Office of the Independent Blogger

Rudy Giuliani is slipping in the polls in Florida after being a distant loser in all the primaries before this one, which he put all his eggs into. I am unwilling to declare him dead because of the relative weakness of the Republican Party but I do think he is about done and I am anxious to see his political corpse. He is a monster and it will be a day to tell your children about when he has been chased from the national scene.

There was big news today. You know. Republican Congressman funnelling money to al-Qaeda! Except it isn’t. A former Republican Congressman worked for a “charity” that was truly a frontgroup for al-Qaeda; he likely didn’t know what they were and was merely working for the paycheck. Politically, I hope the Democratic Party beats the living hell out of the Republican Party with this news — they have been busting us, perhaps rightfully, on China money since the Clinton years and they’ve been busting us, without rightness, on al-Qaeda since 9/11. Make the bastards squirm and win an election.

But you, Dear Reader, should know that no. There are no major political parties in America funding al-Qaeda.

Mitt Romney is a man who has to hold photo-ops with campaign workers’ mothers because he doesn’t have the support of all that many people. Still, he won Michigan tonight over John McCain in convincing fashion. What does that mean? Perhaps it is his real hometown state and therefore his victory there is not very convincing of anything — he is, after all, the son of its former Governor and grew up there. Maybe it tells us that McCain is toast anywhere not named New Hampshire or Arizona because he hasn’t got much of an organization or money.

I think there’s truth to both of these possibilities but counters, as well. Nobody in the Republican campaign is all that well organized and nobody on the Right has all that many sure-bet states, making it a great gamble to call the election for anyone. As I emphasize so frequently, this is the biggest cluster of “traditional non-electables” in post-industrial revolution American history and these back-and-forths by the traditionally unified Republicans could be true to that.

What I think it shows is that this is a weak crop of Presidential candidates who are going to keep pecking at each other feebly until the weakest of the weak drop out and become candidates for the Darwin Award instead of the Presidency. The ultimate “victor” will get prepared to run a nasty smear campaign against the Democratic candidate and all will be well with the Right on the surface; deeper, if they win. Or this shows us that the conservative revolution in American government that has gone on since 1968 is finally dying and the Republican candidates are becoming like the Democrats of yesteryear (politically, electorally, not by position) and Democrats are becoming like the Republicans of yesteryear (politically, electorally, not by position). How do I figure?

Democrats have a frontrunner who is going by “name” and “experience” and sort of a “my-turn” kind of thing, as Republicans are famous for, while the Republicans duel in disorganized and messy fashion without a frontrunner of any sort and do their best imitation of the Democratic Party from the 1980s that gave us the Terrible Trifecta of Carter-Mondale-Dukakis. Is the Republican Party breaking? Maybe, and I’m starting to think so, but they’ve been declared near-dead before and bounced back. Democrats have to win an election and then another and then another for a man as conservative as I in making predictions to even breath easily against such losers as Romney or Huckabee or McCain or Thompson, but maybe we are seeing the end of an era and the rise of a new, successful Democratic Party. Who the nominees are, who wins and how said candidate governs will ultimately be the proof, but perhaps we are seeing the Republicans shed their past as electoral conquerors and great purveyors of discipline and organization in Michigan.

Since I mocked Barack Obama for making the bogus claim that he was born from Bloody Selma, months ago and yesterday, let me be fair and point out that the Clinton campaigns and family and autobiography all have made the demonstrably bogus claim that Hillary was named after Sir Hillary of Mt. Everest fame (she was born years before his achievement). You know that there is a leadership gap in Washington when every politician is playing pretend, from Congressmen pretending that they have exercised anything resembling fiscal restraint over the last half decade (or sanity) to Ron Paul’s supporters seriously arguing that their man has a chance at all.

Worse still is the military, where we are sending more troops to Afghanistan, in an effort to counter the Taliban in the spring, while ignoring that we created the mess by failing to adequately occupy and rebuild Afghanistan initially and we still refuse to devote the time and money to the task as we should if we’re truly serious about stabilizing the nation and pushing al-Qaeda into further irrelevance. Let’s pretend that this yearly surge is sufficient and that eventually…what? We’ll have developed robots to patrol Kabul and Tora Bora?

Watching modern “leaders” lead makes me wish I could play pretend a little more often, truth be told, and I especially felt this way when I read this.

President George W. Bush hasn’t accomplished much on his voyage to the Middle East, but he did take the time to inflict another wound on the entire U.S. intelligence community—and on the credibility of anything he might ever again say about the world.

In the latest Newsweek, Michael Hirsh reports that, during a private conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Bush “all but disowned” the agencies’ Dec. 3 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. A “senior administration official who accompanied Bush” on the trip confided to Hirsh that Bush “told the Israelis that he can’t control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE’s] conclusions don’t reflect his own views.”

The NIE—which was signed by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies—concluded “with high confidence” that Iran had “halted its nuclear weapons program” back in the fall of 2003. The estimate, released to the public in sanitized form, seriously undercut efforts by the Bush-Cheney White House to portray Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an imminent threat—and left the world either relieved or (especially in Israel’s case) alarmed that the option of a U.S. airstrike on Iran was pretty much off the table.

No pretending here — if Bush is going around telling leaders that he doesn’t trust his intelligence agencies, he makes everything we may or may not do (or have to do) for the remainder of his Presidency incredibly different. How do you think Adlai Stevenson would’ve looked confronting the Soviets at the United Nations if Jack Kennedy had once told his friends around the world that his government’s spywork and intelligence operations weren’t worth a damn?

Can’t we just fast-forward the next five years?

This is disturbing to me because it is politically dishonest to an extreme and because it represents a level of historical apathy, as well as selectiveness, in the general public and Washington elite that I find completely unacceptable.

Edwards told the mostly black congregation at Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church here this morning that he was “troubled” by the suggestion that change came through President Lyndon Johnson instead of Martin Luther King, Jr.

“I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion, that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that,” he said. “Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living in a fairy tale. Real change has never started in Washington. Real change came from those who have fought in the trenches.”

Edwards was referring to Hillary Clinton’s comments in New Hampshire a week ago, when she said King’s dream was realized when Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The New York senator has taken heat from the Obama campaign and from neutral South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn for the remarks.

Edwards then recalled historical landmarks in civil rights and talked about how, even decades after King’s death, there are still two Americas[, one where his father works in a mill and Ann Coulter is forced to be a public safety guinea pig].

Nobody has said or will say that change comes through Washington politicians instead of grassroots movement but they certainly belong together and change can’t happen without both. It is idiotic to talk about Lyndon Johnson’s achievements as if they were nothing — without Lyndon Johnson’s political courage, the United States of America leaves its senior citizens, its poor and its disenfranchised minorities out in the cold. For all the contempt people have for LBJ because of Vietnam, there should be a greater understanding of his bold and remarkable domestic policy. That nobody knows or understands or cares to do either for Lyndon Johnson is, to me, a travesty of memory. That the other Democrats want to harass Hillary Clinton because she said change was put into effect when LBJ signed his laws is a joke. I guess the change was put into effect when Barack Obama was conceived in Selma. Right?

Really, all Hillary said was, “Change happened once Lyndon Johnson signed the law and the old ones were gone.” Her greater point — that change came through legislation after public outcry and protest, such as Martin Luther King’s — is a great one, as well, and demonstrates the need for leadership from the American President. Besides the fact that it’s true and therefore gives some credit to LBJ for something, there’s nothing objectionable except for the opportunistic.

To my fellow authors — don’t sue someone for infringement when you’re not being fringed upon, especially if you have more money than the queen. You look greedy and petty — you don’t have a case. It’s a waste of everyone’s time, and you could be working on work.

This article, entitled As New Hampshire Dust Settles, New Clinton, Obama Strategies Emerge, raises interesting points, and this was what stood out to me most.

Clinton’s economic policy announcement is a direct outgrowth of the January 8 New Hampshire primary. Clinton’s strategists are convinced that the recent rise in unemployment and the manufacturing slowdown, which voters have been paying growing attention to over the winter, played to her strengths in the Granite State. Aides believe that, combined with a surge of support among women, Clinton’s ‘crying’ incident, and the possible role of race in bringing white voters to the New York senator’s side, they see the makings of a reconfigured strategy to carry the campaign forward.

This approach would emphasize the virtues of her experience and the economic success of Bill Clinton’s two administrations, to undermine Obama’s more abstract message of hope and unity.

Today, Clinton proposed the following economic measures: housing assistance, especially to those threatened by foreclosure; energy assistance to poor and moderate income households; and extended unemployment insurance. This investment in “growing” the economy could, if deemed necessary, be quickly followed by a $40 billion tax rebate for low-income workers which would include cash payments in the form of a refundable tax credit to those whose income is so low that they do not pay taxes.

Of course, a Clinton campaign based on economics might be her best course of action on the highroad and could be especially shrewd if, God forbid, the economy falters in the coming hours (not literally hours) as some are predicting it will, but as it stands it is still a fine decision as the Clintons are known favorably for their economic handling (just or unjust as that reputation may be) and it allows her something concrete and positive to discuss. What’s also interesting in that note is the hint at the racial bias that might be helping Hillary. I imagine it more prevelant in the general election than the Democratic primaries but I’m sure it is there and it is of some significance.

Working in a bureaucracy is hell. Imagine doing this for a living.

The United States delayed a decision on whether global warming threatens polar bears, saying on Monday new data and public comment required more time. Environmentalists vowed to sue for quicker action. The deadline for deciding whether to list the big white bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act is Wednesday but Dale Hall, head of the Fish and Wildlife Service, told reporters it would take as much as a month more to analyze all the information.

This is the first time global warming has been a factor in proposing threatened status for any U.S. species, Hall said, and that has added to the complexity of the decision.

Polar bears depend on sea ice as a platform for hunting seals, and without it, the bears could be forced onto land, where they are inefficient hunters. As sea ice melts, the bears are forced to swim long distances and footage of polar bears drowning has fueled the debate over their fate.

I just wonder what higher forces insisted that they hold off on declaring the obvious.

Edit: As if that story weren’t enough to make you shake your head, how’s this one: FBI wiretaps cut off because FBI doesn’t pay phone bills on time.

I was going to start this post, “Who wants to be the one reading me and asking, Can you believe the arrogance?” but I never predicted Hillary Clinton would lose, did I? I said on the fifth that I wouldn’t be surprised if she bounced back to win NH, added that I doubted she’d thump Obama (meaning it would be close), and then later criticized the way her campaign had been run, which I stand by victory or no as it’s been a conservative campaign characterized by complacency and caution. Still, I feel the need to apologize to myself and others if it appears as if I’ve been predicting doom and gloom; I haven’t. I was not sure what would happen in New Hampshire and am in hindsight disappointed in myself for not being more open with my doubts about the Obama campaign. I have focused more time to the Clinton campaign’s flaws than the Obama campaigns (greater) flaws.

Here is what happened: each candidate has won a state they are supposed to win. Iowa, dominated by organization, was a natural for Barack Obama due to his proximity and subsequent superiority in young caucusers driving native Iowans to “work,” so to speak. New Hampshire was a natural for Hillary Clinton as it is near her “home”state and is far less prone to rewarding idealism and youth for its own sake than Iowa. I am disappointed in myself for not explaining more forcefully that Iowa was supposed to be Obama’s and the victory wasn’t a surprise but the New Year and winter do that to me, sometimes. Looking back, I take back my hope that Hillary Clinton continues to lose (as I said after Iowa) — it was never anything personal. I sincerely believe she’s the best Democrat, politically and in policy (will you laugh at me when I start to write, “policycally”?), but I don’t like dynasties. I shouldn’t hold to that during this primary, however, as none of the other candidates “do it” for me. Sorry to have come off as being steadfast-forever-always against Clinton on some deep fundamental level — I’m not.

I attended a Clinton campaign vote-return party last night at Junior’s on Maxwell just outside the West Loop, yesterday, and met/became re-acquainted with fine people. All night, I was cautiously optimistic for the Clinton campaign and still am, though I wonder if she can win Nevada now that the culinary union has endorsed Obama. I am unwilling, and have told others, to predict anything in this race and I still worry whether or not Clinton will turn to a scorched Earth strategy in the coming weeks. If she does, without genuine provocation (”I was losing” doesn’t cut it) I will rescind my tentative endorsement, but I look forward to the coming weeks of this campaign.

Hillary Clinton was interrupted during a speech yesterday by two hecklers holding an “Iron my shirt!” sign and chanting the same. It doesn’t make any difference to the overall race for the White House but I liked the way she handled it, declaring them the remnants of sexism, “alive and well” and then talking about how she’s looking to break through the highest glass ceiling in running for President. Must say, I enjoy the episode immensely because it is so deliciously absurd one must wonder what sort of thought process someone uses to decide that chanting “Iron my shirt!” at a candidate for President will be a good idea. Probably just some loser kids looking for jollies.

Here is an article in the Wall Street Journal about what all suspect is her imminent defeat in New Hampshire and the corresponding political scramble it is believed to foreshadow. Losing New Hampshire, big, people believe will cost her Nevada and they’re considering concession in South Carolina. These sorts of losses aren’t fatal by themselves but they likely illustrate a trend for Obama and a serious drop in Clinton’s heartrate. If Clinton loses this nomination, people will blame all sorts of factors for it and they’re already starting to. For my money, we’ve got the reason today, in the article.

Despite raising more than $100 million, Sen. Clinton also faces financial worries as contributions have begun to slacken. But she vows to fight on: Her campaign will pivot to focus more heavily on “Super Tuesday” Feb. 5, when 21 states vote. “We are going all the way to the convention,” Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said.

Still, the maneuverings marked an extraordinary turn, and underscored the power of small, early-voting states to scramble all bets — especially in a year when the states’ contests are so closely scheduled. Sen. Clinton until now continued to hold wide leads in national polls; a new Gallup poll has her slipping into a dead heat. Her original campaign strategy, aimed at positioning her as the inevitable nominee who would capture the early states and wrap up the nomination before February, is now in shambles.

[…campaign pollster Mark Penn…]has long been a target of Democrats who complain of arrogance within the Clinton camp. His detractors seized on his authorship of a campaign memo — though other campaign officials agreed to it — that went out to the media Saturday, as reporters, candidates and their contingents had de-camped after Iowa’s caucuses to New Hampshire. “Where’s the Bounce?” it asked in a headline, over news of a poll that suggested Sen. Obama had gotten little lift from his Hawkeye State victory. But the next day, a succession of new polls documented that he had bounced way over Sen. Clinton — spawning guffaws among those recalling the previous day’s memo.

Can you believe that arrogance? Worse is the strategy: “we are the frontrunners. Let’s position ourselves as such.” Nobody on this Earth has ever gotten to where they are by simply coasting, by declaring victory and leaving it at that as if others are obligated to accept it without question or equivocation. That might be what undoes Hillary Clinton, and I’d be furious with myself and Mark Penn for accepting conventional wisdom and conservative political strategy if I were her. (Small c conservative, not “C”onservative.)

Some people think this news is proof that the American government is close to launching an illegal and immoral war on Iran (their characterization) but I take two positions: one, as the article states, this is relatively common and nothing to be looked into too deep (even if there were shots fired, it likely wouldn’t lead to all-out war); two, what if it wasn’t an Iranian ship but was, instead, a pirate ship?

You laugh until a Muslim Captain Crunch shivers your timbers, Reader, and then you stop. You start again when you hear that Hillary Clinton got teary on the campaign trail today and then you stop to wonder, was that scripted? Was she really crying because she really believes that we have to “reverse” the Right and she’s the only one who can do it and she has so many plans for our country? Are you serious? If it’s fake, that’s foolish and hokey. If it’s real, it’s a little disconcerting. There’s no crying in politics!

Not that a little emotion is bad, or that I’m really ripping her for it, but it just seemed odd. Clinton’s handlers are always looking to “humanize” her and maybe this is their attempt to make her more motherly and loving. “There’s so much I want to do for our country,” insert tears, “and I just don’t want to see America go to waste.” Hillary Clinton loves America, see? She loves you, too. More than you will ever know.

I like Hillary, enough. She’s brilliant but she reminds me of Richard Nixon (in the best and worst ways) and I don’t care for dynasties in politics. Football is another matter entirely. Tomorrow night should be interesting, eh?

This could get ugly, fast.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign, anticipating probable defeat here in New Hampshire on January 8, is gearing up for an extended trench-warfare battle against Barack Obama.

The former First Lady is planning to fight Obama in South Carolina on January 26, and in the gargantuan nationwide primary on Tuesday, February 5 — with contests in 19 states, including New York, California, New Jersey, Georgia, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Colorado. If she remains competitive, Clinton’s plan is to continue to compete in Louisiana on February 9, in Virginia and Maryland on February 12, in Wisconsin on February 19, in Ohio on March 4 — and beyond, if necessary.

In an approach redolent of Walter Mondale’s 1984 “Where’s the Beef?” tactic against Gary Hart, Clinton has adopted the less memorable slogan “Rhetoric vs. Results, Talk vs. Action.”

The Clinton campaign is sparing no effort to pressure the media to lean on Obama’s perceived vulnerabilities. Looking to leverage Obama’s slender resume, a Clinton operative argued to HuffPost that the campaign will be able to demonstrate that “Obama is just not a plausible person in this environment of international peril,” and that the longer the primary campaign can be extended, the better chance Clinton will have to prove that “there is not even a second level to Obama, there is no depth.”

You thinking what I’m thinking? Am I thinking what the New York-Illinoisian Senator’s thinking? Is she thinking what George Bush was thinking after New Hampshire in 2000? I hope not, but a racist campaign is not something I’d be surprised to see. It might be a little less effective than the one Bush ran against McCain (”did you know he has a black baby?” push-poll phone calls in South Carolina) simply because Barack Obama having a black baby wouldn’t be a surprise to anyone by any stretch. But it might be more effective because Barack Obama is black, and in certain states an explicit reminder could be fatal.

Pardon me the cynicism, but when I read that the Clinton campaign is looking to dig in and fight in the trenches I start to feel a little uncomfortable.

Time magazine notes today that the Clinton campaign is in a state of disarray, post-Iowa. I wouldn’t be surprised if she bounced back to win in New Hampshire but she won’t be thumping Barack Obama there by any means. Obama has a far bigger chance to beat Clinton’s “experience” down than the other way around, and I think he will pull out a win there, too.

Just thinking earlier, as I read this story about a Sri Lankan ceasefire falling apart amidst violence — just how many places in the world and all of its people are suffering through this sort of senseless violence because nobody pays attention to the countries without money?

Makes me want to be a social worker, and while that is not in the cards, I’d like to work with third world volunteer groups at various points of my life.

There was a really “cute” quote in this article that I’m a little interested in talking about.

“The trouble with Obama is that it is hard to attack the generic, positive appeal that he offers, just as it was hard in 1976 to get a bead on Jimmy Carter,” Steve Hayward, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told the Huffington Post. “Oddly enough, there is a prospect that the best course for the GOP would be to press Obama about his specific policy ideas, and then debate the substance of them. Imagine that!”

Indeed, while Obama fairs better than Clinton against every potential Republican challenger, most GOP observers still expect a close White House race. Republicans may be hesitant to make an issue of Obama’s personal attributes - preferring to let outside groups do the dirty work lest they be viewed as racially insensitive - but there are several areas in his political resume that could spark conservative backlash.

I think the Republicans would be best off defeating Barack Obama like they defeated John Kerry. Proxy slander, followed by an attempt to rebut his opinions on the issues but only on Conservative issues. Obama himself will be a threat to his own candidacy, as he won’t be running in front of Liberal College Kids in the general election and his face will remind every Republican voter that they are Republican voters.

If Mike Huckabee is the Republican nominee, the Republicans won’t need half as many personal attacks as they would if, say, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani were running. The “negativity” of the coming election is going to hinge on what the Republican does, as usual, and the outcome depends on that as well.

What do Democrats have to do to win the upcoming election? Retain their states and win in the trenches of the swing states — Iowa, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. This is why I have trouble “picking” a Democrat to win, or predicting it: the Democratic base of electoral vote support is weak, and so are their candidates. Fortunately, the Republican candidate has been stronger but all through recent years — a weak Republican beats a weaker Democrat.

Someone will have to step up and be strong for Democrats to win. Can Obama be that man? Hillary? Edwards? I’m not sure.

I’m a little tired of apologizing — the snow in Chicago did damage to my Internet connection the last two nights and that is why I haven’t written until today, since the 31st. Forgive me as we move right along.

Sorry to hear that Senator Chris Dodd is dropping out of the race after being a distant loser in Iowa. He was the best candidate of them all, beyond electability and support. I hope he gets a job in someone’s Cabinet, because he is excellent.

I am happy that Hillary lost in Iowa and I hope that she continues to lose. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton at a 4-8-8-4(x2/people’s-will) is unacceptable under any circumstance.

As for Barack Obama — he’s a great orator, but I don’t believe in his message or his ability to lead a nation as it should be led. He strikes me as a milquetoast, mediocre-but-acceptable type of leader, like George H.W. Bush or Walter Mondale, had he been elected. You know what I’m struck by when I listen to politicians speak these days? The lack of leadership. I don’t get the feeling, the thought, that they’re genuine leaders. I’m afraid that if Barack Obama runs for President he’s going to be absolutely demolished by a ruthless Republican machine he is unready for, and if he wins the Presidency I’m not sure he’s capable of defeating the ruthless al-Qaeda threat or dealing with a Congress. Hopefully, if he were to win the Presidency, he’d hire experienced Democrats to help deal with Congress and avoids the mistakes Bill Clinton made in his early day. (Relying on political novices, showing much weakness in dealings.)

Democrats should be afraid of Mike Huckabee. His sincerity comes through well, he’s a nice man with a charming demeanor and he’s a strong candidate with a strong record and strong background.