Toking Welk

We sold our soul and we are happy about it

It's bad enough that the press is McCain's base. It's even worse when a member of the press gives McCain advice on how to "rejuvenate that base".

McCain is running as Democrat Lite

At least that's Chris Bower's assessment of McCain's latest ad and I agree with him.

And, just like when Democrats tried to do the same thing when they were down, I think it will fail McCain miserably.

Straight men take notice

If there really is a androphilia gene then heterosexual men who want to increase their reproductive chances should focus their attention on the sisters of gay men.

Obama thinking about 2010

Regarding Obama's long-term strategic thinking, Michael Turk has an interesting analysis of the margins Democrats need to make up to gain control of state houses. He makes the connection to Obama's strategy:

The states that would not normally be target states, but in which he is spending money have one of two common characteristics. They are either states in which the Democrats are exceptionally close to controlling one or both houses, or states where they control one or both houses by slim margins.

Michael then makes an observation that a lot of people may be losing sight of: 2010 is a redistricting year.

Why? Because Obama and his team are looking to pull a Tom Delay. By setting up the Democrats to win these legislative bodies, he'll be able to stymie (or dominate) the redistricting process and be able to not only elect more Democrats, but use it to put even larger majorities in place after 2010.

I urge everyone to check out this analysis (Turk is apparently a Republican, btw).

Obama: Running to help other Dems win

Obama doesn't want to just challenge McCain in states that voted for Bush (link). He wants to support down slate Democrats who he will need to advance Democratic policies. So he will be campaigning even in some states where he doesn't have much of a realistic chance of winning but where other Dems could benefit from his help.

That's the kind of long-term, strategic thinking that has been absent in national level Democratic politics and its one of the reasons I feel optimistic about an Obama presidency. He understands that a general is only as strong as his troops.

Nader: Obama "talking white"

The ugliness:

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

...

Asked to clarify whether he thought Obama does try to "talk white," Nader said: "Of course.

"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."

Lovely. An old white dude is telling a black candidate what he "should" be talking about. In Nader's mind a black politician should always be about talking about "the ghetto" and "the plight of the poor" as if those are concerns primarily of blacks. How paternal of you Ralph. How condescending. How racist.

Avoiding Muslims

Apparently, the Obama campaign is worried about playing up the associations between him and Muslims. So they are going out of their way to avoid being seen with Muslims. At least that's what this appears to suggest.

What Obama's campaign is doing is not just wrong. It is stupid.

They are afraid of adding fuel to the "Obama is a secret muslim" smears? Well, avoiding Muslims won't stop the smears. It will just attract attention to the smears. In fact, it will add weight to those smears because the smear-meisters will be able to say, "He doesn't want to be seen with Muslims because he is a SECRET Muslim."

It's messaging 101 folks: you draw more attention to something when you purposely try to not draw attention to something.

Will Obama Filibuster FISA?

Short Answer: No

Long Answer: A filibuster is guaranteed to draw a lot of publicity. A filibuster by a presumptive nominee for President would draw even more publicity. That kind of publicity will draw a lot of attention to the question of Obama's national security credentials. A lot of negative publicity to be sure. It holds a lot of potential to be a bad fight for him.

Far better for Obama would have been stepping in early in this process and stopping the "compromise" from ever passing the House in the first place. If he we presume he had the desire and the ability to do this (and, as presumptive nominee of his party, which also controls the House, he would have had a lot of pull in this matter) he would have been smarter to do it then.

He did not.

Now ask yourself this: if Obama didn't want to get into a fight over FISA before it even came to the floor in the House, how likely is it that he wants to get into the same fight on the floor of the Senate? If we assume Obama is smart (he is) then the reasonable conclusion is that he wouldn't want to get into that kind of fight.

Therefore, he will not fillibuster FISA.

Unfortunately, Obama was not smart enough to realize that this is a fight that, if engaged early, could have reaped a lot of rewards. He punted and he will pay the price for that decision for years to come.

Rally Round the Flag

I agree with Markos. There is an automatic presumption, even among Democrats, that a terrorist attack would benefit Republicans. I had a talk the other day at Drinking Liberally in which several people were convinced that such an incident could help McCain win.

I argued two points. (1) The Republicans have run so long on the platform of "we will keep you safe" that an attack would undermine that platform and (2) the public attitude towards Republicans, and Bush in particular, is so toxic that a significant number of people would just have to question the convenience of the timing of such an attack.

In times of crisis, such as an attack, there is a natural tendency to "rally round the flag" and that would normally help the party in power. But again, when that same party has made a fetish of their national security credentials, any such attack would also raise questions about just how effective they have been in meeting their central claim. That leads into the second point that, while people may not give much weight to conspiratorial thinking, it would still color their thought processes.

Put simply, a significant minority of the American public simply don't trust Republicans. It's that 40-50% who give Bush a "seriously disapprove" rating. They aren't going to automatically "rally round the flag". And any attempt to make them do so could seriously backfire.

Now, any attempt by Democrats to argue this point after such an attack could also produce a massive backlash. So Dems really couldn't make the argument after the fact. But they could lay the groundwork for it now if they were to simply discuss the reality of what a new terrorist attack would mean.

All in all I think what would happen politically after such an attack is just to nebulous to make any definite pronouncements.

NY Times gets it wrong