Take a Flying VP

Matthews tonight had a long and bad discussion on Hardball about who Obama should pick for VP. Although some of the analysis of specific pols was good--Hillary's pluses and minuses, etc.--Tweety royally screwed the pooch on this one. Rather than focusing on the most logical picks, he focused almost exclusively on the most visible Dems (HRC, Edwards) plus a few Beltway boners (Evan Bayh, Ed Rendell, Joe Biden), and, once again, the non-entity that is Sam Nunn (?!). Somebody check to see if he's still even living. The only marginally plausible name mentioned was Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas--but she strikes me as a long-shot given both the irrelevance and the unlikelihood of actually taking Kansas.

As I see it, there are five lead choices for Obama: Senator Jim Webb (VA), Gov. Tim Kaine (VA), Gov. Bill Richardson (NM), Gov. Brian Schweitzer (MT), and Gen. Wesley Clark (AR). They all boost Obama with the crucial demo of white men, either southern or western, and they all bring either executive or military cred he'll need, first against McCain and then after November when managing a withdrawal from Iraq. Personally, I'd lean toward Webb, who speaks with enormous gravitas and reinforces Obama's themes of change and opposition to the war. But there's a serious argument for each of the five. How many did Matthews and crew even mention? Zero.

(Update: How did I forget Gov. Ted Strickland (OH)? He is pretty forgettable. Still, plausible. Did Tweety mention? No.)

Vacation

So on Friday, we're leaving for a week-plus vacation on the Gulf coast. I will try to mix with the working man, when I'm down there, and figure out what's up. I will also try to sea kayak (!), swim, run, and hike, and, if that sounds like a lot of physical activity, at least I won't be doing the bench press.

Btw, I pressed 215 pounds this week. I probably could have pressed 225, but I started low, and my spotter intervened too soon on 225 (I'm OK with it, but he jumped the gun). I swear, I could have pressed it up. Oh, well. Just 31 pounds to go for a lifetime max.

But . . . when I pressed 245, I weighed more than 180. Now I weigh about 155. So, in terms of ratios, I am stronger now than then. But "ratio strength" is not really a category, is it?

And also, btw, 155 is really too much. I need to lose a few pounds. I know.

Selling Florida (and Michigan) Swampland

Whenever Hillary says she's staying in the race to fight for Florida and Michigan, and the press mindlessly repeats that claim, as they've done over and over again tonight, I have to wonder if there isn't a simpler and more elegant solution that goes unmentioned. Hillary should DROP OUT OF THE FRICKIN' RACE.

Can you think of a faster way to get those delegations seated? Obama wouldn't object--hell, he'd bend over backward to seat those states. Why then does no one bother to point out that Madam Swampland is the only real barrier those states face? Simple. Obama's camp won't make the argument because they're trying to de-escalate, so HRC's people have an uncontested field, and the bobbleheads can't come up with anything not fed to them by one camp or the other.

Kentucky Values

No, I'm not going to bash the Bluegrass State, y'all. I mean, coals to Newcastle and all, if you know what I mean.

But I do want to point out that if Obama can't beat Hillary in Kentucky, then he has no chance to win the GOP nomination. That is all.

It's the Pandering, Stupid

So many post-mortems, where to cease to begin? The silliest trope, one delivered by Cokie Roberts, the NYT, Salon's broadsheet, and, of course, the candidate herself, is that she lost thanks to "sexism." Bullshit. Find me one shred of evidence that sexism cost her a single delegate. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence that racism has cost Obama plenty, in PA, WV, and today, KY. Luckily, winners don't need to make excuses, even true ones. If anything, sexism was the only thing that kept Clinton in the race this long, since she was almost DOA in NH when Chris Matthews's shark jumping comments and a few well placed crocodile tears were enough to pull her back from the electoral abyss. But Hill can't help playing the victim card, as if the only thing that can explain her fall from "inevitability" is penile conspiracy.

Smarter commentators, including Publius and M.J. Rosenberg, have pointed out that, much like in classical tragedy where the fateful choice is made before the action really begins, Iraq was her undoing. If not for that vote, there would have been no rationale for a serious primary challenge to her coronation. Hard to disagree. But I'd add a second factor to this equation: pandering. Shameless, transparent, loathsome, relentless, and nauseatingly repetitive pandering. The Iraq vote was really just the first breadcrumb in a long trail. Her campaign kicked off with the cringe-inducing "conversation" video. And then. . . . Saber-rattling on Iran. NAFTA. 3 AM. Bosnian snipers. Bittergate. Guns and whiskey. Gas tax. Sucking up to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Scaife, et al. What a repellent campaign. Who the hell is this person and why does she want to be the nominee of the Democratic Party?

What the Clintons failed to understand is that the anger in their party is not just with George Bush, the man, it is also with George Bush, the method. You don't cure garlic breath by eating onions. As of tonight, it is all over but the cryin', and this time the cryin' won't save her.

Football!

I haven't seen this anywhere else, but Tom Tomorrow reports that McCain's convention speech is slated for the same night--and, basically, the same time--as the NFL season opener between the New York football Giants and the Washington team. Oops.

Not that anyone watches convention speeches, really.

The real political coup would be if Obama attended the game and they showed him on camera, over and over again, and maybe then he would be interviewed by the sideline reporter (Erin Andrews?).

Bipartisan

This morning's Novakula column bemoans GOP support for the controversial farm bill.

I am a bit at a loss here. I'm not a fan of the bill, but I don't see the partisan or ideological side of this. Agriculture (I refuse to use the term "farmers," as though we were talking about American Gothic or something) is a pretty powerful constellation of interests in this country (as in most countries). Moreover, they are widely distributed, in terms of geography, and as long as we elect representatives on a geographic basis (probably forever), they will be amply represented in the halls of power. Agriculture is especially well represented in "the Heartland," which elects many of those GOP representatives. It's not like agriculture is a "Democratic" constituency. They don't grow many "crops" in San Francisco.

In ideological terms, I guess that hard-core libertarians are opposed to any form of government subsidy, grant, or price support. But almost no one in the U.S. Congress is actually a libertarian in this sense. (Ron Paul!)

The bill may, indeed, be wasteful. But everyone agrees that waste is a bad thing. It's right there in the word, connotation and denotation. The question isn't whether waste is bad, it's whether any particular spending is waste.

This is, of course, related to the battle against "pork"--Novakula uses the term in relation to the Farm Bill. But in reality, earmarks make up a very small part of the federal budget, and eliminating many earmarks wouldn't actually reduce government spending at all (the funds would just be distributed by formula without the earmark). "Pork" in the form of projects or grants aimed at individual districts also make up a tiny portion of the budget.

Again, with very few exceptions, no one in Congress is opposed to government spending in general. Even right wingers support massive outlays for defense, weapons systems, and the war in Iraq. Even in the domestic sphere, most members of the GOP vote for highway spending, water projects, scientific and medical research, space exploration, education spending, Medicare, etc. Sure, GOP and Democratic members of Congress support different spending priorities, but that seems more the result of the different interests that support the parties than a matter of ideology. And where many, many interests, or one very large interest, supports an increase in spending, then we see bipartisanship.

Novak's column appears to posit that conservatives should oppose all government spending increases, at least in the domestic sphere. I know some people who think that way, too. But in operational terms, that is not how politics actually works.

Despite the last 30 years, during which the conservative movement has tried to make ideological purity the basis of politics, politics is ultimately about interests and power. (Yes, I'm an old-fashioned pluralist, so sue me.) I guess it makes for easy op-ed writing to decry the falling away from ideological purity, time and time and time again. But it makes for a very sterile view of the political world.

Novak would have GOP representatives from Kansas, Iowa, Alabama, even the agricutural parts of California (like I said, Agriculture is big) vote against the interests of their constituents. And then what? The constituents, not ideologues themselves, but acutely self-interested, would reward those representatives with . . . de-election. Right.

The ideologues continually bemoan the failure of ideology. But maybe the problem is in the theory, that ideology should drive political action, rather than in the practice of politics.

Historical Record

This is a really crappy video, but that's John Edwards coming down the receiving live, shaking hands, in 2004, in Cleveland. It was night, and there were very bright lights. And it was a 2003 camera phone. So the quality is for shit. But it's an experiment.

Almost Four Years Ago

Only one of these men is crazy. Which one, in comments?

I have to add that, as disappointing as 2004 was, in so many ways, being at Case that year and participating in "the Race at Case" was one of the more enjoyable periods in my life. It wasn't just "the Race at Case," but the whole Ohio battleground state phenomenon. From the build-up--the McAulliffe visit (where he thanked me for "inspiring" the students)--to the VP debate--which I watched outdoors, with about 1,000 other Democrats, in the cold Cleveland air, to election day, when I worked Voter Protection in Hough. Great memories. In the end, we lost, of course, and that was bad. Not bad, but hard. When I'm in a real mood to remember, remind me of the Icebox Cave story.

Oh, hell, let me just tell the Icebox Cave story.

The morning after the election . . . I had stayed up late, and, if you remember, things had become clear late. I woke up early and got in the Subaru. I drove around, and ended up pointing the Subaru toward Cuyahoga Valley National Park (still one of my favorite places). There's a nice hike there--actually, there are many nice hikes there--but there's one, in the southern part, that leads to a cave--Icebox Cave, which is called that, I think, because it's always cold. (It's in Summit County, Ohio, so it's cold most of the time, in general.)

So I parked, and started walking. The trails were surprisingly busy for a Wednesday morning. There were a lot of people, many walking dogs. There wasn't much talking, people seemed depressed. As I was depressed, too, I hoped to find a quiet place to think. But, alas, there was no such place. For one thing, the cave was packed with folks.

My memory of the 2004 election, the day after, at least, is Icebox Cave, full of grieving Democrats. "Four more years," how can we stand it? Best to go mourn in a cave.

Edwards

This is huge (this being Edwards's endorsement of BO). There are many Americans, like me, who really like John Edwards. I volunteered for him in 2004, in the Ohio primary. I actually phone-banked for the guy, which I've done a handful of times in my life.

Obama is the nominee. Now if HRC would just get the hell out all would be well.

Morning After Update: Well, maybe not huge. Edwards doesn't deliver you a state, and my guess is that most of his supporters have swung to Obama already (those not in Appalachia). But it's still big.

Though now we have to be subjected to "Edwards as Veep" speculation. Life is full of trade-offs. Edwards would be better than Sam Nunn.

Chickens Coming Home to Roost

That sound you hear is the thunder of chicken wings. (No, not that kind of thunder.) The sound of a million chickens coming home to roost. If the GOP can't hold the first congressional district in Mississippi, then they are in real danger of a historic blowout in the November election. It wasn't for lack of trying. The GOP candidate raised more than a million dollars, national GOP spent $1.3 million dollars, Freedom's Watch spent $400k more, and the state party must have spent something. Hell, they even sent Darth Cheney down to get the Death Star back on schedule. And the Democrat won by eight points.

The problem for the GOP this fall is that the hard-core, pro-Bush rump is going to demand that the party run an aggressive, "librul-librul-librul" campaign, with photos of Nancy Pelosi and talk of "surrender." Both at the presidential level and in the congressional races. Any time McCain tries to put daylight between himself and Bush, there's going to be pushback ("librul!"). McCain is likely going to be forced to run a disastrous campaign by the folks in his own party. Most of whom still support the Bush administration. Fervently.

But Bush is the most unpopular president in living memory, and he's going to swamp his party in the November congressional elections. Sure, McCain might beat Obama. That could happen, although the odds are that it won't. But let me "concern troll" for the GOP for a minute. If the GOP doesn't want to see overwhelming Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2009, then they had better change their tune. Because the lilting notes of "Bush Uber Alles" will only draw more chickens.

Bar Nunn

For the first time in a month it was safe to watch the Sunday shows, knowing that, with Obama romping (very predictibly) on Tuesday, we're finally past an especially silly stage in election coverage from the commentariat. So what happens on my teevee? Both FTN and TW offer "expert" analysis suggesting Sam Nunn as Obama's running mate: first from the Politico's Jim VandeHei on FTN, and then George Will on TW. Excuse me? Sam Nunn? You mean a guy with the charisma of a turnip who is as old as John McCain, hasn't run for election since 1990, couldn't possibly bring his home state (Georgia), and has absolutely zero constituency outside the MSM chatterbots? True, nothing says "change" like trying to replace Dick Cheney with his closest avatar in the Democratic Party, but how desperate would Obama have to be before he had to go there? It just goes to show how addicted the punditocracy is to its "centrism" Cialis: a Beltway boner lasts much longer than four hours and you must never seek medical attention.

Tossed

So made it to my third game in new Nationals Park last night, accompanied by the missus and mystery guest. It was not much of a game--for the Nats, at least--as they were blown out 11-0 by the surprising Florida Marlins. That was my first loss in the new ballpark, although, not counting the exhibition game, I'm just 1-1.

The thing I wanted to comment on--no, not Uggla's grand slam into the visitors bullpen, although that was cool--was actually Hermida's home run earlier in the game. Hermida (I believe it was he) hit a homer into the left field corner, just inside the pole. The fan who caught the ball waved it at the crowd and then threw it back onto the field. No problem, right?

Wrong. Stadium security briskly escorted the gentleman from the stands, to the loud booing of the crowd.

I can understand a rule against throwing objects (e.g., D batteries, snow and/or ice balls, beer bottles, promotional giveaways) onto the field, even a zero tolerance policy. But no exception for throwing back home run balls hit by the visiting squad?

The worst part was that the Nats made sure that the ball made it into the visitors' dugout, so Hermida could have the ball. Does that mean, for example, that if I'm at the game where a player hts his first career home run, and I'm lucky enough to catch it, that I would be penalized for throwing it back so the player could have it?

Uneffingbelievable.

Any throwing-things-on-the-field story, of course, should end with Sam Wyche [edited]: "You don't live in Cleveland!" Link