Dads And The Media

In tribute to Father's Day, a group of bloggers have decided to post a series of articles focusing on "Dads In Media".

This blogstorm ought to be intriguing because the bloggers involved are a diverse bunch with varying outlooks on different aspects of general culture, and I was both honored and amazed to be asked to join in.

And then I promptly forgot about the whole thing until I received a reminder this week! (Thanks, RC, and sorry!)

I'm troubled by the way men are portrayed in popular culture, particularly in sitcoms and commercials. There are precious few dads who are shown as anything close to competent, and usually, there's an element of authoritarianism to the portrayal of a father.

Fathers, like the ones in early 60s shows like "Leave It To Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" worked a non-descript, flannel-suited job, came home each day at 6PM, had a drink and read the paper while mom made dinner. If there was any interaction with a child, it was usually in the context of dad pushing his paper aside as if the news out of England was more important than his son's (usually...men didn't bother with the girls) grade in spelling.

My Three Sons was a typical show like this, despite the unusual premise of a widower raising three (and then adopting a fourth) son with a "wife" (the housekeeper, who for some strange reason that would probably raise eyebrows now, was a man, presented as the boys' grandfather/great uncle). The boys would get into some mix-up, the partner housekeeper would offer some advice, the kids would ignore it and dad would come home and straighten things out, usually adding some measure of logic and rationality to the proceedings.

All in thirty minutes. 26, if you count commercials. 52, if you were lucky enough to be "Bonanza".

As noxious as this image was, the was a certain cultural truth to it: back in the 50s and 60s, America was truly patriarchal. The man brought home the bacon, the woman cooked it up. Therefore, since the man was the sole support of the household, often his was the final word.

Somewhere along the way, this image shifted as the culture shifted through several iterations: Archie Bunker, who still held "sway" but could be influenced by a wife's stand or a daughter's tear; Cliff Huxtable, who's wife was at least on the same plane as Cliff, but ultimately, it was Cliff who made the decisions (in close consultation with Claire, but still usually his decision was final); Al Bundy, who while completely NOT in control of his family, managed to create the self-delusion that he was, only to have it shattered time and time again.

Until today, when it is nearly impossible to find a dad on TV who reflects reality.

I think the first TV dad to have begun to "dumb down dads" was Fred Flintstone. Basically The Honeymooners, when Fred and Wilma had Pebbles, Fred never really grew up (Ralph Kramden, the live-action Fred, never had children), and kept doing the same dumb schemes and having to be bailed out by Wilma, usually threatening to leave.

The exaggerated stereotype was OK, I suppose, because it was a cartoon and no one would take a cartoon seriously. Plus, there were plenty of TV dads to model fatherly behavior that was appropriate at the time.

Now? Not so much. Watch most sitcoms and dramas, or nearly any commercial set in a family, and you will see some Neanderthal scratching his head, trying to figure out how the world just shot right past him.

In an age that has seen Home Improvement, The Simpsons, and any number of forgettable sitcoms, what recent TV dads reflect some role model for men, some identifiable totem that society can look to that doesn't lampoon men as incompetent boobs when it comes to parenting, inept and totally ignorant of what fatherhood entails?

Fortunately, there are a few.

Roseanne - Although nominally second banana to Roseanne Barr's eponymous character, Dan Conner, played by John Goodman, was there to be a shoulder for Roseanne, and to support her when she had made a decision. He rarely acted out, but the character was realistic because there were times when the couple would fight when they felt strongly about what was going on, as Roseanne did like to control the people around her. He shows strength and compassion, and anxiety over his inability to keep a steady job.

Just like real people do. I was not a big fan of the show, but I did enjoy the camraderie, love and particularly, the repartee between these two.

Scrubs - This is one of my favorite shows of all time, a sitcom set in a hospital that doesn't play for the easy laugh often (indeed, one episode lampoons the entire spangly, brightly colored 80s sitcoms perfectly). It stands to reason that the characters on the show would have depth and dimension, despite their clear connections to characters from commedia dell' artes. Primary among these is Dr. Perry Cox, played by John C McGinley, whose parenting skills extend to drinking scotch from his son's sippy cup while watching the Lakers on TV. Think "House" without the limp.

Cox is like a real dad in that he recognizes how his own father had hurt him so badly and tries to do things differently with his children. His first child, his son Jack, breaks through Cox's rather sizable wall that distances him from other people and you see a genuine affection grow between them (the story arc exploring this is magnificent by the way, and any dad who has seen it can identify with Cox). In Cox's world, his real life and his work life tend to bleed over into one another, just like a real person's might without the "I'm so mad at my boss" rant you see on too many sitcoms.

I don't think it's a surprise that we have here two shows trying to deal humorously with the horrors of real life, and sometimes failing, have characters that hearken back to B J Hunnicutt of M*A*S*H: men for whom family is the respite from the world, not an extension of their incapacity to deal with it, and yet, the family creates its own tension for them, tensions they have to try to drown out somehow.

Friday Kitten Blogging

Dadby tern on da box-o-wintah dis weak cuz et get so hawt, so I set en front of et to git kold.

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) Here it is, folks, George Bush's legacy!

2) Will Iowa ever float again?

3) This story may ultimately turn out to be far more important to you and me than even the election. The corn crop in Iowa and Indiana is devastated, flooded and ruined, and that could mean that scenes like this in Ethiopia and Haiti could happen in America.

4) But hey, what do we care about the brown people? Madonna's brother is writing a tell-all!

5) Talk about a sore loser! We're only about halfway through the year and my prediction that Africa would be one of the top ten stories of the year seems to be coming true.

6) If China and Taiwan can come to an understanding and shake hands, why are we still embargoing Cuba?

7) Mortgage foreclosures were up 48% in May!

8) Barack Obama has been forced to put up a website to counteract the rampant rumours flying about him and his wife. Called Fight The Smears, it was precipitated primarily by the rumour that Michelle uttered the "w" word from the pulpit of the very same church that Obama listened to hate-mongering from Revs. Wright and Pfleger.

9) Since so many words have been *koffkoff* misinterpreted from there, maybe they ought to perform an exorcism at that pulpit? Just a thought.

10) My only issue with the website is that the people Obama needs to reach with it don't necessarily have Internet access, and so will only hear word-of-mouth and from the radio and the TV. He needs to find a way to reach these people, mostly white working class voters. Oh. Oops.

11) Question: Is a bear Catholic? Did the Pope shit in the Bush?

12) What should have been an historic and exciting series is turning into a rout.

13) Was there a concerted effort to stop Hillary in the DNC? Apparently, the rules and bylaws committee was selectively excluding Florida and Michigan and should have excluded Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire as well!

14) Goodbye, Tim Russert, you fat misogynist toady who worked for the only network that was clearly in Barack Obama's pocket from the get-go. I hope you choke on a beef on weck in hell.

Paradigm Lost

Sure seems like I have a lot to say on this topic.

I happened to watch Michael Moore's "SiCKO" last night, and this theme of paradigms of American culture and politics swirled through my mind yet again.

If you've seen the film, then you likely recall Moore's trip to England and France to investigate "socialized medicine" with its concommitant horror stories of people dying in waiting rooms and postponing critical surgeries and bureaucracy out the wazoo over the slightest protest in treatment, how you can't choose your own doctors and how doctors are badly underpaid and treated and...

Well, you get the drift of the right wing talking points regarding single-payer healthcare.

Naturally, Moore pretty much debunks those forthwith. Yes, the film takes a POV that is probably at best generally accurate but biased towards only showing positive stories ("So how much did you pay for the delivery?" "Nothing" "You mean you can just walk out of the hospital with a baby and no bill???"), however, the generally accepted truths of nearly everyone he speaks to in England and France is that American health care is the pits compared to European healthcare and that the system in place in Europe works without creating an undue burden on the taxpayers.

People still drive nice cars and doctors can afford million dollar homes, and even the middle class can afford a comfortable apartment and a nice television on $80,000 a year combined salaries. In France. Where you get unlimited sick leave, a 35 hour work week, and minimum five weeks' paid vacation.

Sweet deal, huh? Mind you, the average French worker is more productive than the average American worker. Gee...can't imagine how treating a human adult like, well, an adult might engender a better sense of loyalty than all these "team building exercises" and sloganeering!

Makes you wonder what is wrong with this country?

There were a few telling incidents and quotes in the movie that made me think about this column today, which I had planned on writing anyway.

1) Tony Benn, a Socialist former member of the British parliament was interviewed by Moore on camera. Put it this way: even the British call him a far-left winger. He had some interesting things to say, including the following: Keeping people hopeless and pessimistic - see I think there are two ways in which people are controlled - first of all frighten people and secondly demoralize them...An educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to govern.Pretty remarkable statement, when you ponder it for a moment.

What is the best way to keep a nation frightened? Yes, a terror attack works, of course, but that has limited impact on long term governance, a goal of both parties here.

No, the best way to frighten and demoralize a people is to make them think the enemy lies within our borders. It could be the blacks. It could be the undocumented workers. It could be the latte-sipping liberal elite. It could be the John-Deere-cap-wearing rednecks. It could be the working classes that cling to their guns and their God in their desperation, even.

But the enemy lies within our borders and we must be vigilant.

The enemy DOES lie within our borders, but it's not the enemy we think it is.

2) In summing up the differences, not just in healthcare but in the attitudes of the citizens of nations like England, France and even Cuba, Moore says They think of 'we first,' not 'me first'.

This goes hand-in-hand with the great cultural divide, I think, I referenced in point one. It's hard to think of "we first" in America for a slew of reasons, not least of which is simply the massive physical distances between "us" and "them". "They" are the flyover states, or the coast-dwellers. "We" are the true Americans. "We" know better than "they" do.

It's hard to think of "we first" because we are all hyphenate-Americans. We all self-identify with another place: Irish-American, Russian-American, Dominican-American, African American. Hell, we even have to refer to the indigenous people with a hyphenate, Native American, so as not to exclude them! Our tribe comes ahead of all others.

This diversity has had some profound and good impacts on America: from different backgrounds, we have not only derived different "American" foods (hot dogs, German; pizza, Italian) but different ideas, different perceptions have become inured into American culture.

But only after the feared "enemy within" was absorbed and assimilated.

All this, however, is hung on a backdrop of the very American "Protestant work ethic"...a German import, by the way.

3) While pondering the French culture, with its universal healthcare and its government-paid college tuition (not a loan, a grant and out of pocket costs are nominal, under a thousand euros), and dollar-a-day childcare for working parents, Moore points out that the French government is terrified of its workers, and proceeds to show footage of various strikes across France.

Hm. A government serving the people, instead of the people serving the government. Interesting concept!

While we here in America are trying to downsize our government, put the "people's money back in the people's business community's pocket," in other nations, they take the people's money and use it for the benefit of the people!

Wow. Any coincidence that the US is ranked 37th on the list of health care services, just ahead of Slovenia, despite the fact that we outspend every other nation on the planet, including China (which doesn't even place in the top 50, so at least they're getting bang for their bucks!)

We need to reorganize the priorities of this country, and sadly, neither Obama nor McCain (nor Clinton, hedging my bets) is going to pull the levers and push the buttons necessary to do this (maybe Clinton might. Might.)

We collect hundreds of billions in tax revenues, and the complaint about universal healthcare, or any one of a number of social programs, is "it's going to cost the taypayers money."

Yea. And as Tony Benn put it, If we can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people.

Americans are among the most generous, giving people on the planet. When a disaster strikes in Myanmar or China or Peru, Americans are the first with their wallets open, giving to the Red Cross, or to Doctors Without Borders.

I would advance the cause of universal healthcare (first) with a simple question: "If you could help your neighbor in a crisis, would you give him a dollar?"

"People pay taxes not because government needs us to. People pay taxes because other people need us to."

That ought to be the mantra of anyone running for President. We've lost a sense of community in this country. That community threatened the entrenched interests of the corporate and administrative sectors. People had a bit of power, but lost it in the 70s and 80s.

President Clinton tried to bring it back, but even his attempt was derailed by the powers that be. President Bush has further eroded and blunted that power under the guise of "homeland security," a permanent terror state devised to punish people who get out of line along with genuine threats to the nation.

To think that the next President won't use these tools is like asking me to stop using my perfectly good left hand. That's simply not going to happen, no matter how well-intentioned I might be. I'll slip up and so will the next President.

We have to take the country back.

Can You Spare A Paradigm?

As I re-read the posts of the past two days, I realized that there's an element to my thinking that needs more exploring in order to successfully launch my "Actor212 Not For President" campaign.

Class.

"Class" is one of those nebulous terms that the Republicans have successfully turned into a third rail of politics, while the Democrats have sputtered and spewed trying to catch up to expose what should be apparent to anyone who's actually paid attention these past twenty years: people vote against their best interests because they've been taught to ignore their best interests.

The Republican platform, as I pointed out yesterday, is "lower taxes, smaller government," a platform they have been woefully inept and inartful at achieving. Tax revenues have spiked upwards except when there's been a recession, which is itself an uniquely Republcian phenomenon.

The mantra is that lower taxes will bring more economic investment and that Americans, particularly small-businessmen, know better how to spend their money than the government does.

Believe it or not, I actually buy some of that. It is true, to an extent. The tax cuts of the Kennedy administration fostered the greatest economic activity in American history until the Clinton tax hike (and there's your clue that taxes are in fact too low). There is a center point around which taxes and economic activity bear some inverse relation to each other.

The proposed rationale that Republicans put forth is essentially, "We'll cut taxes on the rich and maybe they'll employ more of you!"

Well, there's an acknowledgement of the American dream if I've ever heard one! Horatio Alger, look out! There's a whole crop of proletariats just gearing up to do mindless drone work, day in and day out, for the betterment of an elite class of owners!

Meanwhile, the Republicans will talk about class in terms of social structure, in particular "middle class values".

Middle class socially differs from middle class economically. Economically, middle class means, well, people in the middle: those who make between $25,000 and say $100,000 (for a family of four). Below that, you are working class. Much above that, you are upper class.

Socially, middle class means having shared American values like "hard work will provide a path to wealth" or other mainstreamed bromides that provide a rationale for getting up each morning and providing someone else with wealth while struggling in your own life. Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but values are the six packs of beer they consume to get to the five o'clock whistle.

It is this dynamic that I think is about ready to change, as people sit amidst a pile of debt and an economy falling around their ears, wondering how come ExxonMobil is still making money hand over fist and John McCain is proposing yet another tax incentive for Big Oil.

Republicans raise the spectre of "class warfare" (Charles Rangel had the best rebuttal to this: "Yes, but you declared it on us!"), and it's true: the line between economic and social classes has been carefully blurred such that about the only class that ever gets talked about is the middle class, so much so that you'd almost think that everyone is middle class, much like all the children in Lake Woebegone are above average.

By raising the spectre of class warfare, the Republicans are really saying, "Pay no attention to the fact that there really are classes in this country, that channels like Style and Fine Living exist not for the 3 million or so families who are uberwealthy, but for the hundreds of millions who wish they were, but never will be."

That has to change. The question is, how to change it? How to raise the issue of class in this country so that a) one doesn't get accused of being classist unjustly, and b) one doesn't get tarred with being both elitist AND an anarchist?

I think the way to tie this discussion together in a package that no Republican could ever critique without treading very dangerous ground is to tie it into affirmative action and in particular, racial dialogues.

Here, of course, Barack Obama could be the better man to do it than I would. He has a natural advantage.

But in truth, a careful analysis reveals that what many of us take for granted-- good jobs, a retirement plan, opportunity-- has been taken away from first minorities (in truth, many never even had these) and then from working class Americans, with blindness to the color of their skins.

A single mother in Alabama, struggling to put food on the table at her $20,000 a year job packing sausages could be black, could be white. It doesn't matter to the food bank. The thing is, neither does it matter to the guy who owns the factory. All he or she knows is, he's making money off her sweat.

Sounds vaguely socialist, I know. And perhaps that's the way it ought to sound, because capitalism, democracy and Christian "values" are incompatible in the extreme.

There's a trick to this idea that has to be carefully navigated, but like the Republicans' nifty trick of de-coupling "values" and those who hold them dear with their policies, which are anthema to those very values, it can be done.

In this instance, we have to recouple the issues of fairness economically with social fairness. Not justice, because that has a heavy-handed "enforced" air about it.

What I think we should have established in this country is a whole new ideal that society is ready to stop taking differences for either granted OR as inconsequential. No more "affirmative action," but no more "color-blind (pick one) admissions policy/hiring policy/whathaveyou" way of conservatives ducking their responsibilities to the masses of a different class.

What we need to do is to expand opportunities for everyone, and let everyone have a stake in the future of this nation. Societal constructs will blow by in the wake of a thriving economy that sees true entrepreneurs, small (and I don't mean rich white guys owning a vineyard on the side, but people trying to provide a needed service or good in the future) businessmen revitalizing the notion that markets are free and that's a good thing so long as markets remain free and not closed to competition by people, Democrat and Republican, who pay lip service to Adam Smith.

Adam Smith himself believed in government regulation of the markets to a degree, because Adam Smith himself said that an unregulated market would tend to create business combinations that would defeat the purposes of a free competition. I won't bore you with the details of his reasoning. Suffice it to say he recognized that people would conspire to restrain trade in their own industries to protect their business interests.

We need to get back to the notion that people matter, that a "class blind society" is not consistent with industries that can pay hundreds of millions dollars in what effectively bribes in order to protect their interests. That people matter. That families matter.

That democracy matters.

Hump Day Comedy Blogging

More Paradigmatic Posting

I hadn't planned on this being a series, but as I began to write yesterday's post, I realized I was heading full speed into a novel. That's the biggest reason it ended so abruptly.

What I see when I look at the two major parties in this nation is stultification and obsolescence. Despite Obama's "re-energizing" of the party, attracting youthful voters, the same Democratic party is the underpinning of his entire campaign.

Indeed, his personal campaign runs square up against the centrist policies of the party as a whole.

This scenario has played out once before in this nation, within the past forty years. When the Democrats took a strong stand against racial discrimination and for equal rights, it triggered a series of cataclysms, ending classical American liberalism as we know it.

First, the noble cause of racial equality created a split with what was then the George Wallace wing of the party. You might say this was a good thing, driving out intolerance and driving away injustice, and I'd be hard pressed to disagree.

But look what happens next: After Wallace runs a failed third party campaign in 1968 (getting nearly killed in the process), the Republicans seize on the disaffected southern white working class voters that Wallace attracted.

You know these folks as "Reagan Democrats".

By talking in coded language of "law and order" and raising values issues, the Republicans began to peel away the basic voting bloc of America: middle Americans who, altho liberal in outlook, didn't trust a radical agenda, which was becoming more and more radical in the Democratic party as the anti-war movement began.

The Republicans countered this, masterfully, by scaring people about liberals while at the same time reassuring them that there was someone who was looking out for them, co-opting the values battle while winning elections, and pretty much guaranteeing a hand in government for generations.

Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? A party has overstepped their mandate, and disaffected voters are uneasy about where to turn next. This is another challenge Barack Obama faces: reassuring these voters that while he's about the future, he's also not going to take them on a rollercoaster ride.

You'll notice the rationale here for Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy, and it was a smart one and a good one, and nearly garnered her the nomination despite her blunders.

In 2006, the Democrats led by Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer returned the Democrats to legislative control based largely on this strategy of taking disaffected Republicans and "former Reagan Democrats" and putting a friendly face on a slightly more progressive agenda: Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, all ran as conservative-to-moderate Democrats and picked up seats previously held by Republicans.

The sole "pure" liberal to swipe a seat was Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and that seat was held by Mike DeWine, of Coingate fame.

Clearly, the 2008 election should see more and more Democrats come to the fore in the legislative elections, more notably as Representatives, I think, altho a six seat pick up by Democrats in the Senate would not be impossible. Getting a filibuster proof mandate is not likely.

Now, I've written all that to acknowledge the importance of this election in shaping the country going forward, but also as a warning that while change is good, radical change is not good.

We need to elect candidates who will articulate a vision for America in ways that Americans can be comfortable about, which is another reason I felt Obama was a failure as a nominee: he articulates a vision I can see in my head, but not feel in my heart.

Altho his 2004 convention speech was rib-tickling, to be sure, he hasn't followed that with concrete visions, and he speaks abstractly, as if he was a lecturing fellow at Columbia. That's not what Americans respond to. They don't vote with their heads.

They should, because poll after poll after poll says that, in general, they agree with a liberal agenda: healthcare for all, opportunity, fairness, liberty and equality.

If I was running for President, and I'm not, I would skip the usual "I met this family in Podunk" speech about healthcare or gas prices or a clean environment, in favor of talking to people about their own concerns and addressing them.

In short, my theme would be this: We know you're scared. We can help.

The new politics of the 21st Century is going to have to acknowledge the failures of both Republican and Democratic principles (if you can find the latter) and replace them with new ideals to live up to.

Republican "ideals" can be summed up in four words: lower taxes, less government.

Simple, right? Doesn't mean the party lives up to them or anything approaching them, but it's an easy way for people to remember who you are.

What are Democratic principles?

Not so easy to name them, is it?

When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, he used the following theme: "Opportunity. Responsibility. Community."

Not particularly descriptive, but easy to understand and to figure out what the candidate means. The trouble with this theme is everyone is for all those things. How are you different from the other guy?

(Side note: this is why "Yes We Can" is such a horrible campaign slogan. "Yes we can," what, exactly?)

A better paradigm for running for President (or Not) would be to establish from the outset exactly what you mean to do and how it will improve the lives of average Americans. Yesterday I co-opted the phrase "back to the future" as my first paradigm and this would be a pretty good starting point for any campaign I were to run, except, you know, it's already saddled with baggage.

In order to effectively promote a case for election, a case for your administration, you have to help people connect with your core values, your core beliefs, and your core positions.

What makes Democrats' job so much harder is, these are usually muddled beyond belief, forcing successful candidates to run as "not the other guy".

In determining my vision of the future, I would use the following syllogism:

1) People are scared for the immediate future and for their children. They've seen retirement money dry up in the winds of change these past seven years, and a dismantlement of the most cherish programs of FDR's New Deal, programs that heretofore were considered sacrosanct.

2) I/we have the solutions that will combine the best of Republican values (limiting tax hikes and government growth, particularly on the working and middle class, "middle class" having a generous definition here) with the best of Democratic values (opportunity, responsibility, community, for want of a better phrasing).

3) Ergo, we should present these solutions to the people who are scared and let them know they have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

If that sounds familiar, it should. It was basically FDR's campaign strategy in 1932 as well as his slogan.

And that time has come again, to remind Americans that their fellow man/woman is not the enemy, but the rapacity of corporate America, guided, aided, and abetted by the Republican AND Democratic parties (and yes, I lump these so-called "outsiders" Obama and McCain in with them), and that what stands between them and their goals of security and happiness is not abortion rights or gay marriage or flying a Confederate flag over a state capitol, but the interlocking play of money and power.

Their inheritance, our inheritance, the American birthright of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, has been stolen by those whose power allows them to take it, assisted by those whom we elected nominally to protect us.

It is time to reclaim that dream once again. We have woken up, and we are not happy.

A New Paradigm

Now that the official campaign for President has kicked off in earnest, it is time to revisit my campaign for NotPresident once more.

There is a desperate need in this nation for solutions. It is clear from the rhetoric on both sides that confrontation will be the order of the day, despite both candidates' professed belief in inclusion and reconciliation.

After all, the hateful energy spewed during both primary campaigns could power a small city for a few years.

Democrats are saddled defending themselves against programs that were dismantled decades ago. This will be the trope John McCain will foist upon the American people and will do it often. We've already seen his attempts to link Barack Obama's solutions to the challenges facing us as "failed policies" dusted off.

Republicans are saddled with, well, defending themselves against programs that were dismantled decades ago, as well as programs thrust upon America in the past eight years and proved disastrous. Here, we see Obama link McCain closely to the Bush administration's "failures of the past" in foreign policy as well as its economic policy.

Both talk of bipartisan reforms, both talk of bipartisan solutions, and both have floated trial balloons about asking members of the opposing party to work in their administrations.

Bullshit, to be polite, in other words.

The real solutions to this country's problems lie not in the politics of the now, but in the course of the future. We need to go back to the future, and right away.

There was a time, 40 years ago, when this nation could do everything: win a war on poverty, fly men to the moon, dismantle racism in government, take on every challenge head on.

We need to get back to that future. We might need to forget ALL the policies of the past and the rampant inability of politicians to fix what's not broken, and move forward, confident that our solutions will solve those troubles jusy by being implemented.

Take the energy crisis. This is largely linked hand in hand with two other major crises: pollution and global warming. Solve the first, and you are well on the way to solving the latter two. We need a comprehensive energy policy that does away with protecting the oil companies and starts investing in the future, past peak oil, past ALL oil.

I would propose the following budgetary item be included in my first non-administration: a $1 billion dollar bounty payable to anyone, and I do mean anyone, who can demonstrate a truly renewable energy source-- solar, geothermal, wind, and so on-- that will create the same rate of BTUs as crude oil, in a form that is commercially viable.

This bounty would not be payable just once. It would be paid for each new energy resource that can be so demonstrated to the country's satisfaction. If you can develop a brand new way of harnessing wind on a commercially viable scale that is new and innovative, or takes a windmill one step farther, then you get your bounty. I figure there ought to be about ten of these that will have to be paid out.

No "cold fusion" debacles. We go for the gut this time. The reduction in cleaning up crude oil spills in the future alone ought to justify that bounty. We could lower taxes without even taking a vote, because this energy would be essentially untaxable: how do you justify taxing that which the planet provides us?

In other words, forget the political and economic infrastructure the past has foisted upon us, and move ahead with changes that will actually benefit people. Changes like this and the ones I will outline over the course of the next few months, would be the backbone of any non-campaign I might choose to not run.

Some would give people hope for change. I would offer change that matters, change that counts, change that is real change and not swapping horses in the middle of a race in the wrong direction. The time is now, the people are ready for change. We need to leave the failures of our government behind us and opt to see the world in new ways.

It will be scary, to be sure, but I also think the transition to this new nation would take place more smoothly than even I foresee. It is staggering the amount of information at our disposal that we don't even begin to comprehend, much less account for.

Thank You, Senator

Dear Hillary,

I am sad to hear of the suspension of your campaign. I think you could and would make a fine candidate for President, a formidable challenge to the right wing of this nation.

Right now, our nation is engaged in a great struggle over its soul. The failed policies of the Republicans still have inertia, because it's far easier to deal with the devil you know than the one you don't. We as progressives owe a duty to our forebears and must continue this fight. Unification is a bad idea right now, I think.

So much has been made by the nattering class about how you extended this race unnecessarily. I disagree. You fought for what you believed in, not what someone positioned you to believe in as a state legislator, and not for some doe-eyed rhetoric you copied off a cereal box during Black History Month.

By extending this race, you may have brought out somethings about the presumptive nominee that he would have preferred to keep under wraps, but here's the thing: by bringing them out now, you made his supporters fight that much harder, take that much more on in their support and while that may have blinded them to reality, it will serve them well come November. At least they will be in fighting shape for the inevitable October Surprises.

Too, by forcing Senator Obama to talk about specifics, you've shown he might actually have given some thought to the problems facing America. This is comforting, for while we may disagree with someone, we can respect that he's not flipping off the work. We need only look to President Bush to understand how dangerous that can be.

The most important outcome of your candidacy, perhaps it will be your Pyrrhic victory, is the acknowledgment, finally, that even the Democratic and Progressive movements are not fully free of misogyny. Just the comments at this blog alone demonstrate the hatred white men have towards you, but the Tennesee Guerilla Women can cite chapter and verse the hate spewed by the Obombersand their media co-horts.

Perhaps it's not race that needs a dialogue, but how fully half the population can be so denied of their legitimacy by the other half.

When those two numbnuts in New Hampshire (I think) held up an "Iron My Shirt" sign, people laughed.

Imagine if that sign had said "Pick My Cotton" at an Obama rally?

There, right there, is why you lost, Mrs. Clinton. Despite your overwhelming qualifications for the Presidency, despite your dynamic and well-thought-out agenda for your administration, despite every piece of evidence that says Senator Obama will be a disaster in the White House, if not just the campaign trail, you were the butt of savage sexist jokes.

He was not the subject of savage racist jokes, at least none that were accepted in the mainstream media. Even his pitiful speech on race, which so many have touted as a watershed in American politics, ultimately did nothing to advance the cause of equality, because the Senator did not even repudiate those on his side of the colour line who spew hatred towards America. And white women, so amply demonstrated by the Rev. Pfleger.

Or, if you believe Larry Johnson, his own wife!

I am sad to see you leave the race, and acknowledge your grace in doing so. I have said and have committed to support the Democratic nominee, and so I will pick up my cudgel and look out McCain supporters! Some beatings are about to commence!

But you, Senator, you shudda be da contender...

Trouble For November

Apparently, Obama had better sew up the wounds he has inflicted on the Democratic party and quickly, if this polling data is accurate:

Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters have a favorable opinion of Obama while 42% offer a negative assessment. Thirty-two percent (32%) have a Very Favorable opinion, 28% Very Unfavorable.

McCain is viewed favorably by 55% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. Those figures include 18% with a Very Favorable opinion of the Republican hopeful and 20% with a Very Unfavorable opinion.

Two candidates with similar favorable/unfavorable percentages. Shouldn't be too hard, but take a look at the divided support for Obama. His support is highly polarized, meaning that he could conceivably lose 28% of the voters who simply don't like him much, and that would leave him only 14% who would hold their noses and vote for him. McCain, who has been portrayed as a man out of touch with his party and a grudgingly accepted candidate, actually has a better chance of holding onto his support than Obama, the "uniter", does.

In other words, McCain's campaign strategy is pretty clear cut: he merely has to not make any major errors, while reaching out to working class Americans (whom I presume make up the lion's share of that bottm 28%). Obama, whose primary campaign was rife with missteps and faux pas ("you're likable enough," being only the first of many, and you wonder how his comments later in the campaign about working class white voters will play in states that had already voted prior to Pennsylvania). McCain's base actually looks safer than Obama's right now.

Obama's strategy is a bit trickier: he's going to have to run as a populist without running as a liberal. But not running as a liberal might piss off some of the top 32%, the college educated progressives who believe his mantra that the change we need is us.

Today's presumed announcement from Hillary Clinton will likely firm up his bottom numbers, lowering his unfavorables, but I wonder how much effect it's going to have on that bottom 28%? That extremity sounds like it's going to need a bit more convincing than a concession speech.

Friday Kitten Blogging

Mah PEEPZ!

I iz hepping dadby fex a facs masheen!

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) With all the rejoicing in Obamawood, I wonder how comfortable Democrats are knowing the Republicans in Florida and Michigan chose the Democratic nominee? Manichaean candidate, anyone?

2) "Is that a penis in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" (WARNING: article is rife with in-you-end-o)

3) You'd think the opposite would happen, but you'd be wrong. Somehow the laws of supply and demand break down in hyperinflative environments.

4) Perhaps the long national nightmare is over. And perhaps not.

5) It's hard to believe I'm saying this, but it's nice to see at least one Bushie with a sense of responsibility. You might recall this stems from the brouhaha over misplaced nuclear material on a flight, and nearly everyone figured the buck with stop with some airmen. Uh uh!

6) 5.5%. That's a half-percent up from last month. That's the highest monthly increase in twenty years and represents more jobs lost in any one month since the recession of the early 80s.

7) Not that you care, but CARE does. (OK, admittedly, it was a cheap way to stretch for a headline)

8) Next week, I will find out what my next phone looks like. As I have rather large and clumsy fingers (despite these daily typing workouts), I'm hoping for a slightly easier to use keypad.

9) Gee....here's a shock! And it even has a built-in way for McCain to run against his own party!

10) Ummmmmmmmmmmm, yea, this will work for Barack Obama...still, it's kind of a cute idea in the "soccer mom" mold.

Breaking!

Is Joe Trippi the Obama camp discussing the Obama veep spot with


former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr?


More to come...............

UPDATE by Carl

(h/t to Katrina for her quick posting of a garbled message)

Your humble correspondent lucked into dining at a restaurant near his office when in walked Harold Ford with someone I tentatively identified as Joe Trippi (the tip was real time and the restaurant was dark), but after further inspection later realized it was not Trippi, but another advisor to the Obama campaign, based on some of the things he said to Ford.

The pair sat at the table next to me and after a brief cell phone conversation on the Congressman's part, began what I can only describe as earnest discussions about the potential of Harold Ford assuming the Vice Presidential spot on the Obama ticket.

Not so fast, this might not be as outlandish as you think. Ford is chairman of the Clinton-initiated Democratic Leadership Council and is a popular Congressman from a key swing Southern state. You may recall that he was victimized in 2006 by the Rovian "Call Me, Congressman" smear campaign that blasted across YouTube like a Mentos in a bottle of Diet Coke.

Ford is a centrist Democrat whose inclusion would certainly attract many Clinton supporters, particularly in the South. He has strong credibility with the religious sector, but has repudiated many of the issues that would be raised in the general election regarding the Reverends Wright and Pfleger.

Because of his position as an analyst on MSNBC, Ford has not endorsed Barack Obama, of course, but it wouldn't be a stretch to say he could easily shed the MSNBC job and go to work on the campaign now that things have all but settled out.

I obviously cannot vouch for anything beyond what I overheard, and it's also likely that I caught a continuation of a previous conversation where this was all considered hypothetical.

But someone is talking about it.

Why I Think Hillary Should Fight On

I'm often asked how I can support the "corporatist" candidate in the Democratic primary.

As opposed, I assume to the non-corporatist candidate who magically pulled three campaign financings out of his ass, for legislature, Senate and now President. Anyone who believes Obama isn't as beholden to corporate interests as any other candidate is fully deluding himself, but I'll get back to that in a moment.

Believe it or not, on the liberal scale, I consistently score to the left of Dennis Kucinich, so no, Hillary does not come close to representing the ideal changes I'd like to see in this nation.

But she's the strongest step in that direction.

Here's how I view political history: the cyclic nature of short-term changes is one of broad sweeps of the pendulum from one end of the spectrum to the other, extremist and ultimately unhealthy to the nation's well-being.

But like all pendulums, there are larger forces at work besides gravity: momentum, friction, and periodicity all play a part in change.

Long term, it would hard to deny that two opposing forces struggle against each other: the isolationism of effectively an island nation, bordered by only two other countries (no other major nation save Japan and Australia has fewer), and the inevitable march of time forcing us into new technologies and exposure to new ideas and cultures.

Ultimately, it is THIS battleground that I want to win a progressive agenda on, and if that means sacrificing the short term liberal agenda (which in truth, is nothing more than another group of elitists imposing their will on me), then so be it.

Now, to Obama. Run with me a little on this, it will involve some suspension of disbelief:

As a result of an unhappy circumstance, I was forced to watch "All the President's Men" last night on DVD.

As I sat there watching it for the umpteenth time, discussing it with my daughter with regards to how all political campaigns involve dirty tricks and how hard it is to uncover them if they are financed and backed with a lot of money, a few tumblers clicked in my head.

In the world, as a free agent, is a man who is fully capable of executing the ultimate "rat fuck" on the Democratic party: Karl Rove.

In watching how the Watergate investigation revealed this entire netherworld of Republican operatives only too happy to do the dirty work to set up the nomination of George McGovern, it occured to me, "what if this was the scenario that played out in 2008?"

Think about it: Hillary was the nominee-presumptive in December, and despite her missteps and gaffes along the way, has garnered more votes, and certainly more Democratic votes, than any other nominee for President. Ever.

And still hasn't secured the nomination and sure looks to be a fair distance from doing so.

What if these nickle-and-dime contributions to Obama's campaign weren't from honest citizens, but were part of a larger campaign to push a different candidate for the November election, one who would be almost guaranteed to lose the important states that Democrats need to win: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan?

I added those last two, mostly because in those instances we have overt evidence of Republican involvement in the Democratic campaign: both Florida and Michigan (Florida more so) moved their primaries ahead of New Hampshire and Ohio, and as such have been punished by the DNC, hampering Hillary's efforts and crippling her chances of taking the nomination on the first ballot.

The Florida initiative was promoted and passed by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor.

Florida. Remember them?

The Michigan case is harder to make, as the governor is a Democrat (but an Obamist) and half of the legislature is controlled by Democrats, but that still leaves significant input from the Republicans.

Too, Obama had significant support from Republicans who crossed over to vote for him in (nominally) Democratic primaries that were open to all (which is why Hillary has a case that more Democrats voted for her than Obama, nevermind more votes, full stop.)

Indeed, at one point when it looked like Obama might knock Hillary out early on, Republicans suddenly started voting in large numbers for Hillary, primarily in Texas.

Apparently, the powers that be that would run this kind of trick didn't want to show their hand too early. They had to extend the season a bit to cover for their own candidate, whomever that might be (at that time, the race for the GOP nod was still in the air).

One more point to make before getting on to conclusions: much if not most of Obama's support comes from states which held caucuses. Caucuses are ideal places for infiltration and dirty tricks, since there's no real paper record of what transpired: you stand in a room, are counted, and then recounted until one person wins a majority.

How hard is it, particularly since caucuses tend to be open to all, for a Republican squad to dispatch posers? Not hard at all.

You think this is all unlikely, yet in 1972, there's Nixon's CREEP running a dirty tricks operation that not only had Muskie knocked out of the race on a very trumped story about him crying over the "Canuck letter" (even then, the media played lap dog to Republican politics), but ensured the weakest possible candidate would take the nomination.

So, here's the scenario: you have an uberstrong candidate, clearly unbeatable in the general election, and a really weak case to make for your own party, no matter who the candidate is (Nixon was despised in 1972, almost as much as Bush is today)

You have the media in your back pocket. No one can deny that Obama benefitted clearly from the Hillary hatred of the media...the GOP-owned media.

You have a candidate who is irresistible to liberal Democrats: a first-term Senator, African American, who espoused 6 years ago his opposition to the war and four years ago his desire to bring the country together and heal its wounds.

Let's call him the Manichaean Candidate.

And you have a political machine that has shown its ability and propensity in the past for stealing elections (Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000, and Austin in 1994).

In all of these, Karl Rove has played a vital role, indeed, the key role, in swiping these elections.

Would it be too hard to imagine that, given the intricate mechanics of the Watergate scandal, that Rove took a look at the environment he grew up in in the party, and saw how to improve it and to nearly bulletproof it?

Apparently not.

Now, yes, this has been a fairy tale, but....

If it turns out to be true, remember you read it here first.

Backing His Way Into Victory

This is likely the last negative column I get to write about Obama, so you'll pardon me if I let it all fly now.

While the inevitable march of Obombers and their mindless drones has at last reached the conclusion that they seemed in their Hillary-hatin' cups determined to foist upon the Democratic party, we should probably pause a second and reflect on just how damaging their Manichaean quest has been to the party and to the chances of securing the House and Senate further.

This is a party that was only able to wrest Congress away, and that by the slimmest of margins in a culture that was thoroughly disgusted with all things Republican, particularly Bush, by hewing to the right. The people who ran in 2006 ran under the regime of Rahm Emanuel, who at the time was among the most hated Democratic leaders (and probably still is).

The Senate seats won, in particular, were won for the most part by running a close-to-pro-life ticket in states like Montana and Colorado. Hillary Clinton seemed a natural progression to nudge the country slightly to the left in her first term, then more in her re-election campaign.

Clearly, that was not going to sit well with the minority of Democrats who a) hate all things Clinton, and b) can't bear the thought of evolution. For these folks, a jackhammer is sufficient when a scalpel is needed.

There's the overwhelming need, I suppose, to try to establish some power base of about a twenty percent of the country, but at what cost to the nation as a whole? Is this any different than Ralph Nader throwing the 2000 election to George Bush? What is this basically suicidal need to run anyone who is bright and shiny and new, when governing demands someone who knows the ins and outs of governance?

No one is more adamant about the need for change in politics and governance in the country than I am, but I also remember the last time we tried replacing a tired, corrupt administration with a "fresh face" who spoke well, and held a lot of promise, and was even one of the most intelligent men to ever sit in the White House.

Remember him? Jimmy Carter?

His administration did some good things for this country, to be sure, but simply put, he could never live up to the troubles in the world that he found himself in, and I suspect Obama will be the same kind of President, if he makes it past the general election.

And Carter begat Ronald Reagan. Obama could beget, who? Mitt Romney?

Pendulums swing, but they don't miss the midpoints in their swing. It's almost like the bizarro world, non-reality-based liberal wing has decided that they'd wrench the pendulum out of its fulcrum and drag it kicking and screaming to the far left.

Trouble with that is, once you've done that, pendulums tend to swing back as violently and extremely. There's a majjority seating on the Supreme Court that is going to vehemently enforce conservative values and ideology and any attempt to alter the political dynamic by uprooting the nation and shoving it leftward is going to run up against that rather large obstacle.

With any luck, the SCOTUS could be lulled into a passive mood, but not if they feel pressure from the right wing to become activist, which is pretty much certain no matter which of these three is President, but more so if Obama wins.

And we must keep in mind that, given at least a half dozen chances to score a knockout blow against Hillary during the primary season, Obama couldn't muster up enough support outside of his narrow-interest base to throw her off stride, while in the later primaries, the ones that should have been coronations of an Obama candidacy, enough anger and rancor remained that she actually gained support amongst her base and chipped away at his base.

This is not the sign of a particularly strong candidate, that his own base begins to desert him at a time when they should be more confident than ever of his leadership.

In backing into the nomination, not a given as I write this, but it seems likely that Hillary will concede tonight, Obama has a two-fold task: one, convince enough of Hillary's supporters that he deserves their support and two, make inroads into traditional Republican and independent bases.

This last, I think, will be the harder sell for Obama. Clearly, the patina of "purity" that Obama had has been washed clean: the Wright and Pfleger videos, his Rezko ties, his elitism towards anyone who's hands get dirty for a living, or who believes in church and God (apparently, something he's now lost), or who owns a gun, and his apparent arrogance.

After all, what other less-than-first-term Senator would dare challenge the establishment for the sake of his own political ambitions?

We have a saying in city politics here: That man is running like he's got something to run from.

As opposed "to run for."

There are many who disagree with me, who say Obama is different, that he will change the political dynamic.

Perhaps they are right.

Perhaps Obama really is who he says he is, and will change the political dynamic and put this country back on course. I will admit the possibility that one man could do that, however unlikely and unprecedented in the history of democracies reaching back to Athens.

And perhaps, not only are they right, but they are right in ways even they aren't aware.

Maybe he's worse than the average politically motivated corrupt politician, a flim flam man.

You Were A Prick...

...but it's been a year, dad.

And Now For News That Shouldn't Surprise Us...

Remember those touted "rebate checks" that were going to spur the economy?

Um...not so much....

MIAMI — The federal government is showering households with tax rebates to spur spending and invigorate a troubled economy. But many Americans are so consumed with debt and the soaring price of gasoline that they are opting to save the money or use it to pay bills, according to surveys, sales data and interviews with people from Florida to California.

Between late April and the end of last week, the Treasury handed out more than $50 billion of the $100 billion in tax rebates it plans to distribute to 132 million households. But only once in the last six weeks have chain stores registered an increase in sales, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers, whose weekly sales survey is a widely watched barometer.

“The initial sense is that people are not running out to the malls to spend their checks,” said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at the PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. “It’s not quite proving to be a hot potato that’s burning a hole in people’s pockets.”

You read that right folks: only one week in the past 6 has seen an increase in consumer spending. I'd lay pretty good money that it was the second week in May, after everyone had sorted out their mortgages and rent, and decided, yes, the had a little extra to spend.

Here's where the lunatic logic of the Republican party comes into play: When tax rebates have been handed out to Americans, only 20 to 50 percent actually gets flushed back into the economy as fresh spending. THe rest, the other half to four-fifths, gets stuck paying down debts or otherwise improving the balance sheets of consumers.

In short, rebates don't really work. Well, that's not true, they COULD work, but only when consumers have enough income coming in and their debt levels are in line with those incomes. Like when the economy is humming along, for example. Which is when they wouldn't need them, right?

A rebate has to be very carefully timed to be distributed at the precise moment when the economy is just beginning to go south, but the effects of the souring economy haven't been felt in the pockets of the average taxpayer, in other words. Since no government in their right mind is going to do anything but talk up the economy at that stage, rebates are esentially ineffectual.

Rather than distribute that money, what the government could have done was make it 100% fresh money in the economy, and spent it themselves. In an ideal world, this is how it should go, but in that world, pigs really do fly.

The government would spend this money on new initiatives, carefully targeted by sector and geography, and thus drum up further private investment. Things like economic development, seed money for small businesses, and other investments that would show a long term return of tax revenue would be ideally suited for this money.

Further, if the government really thought the country was going to go to hell in a handbasket, it could invest this money in infrastructure repair which would have a two-fold effect: it would prime the country for the eventually recovery at the same time it would provide jobs for the working class, those who are most affected by the current sordid state.

If only Bill Clinton could have run for a fourth term...

Friday Kitten Blogging

PEEPZ!

I haz a tennet! Naow I arreddy to go kampin an hunt dowen a bare for fud!

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) Them's some big-ass headstones, I tell you whut...

2) This WAS supposed to stop happening, after the tragedy earlier this year.

3) One question: why? And I ask that as someone who has actually appeared on the show!

4) I'm not sure, but I think this is one of those times I would just make the victim comfortable until the end...unless he was really fucking cute!

5) The story that STILL hasn't appeared in ANY New York City newspaper, three days later! I can't imagine why... Paging Larry Niven! Larry Niven! Filming to begin on "The Jigsaw Man" any moment now!

6) As life imitates art, so once again does MicroSoft imitate Apple. Dudes, stop buying and start building, mmmmmmmmmmmK?

7) Do you want to bet that Bush's position here will basically be "let 'em grow more food"?

8) Traffic is so bad in major American cities that more than a quarter of drivers give up and go home.

9) This was a tough week for icons of 1970s TV and movies.

10) Here we go again! Another Obamber preacher in hot water, forcing Obama to once again repudiate someone who's support he not only accepted, but sought out. WTF?

11) See for yourself. You know, the bit would actually have been funny if it had been in a comedy club, but watch the choir, and tell me these folks don't hate white people:

And Obombers? Tell me this one is taken out of context...go on!

The Backpedal Begins

I'm not sure who is in charge of "message" in the Obama campaign, but this smacks of silliness:

WASHINGTON — With his experience and leadership credentials under sharp criticism, Senator Barack Obama and his advisers are trying to clarify what has emerged as a central tenet of his proposed foreign policy: a willingness to meet leaders of enemy nations.

In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, sought to emphasize, as he and his aides have done continually over the last few days, the difference between avoiding preconditions for talks with nations like Iran and Syria, and granting them automatic discussions at the presidential level.

While Mr. Obama has said he would depart from the Bush administration policy of refusing to meet with certain nations unless they meet preconditions, he has also said he would reserve the right to choose which leaders he would meet, should he choose to meet with them at all.

Let me get this straight: after six months of chiding from Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and now, John McCain, someone in Barack Obama's campaign finally woke up at 2 AM a couple of nights ago, slapped his forehead and said "HOLY SHIT! "NO PRECONDITIONS"???? WHAT ARE WE, IDIOTS?"

Now, "no preconditions" means "no preconditions," unless you are putting preconditions on the word "preconditions". Sort of like, "Depends on what your definition of 'is', is."

Apparently, it didn't really mean "no preconditions".

This is a rookie campaign being run by highly inexperienced operatives, and I can almost bet that by Denver (if not, after), Obama will be asked to make some serious changes to his senior staffing.

Or, to put it in flip flop terms, he was FOR appeasing Iran BEFORE he was against it:

This week, Mr. Obama said that he was still considering meeting with Iranian leaders, though he would not necessarily guarantee a direct meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

“There is no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he is actually in power,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “He is not the most powerful person in Iran.”

Last week, Mr. Obama offered a similarly nuanced explanation about meeting with President Raúl Castro of Cuba, saying he would do so only “at a time and place of my choosing.”

The caveats belie the simple answer Mr. Obama gave during a debate last summer, when the issue was first raised in a major public forum. Without hesitation or qualification, Mr. Obama said he would hold direct talks with America’s enemies, drawing strong and immediate criticism from his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” asked Stephen Sixta, a video producer who submitted the question for the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate.

Mr. Obama, the first candidate to respond, answered, “I would.”

Several aides immediately thought it was a mistake and sought to dial back his answer. But on a conference call the morning after the debate, Mr. Obama told his advisers that he had meant what he said and thought the answer crystallized how he differed from his rivals.

“I think that it is an example of how stunted our foreign policy debates have become over the last eight years that this is an issue that political opponents try to seize on,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on Wednesday. “It is actually a pretty conventional view of how diplomacy should work traditionally that has fallen into disrepute in Republican circles and in Washington.”

Even after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called his position naïve, Mr. Obama refused to shy away from it, at times speaking explicitly in terms of a potential meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

In other words, it would give Ahmadinejad a lot more credibility with the world community than it would with the US government and would do more for Iran than it would do for America, which is an awful way to go about diplomacy, which has long been defined as the art of letting someone get your way.

Now, at no time during this or any subsequent debate or Q&A on this point has Obama ever amended this statement: attack the conventional way of diplomacy and "no preconditions" to meeting world leaders.

So apparently, Senator Obama has come to his senses and joined the "reality based" community of conventional realpolitik!

Now if only the Democratic party would come to its senses...