Office of the Independent Blogger

Partisanship is such a disturbing passion. It destroyed the Nixon Administration when it should not have been destroyed (Nixon was crushed by ruthless enemies moreso than by any evil on his part); it forced Bill Clinton’s impeachment in two ways: a) the Republicans felt the need to probe him as thoroughly as possible b) it gave Clinton opportunity to hang himself under oath (he was not a victim) because he, and his wife, did not want to give any embarrassing material to the Republicans. Historically, there are at least three hundred and sixty five disgusting partisan incidents in America’s existence but we will spare those for the time being although it would make a great calendar! “Political hack of the Day.” Or, “Daily Disingenuity.” Or, “Everyday Crimes Against Reason.”

The Bush Administration is, as you know Dear Reader, far from perfect, but in recent times I find myself defending their policy on various issues. I am, by no means, a voice for the Administration in general but I am not ashamed to admit that this White House has succeeded in several significant initiatives or in arguing that this government deserves support in Iraq. I certainly have numerous criticisms of this White House — petty, real and imagined — but I have quite a few positives to note. The latest news out of the Justice Department disturbed me.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House’s contempt citations against two of President Bush’s top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime. As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

“The House shall do so promptly,” she said in a statement.

Mukasey said Bolten and Miers were right in ignoring subpoenas to provide Congress with White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors. “The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers,” Mukasey wrote Pelosi. Pelosi shot back that the aides can expect a lawsuit. “The American people demand that we uphold the law,” Pelosi said. “As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that.”

The suit had a political purpose too. Democrats have urged that the filing occur swiftly so that a judge might rule before the November elections, when all 435 House seats and a third of the Senate are up for grabs. Criticism of Bush’s use of executive power is a key tenet of the Democrats’ platform, from the presidential race on down. The House voted two weeks ago to cite Bolten and Miers for contempt of Congress and seek a grand jury investigation. Most Republicans boycotted the vote.

Pelosi requested the grand jury investigation on Thursday and gave Mukasey a week to reply. She said the House would file a civil suit seeking enforcement of the contempt citations if federal prosecutors declined to seek misdemeanor charges against Bolten and Miers. The plaintiffs would be the entire Judiciary Committee, who would be represented by the House’s lawyers, according to aides to Pelosi and committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. Mukasey took only a day to get back to her. But he had earlier joined his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, in telling lawmakers they would refuse to refer any contempt citations to prosecutors because Bolten and Miers were acting at Bush’s instruction.

A civil suit would drag out a slow-motion crawl to a constitutional struggle between a Democratic-run Congress and a Republican White House that has been simmering for more than a year. Democrats say Bush’s instructions to Miers and Bolten to ignore the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas was an abuse of power and an effort to block an effort to find out whether the White House directed the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 for political reasons. Republicans call the whole affair a political game and walked out of the House vote on the contempt citations in protest.

They should walk out in protest because it is a silly little parade. And I don’t begrudge the Democratic Party its game, because that is politics and that is how the system works in a democracy (any democracy) — especially when there are a lot of votes at stake — but I refuse to believe that these White House staff members committed crimes in firing or orchestrating the firing of Attorneys. That sort of transition and replacement in bureaucratic and legal offices in Washington is natural, to be expected and encouraged because every President and Department of Justice deserves, at certain posts, its own men and women. It’s not a great evil — the people who used to work there often come back, and they aren’t sent to Siberia. Not at all! Like I said, Democrats are playing a game for votes and it’s fair, but the Republican reaction is fair as well.

Now if Nancy Pelosi wanted to throw Harriet Miers into prison because she was nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States and accepted the President’s offer to try and appoint her…well, then I’d be supportive, but not for this.

Angelina Jolie has written an editorial for the Washington Post on Iraq. My first thought was, “Who cares?” and it is still a sentiment I have but she makes a great point: we must step up our humanitarian assistance to those people in Iraq. Where we differ, I think, is in my belief that we should do it in unison with our political, military and social assistance, by which I mean that we should not pull out or significantly draw down troop levels, but I concur wholeheartedly that the nation of Iraq must receive more humanitarian aid from ours. I simply don’t believe that money alone would be effective as that nation would plunge into anarchy without our serious presence, and if that country descended into absolute terror where would the money go? The pockets of insurgent and terrorist leaders, the slush funds of men whose sole goal in life is power and control. Left-wing critics would argue that that is where the money is already going in the form of Halliburton and Bush’s Administration but I try to shrug off such arguments as reactionary dribble although I can’t help but address it, as I feel the United States is doing good work in Iraq, on the whole, and the mission is nowhere near failure. I feel that worth repeating because sometimes it seems like no one is saying it, anywhere.

Now, a different humanitarian note closer to home:

For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America’s rank as the world’s No. 1 incarcerator. It urges states to curtail corrections spending by placing fewer low-risk offenders behind bars. Using state-by-state data, the report says 2,319,258 Americans were in jail or prison at the start of 2008 _ one out of every 99.1 adults. Whether per capita or in raw numbers, it’s more than any other nation.

The report, released Thursday by the Pew Center on the States, said the 50 states spent more than $49 billion on corrections last year, up from less than $11 billion 20 years earlier. The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said. The steadily growing inmate population “is saddling cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill afford and failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall crime,” the report said.

Susan Urahn, managing director of the Pew Center on the States, said budget woes are pressuring many states to consider new, cost-saving corrections policies that might have been shunned in the recent past for fear of appearing soft on crime. “We’re seeing more and more states being creative because of tight budgets,” she said in an interview. “They want to be tough on crime. They want to be a law-and-order state. But they also want to save money, and they want to be effective.”

The report cited Kansas and Texas as states that have acted decisively to slow the growth of their inmate population. They are making greater use of community supervision for low-risk offenders and employing sanctions other than reimprisonment for offenders who commit technical violations of parole and probation rules.

You’ll never hear me call for an end to the criminlization of drugs, Dear Reader, because I can’t under any circumstance justify signing a permission slip for crack cocaine and I don’t buy the argument that users don’t hurt anyone except themselves but I do believe that we must stop sending people to prison for smoking marijuana or using drugs. It is ludicrous to punish such people with prison sentences but it shouldn’t be allowed, either, or encouraged. Yet the fact remains that our prisons are overcrowed and we have far too many “innocent” (in the hippocratic sense) people behind bars.

There’s an interesting little drama unfolding at the EPA right now, and we should note it.

Environmental Protection Agency chief Stephen Johnson was scolded by senators Wednesday for ignoring his own staff’s advice in denying California’s tough limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, whose state is one of 18 states seeking to join California’s efforts, pointed to a memo released this week by a top EPA deputy who said Johnson should resign if he rejected the state’s request because he would lose his credibility. The process surrounding the decision “stinks to high heaven,” Whitehouse said at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committe on the EPA’s budget.

Johnson defended his decision, but also insisted that he never stifled the opinions of EPA staffers who disagreed with him.

“I cherish the ability to have candid comments” from staffers, Johnson said. “They also know for many of the decisions, the decision rests with me.”

California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who chairs the committee, made headlines Tuesday by releasing new memos showing that EPA staffers lobbied the administrator vigorously to support California’s request. One employee, Christopher Grundler, the deputy director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, went so far as to write talking points for former EPA chief William K. Reilly to lobby California’s case before Johnson. The memo warned Johnson that if he turned down the waiver, “you will face a pretty big personal decision about whether you are able to stay in the job under those circumstances.”

The committee’s ranking Republican, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, questioned whether Grundler’s advocacy violated the Hatch Act, which limits the ability of federal employees to lobby the government. “If this is true, at a minimum it’s a highly improper use of agency funds,” Inhofe said. But Johnson rose the employee’s defense, saying, “I have always encouraged my staff to give me candid and open advice and I still believe that.”

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said the memos suggested that Johnson paid little attention to his staff’s advice. “Your decision on the waiver, do you think that’s hurt morale?” Lautenberg asked. “No, I don’t,” Johnson said, saying the agency has been rated among the best places to work in federal government.

The EPA chief found himself on the defensive when he was pressed repeatedly by the panel’s Democrats to describe what role the White House played in his decision. Johnson said only that he’d had routine meetings with White House and executive branch officials, and that California’s request had been discussed. “Why won’t you answer whether or not there was White House input into that decision?” Whitehouse asked. Johnson said it would be inappropriate to discuss private meetings. “I prefer to keep those candid conversations as candid input to me,” he said.

Johnson deserves all the credit in the world for standing up on behalf of free speech and his workers at the Agency, but he should be ashamed of his policy. You know what he, and other agents of the EPA in Republican Administrations, would say? “We have done this, this and that; the idea that we close shop and allow the nation to be polluted willie nillie during Republican governments is untrue.” And they’d be right, of course. The EPA does fine work even under Bush, but let’s not forget that on the largest issues of the day they have been silent, soft or hostile, such as global warming. In that way, our environment has protection problems that won’t be solved until someone more friendly to the environment is elected President.

John McCain says,

I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. I have some news for Senator Obama. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called ‘al-Qaeda in Iraq.’

That was a great shot, I must say, as I read up on the news of the day.

In this article, about new media cynicism toward Barack Obama, the point is made that the Clinton campaign has wasted far too much money on its own big-name old-time pollsters and consultants, supermarket catering and pizza orders. Last night, I noted to a dear friend that Hillary’s handlers set her up for a nasty counter-punch from Barack Obama when they told her to make a semantic argument between “denounce” and “reject.” Obama stepped back, said, “I don’t think there’s a difference but if Hillary wants me to say I reject it, I reject it.” It was a graceful moment that made her appear small and nasty. It was unnecessary and foolish to engage him in a semantic battle because no one wants to hear such things. Another moment gone wrong: in the beginning, her flurry against Obama on health care came off as a passionate and vigorous appeal to the public, which I think voters will appreciate, but her temper tantrum (with a smile!) afterward, when asked the second question, undercut that message violently. That is something people are going to hang onto, and I was stunned when I saw her complain about the media using Saturday Night Live as her vehicle. It was like a moment out of a parody but it was all-too real.

The worst thing about it is that Senator Clinton did a fine job, overall, but she cut herself down a couple of times with poor decisions and it will hurt her.

On a different note, I’d like to recommend this piece. Is McCain too old? Some people believe that will be his undoing, but I think it’s hogwash because nothing suggests that Americans have a problem with aged candidates and now this history shows that the world doesn’t have problems with old candidates either. If elected, he’ll be fine, and as a candidate that will be the weakest way to attack him.

Iraq is the only way to do it, and that carries significant risks for Democrats.

Headline taken from Keith Olbermann’s show tonight — a McCain supporter, introducing McCain, called Barack Obama “Hussein Obama” and McCain claimed to have been shocked. We will see more of this, and did today, but not exclusively by the Republicans. Bill Clinton tried to defend Hillary Clinton’s support of the Iraq War by noting that she is the Senator from New York and therefore she had to stand at Ground Zero and see the worst terrorist attack on Earth.

I have a Logic exam tomorrow. It is a serious exam, and difficult, but I think I will be ready. I had to comment on this, however, because it was absolutely disgusting to see. Let’s see what Clinton would say about Republicans if they, which would be “when they” if she won the nomination, brought up the lightly-ground-in-reality-but-overall-a-fantasy claims about Bill Clinton refusing to kill Osama Bin Laden when given him on a silver X. Has he no shame?

I imagine this happens a lot but it’s still interesting to read about when it becomes public which doesn’t happen a lot.

Republican operative Jill Simpson told ‘60 Minutes’ that former Bush top adviser Karl Rove asked her to try to get photos of Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat, having sex with one of his aides. Rove has denied trying to smear Siegelman, who was convicted of bribery in a case that was met with outrage from Democratic and Republican officials. Simpson said that Rove called the meeting in 2001; she found no evidence of infidelity. Former Arizona attorney general Grant Woods said, “I personally believe that what happened here was that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square.” Woods, a Republican, is among those calling for an investigation.

Maybe Rove is just a voyeur?

Could it be that Hillary Clinton might still win the nomination? She’s only about seventy delegates behind Obama, is still winning Ohio and might win Texas. Could she keep winning after these states and pull out the nomination? It’d be stunning to see, even if I’m not sure that she can or will and doubt it because even with victories in the coming weeks it’ll still come down to delegates and I think it’d be suicide for the party to kill its popular support by allowing superdelegates to overule the people. On a only marginally related note, Tom Brokaw was on Bill Maher’s show this weekend and he ridiculed the McGovern campaign supporters as people who put on their buttons once, lost, and then said “I quit!” on the process. That was interesting to me, and I think we might see something like that from many Democrats, especially young ones, were the delegates to overrule the people.

Here, on another note, is a good piece about Kosovar independence and how the Serbians caused the destruction of their own nation.

This photograph will cost Barack Obama at least a million votes in November, once the Republicans get a hold of it. (You can see it here if and when that article goes down.) You can see pictures of me from the Feminist party here, calling for the music; here, dancing; here, reading; here, talking; and here, eating cheese. I’m not too fond of these photos, for superficial reasons, but I love them all the same and I love the one of me dancing with my friends.

Numerous people on College campuses all over this country have jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon because toothless elves are all the rage these days, I guess, and Libertarianism is chic. People like me are frustrated beyond words by the phenomenom. Take a few nights ago, as an example. I went to ride the train, downtown, and above the exit someone had placed an enormous Ron Paul banner. I go to drink coffee in University Hall at my school, with my favorite person on Earth, and there’s a Ron Paul sticker on the second story window, pasted from the outside. I write for a College newspaper that, for some reason, has written more opinion pieces about Ron Paul than any other candidate.

I open a newspaper, on the other hand, and the man is getting .5 percent of the vote everywhere he goes, but on the Internet and on College campuses he is spreading like gonorrhea. It’s ridiculous, and I wish that all the people who’ve fallen in love with that idiot (who might even lose his Congressional seat in this election) would get real and grow up, although I take consolation from my pet theory that there are really only five or six people in each city who love Ron Paul but they’re so committed that they make sure he is represented significantly, however insignificant his signs may be and are.

My dear friends, my Dear Readers, I bring this up not solely to bash Ron Paul but to introduce Don Quixote for the rest of you: Ralph Nader is running for President again.

Have mercy with realty, oh great pasters of stickers, hoarders of third party signs, brave and misguided souls!

My Friday evenings are spent eating cheese with graduate mathematicians. Yesterday we took our friendship out of the science and engineering laboratories, where they are more comfortable, to a celebration of feminism that doubled as a fundraiser for the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Vagina Monologues (March fourteenth and fifteenth), where I am more comfortable! And it was quite the night, as a joyous occasion for all who attended and women everywhere.

Before we made our way to the event, we had a quick little meal and then went rock climbing at the student recreation facility. They were handing out energy beans (lemon-lime jelly beans) at the entrance and we accepted. I love sour snacks, and these were so good that I returned for more at the desk where they were held, only to receive the most delightful rebuke of my life. They gave me the beans I requested, and then as I prepared to leave they handed me a titanium four razor (still in its original packaging!) and told me to make good use of it. It is true that I have allowed my beard to grow in these last few days, only out of sheer busyness, and I laughed when I told my friend of this playful indignation. It was bizarre, to be sure, but I love those nights that are out of the ordinary and I treasured the strangeness of the razor, even if I’ll never use that gift.

After my friend scaled the “rocks” (I didn’t participate because I recently sprained the shape out of my ankle, as you know), we headed over to Agapa Christian Ministries, whose facilities the Student Outreach Services’-sponsored Vagina Monologues crew rented, and entered the building, where I was scheduled to read two poems. I signed in, made my donation to the event and then was asked to confirm that I would be reading for the crowd. I noticed that the opening act was open and I thought it would be for the best if I started the festivities, because I prefer to go first and because I thought I could provide an energetic showing. I then proceeded to mingle with the crowd at the event, talking most lengthily with a woman in my International Relations course, and then we all ate. Once we were finished, and eight o clock arrived, the emcee of the event introduced me and I went up to read two poems by Lucille Clifton. I had realized earlier that I didn’t have enough material to fill five to ten minutes of time comfortably, so I asked the DJ to play the worst song he had in his arsenal on my cue. I went up on the stage and noted that I wanted to start the show with some pizzazz (not in those terms) and invited my two mathematicians on the stage with me. “Maestro, hit it!” I called to the DJ, another friend of mine, and Everybody Dance Now! was what he played.

After a few minutes of the worst dancing ever performed in front of an audience, I had the music cut, thanked my good friends and read the poems.

Homage to My Hips

these hips are big hips.
they need space to
move around in.
they don’t fit into little
petty places. these hips
are free hips.
they don’t like to be held back.
these hips have never been enslaved,
they go where they want to go
they do what they want to do.
these hips are mighty hips.
these hips are magic hips.
i have known them
to put a spell on a man and
spin him like a top

and

wishes for sons

i wish them cramps.
i wish them a strange town
and the last tampon.
I wish them no 7-11.

i wish them one week early
and wearing a white skirt.
i wish them one week late.
later i wish them hot flashes
and clots like you
wouldn’t believe. let the
flashes come when they
meet someone special.
let the clots come
when they want to.

let them think they have accepted
arrogance in the universe,
then bring them to gynecologists
not unlike themselves

I thanked the audience and sat back down to enjoy the show. The rest of the speakers at the event did a better job than me and moved me near tears throughout the night, and when it ended everyone mingled, danced and ate. I helped clear the facilities and left with a casual acquaintance and my two mathematicians. The fundraiser had raised over six hundred dollars, as well as the spirits of everyone in the room. It was great to participate in such a wonderful event, I was honored to be allowed the microphone (where I chose poems for body images and the problems faced by females in our society) and I’m glad we managed to raise money for the production of the performance as well as battered women’s shelters in the city.

I don’t like to call myself a Feminist, but I am, in my own Prattonian way, even if I don’t like the label or fit it (or any other stereotype) neatly.

Republicans are falling all over themselves sending money and love to John McCain for his Presidential run because they are angry that the New York Times reported that he might’ve maybe done something unethical for a lobbyist he was having sex with. Is that all it takes to fall in love with someone you might not have given the time of day to a week earlier? The object of your detestment to be criticized by someone you have hated for a longer amount of time? I’ll have to try it!

Had, and am out and about having, an exciting night. Will write more tomorrow.

Here The Swamp and Bill Bennett agree that the McCain story is going to help him. I can imagine it rallying certain conservatives around him, but I don’t see it doing much good or ill, either way. Conservatives will vote for him no matter what and this story doesn’t have enough teeth to it to hurt the Senator from Arizona. Now that McCain is calling the story untrue, and others are hinting that there have been numerous instances where he voted against Ms. Iseman’s interests, this will become a non-issue, especially as time begins to pass and the campaign heats up. These sorts of scandals don’t live forever, and it’s especially true when they come out mid-week instead of on a Monday. That’s a political trick you likely didn’t know, Dear Reader: you put good news out there on Sunday nights, Monday mornings and bad news late in the week.

It limits the news cycle or enhances it, depending.

Edit: Double X Factor weighs in and I just read it.

I read the Vicki Iseman-the-cute-lobbyist/John McCain-isn’t-ethical piece, too, after no fewer than three people told me to—none particularly enthusiastic about McCain. All were apalled, not by the content of the story, but by the transparent thinness of the reporting. If the Times has evidence that McCain had an affair, they should come out with it. If they have evidence that he showed improper favoritism toward a lobbyist, they should come out with that, too. The fact that they do neither—most of the article rehashes old stories—must mean they don’t have anything at all; perhaps they are hoping the blogosphere will produce it. The only “evidence” comes from two anonymous aides who claim they told Iseman to buzz off and stop distracting their boss—behavior which strikes me as quite normal and rather admirable. Sounds like they were doing their job.

Thanks to lack of evidence, the article reads not like an exposé but like an elaborate and extended piece of insinuation. Surely this must will damage the New York Times more than John McCain: Who will believe their reporting on him now?

More thoughts on a different matter: Is the Clinton campaign finished? They’re definitely struggling mightily, and I’m starting to hear Ricky Nelson down in Texas: “sang a song about a honky tonk / it was time to leave.” This article notes that Clinton’s ground game has fallen into chaos and this piece illustrates the great contrast in support and momentum between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the Clinton’s can pull it off, but at this point I think it would be a crime against democracy and an unlikely one, at that. This nomination looks like Obama’s, to hold and savor, unless the Democratic Party wants to implode itself.

Barack Obama’s wife said this week that for the first time in her life, she’s very proud to be an American because people are voting for her husband. She’s back-pedaling now, but the damage has been done and that will be a potent weapon for the Republicans in the South and Midwest. Fortunately for the Democrats, and seemingly-unfortunately for me considering the article I wrote yesterday, John McCain is being linked to a lobbyist in a sex scandal. He’s been busted reforming campaign finance…in the backrooms.

If I worked for the McCain campaign, I’d be relieved that this story has been kept unpublished until now, and before the election campaign against the Democrats really kicks off. I doubt that the Democratic Party will be able to use it, or that their voters will, because Barack Obama has his sleazy Chicago neighbor and Hillary Clinton’s got a laundry list of shady friends and connections. This should be a non-factor, partly because of this timing and partly because the candidates against him aren’t particularly ethical, but it might be an interesting wild card if true corruption comes from it. I doubt that, however, and this has the potential to fizzle out soon enough. Voters will likely shrug off the sexual implications and want to talk about other issues than whether or not there was a conflict of interest. That sort of intellectual argument only comes into effect with true, demonstrable corruption ala Spiro Agnew with the general public. In almost all cases, it is simply something hammered upon in lonely news rooms, not in the living room.

Good for McCain, right? Like I said in my poem, linked to yesterday: McCain isn’t clean, and who do you think he’s financed by? McCain’s a warmonger, and a cheat, but whether or not that can be painted or proven is questionable at best, unlikely in reality. Especially considering the candidates he’s running against.

I recently came to the conclusion that, barring a handful of improbable events occurring, John McCain will be the next President of the United States.

How did I make this analysis? I examined the current political landscape of the United States, electoral tendencies and the candidates themselves to determine whether or not the conventional wisdom around College campuses, in the political parties and on television talkshows (namely that the race is the Democrats’ to lose) was accurate or not. I did not merely inspect the lengthy, nuanced subtleties of the 2008 race for the Presidency but also took into consideration the brutal, coarse realities of American politics and came away with cause for concern, because John McCain is formidable in ways no other Republican would be and both remaining Democratic candidates have a long, uphill climb ahead of them if they are to ever reach the Presidency as anything but visitors. This is because of the nature of this nation and because of their individual merits and failures.

The way I often introduce this topic is by asking, When was the last time a Northern Democrat was elected President of the United States? and the answer is John F. Kennedy. That is because the re-alignment of the South that occurred after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act solidified the South for the Republican Party and the South is generally unwilling to vote for Northern liberals for President, as any look at the electoral results for President in any race since 1964 will show. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton face a significant hurdle that every Northern Democrat faces when he runs for President: they are unlikely to win any Southern state but Florida, and even that is a great challenge that I’m not sure either is up for. Whether or not they recognize this Southern crisis (though I imagine they and their advisors would) or whether or not Liberals in general recognize it as reality is not a concern of mine. I recognize it as reality, and the South’s refusal to vote for Northern Democrats has been proven time and time again. It is clear, to me, that the Democratic Party cedes the South and almost the entire Midwest, Great Plains and Mountain States to any general Republican.

Some have argued to me, “Hillary has Arkansas!” and I don’t think that’s the case. She was never particularly popular in Arkansas as the First Lady of that state and the distance in years between her time there and now, as well as the gap between New York and The Natural State, is overwhelmingly against her. The other Southern, conservative states are unlikely to go for her as well because they don’t go for Democrats very often, never for Northern Democrats and almost certainly not for a woman. A similar cynicism applies to Barack Obama, who, I’ve been told, has a fighting chance because of the amount of black voters in these Southern states but the truth is that black voters are always at, above or just below 90% for the Democrats and there aren’t enough black voters in Georgia to turn that state into a Democratic state against a Republican with a Northern Democrat running against him. That’s true without even mentioning the racism that still very much exists in the South and would ensure Republican victories in Dixie all night every night. The truth is that the Republican Party is about a lock to win everything considered “The South” and all those states in the “center” of the country that the Republicans usually do win.

However, losing the entire South and most of “the core” is not what has caused me to believe that the Democrats are likely to lose the election, although it is a significant red flag and challenge. I believe they will lose the election in larger part because John McCain is a perfect Republican candidate at the perfect time against, I think, perfect opponents. Democrats will have to focus on retaining their base states and taking a couple of swing states to win the Presidency; if the Democrats win, it will be a squeaker as I don’t see their two current candidates cutting into Republican lands, for reasons I’ve detailed earlier. That means they will have to win states like Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, perhaps New Mexico, but here we encounter a significant problem only, previously, hinted at. Compare Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s ability to win Republican states with what will be McCain’s ability to win Democratic states and the Democratic Party has big problems on its hands.

Why can McCain win Blue States? Many reasons. First, John McCain can run as an agent of change, since he is not in the Administration and has often been at odds with Bush. That is crucial to understand, as he robs the Democratic Party of its greatest-though-flawed-drive-in-2004-and-likely-still-strongest-motivator today. If McCain can provide the public what it wants (”conservatism”) while giving it a break from the Bush Administration (”change”) he can floor the Democrats. I believe that he can do both, and will. Further to the point is that independents and Democrats generally respect the Senator from Arizona because he is considered an independent, fair thinker. He is a consensus candidate, a man who can generate enthusiasm from both parties, who has no demographic challenges ahead of him in certain Democratic states because Democratic states have shown, time and time again, that they will vote for a Republican if a mediocre Democrat is running, or one that is far too “liberal”.

Specifically, I think of Michael Dukakis, George McGovern and Adlai Stevenson versus George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon and Ike Eisenhower. I think of states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and purple states like Iowa, New Mexico. I look at Hillary Clinton as a candidate who does not have the appeal of her husband, regionally or personally, and while the “Clinton Machine” is strong it was not the Clinton machine that got Bill Clinton elected in Kentucky, the Dakotas and several Southern states. It was a lousy economic situation, a weak President and the charisma and talent of Clinton himself who is a far better politician than his wife even if she’d be a better President. Obama, on the other hand, is a guy who I think would have his lunch eaten by John McCain, who would expose him like Bush exposed Dukakis, like Nixon exposed McGovern, like Stevenson exposed himself: as an “egghead” by traditional standards who speaks in platitudes and votes “liberal”. People forget that Dukakis was creaming George H.W. Bush in the summer and once the Republican attack machine grabbed hold of him, “The Duke” was obliterated. I see the same fate for Obama. I see them obliterating his middle name (”Hussein”) and his last name, his “liberal” voting record (they have already started to talk about his), his youth and inexperience, his platitudes. Obama has a demonstrated problem attracting middle-class, working-class voters, and let’s be clear: the national electorate is not the same in any way shape or form as the Democratic primary electorate. Primary voters have nominated John Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter (twice, and he won once by fluke), McGovern, Humphrey. Many of these men were great men, with bright ideas, but they were all candidates who could be written off as weak, too liberal or both, without any regional appeal.

Some say, “Obama would simply fight back against the Republicans, unlike Dukakis and, say, John Kerry,” but I don’t see that as viable option. Obama’s strength is as the candidate of hope, right? How would that look when he becomes a pitbull against the Republicans? Besides, Democrats have long demonstrated themselves incapable of defeating Republicans solidly, and the last time we won an advertising war, at painting our opponents the way we want to paint them so as to damage their electoral chances was 1964 with the famous Daisy Ad. Until Democrats prove that they can swing with the electoral heavyweights, it must be assumed that the Republican Attack Machine is stronger than the Democratic Whimper Factory. That’s another reason McCain will (likely) win: they know how to play this game, and Democrats are woeful amateurs in the last quarter century.

So how can the Democrats win? you ask, because you refuse to say that they will lose. They can win one way and one way only: by successfully painting John McCain as an extension of George W. Bush, and to do that (which is a tricky proposition) they will have to wrap their fists around McCain’s infamous “100 years in Iraq” comment and hit him in the kidneys until they’ve given way and he has bled to death. There is very little way around it, otherwise, because he is a moderate and an independent as perceived by the public and he is a candidate who will have broad appeal unless he is labelled a warmonger. Unless the Democrats can successfully tear him down (which is difficult because of their historical ineptness and the fact that McCain is a war hero, not to mention the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq which could very well get better and is not all that terrible currently) they will lose because their candidates lack national appeal and will be easily labelled and ridiculed, their organization is not as good as the Republicans, McCain is a strong candidate running at the right time in his party’s history. I think it will be an electoral landslide in favor of McCain and Democrats will be left to wonder why the rest of the nation didn’t buy the platitudes of the Democrats who aren’t Bush, “how could this have happened!“. I will be there to point out that McCain isn’t Bush, either, and Americans like Republican government, overall.