Toga! Toga!

In the 1978 classic comedy, Animal House, Dean Vernon Wormer, the tight-assed, ineffectual head of Faber college slowly loses control of the institution as the rowdy Delta House battles the elitist Omegas for campus supremacy.  The chaos culminates with Delta's Bluto (played by John Belushi) popping out of a Homecoming Parade float in a pirate costume,  to which Wormer can only stand impotently by, watching in horror and muttering, "Oh my God."  

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean reminds me of no one so much these days as Dean Wormer.  The Republicans are running a candidate with no natural base of party support, on a platform of continuing Bush's war and corporate tax cuts and the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory.  

Nader and Gore aren't really players this time around so the Dems have been forced to think creatively.  What they've come up with isn't bad -- they've created a scenario in which Florida  and Michigan, two swing states absolutely vital to regaining the White House, may not have their entire delegations seated at the Democratic Convention in Denver, basically guaranteeing a disaffected electorate when it comes time to get out the vote on November 4th.  If Florida and Michigan vote red, Obama can talk about Colorado and Virginia and changing the electoral map all he wants -- there will be another rich, white guy with his hand on the bible come Inauguration Day.

In an attempt to find a way out of this game of Mousetrap they've created, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC is meeting Saturday in a Washington hotel.  Members of the committee, as well as representatives of the Clinton and Obama campaigns, the Michigan and Florida delegations, the national and international press and hundreds of rabid  spectators will participate in this day-long exercise in parliamentary procedure.  A DNC spokesman, Luis Miranda, said he expected most of the 30 members of the RBC to attend.

Say what?  "Most" of the members?  What possible excuse could a panel member have for not showing up at this meeting?  "I'm sorry, but this is my time-share week at the Ocean City condo?"  "Geez,  I'd love to but I promised a buddy I'd help him move?"  Gimme a break.  I don't know what the hell the Rules and Bylaws Committee actually does but I have to think they share some of the responsibility for designing this absurd nominating process the Democrats have inflicted upon us.  The least they can do is show up to help clean up their mess.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Howard Dean and the DNC are screwed.  By voting to strip the two states of their delegates to the convention, they backed themselves into a corner they cannot defend.  The Dems need Michigan and Florida.  Refusing to seat the delegations would be the most Pyrrhic of victories for the party's administrators.  Realizing this, they've spent the last weeks pivoting out of their corner and backpedaling away from their tough talk.  It is now apparent that the DNC will cave -- a compromise is evidently in the works.  Florida may get all of their super delegates seated but only half of their pledged delegates.  Obama will receive most, but not all, of the Michigan delegates assigned to "Uncommitted," Clinton's only opponent of note on the January 15 primary ballot.  But make no mistake about it, her campaign is not going to be happy if the committee doesn't rule in her favor, seating the entire delegations from both states based upon the votes cast in the primaries.  Meanwhile, some in the Michigan delegation claim the DNC has no authority to assign uncommitted delegates to a specific candidate, in this case, Barack Obama.

See what I mean?  It's the Homecoming Parade in Animal House.  Or, more accurately, a cross between the toga party and the food fight.

Best case scenario is they seat the entire delegations proportionally and pledge to blow up the current nominating process and rebuild it by 2012.  Take a long, hard look at super delegates and whether they have a place in a democratic process for the Democratic Party.  Revisit the caucus debate -- are they really the most fair way by which to divine the voters' will?  Is there any good argument remaining for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to kick off the primary season every four years?  Is proportional allotment of delegates a better system than winner-take-all?

Worst case, no compromise is reached and the Dems remain in limbo until, perhaps, the Credentials Committee takes another shot in August.  It would give the Republicans another couple of free months to come up with some kind, any kind, of cogent message for the McCain campaign.  

The Democrats are probably too smart to let that happen.  Right?  This election should be unloseable, even more so than the Gore and Kerry fiascos.  So why is it that I can't shake the image of Howard Dean furiously gaveling the meeting tomorrow to a close, the room in chaos,  as he sentences both the Florida and Michigan delegations to Double Secret Probation.  

Just like Dean Wormer.

McCain's Fantasy

I walked around all weekend with a bounce to my step and woke this morning with a song in my heart.  I attribute my good cheer to the speech John McCain gave Thursday in Columbus, Ohio.  Did you see it?  If not, you really should read it in its entirety.  He painted a picture of where America would be at the end of his first term as president. 

It's a long speech.  Not long like a Bill Clinton State of the Union address -- more like a Chronicles of Narnia type of long.  Or like the director's cut of The Lord of the Rings boxed set.  Basically, it's the public policy version of fantasy literature, without the Christian overtones.

In McCain's vision of 2013, Iraq is a functioning democracy whose militias have been disbanded and the government has imposed its beneficent authority in all provinces.  Pakistan has partnered vigorously with us to capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda has been reduced to a leaderless rabble with no place to call home.  Although the U.N. Security Council proved incapable of ending the genocide in Darfur, the nascent League of Democracies has stepped in and, through stiff economic measures, persuaded the Sudanese government and their janjaweed thugs to halt their ethnic cleansing of the country's tribal  farmers.  More concerted action by the world's democracies has convinced China and Russia to persuade Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear programs.  Our Army and Marine Corps are bigger and better than ever.  The world food crisis has ended.  Global cooling has begun.  And Congress no longer attaches earmarks to appropriations bills after a stern veto or two by President McCain.

Well.  Like McCain, I am a big believer in positive thinking so I've compiled my own modest list of where I hope/expect to be by the end of his first term:  

I have two books on the New York Times bestseller list (the fifth and sixth so honored during term #1).  Four of those will have been made into major motion pictures with both a best picture Oscar and a best adaptation (also done by me) Oscar to show for it.  

To the astonishment of the orthopedic community, the meniscus in my knee has regenerated itself and I am able to dunk a basketball at the age of 53.  I run five miles a day and my spacious, walk-in closet is filled with 32-inch waist slacks of the smoothest cotton/poly blend that rarely wrinkles.

My wife and I have adopted two children, they've matured remarkably quickly and cost-effectively, and are both heading this fall for Ivy League schools on full rides, leaving us, no doubt, a bit lonely but eagerly anticipating quality time with each other once again after these last four chaotic but joyous years.

Gas is $11 a gallon even though the Lieberman-Vitter Right-to-Drive bill (which requires anyone attempting to buy gas on Tuesdays, Thursdays and every other Saturday to present the station attendant with their National I.D. card) has been in effect for almost a year now, but we don't drive much.  We spend most of the year at our beach house in Southampton and I can ride my bicycle to the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club which I joined after winning the National Book Award and they relaxed their dress code to allow flip-flops in the lounge.  I play to a 3-handicap and rarely visit the driving range to practice.

I've had my iPhone implanted directly into my head.  And, thanks to the partnership between Apple and NIH, I can now download mp3 files directly to my brain so I no longer have to listen to music -- I can just remember it by blinking my eyes.  I don't even recall what it felt like to wear earplugs.

I've attained fluency in Italian solely through listening to self-improvement Podcasts on my computer and I can play some of the easier Goldberg Variations on the keyboard I purchased last year at Sharper Image, thanks also to self-helpful pamphlets that came included with the packing materials.  

Money's not much of an issue, to be honest with you.  I'm really raking it in and I'm incorporated, of course.  Thanks to the Bush-McCain tax cuts, I actually pay less in total taxes now than when I was scraping to get by as a freelancer in 2008.  Boy, was I wrong about those tax cuts.

So, there you have it.  My McCain-inspired list of positive projections for the relatively near future.  Like Senator McCain, while I intend to make my dreams reality, I cannot guarantee I will achieve them all.  But I like my odds of success against his.  I put my list down beside his speech to compare the two.  If I was the type to judge, I'd say his was the more delusional.

Hillary's Hard Working Whites

I'm every bit as sensitive to racism as the next liberal who grew up in the suburbs and attended a Big-10 university.  By which I mean, I've rarely seen it in person and pretty much never had it practiced upon my person.  I am, however, aware that it exists in America.  To argue otherwise would be the height of folly.  It would be like claiming we never landed on the moon and citing as proof the fact that I wasn't there as an eyewitness.  It would be analogous to insisting global warming was a Green Party scare tactic, evidenced by this past week's unusually cool temperatures in my hometown of New York City.  It would be a non-starter.

That being said, I just don't buy the near-universal position across the progressive blogosphere that Hillary Clinton's recent statement concerning white voters constitutes race-baiting.  The exact quotation was, "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on" and she quoted an AP story that pointed out "Senator Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.  There's a pattern emerging here."  I don't know why Rep. Charles Rangel said, "I can't believe Sen. Clinton would say anything that dumb."  Or why Joe Conason over at Salon.com would argue that she "violated the rhetorical rules" and crossed a "bright white line."  

This is not Ronald Reagan decrying (fictitious) welfare queens in Cadillacs and "young bucks" buying T-bone steaks.  It's not Richard Nixon running on states' rights and law-and-order in 1968 following the inner-city riots in response to Martin Luther King's assassination.  Both Reagan and Nixon were tacitly signaling to their white constituents that they would use the office of the presidency as a hammer against the black community.  

The only thing Clinton was signaling is the truth.  Blue-collar whites have overwhelmingly preferred Clinton over Obama, especially recently.  Whites made up 80% of the vote in Pennsylvania and broke for Clinton roughly 60-40.  In Ohio, she won whites 64-34.  In West Virginia, she steamrolled him 72-23 among blue-collar whites.

If you're Obama, that's a pattern and it's a problem.  If you're Hillary, it's a pattern and it's a lifeline.  Her only path to the nomination consists of the super delegates looking at the big picture after all the votes have been counted, seeing a contest that is basically a dead heat, both in terms of pledged delegates and popular vote, and using their position as it was intended -- to tip the scales towards the candidate they judge to be more electable in the general election.  Now, the odds of that happening are long, and the arguments against it are plentiful, but it's her story and she's sticking to it.

Paul Begala says the Democrats can't win with a constituency of "eggheads and African Americans," the old Dukakis team.  Never minding the fact that Obama is also carrying the youth vote by a margin of 70-30% over Sen. Clinton, it's still hard to imagine a Democrat winning the White House without at least a somewhat competitive showing among blue-collar whites.  The question is, does a poor showing by Obama against Hillary necessarily presage a similar result against McCain in the fall?  I'm not sure we can draw that particular causal relationship.  Obama doesn't fit neatly into any of the candidate molds we have on the shelves -- he's a new breed and his organization continues to multiply at the grass roots level.

But that's Obama's argument to make, not Clinton's.  Her challenge is to construct an electoral narrative convincing enough that the super delegates overturn the slight lead Obama takes out of the campaign.  The best way for her to do that is to point out that working whites make up a larger section of the Democratic Party than do African Americans and liberal intellectuals and that many of them will choose McCain over Obama in the general election.  I suppose you could hear a dog whistle in her "hard working whites" comments if you were so inclined.  Almost by definition, a comment is racial on some level if it refers specifically to race.  But "hard working" could just as easily be read as shorthand for blue-collar as be interpreted as code implying a comparison to lazy blacks.  Depends on what you're listening for. 

The point is, it's a fact that Clinton is winning the white vote.  One could take issue with Hillary's argument that this is a pattern -- the breakdowns have actually been fairly consistent throughout the campaign, for the most part.  Obama did about as well among whites in Indiana as he has been doing all along, with the exceptions of the few most recent primaries.  I would argue that what she points out as a pattern is really just a reflection of primary scheduling serendipity.  It so happens that Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky fall consecutively in the campaign.  She happens to do very well in the Appalachian coal mines and hollers of southeastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky, where they've been spending an awful lot of time of late.  Basically, she's got the hillbilly vote locked up.  And pundits are taking this hillbilly vote and extrapolating it out across the entire electorate.  Which I don't think is an accurate reflection of working class, white America.  I would argue that hillbilly white America has a greater antipathy to the concept of an African American president than does much of the rest of white working class America.  It's just a theory of mine, and not one I'm about to go knocking on doors to confirm, but it seems plausible.

The PC police need to recognize the difference between demagoguery and fact.  When Bill Clinton compared Obama's success in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's in '84 and '88, he was pointing out the fact that African Americans make up approximately 50% of Democratic primary voters in the state.  Given that Obama wins 9 in 10 black votes, it stands to reason that President Clinton would attempt to lower expectations for a race Hillary could not win.  To say that a legitimate black candidate is going to win the South Carolina Democratic primary, and that it isn't necessarily a precursor for the rest of the campaign, is not race baiting, it's fact.

It's a fine line.  Lee Atwater, Reagan and Bush 41's "happy hatchet man," explained the subtleties of the Southern Strategy as:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.'  By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' -- that hurts you.  Backfires.  So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.  You're getting so abstract now (that) you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is (that) blacks get hurt worse than whites."

See, that's race baiting, in all its abstract brilliance.  Because the Southern Strategy was so successful, Democrats have grown hyper-sensitive to all things racial.  It has become impossible to bring up the subject of race without drawing politically correct fire.  Which is all well and good -- sometimes the race card is indeed being played.  But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And Barack Obama's problem with white, working class voters is a real cigar.  I'm not sure ignoring the state of West Virginia and the subsequent 40+ point defeat was his best strategy.  Maybe he should start spending some time in Hillaryland.  He might end up needing every hard working white voter he can get come November. 

Obama's Gamble

As Tuesday turned to Wednesday, Tim Russert declared the race for the Democratic presidential nomination over.  He called it firmly, but with a trace of melancholy, as if Barack Obama's defeat of Hillary Clinton represented a sort of metaphysical expiration.  As if we were all of us Romans at the Colosseum, witnessing the death of some noble beast after it had fought valiantly for our pleasure.  The rest of the crew -- Olbermann, Matthews, Brokaw --  were appropriately somber and respectful of the moment.  (Except for Norah O'Donnell.  Nothing seems to dampen her wide-eyed enthusiasm and continual amazement at the secrets uncovered by going "inside the numbers.")  We hate seeing a slugfest halted.  Americans, to quote David Halberstam, "liking competitions as much as the end results of them."

But, in the cold, hard light of day, there's nothing to be done about it; Obama has been pronounced the victor and the spoils must be collected.  The most obtrusive piece of spoilage is Hillary's carcass that's been kicked over there into the corner.  What's to be done with her (and her husband and their loyal band of minions)?

Conventional wisdom has it that Obama will have to at least offer her the vice presidency.  The argument is that she would shore up his weaknesses with the pickup-driving, beer-drinking, gun-toting, church-going Middle Americans . . . I'm just going to go ahead and call them poor, white Democrats.  While Obama is perceived as elitist, Clinton has become the man with the iron touch, able to connect on a visceral level with steel workers, short-order cooks and gun show aficionados.  (As long as they're white, that is.  Somewhere along the road, blue collar African Americans got kicked to the ditch, losing their status as "Regular Joes" and became, simply, Obama voters.  I wonder if Chris Matthews could pinpoint for the rest of us exactly when it was that white union members attained their monopoly as average working Americans.)  In addition, she would bring with her the Old Woman vote (as long as they're white, that is) that she has been collecting almost as decisively as Obama has been winning blacks.  As nearly 40% of these two Clinton constituencies have declared themselves prepared to vote for John McCain if Obama wins the nomination, the Clinton VP argument has obvious merit.  Also, her vaunted pugilistic tenacity is perfect for the role of vice presidential attack dog in the general election, allowing Obama to float above the fray which is where he does his best work.  As a bonus, Andrew Sullivan points out that a vice presidential olive branch would also neutralize the Clintons as political enemies, plotting offstage her 2012 presidential run while he tries to manage his way through a first term laden with land mines courtesy of eight years of George Bush.

An Obama-Clinton ticket makes sense on many levels.  I don't think he'll do it.

Obama has been running against the Clinton legacy of Washington-as-usual almost as hard as he's been beating on Bushes 41 & 43.  It's difficult to maintain your brand as the Change Candidate if you show up on the south lawn of the White House with the family who just left the joint eight years ago.  I wouldn't be surprised if Bill still has some keys that work in the West Wing.  

Obama will most likely remain true to his agent-of-change persona.  Somehow, over the past fifteen months, he has acquired the label of "soft," either unwilling or unable to do what it takes to wrest the nomination from Clinton.  In fact, the opposite is the case.  Obama has repeatedly chosen the more difficult political path when faced with a fork in the road towards Principle.  Unlike Hillary, he spoke out against authorizing the Iraq War, taking his political future in his hands in the face of overwhelming support (the Senate vote was 77-23 in favor of the authorization) for Bush's power play.  He responded to the Jeremiah Wright provocation by delivering the signature speech of his generation on race in America.  When Wright continued to stoke the flames of divisiveness, he finally distanced himself from his former pastor, denouncing the words while still declining to condemn the man himself.  He refuses to wear a flag pin in his lapel in the face of questions about his patriotism, believing the pin an empty symbol that has about as much to do with true patriotism as does wearing a red, white and blue name tag at a hotel convention.  And, unlike Clinton and McCain, he chose to call the gas tax holiday what it is, a not-even-particularly-clever piece of political pander that ultimately illustrates his two opponents' contempt for voters' intelligence.

These are not the choices of a weak politician.  In each case, he would have been better served initially, with the media as well as the electorate, to take the path of least resistance.  Stand with the majority in Congress, treat Wright as a black and white issue and cut him loose immediately, wear the damned pin and back the damned holiday.  

But his principles and, I suspect, his political instincts, wouldn't allow him to take the low road.  When asked by a reporter to name a hidden talent, he once said that he was, "a pretty good poker player."  This primary campaign has been a masterful illustration of his repeated willingness to go all in on crucial issues, while maintaining a poker face of zen-like calm.

I don't think he particularly likes the Clintons or the idea of sharing the West Wing with them for the next eight years.  And I think he's betting that he doesn't particularly need them.

He's won most of the chips so far with his principles-first strategy.  The pot keeps getting bigger.  How will he play his next hand?

Bush: Corrupt or Inept?

Distracted by the fun of watching the Obama/Clinton steel cage, death match in North Carolina this week, I almost missed the opportunity to celebrate the five-year anniversary of "Mission Accomplished."  Five years ago Thursday, George Bush dressed up as a fighter pilot and had a real one set him down on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.  All decked out in his costume, he paraded in front of the assembled crew and press, like a kid getting ready for Halloween, and then stood in front of the now infamous banner and told the nation, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

Anniversaries being a time to take stock, it seems like a good chance to take a break from the Democratic primaries and remember some of the Bush administration's greatest hits.  All good parties need a game.  Pin the Tail On the Donkey's fun, but I hardly think a donkey would be welcome at a Republican affair.  Truth or Consequences is always a crowd-pleaser but it might take too long to explain the rules to the guests -- the Bush administration has taken precious little notice of either concept.  Something along those lines, though . . . how  about Verdict: Corrupt or Inept?  The game is simple.  We'll look at a few of the administration's signature disasters and choose whether each was a result of outright corruption or simple ineptitude.  Ready?  

We've really got to start with the Iraq War, being as it's pretty much the inspiration for the whole game.  To review:  After toppling the Taliban, we pivoted our focus from Afghanistan towards Iraq in order to remove Saddam, thereby allowing bin Laden to head for the hills of Pakistan and disappear down a cave.  Depending upon whom you believe, Cheney or Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz or Feith ordered L. Paul Bremer to disband the Iraqi army, loosing a quarter of a million pissed-off, out-of-work young men into the countryside.  We went after these insurgents with helicopters, bombs and missiles, with scant regard for "collateral damage," a euphemistic term for the innocent civilians killed in our determination to present them with the gift of democracy.  That number, by the way, has just passed 90,000 for those of you keeping score.  We misread the role of Iran in Iraqi Shiite politics, assuming their "interference" was negligible.  To the contrary, Iran is providing arms and training multiple insurgent factions and their regional influence continues to grow, along with their nuclear potential.  Rumsfeld's determination to do the job on the cheap lead the administration to ignore the advice of Army chief of staff General Shinseki, who testified that several hundred thousand troops would be required to stabilize Iraq.  Shinseki was forced into retirement, years passed, thousands died and Bush eventually ordered a surge in American forces.  The list is virtually endless, but I'm getting a headache and this is supposed to be a party, so let's put Iraq to bed.  VERDICT--INEPT

Speaking of taking stock, the New York Times reported yesterday on the study that the Department of Education released of Bush's $6 billion Reading First initiative, which he insisted be included in the No Child Left Behind legislation in 2001.  The report stated, "Reading First did not improve students' reading comprehension."  Grover Whitehurst, director of the Institute of Education Sciences, concluded that the program, "doesn't end up helping children read."  To be fair, Reading First does still have its supporters, including Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.  The relative merits of the program in its current form are debatable.  What is not, however, is that it has been headed by hacks who have used their positions to feather the nests of specific publishers at the expense of the students' best interests.  Chris Doherty, the Reading First director, was forced to resign in 2006 when the conflict of interests became public.  He referred in emails to backers of alternative curriculums as "dirtbags" who were "trying to crash our party."  Sen. Edward Kennedy, chairman of the Senate education committee, accused the administration of putting, "cronyism first and the reading skills of our children last."  VERDICT-- (too close to call, really) CORRUPT and INEPT

Also this week, Lurita Doan, the head of the General Services Administration, which handles billions of dollars in federal contracts, was forced to resign.  Not only did she allegedly use her position to steer government business towards friends, she is also accused of violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from taking action that could influence an election.  A Karl Rove deputy gave a meeting at GSA in which he identified specific Democrats the Republican Party was targeting for defeat in 2008 as well as Republicans whom they deemed vulnerable.  Doan has been quoted as asking him at the meeting how her agency could be used to "help our candidates."  VERDICT--CORRUPT

When Dick Cheney became Vice President in 2000, he left his position as CEO of Halliburton, Co., one of the largest oil-service companies in the world.  He cashed in over $30 million in company stock at the time.  Halliburtonwatch.org details the chronology of the company's truly meteoric rise to their current monopolistic position as contractors to the Iraq War.  Halliburton split its time in the 90's between making billions hand-over-fist and paying comparatively piddling fines levied against them for stock fraud and over-billing practices.  In 2001, Halliburton subsidiary KBR secured a ten-year deal with the Pentagon with no cost ceiling to provide support services to the Army.  Cheney claimed in 2003 he had, "no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."  Well, except for the $150,000 per year in deferred compensation the company was paying him at the time and the 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options he still owned.  The longer this war goes on, the richer Halliburton gets and the more those Cheney stock options are worth.  VERDICT--CORRUPT

George Bush's Department of Justice, headed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, chose Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 2006, to dismiss eight U.S. attorneys without apparent cause.  They were replaced by hand-picked interim appointees.  Several of the fired attorneys claimed they were being pressured to direct, or not direct, their prosecutions in a partisan manner.  A U.S. attorney's job is to police politicians.  When the DOJ tells them who, and how, to investigate, the public trust has been breached.  On August 27, 2007, after months of stonewalling, Gonzales finally resigned amid accusations of perjury in his testimony before Congress.  VERDICT--There's more than a whiff of INEPT here, but, to be fair, Gonzales brought that with him when he took over the DOJ.  His qualifications were always suspect.  CORRUPT

Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on Monday, August, 29, 2005.  President Bush was on vacation at the time and decided to go ahead with his plans to fly to Phoenix and help John McCain celebrate his birthday.  By the time they got around to cutting the cake, the levees in New Orleans had been breached and the 9th ward was under 6-8 feet of water.  Louisiana Governor Blanco pleaded, "Mr. President, we need your help.  We need everything you've got."  Bush went to bed.  The next day, he visited the El Mirage Country Club in Cucamonga, California, as part of a drug-benefits tour, missing that day's video conference on Katrina.  Mass looting was taking place in New Orleans.  Exhausted police were being used to control the looters instead of engaging in search and rescue.  Bush was pictured playing guitar with country singer Mark Willis before returning to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, for the final night of his vacation.  On Wednesday, two full days after Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, Bush flew over the region in Air Force One to assess the damage.  By now, FEMA staff was reporting that people were dying at the Superdome.  Ex-commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association, Michael Brown headed to New Orleans in his new position as director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  Five of his top eight FEMA officials had also come to their current jobs with virtually no disaster experience.  The top three FEMA officials all had ties to the Bush 2000 presidential campaign or the White House advance operation.  This crack staff was responsible for an inadequate evacuation plan and a relief effort woefully short on planning, supplies, manpower and communication.  A 2006 Republican House select committee investigated the government's response to Katrina and concluded that the response to, "Katrina was a national failure, an abdication of the most solemn obligation to provide for the common welfare . . ."  They judged Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff "detached" and Michael Brown "clueless."  VERDICT:  CORRUPT (in that FEMA staffing at the highest levels was yet another of the egregious examples of the Bush administration's proclivity for blatant cronyism) and INEPT

Well, that's all the time we have for our game today.  Join us next week when we'll cover classics like Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Abu Ghraib, Pre-911 Intelligence Failures and the skewed/suppressed scientific research at NIH, HHS, FDA and the EPA.  

For now, we'll just say, "Happy Anniversary, Mr. President."  Loved the fighter pilot costume.

And now, back to the wrestling in North Carolina.

Is Obama Ready?

A popular topic of conversation this year has been whether America is ready for Barack Obama as our next president.  It began as a philosophical debate amongst political junkies but, as his campaign gained momentum, it quickly became the subject du jour at water coolers and bus stops around the country.  Every amateur pundit has an opinion on whether Obama is truly a post-racial candidate, if voters tell the truth in exit polls, and if Alabama, Pennsylvania has evolved far enough to step into the booth and cast a vote for a black man.  These are all fair questions and perfectly germane to the contest at hand.  

But I'm not sure they are the most important question.  What we really need to know is, is Barack Obama ready to be President of the United States?  More specifically, is he ready to do what it takes to be elected president?

He has much of the process down pat.  His campaign speeches are marvelous flights of oratory, reducing students and disaffected independents to a weak-kneed euphoria as they queue up to add their name to his mailing list, thereby making themselves available for thrice-weekly requests for online campaign donations.  His website is state-of-the-art, pleasing to the eye and easily navigable;  a Mac to Hillary's PC.  It has grown into the biggest cash cow political fund-raising has ever seen.  He moves through crowds with the easy grace of an athlete, making eye contact, reaching out, shaking hands -- connecting.  His wife is now on point after a bit of a rough start.  She's not a natural politician and it shows, but she has learned on the job and is now a definite asset out on the trail.  

These are all crucial to a successful campaign.  But they're all above-the-fray kinds of achievements.  Obama brought the big brain and charisma with him when he entered the race.  With Axelrod supplying the message and Plouffe the strategy, his macro-success could, on some level, be predicted.  He is, after all, a singularly talented political animal.

But one begins to wonder if he is really willing to roll his sleeves up and get dirty.  To do the things necessary to get people on the upper-east side of Manhattan and Jupiter, Florida and Muncie, Indiana and South-Central Los Angeles and Truth or Consequences, New Mexico to all vote for the same candidate.  Being smart and principled isn't enough.  Having a vision of ending the divisive politics we've become accustomed to isn't enough.  Energizing an entire generation of new voters won't get it done either.

No, voters demand more.  They want their backs scratched.  They want their palms greased.  A little pander goes a long way.  Clinton understands it.  So does McCain.  The vacation from gasoline taxes they're promoting is a farce.  When all is said and done, it will have saved the average consumer a half tank of gas over the summer, while costing the highway trust fund about $9 billion and the construction industry some 300,000 jobs.  

Doesn't matter.  It's about telling the people in front of you what they want to hear, then hopping on a plane and flying somewhere else to tell those people the something different that they want to hear.  Workers in Texas feel differently about NAFTA than unemployed workers in Ohio.  That's not a problem for Hillary.  Maverick Candidate John McCain is against torture and the Bush tax cuts.  Until he becomes Nominee John McCain and needs his party's right wing.  Then he favors making the Bush cuts permanent and exempting the CIA from the Army's Field Manual guidelines for the questioning of detainees.  Not a problem.

It's not just a question of policies.  Obama seems uncomfortable acting as someone he's not.  He comes across as elitist to some because he refuses to dumb down his game.  He's naturally eloquent, he's dragging around an Ivy League education, he's written two best-sellers and he's a United States senator.  Clinton has the same resume -- well, the eloquence might be a stretch -- but she's perfectly willing to play the part of good ol' boy across small-town America.  She's out there eatin' the corn dogs, drinkin' the whiskey and promising them that good times are right around the corner.  Have you seen Obama's face when he's offered yet another chocolate donut at some factory in Pennsylvania?  His expression reminds me of the look on George Bush's face  every time he gets stuck entertaining some indigenous African tribe and they invite him to join them in their ancient fertility dance.  I'll bet Obama hasn't eaten a chocolate donut since he quit smoking dope back in college.  You watch him scrimmaging with the University of North Carolina basketball team and it looks like he could run full-court for an hour.  Hillary, on the other hand, appears to have added about thirty pounds to the seat of her pants.  (I'm no fashion bug but somebody needs to tell her, less with the pink and orange pantsuits, more with something in a slimming black.  Maybe a nice Anne Taylor jacket and skirt.)  

Why Americans have come to require a president they'd feel comfortable having a beer with is beyond me.  Or one that can pick up a 7-10 split down at the local bowling alley.  It wasn't always this way.  FDR was born into one of the richest families in New York, grew up riding, shooting and playing polo and lived in luxury while attending Harvard.  JFK grew up in mansions along the Hudson River and Hyannisport, attended The Choate School and sailed on the SS Normandie to study at the London School of Economics.  No one seemed to hold their upbringings against them.  Me, I like a president with a sense of style.  And smart.  Really smart.  The more books he's read and tests he's aced, the better.  As Jon Stewart puts it, "the job you're applying for, if it goes well?  They might carve your head into a mountain!"

Look, I don't want to sound elitist and out-of-touch and patronizing.  But expecting a presidential candidate to be able to blend in at a tractor pull is f*@king stupid.  No regular guy or gal is wired to run for president.  Do you think Billy Bob, Jr. would be comfortable hosting a state dinner for the Sarkozy's?  Then why should the next president have to fit in at the 4-H club?  

Obama is struggling in the red states because, as much as anything else, he is different.  Not just different from Reagan democrats, but different from most presidential politicians.  He's young.  He's black.  He's basically liberal but seems non-partisan by nature.  He's unwilling to deny who he is and where he came from.  It's one of the reasons he has had such difficulty divorcing himself from Jeremiah Wright.  Trinity United and Wright obviously played a major role in molding the man Obama is today and he has been loath to cast them aside.  His former pastor had to take his show on the road, attacking Obama before the national press as just another hypocritical politician before Obama said, "enough."  And even then, although his anger and disappointment were palpable at his press conference, his basic decency and capacity for forgiveness remained evident.  He still would not say the break was irrevocable.  Just that the relationship had changed.  He did not denounce the man, finally, but his propositions, his statements.  He left open the possibility, somewhere down the line, of reconciliation.

He's a complex man.  America doesn't appreciate complexity in their presidential campaigns.  We want our candidate to pull up a stool, grab a beer and say, "Hey, buddy, I'm just like you.  Tell me your problems and I'll fix them."  

Well, Obama's not just like us.  He could pretend that he is, but it wouldn't make it so.  He's different.  That's why I'm voting for him.