not based entirely on withdrawal.

I heard a few other minor currents a week ago in an interview with John McCain, when he talked about the real dangers of climate change and his view that technology will be the key path to significant progress in this area. I've long believed it unlikely that we would convince developing nations like China and India to limit their current industrialization paths. That means we need new, efficient, clean technologies if we want to significantly alter the overall global picture in greenhouse emissions. It needs to be cost-effective worldwide or it will never be adopted by enough countries to matter.

I wonder if I may have heard one of these minor currents, too, in the growing issue over whether the prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman was improperly influenced by Bush administration political operatives. One of the most vocal accusers in the 60 Minutes piece that ran last Sunday was none other than Grant Woods, former Arizona Attorney general, co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee, and godfather to one of McCain's children. Could some healthy accounting for the overreach of politics in the Bush years be in the offing in a McCain presidency?

The number of minor currents trickling away from the mighty streams flowing left and right has given me some measure of hope lately. I could make a legitimate case for any of the three remaining contenders, which is why I didn't make up my mind until I was in the shower this morning. Shampooing your hair and puzzling over the future of our nation can go together, if need be.

The choice came down to a rough accounting of what these minor currents have been for the three candidates -- the places where they've thoughtfully diverged from orthodoxy -- the things they don't talk about much because the red-faced blow-hards in the two parties can't handle it. My very rough, incomplete accounting includes:

• Obama's controversial foreign policy speech from last August, which I only bothered to read when it became the subject of some heated exchanges, and which suggests a more balanced and thoughtful approach to the world than I had attributed to him. I didn't know, for example, that Obama contemplates keeping a security force in Iraq for the long term for counter-terror operations.
• McCain's frank, and somewhat brave, discussion of climate change, even very recently.
• McCain's past record of unorthodox policies on immigration, the environment, fiscal policy, campaign finance reform, and torture.
• Hillary's appearances and speeches early in the primary cycle, which suggested a more moderate foreign policy than the one she now seems to advocate.

I also thought about some of the key negatives for these candidates, especially:

• Obama's inexperience.
• Hillary's dicey campaign tactics.
• McCain's over-coziness with the current administration on foreign policy, and more generally with the neoconservative movement.

On the whole, I think it's a very close call. And it all feels quite a bit more comfortable to me, because I think some of the minor currents listed above are real. I can actually picture any of these three candidates becoming a better-than-average president. I also recognize, however, that the left and right movements at the base of both parties are influential enough to push these guys away from some of their potential bold stands. McCain may not "clean house" ethically with quite the fervor he would when he sees the possibility of fracturing his party in the bargain.

I kind of think the raw materials of a successful presidency are there for us. We have three people who can lead, and we know at this point that one of them will be president. It's up to us, in the center, to offer some kind of counter-weight to the forces that will line up to push these guys away from bold, unorthodox leadership.

My choice this morning? McCain. I see him as a little more vocal in his unorthodoxy than the other two, and I think his overall record is somewhat closer to the political center. All three of these folks will compromise with the base in their party for political expediency, but I see McCain as hanging a little tougher, perhaps, in those inevitable struggles to come.

Is Obama flailing?

Looks like someone is feeling the pressure of the spotlight:

An exasperated Barack Obama scurried away Monday from the toughest news conference of his campaign, telling reporters who kept shouting questions that he'd spent enough time on the grill.

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions," Obama, looking surprised, told shouting reporters as he fled the room. "We're running late."

The first question was about a private talk an Obama economic adviser had with a Canadian official - reportedly saying that the harshness of Obama's criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement was for political show...

Last week, Obama denied an initial media report about the conversation. But after a Canadian government memo surfaced, he acknowledged yesterday there was a conversation.

"When I gave you that information, that was the information that I had at the time," he said. His camp still disputes the memo's account of the discussion...

"These requests, I think, can just go on forever. ..."

Uhhh, actually they can go on as long a the talking heads want... the media giveth and then the media taketh away.

I admit casual annoyance with Obama on free-trade. In his book Audacity of Hope he seems to be cautiously optimistic about free-trade with a strong nod to re-training programs. He remarks that the only reason he voted against CAFTA is not because he is opposed to free trade, but because the Bush administration cut too much of the re-training money... and it was going to pass anyway. I happen to agree with that position.

However, the Barack Obama in Wisconsin and Ohio seems to be decidedly more against trade, and sometimes rabidly so. This business with his economic adviser and the Canadians have made the situation much worse. True or not, the perception is that Obama is trying to be all things to all people. Hillary is guilty of the same tactic, but people are used to that with her so she isn't getting the negative attention.

The Clinton's simply had their best week in the campaign at the right time, and Barack is looking like a rookie in the run up to Texas and Ohio. Real Clear Politics has her up in the Buckeye State and surging in the Lonestar State. If she has done enough to win the big ones tonight then hold onto your seats. Yes, the media is pushing the idea that she has to win 60% of every remaining state, but as Howard Dean knows, the party establishment can turn on you pretty quick. I don't care what anyone says, the Democratic Party will turn on its own voters in a heart beat if they feel Obama can't stand up to the pressure.

On another note, I don't care how much Bob Schrum is offended by the 3 AM ad, it was effective. Furthermore, it is a fair question, and so far Obama is doing a poor job of answering it. If he loses tonight, he has got to respond quickly and say more than I was against the Iraq War and she was for it.

Good Content at Donklephant

As I've noted below, the ideological bent at Poligazette has me disappointed these days. That makes this a great time to mention that our friend Alan Stewart Carl has joined on at Donklephant. Texan Alan is a one-time centrist who wandered off the reservation. You know, like we do. It's like herding cats.

Alan will tell you. He went from being a hopeful centrist organizer to going his own way, over at a site called Maverick Views. Now he's over at Donklephant, teamed up with our friend Justin Gardner. Good content, the deeper story, political mechanics, less ideology.

Their slogan is "big teeth, huge ass, surprisingly reasonable." What could be better for moderate wonks like us? Big plump, guys!

Push-blogging at Poligazette

Over the last month or so, I've spent a fair amount of time surfing Poligazette because of the number of interesting political threads they provide. This despite their wretched interface which disallows much html and will not recognize my paragraph breaks. Our good friends and expatriates at Stubborn Facts are semi-regular visitors there, as well as being some sort of partners. Good site, contentwise, or so it seemed until recently.

Over the last couple weeks, Poligazette has undertaken an increasingly relentless anti-Obama push-blogging effort. In the last week, each day holds multiple posts negative to Obama, almost invariably including the featured above-the-bar headline post. I found the "liar, liar, pants on fire" backdrop especially mature.

IMO, several of their regular posters have utterly abandoned any semblance of objectivity. It seems primarily focused against Obama, and not all that interested in actually plumping Hillary in most cases. So I'll be interested to see where these obsessions migrate after the conventions.

The most interesting and indeed amusing part of Poligazette's blatant push-blogging efforts is the comments they elicit. I've done my best to deliver the hearty skepticism they deserve, but I'm far from alone. Many responses range from doubt to ridicule. Not too many folks seem eager to agree, but they've been blithely ignored by the thread leaders in the vast majority of cases.

So I gotta say, it smells a little stoogy over there these days. But then I think Mike VdG would cheerfully acknowledge his eagerness to stop Obama. Maybe if he'd just sprinkle in a soupcon of objectivity, just for variety's sake. In that absence, they've got me feeling cranky.

The Polls in Suburban Ohio

It's a kind of crappy wet day today here in central Ohio. My wife and I rode to the polls together, and we took the back roads through our neighborhood for the five-or-so blocks to the school where we vote.

There wasn't a single yard sign for a presidential candidate at any point along our neighborhood route. There were a couple of school issue signs, but no presidential ones. The first campaign sign we saw was right at the school entrance, as we were turning in, which surprised us a bit. My wife had a conversation with one of the election officials about whether you can put campaign signs at the entrance to the polls.

We went at about 7:30, which is normally prime time for voting, but there was literally no line. Our son had left the house to go vote a few minutes before we did, and we encountered him leaving and having already voted on our way in. I walked up, showed my ID, signed my name, and then went directly to the booth.

We live in a heavily Republican community in the suburbs outside Columbus, and it looks like the folks in our neighborhood aren't much into this election.

I didn't actually make up my mind who I was voting for until I was taking a shower this morning. I talked about it quite a bit with my wife and son last night, but hadn't quite decided. I'll try to post a little later today on how I personally resolved that question.

Why Factory Jobs Are Going Away From The, Er, Industrialized Nations

First, I want to say that all the far-too-many laid-off factory workers and their families have my sympathy. If only we knew a way with less pain than capitalism.

...the biggest reason, by far, is that American standards of pay and quality of work conditions have passed most industries by. A factory job is no longer a plum, but, more and more, something boring with eh pay and bad working conditions. It is possible for laid-off factory workers to upgrade, with some time in classrooms and a move to a promising city for the new career. You can even make some smarts back to deal with change more easily: google neurogenesis.

It is, of course, annoying to be laid off, say, at 55, and face the prospect of only being able to upgrade just before retirement. And, of course, there's nothing easy about any of that.

Of course, there's another special reason for all too many of these layoffs: bad management. I see it as a serious failing in capitalism that so many companies, like GM, Chrysler, and Ford, can be managed so badly decade after decade. It gets to be a culture that can't be overcome even when capitalism's theoretical remedy's applied and the company's bought, like Chrysler being bought by Daimler and then spat back out.

Protectionism doesn't solve this, because then you just get expensive and worse good internally, that are unlikely to be good for export because the internal market is so flabby the world has whole different expectations. The heyday of American automaking involved making world-class products, easy to sell in the whole world.

In today's world, more and more of the new standard of good jobs are located near universities. There are more and more better jobs in Michigan and Ohio - but located near the University of Michigan and OSU instead of in Detroit. Detroit needs to be making more deals to improve their higher ed availability. Instead of competing to kowtow to laid-off factory workers, American Presidential candidates should be trying to show the way forward, by preaching the value of higher ed, to both individuals and city.

McCain gets lots of credit from me for not kowtowing, but he's not showing today's path forward, either.

Imagine the Wailing

Imagine the wailing, the flagellating, the caterwauling by environmentalists (and OPEC!) if this guy is right:

Solar Power to Rule in 20 Years

He predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. He predicted the explosive spread of the Internet and wireless access.

Now futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil is part of distinguished panel of engineers that says solar power will scale up to produce all the energy needs of Earth's people in 20 years.

There is 10,000 times more sunlight than we need to meet 100 percent of our energy needs, he says, and the technology needed for collecting and storing it is about to emerge as the field of solar energy is going to advance exponentially in accordance with Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns. That law yields a doubling of price performance in information technologies every year.

No carbon tax? No SUV ban? No Exxon to kick? No Kyoto Protocol? A sudden lack of interest in Middle Eastern politics?

Oh, it won't be so bad. I'm sure we'll find other stuff to wring our hands about, right?

Clinton MUST Pick Up Serious Delegates Tomorrow To Win

It's looking bad for Clinton. She has to rack up a serious delegate advantage tomorrow to catch up to Obama's 100+-delegate lead. And if not here, then where?

Clinton MIGHT eke out victories in all contests, but it's not likely, and Obama has tightened the race so much that I can't see where she'll get much of a delegate advantage, the real key here.

I enjoyed watching Bill Clinton in College Station, TX, on CSPAN yesterday. First, because it seems like a strategic blunder to me - the campaign must not've heard all four of College Station's Democrats already going for Clinton after Obama's big-media visit of the Longhorns. But also, it was a tour de force - it was a real challenge for somebody like Clinton to address an audience that was probably mostly brought up on using Clinton pics for target practice. I never heard so much respect for Republicans in a Clinton speech before. But he had them by the end. Amazing stuff.

Plain Ol' Terrorism

The dangerous nutjobs who burned down a luxury housing development are plain old terrorists. Thankfully, no one died, as wary firefighters afraid of terrorist booby-traps let the houses burn.

Maybe these arsonists can be called eco-terrorists too, but why focus on that unless you want to entertain the notion that sometimes dangerous terrorism is OK if the cause can be viewed as having some legitimacy to it, broadly speaking?

I'm not into it. The folks of ELF are plain old terrorists, dangerous mental children who are unwilling to accept that they can't persuade enough people to buy into their radical views. Their tactics are a grotesque insult to some of the most important founding principles of our nation....democracy, speech, persuasion, hard work, and property. And the rule of law.

Recall that the fair-minded, clear-thinking, and patriotic Americans among pro-life supporters were quick to condemn murders of abortion doctors. Now is the time for the fair-minded, clear-thinking, and patriotic Americans among pro-environmentalists to condemn terrorism in the name of the environment.

Just as folks in the streets of the middle east celebrated and burned flags in celebration on 9/11, some folks who support environmental causes will be tempted to celebrate. If you do, whoever you are, wherever you are, you're a disgrace to the nation that has provided the circumstances that gave you the luxury of supporting dangerous, violent, and criminal means because you're somehow attracted by the righteousness of the general ends.

Launching Diplomacy Instead of Missiles at Iran and North Korea

An approach has occurred to me deterring nuclear terror attacks without having to constantly bomb and get tough on every warlord and rogue regime working on nuclear weapons.

I believe we should warn the world we'll either seek regime change or launch nuclear retaliation in the case of nuclear terror attacks on us or our allies if they're found to source the uranium or money for the attack, reminding people every once in a while that we did find the chain of evidence to hold Afghanistan responsible for not yielding up bin Laden. That really should work, sans missiles.

Notice that deterrence has worked beautifully for fifty years. It's even completely prevented major war during that span. There is one real novelty here - casing formal war threats on an investigation's results. But given that we recently did exactly that, this seems pretty likely to me to work.

Localblogging: Texas Clinton Campaign: Texas Primaries Unfair Because Obama Supporters Care More?

I've been wanting to get this out the door since Friday.

The Clinton campaign used language that sounded awfully like a lawsuit threat to the Texas Democratic Party over its handling of the Texas primary system, because they felt it disadvantaged their voters. The Texas primary is a hybrid system: 55% of the votes are awarded via traditional ballot. 30% are exercised by whomever bothers to show up at the caucuses, and the rest are superdelegates. The caucuses are held immediately after the polls close and the last voter in line at the given poll has voted - in theory, 7:15, though it could really be much later. At that point, it's rather like other caucuses, elsewhere, I guess.

The TX Democratic Party wrote a letter to both parties, warning, no doubt rightly, that a lawsuit would probably alienate much of the high turnout and Dem-side enthusiasm we've been seeing. We Dems like our lawyers, but not THAT much.

That means that voters with lots of either time or interest in the result can get an extra 1/2-vote, basically. I'd guess the Clinton campaign's panic came from the caucus source of their first loss (Iowa), and from what losing 11 straight will do to you. There were also (uncomfirmed) internet-rumors that the Clinton campaign was disorganized about Texas caucuses, though, if it was ever true, it seemed to've been fixed by the time I started on this story, on Friday. The hubby was getting out the caucus message in his TX appearances, and pleas to caucus and be precinct captain and various kinds of help were showing on the Clinton Texas website.

The Profesora and I have been planning to caucus for three weeks, because I was curious to see them in action; I'm hoping to blog about it. This is the first time either've us have caucused. We went to a Democrats' training session, which was more than a little confusing.

The wording the article used to refer to the threat is, "threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process." The Profesora remarked that that seemed fair enough... And the mixture of caucus and seems to me to favor those with time and/or energy unfairly to me. But it's the wrong time for a lawsuit about it. And such a lawsuit threat should've been made to the state of Texas, because both parties have the same kind of caucus system. At the least, you'd think they could've had the taste to make the threat to the actual party running the state....