I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on economics, but I do know that the American economy, and by association world economy, are in the midst of a history-bending crash. To boot, we are knee-deep in a contentious and ugly election cycle for the presidency and also Congress. Put the two together, and America is suffering from all that is bad about America: paralysis in Washington, skullduggery on Wall Street, and an American citizenry on Main Street that has no idea what is going on. From bankers to economists to politicians, nobody saw this coming despite what some of them might be claiming now, and nobody has convincingly provided any answers about where this thing is heading.

With an absence of reliable information available from any quarter, we must resort to analyzing the factors at play in the last few whirlwind weeks of finger-pointing and hand-wringing. I have been unable to find a simple breakdown anywhere else. In my opinion, this complex web of individual tugs-o-war are now actively underway and will shape the outcome:

To Bail or Not to Bail. That would be the question. The $700 billion dollar question, to be exact. Many mainstream politicians, including Bush and the duo of potential successors, McCain, and Obama all seem to be for it with perhaps slight modifications. Its authors, including Bush appointees Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke claim that the economy would suffer an unmitigated slide without the bailout, and the infusion of cash would be good for all Americans despite the unprecedented outlay of taxpayer dollars. They argue a doomsday scenario if we don’t make bail. But- and here is the terrifying part- the opposing arguments are legion, and sound just as reasonable, depending on which smart economist you talk to. The slide, which depends largely on an unquantifiable concept known as “confidence,” may be uncontrollable even with a bailout- like a Band-aid on a broken leg. Plus, is it the government’s role to save failing companies in a free-market society- therefore socializing the dumb risks that Wall Street takes? Most business owners who do a lousy job are simply allowed to fail across the country and around the capitalist world. That’s part of the definition of capitalism, something we’ve committed to centuries ago, and ostensibly, one of the core democratic values we are trying to protect and spread by fighting to the death in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, what’s in it for the common folk who are getting foreclosed out of their homes, the real losers of the day? Why does Wall Street get a bailout while they don’t? This leads to the next tug-o-war.

Constituents vs. Corporate Patrons. We all know that corporations fund both major parties and their candidates. On the other hand, politicians are elected by the people, and must heed the angry phone calls and emails from constituents. Congressmen are being torn asunder by an epic battle between the two forces. I’m sure most corporate donors are begging their buddies in Congress to vote for the bailout, while the citizenry smells yet another corrupt attempt to redistribute their money to benefit companies that do not deserve it. This has caused the impasse we are at right now, epitomized by:

Republicans Vs. Republicans. President Bush has been neutered by his own wretched performance for eight years, and with his popularity at a dismal low, this is not a good time for him to have to attempt to ram through unbelievably contentious legislation, even with vigorous gambits by Secretary Paulson and the presidential candidates. The House Republicans did not bite on the bailout vote, despite McCain’s support, because of Bush’s support, and that’s partly why the bill failed this week. With the election just weeks away, some Congressmen undoubtedly calculated that their jobs may hinge on this monumental vote. A smaller group may be against the bill on principle, under the conservative umbrella of free markets, deregulation, lower spending. Which is also worth discussing:

Capitalism Vs. Socialism. The bailout high jinks are part of a wider debate in America: what kind of nation are we? America exists in a bipolar, piecemeal twilight zone somewhere between the small-government capitalist standard-bearer of the world, and a nanny state who meddles in everything. While we promote trade and the free movement of labor and capital, our government is also full of folks who provide insane industry subsidies and tariffs; run housing projects, Medicaid, and Social Security; all the while protecting you by spying on your emails and forcing tobacco firms to warn you that the profit-inducing product inside the box will kill you. At some point, something has to give. Are we going to admit to nanny socialism by passing this bill or aren’t we?

Partisanship Vs. Bipartisanship. One of the highlights of the campaign season/ financial crisis cocktail has been McCain’s bizarre attempt to suspend his campaign and postpone the first presidential debate. Here comes this presidential candidate who admits to not being an economic expert, but believes he must drop the presidential campaign to come together with Obama to solve the crisis and rescue America. Except… he forgot to tell Obama about his Amazing Technicolor Bipartisan Plan. Obama for his part, raring for the debate that would likely help him push ahead of McCain in the polls, asked that he and McCain not inject too much partisan presidential politics into the crisis. But both did just that: McCain’s desperate ploy was strictly political. Obama and McCain then both proceeded to sidestep multiple questions from Lehrer about whether they supported the bill or not in the first debate. The most important question of the election cycle, and both of them refused to give a straight answer. Bipartisanship does not exist; it’s a cruel joke:

Republicans vs. Democrats. As the parties joust for position, it has been clear that the crisis, and the failure of the bailout to pass muster are both the fault of the other party, depending on which politician you ask. Democrats can blame Bush and the Republican Congress for sleeping at the wheel for much of the last eight years, and in fact many of them see the faltering economy as a boon to their chances to get re-elected in November. Democrats could also rightly claim that Republicans hijacked the bill. Meanwhile the Republicans are quick to blame Pelosi, Reid, Obama, or even Bill Clinton for all that taxing and spending. Anyone, anyone but themselves.

VP Gaffe Vs. VP Gaffe. Finally, we are approaching the long-awaited VP debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, and all the campaigning before and after by these two on the economy. You could bill it as the All-America Alaska Ignoramus vs. Joey Foot-en-Mouth. Palin has no idea what a recession or a depression are, and has already predicted that we could be headed for a depression! That’s what pit bulls with lipstick are supposed to do: scare you (more so than a pit bull without lipstick would do), whether it’s about the Russians overtaking Alaska, Iranians terrorizing us and our allies, or another Great Depression. Have fear, and vote for Mommy. Meanwhile, Biden will give extremely eloquent and passionate remarks about how to solve the crisis, but he’s likely to draw on lessons from the wrong decade, using presidents from the wrong eras of history. At the very least, this should be highly entertaining, in a reality TV sort of way.

If any of this makes you feel better about this unquantifiable crisis we seem to be going through, I have failed.

Regardless of your political sentiments, all can agree that the nation is going through a rough stretch right now.

Back to back to back storms are hovering around and battering the Gulf coast and Atlantic seaboard- a taste of what’s to come under earth’s new climate change regime. America’s oldest Wall Street investment banks and largest mortgage lenders are going bankrupt or getting bought out with Uncle Sam’s help. A massive global insurance giant nearly folded. Most people are worse off than they were 8 years ago. Russia has asserted its newfound energy dominance over a hapless Georgia, openly daring the European Union or America to do anything to protect our allies in the former Soviet bloc. We are engaged in deadly battles in the Middle East as well as South Asia, fighting all kinds of nasty people, including minority elements of Sunnis, Shiites, and Pashtuns. The nation continues to fiend for oil from the OPEC cabal that controls it. 7 years after 9/11, the people who masterminded the largest murder in American history are still wanted, dead or alive, a standing embarrassment to our national security, intelligence, and law enforcement apparatuses. Less in the news, our neighbor to the South, Mexico, is turning into an uncontrollable cauldron of cowboy drug dealers who would make the Wild Bunch look like so many Swedish nannies on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, a country so lawless that today’s governors, mayors, and cops are tomorrow’s lunch.

In this environment, some people are additionally terrorized by the specter of an Obama loss on November 2nd. I remain extremely confident about an Obama victory, to a level probably unmatched except perhaps by Obama’s legendarily cocky team itself. That is, save a massive Obama gaffe or the revelation that he is having an affair. I wouldn’t bet on either. Here are the reasons why Obama will win.

Forget the National Polls. There is a lot of hand-wringing over the national polls, where the McCain-Palin ticket has made legitimate and dramatic strides among various demographics, especially white women and the Republican base. People seem to forget that national polls mean ZERO in an electoral college system. The only numbers that matter on election day are in the handful of swing states, which generally hovers around 16. Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Michigan, Pennyslvania, and some of the other usual suspects. The remainder of states are going to be in the tank for one candidate or the other, regardless of what either campaign likes to claim. So although McCain is either tied with or ahead of Obama in just about every national poll, they are meaningless. Don’t waste your time on them, and instead focus on the swing states polls if you must get a poll fix.

State Polls will also be off. If you do, remember that these state polls will not be accurate either. Polls do not call people like me, who own cell phones but not a land line at home. Which is a large percentage of likely voters between 18 and 30, who will swing for Obama overwhelmingly in this cycle, and in record numbers in the history of youth voting. Add this to the unprecedented 50-state voter registration drive being carried out by the Democrats, and we will see some unexpected results on November 2nd compared to previous polling.

Obama’s Ground Organization. What’s the difference between a small-town mayor and a community organizer? The community organizer knows how to get out the vote in urban areas across the nation with a vengeance. America’s favorite community organizer in particular will bring out a record number of Democrats, and specifically minorities and young people without land lines, on election day. Much of this will be the courtesy of the most powerful political tools ever created on the World Wide Web, which Obama gets and McCain still does not. At this time it is impossible to accurately quantify this effect. Of course, the Republicans will be working very hard to recruit new voters as well, but this effort will fall far short. There is simply less energy on their side this year.

Sense of Urgency. As the election gets closer, if the polls remain neck and neck, we will see one presidential candidate get flustered, angry, and desperate. The other one will remain cool. Could it possibly be because one of them is 47 and will have at least four more opportunities to run for president, while the other is getting his very last shot at age 72?

Being Black No Longer Matters. Martin Luther King, Jr. yearned for a day when a human could be judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. I have been studying America very closely since I was a kid, and was more able to watch it change over time than most because I was constantly going abroad and returning. I’m also an American minority who can see America through an outsider’s lens. America has finally arrived there sooner than we could ever have dreamed just 4 years ago. 2008 represents the first time in history where race is finally marginalized enough that it will not affect a presidential race with a minority candidate. Of course, no polls will accurately reflect this fact, because people are not willing to admit that race was a factor in their vote. But any racial effect on white voters will easily be cancelled by McCain’s age factor, which 30% of voters take issue with. Let’s also be honest: most whites who would vote on race are Republicans anyway. And for good reasons or bad, 90% of blacks will vote for Obama.

The News is Good News. Most of the bad news, whether it’s related to markets, American soldier deaths, or personal finance numbers will reflect badly on the Bush administration and its battered party which is largely to blame. The Republican party is on the wrong side of most Americans when it comes to nearly every crisis of the day, and Obama is effectively selling the party’s governing incompetence. Sarah Palin was a breath of fresh air for this group, exuding confidence and a break from the “old-boy” Republican network. However:

The Sarah Palin Stock will Fall. Again, pundits do not give the American electorate enough credit. The more that voters learn about Sarah Palin, the less a lot of her early supporters will back off from her. Do we want another Dick Cheney in power- a Vice President who governs in order to help her cronies, lies with a straight face, doesn’t believe in evolution or that global warming is man-made, believes that the Iraq War is a task from God, and would reinforce McCain’s itchy trigger finger? Who looked into banning books from a library, who has instructed government employees not to respond to a subpoena investigating her although she claims to have “nothing to hide?”

It’s Debatable. There will be unprecedented interest in the presidential debates this year; I predict that viewership records will easily be broken on live TV, followed by the second wave of viewings over the Internet. In my opinion, this is likely to be where most of the swing toward Obama will occur. Before our eyes, Obama has grown up from a bumbling lightweight in early 2007 who could not separate himself from talk of identity politics, to America’s most effective speaker, debater, and politician over the last 18 months. His raw intelligence will ooze. McCain meanwhile hasn’t really changed: he is still the same crabby, uninformed man who is trying to change his platform to “change” at the last minute, ditching “experience.” He is trying to play the game on Obama’s chessboard. However, to do so, one must actually have policies of change in mind, without alienating the right wing who still adores the Bush wing of the party. The Sarah gambit was supposed to help, but she must face Joe Biden. I like grandpa Joe’s chances in this one.

If you’re not as relaxed about all this as I am, there’s nothing more I can do for you. I suggest if you’re a big Obama fan, and you’re still worried, why not go ahead and donate to his campaign, make some calls, or knock on some doors to help out in the next 50 days to make yourself feel better? In the meanwhile, I’m going to start planning a massive victory party in New York City for November 3rd, and YOU my friend are invited. And: don’t forget to vote.

Sarah Palin’s selection by McCain to be his running mate says volumes about McCain and his leadership style.  It was the biggest decision of his presidential campaign, and he clearly decided to go for broke with a high-risk, high-reward bet.  It’s no coincidence that McCain has a gambling problem in his personal life.  The decision was reckless and cynical in numerous ways, and immediately makes apparent that John McCain is completely unfit to lead the nation.  It’s not exaggeration to say that McCain has placed the country that he loves so much in grave peril.  The Sarah Palin pick is strictly aimed at helping him win an election rather than help him govern.  Do you honestly think that a President McCain would ever call up Palin on the phone if Russia invades Ukraine? “Um, Sarah…this terrible thing happened…what’s your advice on how we should proceed…uh, no, we can’t challenge Russia to a hockey puck shoot-out to settle this one…“  She is unprepared to govern, and yet she might be called upon to do so if anything were to happen to McCain.

I’ve seen Palin speak three times: at the announcement of her selection on the day after the DNC; her nasty and untruthful speech at the RNC; and her sloppy first interview as running mate with Charlie Gibson of ABC News.  In all three cases I was impressed by her poise, her speaking skills, and her aw-shucks all-American demeanor.  I was equally flabbergasted by her ability to lie with a straight face, her complete ignorance of important issues, and her willingness to make vicious and false attacks against Obama and his record.

Palin has Zero (0) foreign policy credentials.  She did not know what the Bush Doctrine was.  She thinks that being in charge of an oil-producing state counts as national security experience.  She believes that the fact that you can see Russia across the Bering Strait from a remote Alaskan island qualifies her to understand the complexities of diplomacy with our newly belligerent ex-nemesis.  Bumbling McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds brought up her foreign policy resume of…being the head of the Alaska National Guard.   And true to her NRA ties, she believes it is OK for the United States to shoot first, and ask questions later if we think another nation may pose a threat to us.

None of this should come as a surprise from a woman who does not believe that global warming is caused by humans, does not believe in evolution, had no interest in traveling anywhere until politics forced her to, believes schools should only teach sexual abstinence but not the benefits of safe sex or contraception, that the Iraq War is a task from God, and who tried to have books banned from the library, and supports an Alaskan group that honestly thinks it has a chance of seceding from the Union.  Obviously, education and knowledge are not very high on Sarah Palin’s priority list.  How ironic that McCain’s hopes of winning now partly hinge on his advisers’ ability to help Palin cram for the final exam: 50 more days of campaigning till election day, including a debate with Joe Biden.  So far they have failed in their tutorial abilities, as Palin flunked through the pre-test by Gibson, largely attempting to evade all of the important questions.

Palin’s calls for reforming Washington are as laughable as her perfection of the art of saying absolutely nothing at all.  Case in point: her answer to Charlie’s question of what exactly she would change from Bush’s tenure while in Washington: “putting government on the side of the people”- which also happened to be her foreign policy plan.  Taking on the old boys in a state with a population of less than 700,000, while accepting millions of dollars of pork does not qualify anybody for the # 2 job on the planet on a reform ticket.  One has to understand the previous President’s major foreign policy doctrine before it can be reformed.  However, Sarah Palin herself does not bother me so much.  She may be a proud redneck who likes to shoot 40 moose at a time while perched high up on a helicopter for kicks, a cowardly pretense of “sport” where your opponent can’t even see you- quite a fair fight indeed, and quite telling about her personality and how she would fight in a political campaign.  But she is very much a part of the American fabric, the type of person that at times breaks through in the lower levels of local or state politics, but would never have the opportunity to cause danger on a national or international stage as the majority of voters realize what a radical this person is.  This has been largely neutralized thanks to tokenism: the fact that the unqualified party is a woman automatically gives her an edge with women voters, just as we must recognize that no male with Palin’s anemic resume would be offered the job.  I hope hockey moms across America get this.  My mom was a hockey mom too who bought this right defenseman the skates and helmet and pads that led to a city league championship, and she gets it.

Much more worrisome than anything else in the Sarah Palin circus is what the selection says about McCain’s decision-making.  He did not perform the most basic due diligence before making such a momentous decision.  She was clearly not vetted very well, so his campaign was caught  like moose in the headlights as many details of Palin’s personal and public life became public thanks to the media.  There is no need to go into all the troublesome details of Palin’s short career, as they have been widely publicized.  It will suffice to say that it was a rash decision and at 72, McCain will not change his style toward actual deliberation on important issues as opposed to trusting yet another wild whim on his craps-table view of the universe.

If Sarah Palin’s itchy trigger finger is ever placed on the nuclear button bestowed upon her by God one day, do not be surprised to see a world that has indeed changed- for the worse.  America deserves whoever it votes for in November.

I didn’t think it was possible, but the political events of the last week have made the most exciting presidential race in a generation even more interesting.  First, the Democrats gathered in Denver for the four-day pep rally otherwise known as the Democratic National Convention.  A gloom hung over the convention, as the rift between the Obamas and Clintons was overblown by a media that could not find much that was substantive to say about the pageant.  It is a sad indictment of the corporate-controlled field of journalism today that over 500 reporters would fixate on a fictional pschyo-drama between the warring factions of the family.  Fortunately, both Hillary and Bill Clinton came out like good party soldiers with stirring and graceful speeches in support of Obama to at least neutralize the psycho-babble.  On the final night, Obama held court with yet another eloquent speech that he used to knock the convention out of the park at Invesco Field. 

But McCain had his own pair of nuts to flex, which he did forthwith.  He announced by next morning that his running mate would be a voluptuous young lightweight named Sarah Palin, a move which shocked all observers.  Her presence on the ticket can be sure to cause (below the) Beltway loin-stirring amongst many Republicans with her red-blooded cultural conservatism, and she may even poach a few disgruntled Hillary women.  However it is puzzling why McCain would pick this 44-year old beauty queen, Governor of Alaska and until just recently Mayor of a tiny Alaskan town nobody has heard of or even been to, over numerous other qualified candidates.  On his 72nd birthday, no less, a cruel reminder to the nation that this chick could be only inches away from the presidency- and handling the nuclear football.  Let’s be clear: Sarah Palin is not qualified to be the president.   Although Obama may also be a lightweight in Washington, what he brings would make Palin seem like a featherweight.

So while Obama doubled down on experience by choosing a grizzled white male Washington elder in Biden for his youthful ticket, McCain did the exact opposite by going for the virile and sultry Mrs. Palin, 28 years his junior.  She looks a lot more like Britney or Paris than Obama does.  Meanwhile, Barack is no longer the only guy with a funny name on the scene; no joke, the offspring of Sarah Palin are named Willow, Track, Trig, Piper, and Bristol.   Here is a quick analysis of how her being tapped for VP will affect the race. 

She’s a blank slate. In a sign of the division of our times, both left and right are projecting their own prejudices on Mrs. Palin, drawing on her nearly blank slate to suit their own preconceived points of view.  The bizarre result is that both sides are showing great happiness that she was chosen.  The right wing believes she will ensure victory by energizing the base with her pro-life stance, and her eagerness to drill for oil in places like ANWR in Alaska.  The left is eager to jump on her thin record of working on issues of national import and thinks this will sway voters toward Obama.

McCain’s experience card is neutralized. No longer can the McCain camp call Obama a vapid celebrity, or too inexperienced to be in charge of the U.S. executive branch.  Sarah is only a few years out of running a town of less than 10,000 people.  She is three years younger than Obama.  And Obama picked Biden, who most of the country would be comfortable with as president. 

Will she bring women’s votes?  The question of the day is how many women will be encouraged to vote for McCain now that his sidekick is female.  This will partly hinge on whether they discover her red-meat views against abortion.  And whether or not Hillary can convince her admirers to vote for Obama. 

Will average Americans connect with her? Part of Obama’s problem has always been his exotic background.  Half-black, raised partly in Indonesia and Hawaii, a mysterious Kenyan father with a Muslim name, etc.  Now here comes Sarah Palin, an outdoorsy ice fishing queen from Alaska, with an accent straight out of the movie Fargo, sons named Track and Trig, and who looks way better than a mother of five ought to be able to.

Her promise of change. The Republicans are trying to contrast Obama’s call for change with one of their own.  Palin represents a massive generational shift in the party- in theory if they won, she could be the party’s leader and even presidential nominee in the next 4-8 years.   She also bucked the corrupt old-boy Republican network in Alaska, and is therefore seen as an internal party crusader.  Meanwhile, McCain attempts to look like a maverick again after complaints of bending his positions to the right.  And a stud. 

McCain’s age.  Critically, McCain is 72, was tortured for some years, and has survived multiple bouts of skin cancer.  Voters will need to question not only if they are comfortable with a Vice President Palin, but a President Palin.

How the Obamans respond. Early on, Obama surrogates have criticized her lack of experience.  But that’s the knock on him, too.  How they separate the two will be critical to the race.

Biden vs. Palin. Will Biden run circles around the younger Palin?  I cannot fathom otherwise unless another brain aneurysm emerges in Biden’s head mid-debate, but if the debate and extended back and forth between them isn’t a knockout, that doesn’t bode well for Team Obama.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."  - Senator Joe Biden (D-Hatchetville)

Politics begets strange bedfellows.  Obama’s candidate for VP was announced last night: Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.  There were many who thought Obama would end up choosing an old salt of Washington to be his running mate, and this seemed feasible to me.  But, as with all of the other candidates on the short list du jour, which included Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, Kathleen Sebelius, and some guy named (Chet) Edwards, I could not muster any excitement over the prospect of Joe Biden as the running-mate.  It is a damning statement about the Democratic party today, that few within its ranks outside Barack Obama can generate true national excitement. 

But that’s the point.  Obama has generated so much excitement that the new Republican swift-boat narrative has emerged: he’s too exciting, too much of a celebrity.  McCain and Co. have successfully used this strength as an entry point for their attack, turning it into the Achilles Heal.  The  Obama campaign is certainly not lacking for excitement.  I would say the biggest weakness of Obama, and the Democratic party, has been an inability to play offense well.  It’s one thing to attack, but attacking effectively is a completely different matter.  Your swings have to hit. 

Why is Biden where he is?  Not to shore up the ticket’s Washington experience, foreign policy credentials, or to reassure older white people from Biden’s generation. He’s on board specifically to play hardball.  When Biden attacked Obama, Obama wiped the blood off his nose, and liked the taste.  Joe Biden brings something to the table that many of the other prominent Democrats could not: a particularly feisty brand of attack-dog politics, one that even ventures into the realms of (*gasp*) political incorrectness, colloquialisms, f-bombs, and public lashings of other government officials both in America and abroad.  If he stays true to his track record, Biden could be very useful to the Obama campaign.  He could be the hatchet-man deputy that would allow Obama to stay above the fray and free to practice the "new kind of politics" he talks about, while his boy with 30 years of Washington experience does the dirty work down in the trenches.  Make no mistake, Biden would enjoy this role immensely too.

The implications for the campaign are clear.  Biden will go after both McCain and McCain’s own running mate like a lusty pit-bull, while Obama can stay magnanimous and praise McCain’s service to America.  Biden will be difficult to defeat in a debate.  Plus, Biden will surely out-maneuver McCain’s running-mate on foreign policy, be it the Russia-Georgia war, Iran, or Iraq, as the Republican field is filled with foreign-policy dunces and chicken-hawks who have have brought us into the national-security wasteland we are in today. 

Biden is ambitious, as we know he wanted to be president for at least the last 20 years.  There is no doubt in my mind that he will run his own little fiefdom during the campaign, and Obama will let him loose to do so as long as he doesn’t cross him. 

In the Obama administration, Biden will still be a useful sidekick.  He could play a large role in getting legislation rammed through as he calls on his old buddies from Congress.  He could continue to stay on the offensive, doing the negative PR that is necessary while allowing Obama to continue staying on a positive message.  A classic example: when it comes time to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice, Obama could sing the high praises of the Judge, while Biden could circulate around Washington, threatening to cut funding for this project or that, or questioning the credentials of another judge who was short-listed and could emerge with insurgent support.

Now that I’ve thought about it, Biden may not be such a bad choice.  Think about it, Markos.

There is a fierce debate under way in Washington and around the world about what America should be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, the two centerpieces of the West’s War on Terror.  The two sides of the debate are represented by the campaign trail rhetoric of the presidential candidates.  The battle line has been drawn by John McCain and Barack Obama, one of whom will be the new Commander in Chief beginning in January 2009.

Obama, on an overseas jaunt to both war zones, has made clear that he would
give the armed forces a new mission: to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months,
and to add two or three brigades to Afghanistan.  McCain himself has
advocated adding more troops in Afghanistan in response, while holding troop
levels in Iraq steady for the time being, without a specific withdrawal
timetable- essentially Bush’s stance.  One view or the other will soon
come to pass as the the two ideologies come to a head.

In evaluating each candidate’s position in the debate, it is worth exploring
how we arrived where we are today.  I have attempted to frame each war as
briefly as possible.  The narrative of each invasion and subsequent
occupation highlights the stark contrast of the missions.

Afghanistan: We invaded Afghanistan with our NATO allies and toppled the ruling Taliban regime because of overwhelming evidence that they harbored our enemy Al-Qaeda forces, which committed multiple terrorist attacks against us, especially the shocking and well-organized crimes of 9/11/01 on American soil.

Iraq: We invaded Iraq with little assistance from few
allies to topple the ruling Saddam Hussein regime
because he might have had an active weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program,
because of evidence that Iraqi officials may have met with someone from Al-Qaeda
at some point, to liberate the oppressed population, and to spread democracy in
the Middle East.  The administration’s mandate
after 9/11 was extended to taking down another authoritarian regime in the
Persian Gulf, and finishing the job that the president’s
father never completed when he was in power.  Cheney and Company felt they
were being patriotic by securing the oil fields of
Iraq for our future energy needs, because “they hate us for our
freedom,” because Secretary Rumsfeld wanted to test the
effectiveness of a new leaner, meaner military fighting machine, because many
Americans saw it as a Crusade against Islamic terrorism, because U.S.
government officials believed that Iraq could project power beyond its borders
despite the fact that NATO was patrolling two-thirds
of its airspace, and finally, we are now staying there to act as policemen
until Iraq stabilizes itself in terms of security and politics, so we can leave
with a “victory.”

Each narrative is now fact.  They are entirely based on the statements
of the Bush administration which led us to war.  It’s worth analyzing the
reasons we went to war on their merits, with the benefit of hindsight in the
year 2008.

Invading Afghanistan was clearly an act of self-defense, a necessary measure
to protect the American homeland.  Pursuing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, by
killing and capturing their leaders and foot-soldiers, was justifiable to
prevent future attacks and also send a message to the world that America would not accept an act of war against it.  Most of the world agreed with us on
this one.

On the other hand, each of the arguments for invading Iraq has turned out to
be tenuous at best, and they have morphed to adjust to the Bush
administration’s new public relations rollouts.  As a whole, the narrative
is utterly confusing.  Let’s put each individual argument to the test:

- Iraq had a WMD program. We searched far and wide for an
active WMD program in Iraq and came up short.  There were no weapons
stockpiles.  There were no reactors, labs, or personnel that could
conclusively point to the existence of an active WMD program.   U.S.
intelligence agencies concluded that any program that had existed in Iraq had
been dismantled prior to the U.S. invasion.
- Iraqi officials met with Al-Qaeda leaders. The evidence
presented on this front was shaky.  There was discussion of secret
meetings in the Czech Republic or elsewhere between Iraqi military personnel
and Al Qaeda operatives.  Analysts concluded there was no operational
significance to these meetings, if they happened at all.
- An oppressed population required liberation.  There is no doubt
that Saddam was a brutal dictator who oppressed many of his people, largely due to sectarian differences between his Sunni tribe and the Shi’ites and
Kurds.  Peaceful and violent attempts by Iraqis to overthrow Saddam were
fiercely thwarted with grave consequences.  On the other hand, a large
percentage of the population showed its displeasure against the American
presence by taking up arms against the occupier.  This included both
Shi’ites and Sunni insurgents who have caused most of the 4,000+ deaths of
American soldiers well after Saddam was out of power.  The results on this
point are mixed; the lives of some have improved, while many others were caught up in fierce sectarian violence bordering on civil war between the Sunnis and Shi’ites in a power struggle that is not yet over.  An estimated 2 million
Iraqis became refugees in places such as Jordan and Syria and still live in
appalling conditions; perhaps a better fate than the hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis who died in the bloodshed which the U.S. and Iraqi forces were unable to
prevent.  Remember, we lost 3,000 on 9/11 to a foreign menace and that
stung our nation to the core.  Many Iraqis will tell you that liberation has not been worth losing their livelihoods and families.
- Invading Iraq would help spread democracy throughout the region and the
world.  The jury is still out on this one.  Iranian leadership is
feeling empowered and has turned away from democratic trends in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, leaning toward conservative Shi’ite tendencies.
Hamas was elected to power in Palestine, but the group is an incubator of Sunni
terrorists.   Hizballah has weakened the democratic institutions in Lebanon, and wreaked havoc against Israel.  Saudi Arabia and Syria are just as authoritarian as before.  Rising powers such as Russia and China are rolling back democracy despite exploiting capitalist opportunities. Iraq itself has had elections and has made strides toward building a constitution, but large parts of the Sunni faction are left out of representative government and oil wealth.  So the jury is still out even on Iraq’s prospects for democracy.
- 9/11 gave America the mandate to topple other authoritarian regimes
besides the Taliban. We know Bush felt this way because after 9/11,
he told Americans about the “Axis of Evil” consisting of Iraq, Iran,
and North Korea, opening the door for him to attack any or all three of them in
the context of a changed world.  This was dramatically different from his
isolationist rhetoric on the campaign trail in 2000.  The Bush Doctrine
would pit America against all dictators, not just the Taliban.  Never mind
that Saddam was not an Islamist, and had not invaded America or committed a
proven act of terror on American soil.  Most of our closest allies in the
Middle East and Europe who fought side by side with us against Saddam in 1991 disagreed that 9/11 was reason enough to target Iraq.  Even nations such
as Germany, France, and Saudi Arabia, who owe their very existence to Americans saving their hides in recent history, would not support the effort.
In the Saudi case it was even Saddam himself from whom they needed saving
in 1991, and the royals said no dice.
- George W. Bush needed to complete the job his father started.
There are some who will say there is no evidence here.  My response is
this:  only twice in history has America invaded Iraq, and in both cases
the president’s first name was George and last name was Bush.  If you
believe there is no psychological void being addressed between the father and
son working in the exact same office, under very different times and changed
circumstances,  try telling that to Freud.
- Securing the Iraqi oil fields was a patriotic and necessary duty for the
future of America’s security and economy.  This was easily the best
argument to go to war, and there may be a sincere moral intention behind it,
but it is simultaneously the most cynical and reviled view that Americans are
not even allowed to speak of openly.  Securing a largely untapped energy
source  before it got into the hands of China, Russia, or someone else was
deemed critical for America in the long term.  It’s yet to be seen if Iraq
can pump up to capacity and if it will turn out to be a real gift to the people
of America after all.  The security situation would have to be improved
dramatically first.
- They hate us for our freedom.  This is a tough one.  Who are “they?”  What does “freedom” even mean to a foreign people when they feel they are being controlled by a superpower occupier? Most Iraqis, according to polls, preferred an Iraqi dictator lording over them and taking their oil rather than a foreign power.
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted to test a leaner, meaner
military machine. He wrote this himself in the run-up to Afghanistan
and Iraq.  The result?  A highly successful invasion, and a
frighteningly inadequate and failed occupation afterward, which was
overstretched in its mission to rule Iraq.  Over five years later, America
is still struggling to manage Iraq effectively under its fledgling
government.  The troop levels and resources in both Iraq and Afghanistan
have never been where they needed to be.  It is the reason why we are
still mired in both countries, long after the fired Rumsfeld thought we would
be.  This will be remembered as his legacy to America.
- Some American leaders saw this as a crusade against Islamic terrorism.
Bush and other Republican politicians owed the religious right, big time.
The war was one way to speak to churchgoers.  This turned out to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy.  Saddam’s regime, which was a nasty one, was not
religious.  Al Qaeda wasn’t based there.  After we invaded, the
Islamic radicals came to us.  Many American lives were lost in this
battle.  Although it appears Al Qaeda in Iraq  has been largely
neutralized, the cadres are biding their time.  They are probably
regrouping elsewhere anyway; there are many other safe havens for them, the
main ones being in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they are trying to blend in
with the locals.
- Iraq would have projected power beyond its borders if Saddam wasn’t taken
down. This was a very weak argument.  Since 1991, when the
allied forces led by Bush Sr. castrated the Iraqi regime by destroying most of
its military infrastructure, Saddam was unable to threaten anyone else outside
his borders.  With residual forces in Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
Germany, the Persian Gulf waters, etc. the U.S. and its NATO allies were around
to make sure nothing untoward happened to Iraq’s neighbors.  Iran, Israel,
and other countries armed to the hilt were on alert in case Saddam were to try
anything stupid.  The no-fly zone over Iraqi airspace effectively hemmed
in Iraq’s pathetic air force.  Saddam may have been unpalatable, but he
wasn’t stupid or insane.  We have no evidence that Saddam was a threat to
anybody except his own people.
- We are there to act as policemen while Iraq gets its act together.
This is the latest argument, and the main one given by our government to
describe why we are there today.  In reality, this reason is why we are
stuck.  We created a huge mess, and are obliged to stay until it is
cleaned up.  The alternatives are leaving behind a civil war, a terrorist
breeding ground, and a perception of defeat by the American people and others
around the world.  But it’s a Catch-22; much of the work, we can’t do
ourselves and our presence could make things worse.  We cannot tell a
Middle Eastern country exactly how to run itself for cultural, religious, and
political reasons.  So we are relegated to being the police force until
the country’s own forces are able to stand up on their own, a task that is
years behind schedule.  Depending on how you define the goal of Iraqis
taking care of themselves without our presence, this could take several
decades.  An empowered Iran is nearby meddling in the country’s affairs,
closely linked to powerful Shi’ite figures including Muqtada Al-Sadr, who in
fact lives in Iran.  Al Qaeda is down and not out, and could be lying in
wait and regrouping.  Most Sunnis still feel oppressed as the tables have
been turned on them by the Shi’ites who were marginalized under Saddam; the
thousand-year rivalry between Sunnis and Shi’ites has not magically ended, much
to Bush’s chagrin.  Therein lies the elusiveness of a
“victory.”  I would argue victory, if ever achieved, wasn’t
worth it: wasn’t worth 200,000 Iraqis dead, a $1 trillion+ with a T
price tag, 4,000 American soldiers dead, many thousands more maimed, 2 million refugees, and countless other issues for a strictly optional war with no hint of self-defense, and most importantly, Al Qaeda still alive, it simply was not worth the blood and treasure.

At this point it should be clear that the variety of reasons why we are in
Iraq present a goody bag of a few successes and a large number of
failures.  The narrative itself has had to change constantly, morphing
from one bad reason to stay to another over the course of 5 years.  Iraq
has weakened our military, emboldened our new #1 enemy Iran, and many of the people who we liberated have spurned us by laying down explosive devices
instead of flowers at our feet.  We haven’t reaped the benefits of the
energy potential that exists in Iraq.  Perhaps most damagingly, America’s
perception in the world as the beacon of hope for struggling people everywhere
has been replaced by a sense of a giant wielding power for entirely cynical
reasons.  Our diplomatic corps has been marginalized in favor of hawks driven
by an inflexible ideology.

It will take a new kind of president to restore America’s position in the
world to where it rightfully should be, as the moral authority for the rest of
the world.  Luckily, we will not have to wait long, and he is already
taking the first steps by visiting our war zones to see for himself how we
should proceed.  Godspeed.

Barack Obama is running one of the most impressive primary campaigns
in American history by most quantifiable performance indicators.  He
has raised more money, from more people than in any other primary
campaign ever.  His website is superior to any other politician’s;
Barackobama.com features the most powerful social networking tools and
demographic information database available in politics.  He has
mobilized America’s youth to turn the lever for him at an unprecedented
rate.  Perhaps as importantly, Obama’s team has mastered the arcane art
of the caucus, trouncing his opponents in nearly every single state
caucus beginning with Iowa.  Most strikingly, he has accomplished all
of this as a half-black Washington newcomer, beginning his national
campaign just two years after stepping into the Senate for the first
time as a guy that most Americans knew little to nothing about.

Obama has also been the beneficiary of a poorly run Clinton campaign
and weak, cash-strapped efforts from other Democrats like Edwards,
Richardson, Kucinich, and others.  Obama’s prospects would not have
been so rosy if the Clintons hadn’t underestimated him and expected to
sail by on the basis of their brand recognition.

On the other hand, Obama has made extremely costly political errors,
which are now the focus of the Democratic primary.  Although they have
done him great harm, none of his stumbles so far will turn out to be a
deal-breaker en route to the White House.  The next one just could be.

The following is an analysis of each mistake.  The issues will be
discussed strictly in the context of the presidential race, without
editorializing on or defending his values, integrity, moral judgments,
or past associations as so many other people are now doing.  This is
all about tactics, which have in any case overtaken substance on policy
that may have existed once upon a time in this cursed primary.

Tony Rezko. The trend of being forced to go off-message and on the
defensive probably started most pointedly with Antonin Rezko.  Rezko is
by most accounts an influence-peddling wheeler-dealer exactly in the
mold of so many thousands of other business magnates who form the
backbone of American politics on the local, state, and federal levels.
He raised mountains of cash for various Republicans and Democrats.  He
probably called in lots of favors on these investments of time and
money that would have helped his business or personal interests.  But
Rezko was dumb enough to (a) do something that may have been illegal
and (b) get caught doing it, a la Spitzer.  Without getting into the
details of Rezko’s ongoing trial, it became clear early in the campaign
that Obama had an unsavory character on his hands, one who both
fundraised for him and helped him buy a house in Chicago at a good
price.

There’s no hard evidence that Obama did anything improper in
relation to Rezko.  But the facts are there for all to see: Obama has
had an ongoing association with this shady guy.  In response, Obama
called his real estate deal involving Rezko “boneheaded” and returned
substantial amounts of campaign money that Rezko helped raise.  The
response was slow and retro-active, however.  The public had already
been alerted to the damaging Rezko connection.

What should Obama have done?  More homework on his associates to
start with.  He should have known in advance that Rezko was going to
blow up, and severed ties with him pre-emptively, along with returning
the contribution money and selling the house (at exact cost of
purchase) before the media got wind of Rezko’s troubles.  It could all
have been done quietly, early on, and even cordially so as to wash his
hands of the connection.  Presidential candidates are under a
microscope, and their associates are too.  Even more inexcusable than
the ignorance plea, is the possibility that Obama did already know of
Rezko’s potential for downfall.  If this is true, then the campaign
should have taken the above actions even sooner, and prepared a
response typed and ready to deliver to avoid seeming purely reactive. 
    
Jeremiah Wright.  Rezko, even if found guilty, will be a walk in the
park compared to the problem of Reverend Wright of Trinity United
Church of Christ.  Americans are familiar and even comfortable with
sleazy white middle-aged suits who pull strings and call shots.  Many
in our society suspect that these guys run the show anyway, and aspire
to be like them.  Every national politician has at least a few backers
like Rezko who helped get them in power; Hillary Clinton and John
McCain have Tony Rezkos by the bucketful in their pasts and presents.
So the Rezko problem will blow over, for the right or wrong reasons.
Note how McCain and Clinton have not beaten the Rezko horse to death:
the equivalent of political death by hypocrisy.

Along comes Jeremiah Wright, a new type of character that most
Americans do not really get.  People asked how such an angry and
unenlightened black man could possibly be Obama’s pastor for over 20
years.  And he married Obama off, AND baptized both of his children?
That is undeniably a real, long-term, spiritual bond.

Wright is an articulate and controversial black preacher who upsets
people almost as badly as Catholic priests who sodomize altar boys.
The cadence of his voice and the content of his speeches offends the
sensibilities of most of us who don’t subscribe to black liberation
theology.  And that is largely why Wright is in business: to perform
the art of black anger from his pulpit.  He is good at it, and loves a
stage.  Those of us who have been around a little bit know a number of
people like Wright, especially in cities.  I don’t agree with what he
says, but I certainly understand what he is saying and where he is
coming from because I’ve heard it all one hundred times before. 

This time, Obama responded with a brilliant master stroke: he gave
the best speech on race in America since “I have a Dream” was delivered
by Martin Luther King, Jr. decades ago.  “A More Perfect Union” was
politically wise.  Obama went on the offensive, on his terms, and
navigated through extremely sensitive racial issues such as a
description of what goes on in black churches, the cult of black
victimhood, and reasons why whites could be legitimately resentful.  He
described the good works and leadership and military service of Wright
and the congregation.  At the same time he made it crystal-clear that
he did not believe in some of Wright’s contentions without naming them:
for example, that the U.S. government created AIDS specifically to
screw black people, a major charge not backed by any evidence.

The speech had topics that other politicians were afraid to touch;
if McCain or Clinton dared to rebut any of the content of “A More
Perfect Union,” they risked being branded as racially insensitive.
Obama’s speech was a hand grenade that could detonate an opponent on
contact.  Afterwards the polls indicated that Wright’s emergence as an
issue would be a pesky nuisance, not a deal-breaker.  In other words,
only the voters who weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway really
cared.  To boot, Obama used the opportunity to advertise his
Christianity, to counter the buzz that he might be a Muslim.  BRILLIANT
MASTER STROKE.

What Obama and his backers did not count on was Reverend Wright
re-emerging to stab him in the back after Obama had told the American
people, under excruciating political duress, that he could not disown
Wright, that the words of hatred didn’t tell the complete story of who
Wright was.  Last week Wright used the opportunity afforded by the
media attention to turn his ridiculous Chicago pulpit into a national
road show, strutting and preening and performing with three straight
days of major speeches chock-full of controversial statements and an
indictment of Obama for throwing him under the bus for the sake of
politics.

This shocking show of disloyalty caused Obama to resort to the only
available option: disavow Wright publicly, denounce all that he stood
for, admit the association with this pastor was an utter mistake, and
commit the foul but necessary pandering to the right wing by appearing
for an interview on the Republican Party’s mouthpiece, Fox News, to
receive an unbalanced fleecing.

This particular problem should have been easy to deal with.  Either
Obama should have had the political skill or leverage to keep Wright’s
mouth shut after “A More Perfect Union,” perhaps with offers of
longer-lasting limelight in exchange for an ounce of loyalty.  The
second-best alternative was to have thrown the self-serving Wright out
of the house during “A More Perfect Union” itself.  Unfortunately Obama
was unable to achieve either.  Just as with Rezko, Obama also failed to
see the Wright problem emerging as a critical problem in the campaign,
one that he could have been better prepared to deal with.  He
miscalculated how caught up the American public could get over such
nonsense.

Bitter. The “Bitter” pill was completely Obama’s own doing, and
ironically exposed by one of his strong backers on the blogosphere
after attending a campaign event in San Francisco, one at which people
were openly recording video and sound.  Yet another strange chapter in
this absurdly long election cycle. 

The mistake was simple: telling a group of supporters a message
straight out of the political best-seller, What’s Wrong with Kansas.
People who are bitter about the government and the economy cling to
guns or church or other things that make them feel good.  Obama thought
it would be safe to say this in front of this group.  He should not
have said it.

As we know, word got out quickly.  The response was clumsy and
forced: trying to put the words in context to make it seem like anyone
who misunderstood only did so because of the semantics.  Dancing around
the issue with confusing explanations and an unconvincing tone helped
Obama lose Pennsylvania.  A victory there would have been a knockout
punch against Clinton.

Ultimately, voters don’t like being told that they feel bitter.  No
matter whether or not the statement is true.  Here was the best
response which would have made the problem go away sooner: “I’m sorry,
I shouldn’t have said that. Slip of the tongue.  Next question.” Each
of the candidates have had these slip of the tongue moments; Bush had
400 of them in the 2000 and 2004 elections and got by.  McCain confused
the Sunnis and Shias of Iraq to great ridicule.  People will forget
most things, unless the drama continues with more dialogue when the
best plan was to bury it and move on.

Surrogate Blunders.  Samantha Power, Austan Goolsbee, and Michelle
Obama have also said things they should not have.  Foreign policy
adviser Power called Clinton a monster, economic adviser Goolsbee
allegedly told a Canadian official that Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric was
just politics, and Mrs. Obama claimed she was proud to be American for
the first time this year.  These quotes are costly because they are
off-message, and exactly the type of statements that the media pounces
on for dramatic effect and inevitable righteous anger from opponents.
The distractions end up shaping the campaign’s story line, as over time
the quotes appear to be an agenda rather than just isolated and dumb
mistakes, which is what they are.

All the candidates have suffered as a result of their surrogates.
Bill Clinton has done political damage to his spouse by multiples of
what Michele Obama has done to hers.  However, Obama’s narrative of “a
different kind of politics” leaves him exposed to more scrutiny.  This
is a line of attack that will not stop as long as he promises to
practice the politics lifting the country up.  Obama has got to make
sure his surrogates are on message and positive.  And if they blunder
again, he must reject the errant statements forcefully and
immediately.  A candidate cannot control everything that everyone on
the campaign says to the media, but he can come close.

There have been other mistakes, but these have been the most
critical ones.  Some were preventable, and some were not.  Obama should
certainly have predicted in advance that Rezko and Wright would emerge
as part of the vetting process.  In any case it is fortunate that these
came out sooner rather than later.  People will lose interest in these
issues in the months to come.  Undoubtedly, new mistakes and problems
will emerge.  But we can be certain of one thing: Obama has been
raising his game as time has gone on.  Although the mistakes already
have done serious damage, they should be treated as learning
experiences.  There is a long way to go, and the best virtue to draw
upon at this time is patience.

It’s time to grow up, Democrats.

Politics is made up of the most foul types of animal waste known to this earth.  When the race is for the U.S. presidency, the stink is that much worse, and it comes and goes like a violent, rotten breeze traveling to and fro from Washington, D.C. to defile every other part of the country in its wake.  Festering in the blood, guts, feces, and other inedible parts swirling at the drain of the presidential election slaughterhouse are those most vested in the process: the candidates, their campaign staff, the press corps, and the few citizens out there who give a damn.  Regardless of who ultimately wins, the shit inevitably stains everyone, on both the right and  the left.

So let’s not pretend that running for president is a game of canasta.   It’s a largely mindless decathlon of events spanning over 22 months in this particularly silly 2007-08 season, where the only pleasantries are fake, the issues and platforms come a distant second to the soul-crushing horse-race aspects of the campaign, and half-lies are the closest we will ever get to the truth.  As far as the never ending horror story of this un-Democratic party primary season goes, the only thing worse than the nominee being decided by a pile of 800 party hacks, instead of the uninformed masses of primary voters they may or may not have been elected to represent, is the prospect of having the decision come down to a protracted legal battle at the convention in August.

Here is how absurd the situation is: because neither Obama nor Clinton can technically gain the number of delegates needed to win their pathetic party’s nomination, the mob of 800 "superdelegate" Democrats will step in and decide the outcome because they can vote however they choose.  The party came up with this outrageous concept in the 1980’s specifically to go against the will of the people in case one of the establishment’s own darlings was beaten in the state primaries and caucuses by a beltway outsider.  Of course, overturning the will of the voters is Clinton’s only hope to survive the race, and she is clinging onto it for dear life as she has fallen impossibly far behind in delegates.  Her reasoning is that superdelegates should all enter a brain-dead state of hypnosis and repeat the following: "Although Obama has won more states and more delegates, only I can beat the Republicans come fall.  Although Obama has won more…"  Unfathomably, over 250 superdelegates have chosen to stay nestled in the Clinton pantsuit.  If they’re not hypnotized, they’re morons.

The vital role of superhacks isn’t the only morally questionable aspect of the long road to the nomination.  The Clinton team is trying to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates through some brand of legal wrangling despite the fact that those states’ primaries were nullified by the party for moving their contests too early in the year without the DNC blessing.  Both campaigns agreed to the fateful arrangement.  Neither candidate campaigned in those states.  Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.  Of course, Clinton won the ghost ballot in both states, and her people are now questioning how DARE anyone challenge those results and disenfranchise millions of wonderful voters? 

Finally: forget the issues, because they don’t matter.  The economy, the war in Iraq, nuclear weapons, health care, terrorism, and global warming: t-h-e-y-d-o-n-o-t-m-a-t-t-e-r.  The focus has been entirely on the blather since Obama and Clinton became the frontrunners thanks to our penchant for the wholesale consumption of useless information, and the fact that they agree on everything.  Several thousand, easy.  That’s the number of articles that have been wasted in the last 3 months on the following topics.  I’ve read many of them.

Hillary Clinton:
a)  She’s a woman, and all the related wonders.
b)  She’s been "vetted."
c)  She can fight.
d)  She used to be first lady.  She’s been through some crises.
e)  When it’s hard to get up in the morning, she cries.
f)  Her husband’s sexual escapades are none of your business.
g)  Her husband likes media attention and caused her to lose votes.
h)  She’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief on Day One?
i)  Blue-collar white people vote for her.
j)  Hispanics like her.
k)  Clintonite Geraldine Ferraro said Barack only has a shot because he’s black.
l)  She lied about running from sniper fire in Bosnia to make herself seem tough and experienced too.
m) She ran out of money because she didn’t know how to fundraise on the Internet at first.
n)  She thought she was inevitable until Obama jolted her in January and February.
o)  She set up a firewall in Texas and Ohio.
p)  She set up another firewall in Pennsylvania, where most of the Democratic establishment supports her and voters are white and blue-collar.
q)  The media has been unfair to her.
r)  If the White House phone rings at 3 a.m. and "something is going on in the world," pee your pants if Hillary doesn’t pick up.
s)  Delegate math sucks.

Barack Obama:
a)  Is he Muslim?
b)  He’s black, or half-black, and all the related wonders.
b)  His middle name is Hussein and the rest of it is funny too.
c)  His pastor said some nasty things about whites and America.
d)  He doesn’t  have experience.
e)  He’s a great speaker but can he lead?
f)  Young people think he’s, like, cool.
g)  His economic adviser said that Obama’s NAFTA comments were just politics.
h)  His foreign policy adviser called Clinton a monster.
i)  He raised a ton of money on the Internet.
j)  Black people vote for him.  But do hispanics mistrust him?
k)  Rich people vote for him.
l)   His friend and fundraiser, Tony Rezko, is a criminal sleazeball.
m) Is he going to stumble?
n)  Is he really post-racial?
o)  Could he possibly win Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania?
p)  Can he stand up to the scary Republicans?
q)  His wife says stuff.
r)  The media have been unfairly biased for him.
s)  Can he get enough superdelegates?

With this noise in the background playing endlessly on television and in print, the nominee will emerge bloodied, battered, and bruised, while McCain is taking long naps, planning wars, raising money and traveling the world to raise his profile.

GOOD.  The fact that this primary process is turning historically ugly and disgusting is an excellent sign for Democrats.  That’s because it’s obvious that Obama will win the nomination, whether it is in April through a shocking, graceful Clinton exit, or in August at a chaotic convention in Denver fraught with legal challenges, food fights, and drunken super-riots.  Let’s be honest.  The contest was really already over in February when Obama won 11 straight primary contests, followed by the win in Texas.  The rest of this nonsense has been a charade, an overtime period after one side has already won the game.  Yes, Obama may emerge with scabs and scars, perhaps even missing a tooth or two as the Clinton machine continues to hammer at him.  To that I say:  That which does not kill you, can only make you stronger.  This is what politics is all about, baby!  Jump into that sewer, do the backstroke and enjoy it!  Clinton is serving the important role of toughening Obama up for McCain.  By getting his dirty laundry out now, come the end of the so-called primary season America will already know what all of Obama’s weaknesses are.  Obama will have developed answers to dealing with them.

The question as to when the Obama primary contest ends, and the Obama national campaign begins, is just a matter of opinion.  In McCain’s mind, as well as mine, Obama is already the Democratic candidate.  Unfortunately for McCain, the A.D.D.-addled media isn’t paying any attention to him yet.  Which is just as well for his opponent, who simply needs to parry the jabs long enough to survive in the coming months.

Mark my words: Obama’s ideal scenario is playing out.  If the Dems fight a protracted battle until August, so much the better.  The shorter the national battle, the better.  August to November is the perfect window of time for Obama to crush McCain.  The Republicans will be tougher to defeat than Hillary, because their gloves will be off all the time without any pretension of pleasantry and there will be real policy differences and real fear and hatred.  Which is all good.  I don’t want President Obama to take the oath of office in January until having survived some licks from the right, including a few tear-inducing shots below the belt.