THE UNTOLD STORY

On the Huffington Post, Wayne Barrett points out the fact that Republicans engineered the move-up of the Florida and Michigan primaries, thus putting the Democrats in the quandary they are now in. He calls it "the untold story." It is not. I told it last year. Not that anyone noticed.

WAY TO BLOW IT?

If Sadr continues on his current path, Iraq moves back to the top of the campaign issue board, the surge is revealed for the fraud we suspected all along, and McCain and Hillary lose big.

Or is there a way for Obama to blow this?

MAKES SENSE

This from John Heilemann in New York magazine:

In the days after John Edwards’s withdrawal from the Democratic race, the political world expected his endorsement of Barack Obama would be forthcoming tout de suite. The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of “big change” they both deem essential. So appalled was Edwards at Clinton’s gaudy corporatism—her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries—that he’d essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. “Elizabeth hasn’t always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton” is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC’s circle says, “Elizabeth hates her guts.”

But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out—tempus fugit!—and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

New York is not to be trusted. But this makes sense.

On the other hand, it also makes sense that Obama might not have wanted to make Edwards' issue the centerpiece of his campaign because there did not seem to be much public interest in it. After all, Edwards lost badly. I don't know how anyone says that to Edwards without raising hackles. And if Obama doesn't agree with Edwards' insurance plan, it would have been disingenuous for him to have said anything else.

On the other other hand, Clinton would certainly have played Edwards, which is what it sounds like she did.

The bottom line is that, despite Edwards' apparent personal dislike of Obama, everything in the first paragraph above is still true. So I still maintain that by his silence Edwards has hurt no one but himself.

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THIS MAN?

From ABC News:

Clinton Praises "Moderate" McCain

March 27, 2008 7:30 PM

ABC's Z. Byron Wolf Reports: At a stop in rural Pennsylvania, over winding roads and through rolling hills in small Lewistown, PA, where people lined the streets to watch his motorcade approach, former President Bill Clinton had high praise for the man who has clinched the nomination for the other party.

Mr. Clinton said all three major candidates remaining in the race are talented and special people.

He did not go into detail on Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator still locked in political combat with Sen. Clinton's wife for the Democratic nomination. Their next battle takes place next month in Pennsylvania.

But McCain, who Mr. Clinton said is a "moderate", "has given about all you can give for this country without dyin' for it."

He said McCain was on the right side of issues like being against torture of enemy combatants and global warming, which "just about crosses the bridge for them (Republicans)."

The praise from Clinton comes as McCain, with the Republican nomination locked up and trying to rebrand his Maverick label, has tried to distance himself from President Bush, most notably on foreign policy. In a speech this week McCain talked about the need for more diplomacy.

But Clinton told the audience in the Lewistown High School auditorium - less partisan than his events in more populated areas if the man in the Huckabee shirt that Clinton pointed out is any indication - that the race should not be about the past, it is about who is going to do more for the country in the future. And that person, he said, is his wife Hillary.

ANATHEMA

If Sen. Leiberman (I-Israel) really believes Iran is as big a threat as he says it is, perhaps he shouldn't have insisted that we take out Iran's biggest enemy, whom we created and supported to serve exactly that purpose. And once we take out Iran, who will we have to take out next?

I'm amazed that Israel still believes it can create positive regime change in its neighbors through attacking them. They attacked Lebanon and got Hezbollah. They fought the Palestinians and got Hamas. I don't see how they can view either of these as positive developments. Now they're looking at a pro-Iranian government in Iraq, and the only reason we're still there is to figure out how to put in a Sunni government that will stick. Good luck, Israel, on that one, too.

Or maybe this is the way they want it to be. They have turned what was essentially a property squabble into religious war. Which probably makes things comfortable for Leiberman, since religious war is something he understands, and makes.

Let me be clear: I think the Arabs are at least as foolish as, or probably more foolish than, the Israelis. But that doesn't need to be said, because plenty of people are saying it. What I've said above needs to be said because it's anathema.

A NOTE OF DESPAIR

We used to think civilization was on a continuing and inevitable rise to human perfection. We know that is no longer true. Perfection requires two things: the wisdom to know the truth, and the soul to know what to do with it. We are as far from both now as we were in the Dark Ages, and moving farther from the truth and the soul every day. I see no hope in my lifetime, and I feel I have reached the age where without that hope there really is no good reason to live.

No, this is not a suicide note. But it is a note of despair.

EVERYTHING

Thanks to an anonymous commenter who directed me to this website which explains everything.

DOCTOR OBAMA

Here's what they're doing in my home state of Florida:

1) Passed a bill allowing people to keep guns in their cars.
2) Pushing a constitutional amendment to allow state tax funds to be sent to religious-based groups.
3) A company run by a masseuse (male) out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach has a $300 million contract with the US government to sell 40 year old decomposing Chinese ammunition to Afghans.
4) Charlie Crist supports reparations to descendants of slaves.

The insanity just never stops.

I would attribute the recent loss of population here to the realization that the people who run this state are fucking nuts (on top of being incredibly cynical) - I mean, look at the history: 2000, the 2008 primary, Katherine Harris. But they're all moving to Texas instead - which is far more fucking nuts.

It's a wonder to me that anyone cares about Barack Obama. Nobody really wants rational and moral government, do they? I'm sorry, but Doctor Obama is not going to be able to fix this sickness - it's going to drag him down like Jimmy Carter was. And you can't even go to a Tibetan monastery to permanently escape this nonsense. What's the next bet? Costa Rican rain forests? Just tell me and I'll go.

OR MAYBE

I wonder whether the Clintons, having been beaten about the head so long and so hard, and so unjustifiably, by the right wing, have developed a persecution complex, where they see any adversity as part of a plot to unseat them from their rightful places? I wonder whether, having survived the huge right-wing conspiracy, they are determined never to be thwarted again, and determined to do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn't happen.

I begin to see parallels to Holocaust survivors of the "never again" school, who determinedly squash any slight bud of effort or thought which challenges their security, as they see it, no matter what it costs and no matter who's paying. Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Abe Foxman and many others. Having paid a huge price and been allowed to live and prosper (although Feith, Wolfowitz and Foxman didn't personally pay the price - anymore than Dick Cheney personally pays the price for the Iraq war), they feel entitled to keep what they have - even, perhaps, as God-favored and supported as Bush thinks he is.

You can't blame these people for feeling the way they do. On the other hand, these are not the people you want in charge of things when reason and judgment are required. There are others beside themselves who will pay the price of their looking at world affairs as if they revolved around them alone.

Or maybe the Clintons were always like that.

FOR OR AGAINST ART

Tom Ashbrook and the New York Times were fooled by - and initially ecstatic over - a woman who wrote what she claimed was a memoir of a hard life in a rough part of Los Angeles, which turned out to be a complete fiction. Ashbrook was angry and embarrassed, and his panelists blamed the publisher for not fact-checking the work.

I wouldn't read the book - I don't care about hard lives in Los Angeles - but the woman obviously wrote a great novel. The real question here is why did she publish it as a memoir rather than as fiction - and the answer has to do with the American reading public. They love reading stories about people who rise above degredation (I'm not sure whether it's the degredation or the rising they love more.) And reality TV has conditioned them to want the story to be "real."

Why? Because they want to read about people who - except for the degredation - are like them. Or about people who began life above them and slid below them. Maybe it validates their own lives - in the same way that being in Oprah's audience does. Maybe it makes them feel better about themselves to read about someone who couldn't keep up. Or maybe they think the story of regeneration gives them hope against their own problems and failures.

The great publishing trend is memoirs by nobodies about nothing. For such a memoir to do well it must be well-written. So it says something awful about us that we prefer not to know about the talent behind what we read - maybe even prefer that there be no talent, just a "sincere" cry for help.

Which may be why we are seeing less and less "written" TV. There seems to be less and less demand for it.

I've written often about the increasing disconnect between the globalized wealthy and the average American. Maybe there is also a gap between those who appreciate talent and artistry and those who can't appreciate anything much better than they are. Unfortunately, while I know who's going to come out on top in the economic warfare, I don't know who's going to win the battle for or against art.

FIGURE IT OUT

Yesterday in a speech on credit crisis, Hillary Clinton called for the president to appoint an "Emergency Working Group on Foreclosures," led by "a distinguished non-partisan group of economic leaders like Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker."

Right there you have the key to what's wrong with Hillary. I leave it to you to figure it out.

BACK TO WELFARE

It has been obvious for quite a while that the so-called success of the surge was primarily due to two factors:

1) Paying off Sunnis not to kill us, and
2) Sadr's Shi'ite ceasefire.

Now the ceasefire threatens to unravel. You can bet Bush will blame that on Iran, and talk about striking Iran will heat up again.

The surge has only worked because Iraqis allowed it to.

Sometimes things are so simple that bright people insist on looking for more complex explanations of the truth. But of course, if they didn't do that, we wouldn't need them, would we. They wouldn't get paid for whatever it is they think they do. We'd have to go back to the welfare system for the semi- or overeducated.

NOT THAT BAD

Tony Blair has apparently transferred his allegiance from George Bush to John McCain. And he's in the Labour Party?

Sure. Blair is to Labour what Hillary is to Democrats - a capitalist in progressive's clothing. The fact that Blair is going to McCain and not Clinton is the best argument to nominate Clinton I can think of - i.e., she's not that bad.

PHRENOLOGY

This morning on the Today show I watched a doctor identify the brain segments which either encourage or repress the urge toward binge gambling - and I was reminded of nothing so much as phrenology, the science of studying bumps on the skull which "controlled" behavior patterns.

Now I know that, with MRIS, CT scans, etc., we have a better picture than ever of the electrical functioning of the brain. But when that knowledge is used by phony experts who are in the "cure" business - as well as the media business - I suspect what they say is about as true as phrenology was, and just a step away from the mindset that used to prescribe lobotomy as a way to change behavior.

What's wrong with binge gambling anyway? Somebody has to do it.

What's really going on here is the introduction of an excuse for binge gambling - again, as a disease - which allows the justification of the existence of casinos for "normal" gambling behavior. If you really believe that gambling can lead to binge gambling and ultimate dissolution, your moral (religious?) obligation is to ban it, isn't it? That's what they've done with marijuana, under the assumption or allegation that it leads to harder drugs.

But the gambling industry is politically connected - and a lot of it involves those pitiful native Americans. Once again, "morality" (or, as the secular priests call it, mental health) bows to capitalism. As between the two, I have no preference. But in this day and age, I'd like to see both of them eliminated - at least until we humans have found a way to live with them which isn't destructive of humanity.

You know, now that I think of it, I wonder if the marijuana industry isn't politically connected - because keeping it illegal keeps the price up and keeps the business in the hands of people who couldn't compete with an industry conglomerate like the tobacco people who would be in charge of the market if it was legalized. I wonder which politicians the drug lords are contributing to?

FOR LENT

Elliot Spitzer is going into therapy for sex addiction.

Sex addiction is what used to be called normal male behavior. In fact, for a while there - during the height of the counterculture, or during the height of the feminist wave - it was normal female behavior too, once the 50's concept of "nymphomania" was done away with.

In this supposedly heightened age of American religious belief, immoral behavior is quickly defined as disease. So, in this supposedly heightened age of "personal responsibility", you don't have to take responsibility for what you've done, and you can't fix it - you need an expert to do that. All that's expected of you is to apologize for having your disease, and then to put yourself into the hands of the appropriate expert. So, in this supposedly heightened age of American religious belief, the correction is taken out of the hands of the priest or rabbi and put into the hands of the secular "therapist." This keeps a whole raft of otherwise useless people employed. And it probably explains why the Catholic church can't find new priests.

On the other hand, immoral behavior finds no acceptability. It used to be reprehensible because it broke the moral code; now it's reprehensible because it's sick. There's is no ... verbal ... tolerance for immoral behavior any more.

On the third hand, studies still show everybody's doing it.

This is such a deep wash of hypocrisy it's almost impossible to find a way to swim out of it. If we really couldn't tolerate immoral behavior, we wouldn't have any TV shows, we wouldn't have any literature, and nobody would care about Britney Spears. It seems to me that the pattern of forgiveness and therapy for immoral behavior is a way of keeping it around despite our expressed beliefs.

In Spitzer's case, you have to wonder whether he really believes all this "illness" crap, or he's adding a new layer of hypocrisy to "get by." I rather think it's the latter, because Spitzer's a smart guy, and no smart guy is going to give up available sex for Lent or otherwise.

SURE AS YOU'RE BORN

I have watched at least some of the tapes of Jeremiah Wright on YouTube. I have not heard a word I don't agree with. I have heard no "hate speech." I have heard no anti-American statements, unless you believe that white racists and the rich are America. I have heard only honest expressions of widespread and long-standing black feelings, a lot of which are not only representative of what they think but true in themselves.

But this has killed Obama, as sure as you're born. He cannot survive this. And since this has been lurking since he was 27, you could say Obama was dead on arrival.

Another catastrophe fueled by religion. How sad.

DATE REPUBLIC

In a recent article in the New York Times dealing with the diversion of Iraqi oil money to the black market and to insurgents, the writer says: "Money, far more than jihadist ideology, is a crucial motivation for a majority of Sunni insurgents ..." Quoting an unnamed senior American military officer, "It has a great deal more to do with the economy than with ideology ... The vast majority have nothing to do with the caliphate and the central ideology of al Qaeda."

This - simply a restatement of basic human nature - puts the lie to the "clash of civilizations" arguments that Bush, and now McCain, make. Although there are certainly some religious fanatics in the Iraqi opposition, most of those opponents are no different - except in the scale of their thievery - from the sons of bitches who have trashed America's economy. In fact, now that I think of it, rather than Middle Easterners moving toward the American conception of democracy, it looks to me like Americans are moving toward their conception - any lies and slick maneuvers are acceptable in business, and in politics.

So America becomes a banana republic - okay, let's make it a date republic - under the rule of an unprincipled oligarchy whose sole reason for being is self-enrichment. It's so obvious. Why do so few people care?

GOOD JOB

A new poll reveals that 4 in 10 college students feel stressed often, and 1 in 5 feel it all or most of the time. They're having trouble concentrating, sleeping and finding motivation. They're too agitated and worried to work. They feel lonely, depressed, like failures. Many of them are afraid they won't have enough money, or good enough bodies, for spring break. 1 in 10 has seriously considered suicide. 7 in 10 say the stress comes from schoolwork and grades, then financial problems, then dating, family problems and extra-curricular activities.

Can you say "overprotected?" Can you say "feeling entitled for no reason?" What did Paul Simon say? "Never had to scuffle in fear, nothing denied to"? Good job, parents, preparing your kids for the real world. The dot-com bubble burst, the housing bubble burst, the finance bubble is bursting, and now the "perfect kid" bubble is showing signs of leaks. You've built a Ponzi scheme of protection around your kid. Now he or she is finding out it ain't like that. AND HE OR SHE DOESN'T LIKE IT!

How incredibly bubble-headed we all are. And how lucky that reality has not darkened our doors, despite its lurking just outside like the Big Bad Wolf, for so very long now that we're convinced nothing bad will ever happen. At least, to us. You better hurry up and die if you want to maintain the illusion. The big karma jellyroll is on the move.

ENRON AND TIJUANA

The FAA is now demanding that airlines show them proof they've done the inspections that the law requires them to do.

Geez - isn't that what they were supposed to be doing all along?

Not according to them. FAA associate administrator for safety Nicholas Sabatini says the FAA is trusting the airlines a lot these days, because that focuses on improving safety instead of finding blame. Yeah, like the improved safety at Southwest - a Texas based airline, by the way.

I demand that all Republicans be drafted immediately, so they can actually do something helpful for a change. And I demand that Texas be sold to Mexico. They have a common heritage in creative corruption. Enron, anyone? And Tijuana?

ENTIRELY

If the Fed's cutting interest rates will improve the economy, why, after six months of cuts, is credit so tight and the economy in ever worse shape?

Possibly because the banks have passed on the interest cuts to what they pay for using our money, not what we pay for using theirs? Possibly because there's no interest in extending credit to us, only interest in someone extending credit to them? Possibly because, at the moment, they're not interested in making money until they can stop losing it?

And, by the way, why have we not heard from the Bible-thumpers a condemnation of usury?

This nation is entirely corrupt.

MEANINGLESS

The Boston Globe now reports that 100,000 Republicans in Ohio and 119,000 in Texas voted for Hillary Clinton - not because they like her, but to beat Obama, who they think has a much better shot against McCain, or to screw up the Democrats generally. Conservative talk radio pushed them to do it, and they had no reason not to, since McCain was a shoo-in for the Republican nomination.

According to the Globe, before Texas and Ohio more Republicans were voting for Obama, because they actually liked him. But after McCain's victory, and what appeared to be an unstoppable Obama campaign, Rush Limbaugh and others urged conservatives to cross over and vote for Clinton. And it worked. In Mississippi, 12% of Republicans voted in the Democratic primary - more than in any other prior state - and went for Clinton 3-1.

WHY IS THIS THE FIRST I AM HEARING ABOUT THIS?

WHAT WAS HILLARY'S VOTE MARGIN IN TEXAS AND OHIO?

Does this not render the Texas and Ohio votes meaningless?

WHAT OBAMA HAS TO SAY

I have said for years that Alan Greenspan is the moral equivalent of a war criminal - a traitor, in fact, to what used to be the essence of America. But the causes of the current problems go far deeper than that.

America has allowed financial manipulation (along with healthcare) to become its major industry. As it did so, it handed the power over to these manipulators. These people are not model citizens in the Platonic sense of the term; they are out for their own benefit and do not give two shits about the health of America, except as it impacts their options and parachutes (which have become more and more insulated from the general national health, particularly as the industry has grown so big that it must be bailed out by the taxpayer from its own nefarious schemes in order that the whole nation does not go down.)

Such people have taken control of the government, and have stripped it down so that there is no longer any regulation or public oversight directed toward what used to be the common good.

And Americans have not only gone along with this, but celebrated it, having been propagandized into believing it was good for everyone.

The issue for me now is not whether or how to bail out these bastards, but how to take the government away from them.

That requires that the public finally understand what has been done to them, and where their interests lie. Some parts of the public are finally getting the picture - but I suspect the entire situation is far too complex for the majority of Americans to get a grasp on it.

So we need a leader who can sell the message, and then follow through with what must be done.

That leader is not Hillary Clinton, whose administration (since she seems to want to take credit for everything her husband did) went a long way toward facilitating the Greenspans of this world. And who, I suspect, since the end of Bill's presidency, has made a hell of a lot of money in cahoots with these people - which is why her tax returns are so slow to come out.

Nor is it McCain, for the simple reason that he's a Republican, and furthermore admits that he doesn't understand what's been done to us any better than the average American.

That leaves one possible option. So I want to hear what Obama has to say about this.

Oh - and I do want vengeance, against all of them. Since their ilk believe that prison - or execution - is salutory punishment for "common criminals" (meaning "common people," as they think of it), I'd like to see them imprisoned, or executed. Hell, if these sentences really do deter nefarious behavior, why not try them on the most nefarious of all?

MAYBE OPRAH?

What's happening to Obama now was inevitable. If Wright had not been caught in a diatribe now, there are no doubt plenty of past diatribes which would have been - or will be - used against Obama, either by Hillary or McCain. That is the price you pay as a politician if you insist on leading a personal life without observing the boundaries of politics. And it's particularly a price you pay if you happen to be black - because, to reverse Ferraro, if McCain's or Clinton's pastors had said "God damn America," I don't believe we'd be hearing quite as much about it.

So I think it was wise of Obama to face it directly and honestly. It will probably still destroy him - but better now than in the general. Now we're going to find out whether it is possible for a black man to be elected president - because if it ain't Obama, it won't be any black.

Except maybe Oprah. I wonder about that.

OK

I saw Renee Fleming sing. She reminded me of American Idol.

Here's what I mean:

Past the initial screening stages, many American Idol contestants show great technical command of their voices. But they sound like interchangeable parts. There's nothing unique about them. They don't raise the hair on the nape of the neck. They are meaningless.

Much of America - including those sophisticated New Yorkers who put Fleming at the top of the game - no longer seem able to distinguish between technique and soul. And I'm not just talking about singing.

I'm too old to waste time with things that do not teach me, or excite me, or reach deep into me. Fleming was OK. That's about it.

HOPE I'M WRONG

Obama's speech was one of the most spectacular moments of political honesty I have ever seen. And I believe he had to say what he said. It's entirely consistent with the thrust of his campaign. Now we're going to find out whether America can handle it. Personally, I have my doubts. Americans are far more comfortable with political bullshit than they are with intellectual highmindedness. I don't think the speech is going to help. But God, I hope I'm wrong.

DEVIOUS

So Hillary attacked Obama for saying he'd hit targets in Pakistan. And it turns out that's the only thing Bush is doing which makes any sense. Next she'll say Obama is just another Bush.

So Hillary says Obama is pressing for the release of her tax returns because he's lost the momentum. Meantime she doesn't release her tax returns.

Haven't we had enough deviousness in the last eight years?

GOOD?

Since 1999, the percentage of women in the work force has dropped.

If the wife stays home, family income drops.

If most of these women are not married to hedge fund managers ... maybe we're seeing the first inkling of a societal shift from total focus on money.

That might be very good for Democrats.

HEADLINES

Headline in the local paper:

"Man kills wife, then himself."

If the headline had read "Man kills himself, then wife" I would have read the story.

HOLDING MY NOSE

Still puzzled by Edwards' silence.

Is it possible that he is angling for the VP spot on both tickets? If he is, he's lost his mind.

Hillary comes with a built-in veep. Why anyone with any sense would want to subject himself to four years of torture as her VP is completely beyond me.

On the other hand, if she's promised him the chairmanship of the Fed, I'd probably hold my nose and vote for her.

THE KEY

The key to understanding what a McCain presidency might look like is in whose advice he is listening to. Perhaps the press, rather than giving McCain a bye until the Democrats sort themselves out, might want to begin to give us this information now?

DUBAI

There is a movie called "Leading To War" available for download at the Huffington Post. Consisting entirely of statements by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Fleischer and Myers, it lays out in their own words one of the bases for impeachment. Knowing what we now know - in fact, knowing what we knew then - it is an inescapable conclusion that they conducted an orchestrated campaign of lies to enlist the support of the public.

The Democratic leadership has not wanted impeachment proceedings. They have been afraid that that process, and a backlash against it such as developed when Bill Clinton was impeached, will lessen the prospects of electing a Democratic president.

Since, however, the thrust of a campaign against McCain will be that he will conduct, in essence, a third Bush term, all of the accusations, allegations etc. are going to be out there (albeit not in the forum of high-level Congressional hearings which could give them some institutional strength.) How will the Democrats apologize to us if the failure to push for impeachment ends up giving us McCain and more of the same?

My personal feeling is I do not want George Bush and the rest of them free to walk American streets. I would settle for revocation of citizenship and exile. They could all go to Dubai and work for Halliburton.

BUT HE DIDN'T

Polls consistently showed that John Edwards was more electable against any Republican than either Obama or Clinton. Yet Democrats rejected him. Polls now show Obama more electable than Clinton - yet the same polls also show Clinton favored by a majority of Democratic voters.

It was once believed that what most pushed Democrats was their intense desire not to have another four years of Republican rule. That ain't it anymore, though. Now Democrats either want to make a point or pick a candidate they are personally comfortable with. It's the Democratic equivalent of voters picking Bush because they would have liked to have a beer with him. The problem is the country doesn't particularly want to have a beer with any Democrat. The country wants a good president. If the Democrats give them someone they don't think would make a good president, they'll go for McCain.

Republicans have understood this. They have held their noses and picked McCain because he's the most likely to win. Democrats always cut their own throats. They may be doing it again.

And will Democrats come together behind Hillary? Sure, says the pundit wisdom. Look at '68. Despite all the hard feelings, Humphrey almost won. Yeah, I note. But he didn't. And we got eight years of Nixon.

A parenthetical point - contrary to what Geraldine Ferraro said - and what the pundits seem to be saying - most voters are not supporting Obama because he's black. They're supporting him because of what he says and the kind of person he is. They are not using this election to put race behind us - because this election is doing anything but.

And where is the Obama staffer willing to lose his or her job and say outright that if Hillary wasn't Bill's wife, she wouldn't be where she is - and if she weren't a woman, she wouldn't have half the support she has. Come on, for Christ's sake. This Ferraro stuff is directly Rovian, in the sense that Republicans always attack the other side for doing what they themselves do.

JUNK?

David Sarno, a writer for the L.A. Times, says YouTube is a pile of useless junk. This is the same attitude with which some columnists initially greeted the internet.

Sure there's a lot of junk on YouTube. But people with important messages are using it now. The "macaca" incident was one indication of the uses to which YouTube might be put. As editor of the local event guide "Palm Beach Premium," I've discovered that every dance company, musician, sports event etc. has put content out on YouTube, and using YouTube clips I can provide people looking for cultural things to go to with a better sense of what an act or event is like than they could ever get from reading someone's review (something the L.A. Times has yet to figure out). And I'm sure we've just scratched the surface of what can be done with video postings.

Maybe the writer's problem is that his head is full of junk, so that's what he went looking for. And didn't like what he found.

HOW FAR?

Gordon Brown wants Brits to Pledge Allegiance to their country. He wants a national holiday like July 4th. He wants Brits to be more schematically patriotic - you know, where you must put your hand on your heart for the Pledge ... He wants to entrench the notion of Britishness, his spokesman said.

Not flying.

A Labor member of Parliament said: "It's another foolish attempt to ape an American practice that is generally mocked. This is part of a fascination with America. But the adoration of the national flag in America strikes us as a bit eccentric and foolish."

Now we'll see how much further down the road to infantalism our erstwhile ally chooses to go.

JERKS

Why do so many staffers for presidential candidates think they have a license to shoot off their mouths without giving anyone the chance to tell them that what they want to say is stupid and destructive?

Could it be they're .... SELF IMPORTANT?

If I were Barack Obama, I would immediately announce that any associated jerk who says something he doesn't want said will be turned over to John McCain for waterboarding.

INFANTS

In 2004 Democrats created a commission to study primary scheduling and its recommendation was that no primary be conducted before the first Tuesday in February other than those traditionally earlier - Iowa and New Hampshire. Two years later the party enacted rules along these lines and warned of sanctions on states which violated the rules.

Then Florida Republican legislatures passed a law moving the date of the Florida primary into conflict with the Democratic rules. Tell me this was not intentional.

The DNC then offered to pay the entire cost of a mail vote or caucus system. But Florida Democrats insisted that their primary be moved up. The legislature moved both primaries to January 29. Did Florida Democrats oppose this vote? Mo.

Why? Because they wanted Florida to have more "influence." Now these same idiots are saying that if the DNC does not seat the Florida delegates they won't back the nominee. They even sued Howard Dean. The court threw out the case.

I said in a post a short while ago that we are a nation of children. If Florida is any indication, we are a nation of infants.

YOUR FAULT

Robert Scheer, in a column pointing out that our war criminals are still standing while Spitzer goes down:

I wouldn't have written this column had I not read the Wall Street Journal's Page 1 news story headlined "Wall Street Cheers as Its Nemesis Plunges Into Crisis." The article begins with the crowing statement "It's Schadenfreude time on Wall Street" and goes on to quote those whom Spitzer went after over what should be considered the criminal greed that has predominated on Wall Street. It was Spitzer, as much as anyone, who sounded the alarm on the subprime mortgage crisis, the obscene payouts to CEOs who defrauded their shareholders and the other financial scandals that have brought the U.S. economy to its knees.

The best rule of thumb these days is that ordinary Americans should be mightily depressed over any news that Wall Street hustlers cheer, for they have been exposed as a dangerous pack of scoundrels quite willing to rob decent, hardworking people of their homes. And of course no one on Wall Street ever paid for sex.

See, John Edwards? This is your fault.

GOD BLESS MCLATCHEY

Ever speaking truth to power.

DISAPPEARANCE

Haven't heard from John Edwards lately, or his message. What do you think Obama and Clinton said to him when they met with him? I think they said: You lost. Now get your fucking message out of my face.

And so we lose the most important issue of this campaign. Just as I praised Edwards for raising it, I blame him for its disappearance. He took up a lot of our time. He owes it to us to finish what he started.

CHILDREN

George Bush lies us into a $3 trillion war. Consequences? None.

Elliott Spitzer pays a hooker. Consequences? He's gone.

We are a nation of children.

ROCK AND A HARD PLACE?

Commentators are saying Obama is between a rock and a hard place: if he responds to Hillary's criticism he blows the essence of his campaign, and if he doesn't she kicks his ass. I hope this is not what the Obama campaign thinks - because there's a very easy way to deal with it.

Take the Ken Starr comment:

Obama could say, firmly but without any heat or anger, that Ken Starr was despicable, that he wanted financial information on the Clinton's for the purpose of finding something to destroy them with. But to question why Hillary won't release her tax returns when she's campaigning for the presidency is something entirely different. Americans have a right to know a candidate's source of wealth. Candidates have been releasing their tax returns routinely. What gives Hillary the right to an exemption? She says it's because of her experience - meaning, in this instance, her experience with Ken Starr. That just doesn't wash - nor do any of her claims of experience.

Clinton has been claiming unfair treatment by the press. Yet the media has made no effort whatsoever to delve into Clinton's finances and the reasons why she doesn't want her tax returns seen, nor into her claims of experience, which have never been defined.

This is where Obama has to go right now.

Also, it seems to me idiotic for Clinton to raise the 3 a.m. issue, since McCain is going to destroy her on national security. She says she and McCain are ready. All McCain has to say is: I am, you're not. Sure as hell Republicans are going to attack her "experience" claims. Why shouldn't Obama - before it's too late for Democrats?

HEH-HEH

Paul Abrams makes the point that if Hillary is willing to put Obama on her ticket, she is implying that he is ready to be president.

This ignores the subtle "heh-heh" in Hillary's statement. I.e., I wouldn't really do that ...

But perhaps Obama should point this out. Then let her say she'd obviously live out an eight year term ... or what's important is the ticket, not the presidency ...

THREE QUICK OBSERVATIONS

Charlie Crist wants the Democrats to endorse the Florida vote that Hillary "won." Considering his recent heavy contact with McCain, that should tell you who the Republicans want to run against.

It's so odd - McCain and Obama are so soft-spoken and relatively self-effacing, and Hillary is loud and brash and assertive and "confident." Talk about gender reversal. She is, in fact, everything her husband was not. I wonder why nobody sees that - or cares about it.

The Clinton campaign is money wanting to hold on to power. All decisions are to be made at the top and sold to the people. The Obama campaign at least presents itself as bottom up. It's "we will do" against "I will do." Which only seems to resonate with the young. Which confirms my impression that as we age, "we" turns to "I." That's one of the saddest metamorphoses I can think of.

MONSTER

If I were Samantha Power, here's what I would have said:

"I'm resigning my post because Obama does not agree with me, and I don't want to be responsible for any damage to him when in fact my beliefs are not his. Having said that, I want to say, specifically for myself, that Hillary is a monster ..." and then tell us why.

DISGUSTING

After Hillary Clinton stated she agreed with Howard Wolfson's statement that Obama was behaving like Ken Starr, I can announce to anyone who cares that I find her disgusting and that I will not vote for her if she wins the Democratic nomination.

There is a rage building up in me against her tactics. I suspect it's shared by many Obamaites. I also believe there is a similar rage which has built up in Hillaryites. This does not bode well either for Democratic prospects in November or for the nation thereafter.

I do think there is a difference between these counterrages. I think Hillary's is a very Republican determination to win at all costs. I think Obama's is outrage at seeing someone who is supposed to be on your side display the character Republicans have shown since 1994. We don't want any more of that - and so, regrettably, if she wins I will have to look carefully at McCain, with the proviso that if he does the same I'm going to stay home on election day.

HUNKA BURNIN' BULLSHIT

Hillary's touting the "dream ticket" - Clinton/Obama - again, which, as Elvis might have put it, is a hunka hunka burnin' bullshit.

People who support Obama and know why they're doing it are not going to accept their guy's taking a subservient position to a politician whose methods and intentions are the diametric opposite of Obama's. However, it is a good tactical move - it may sway some of those Democrats who like Obama but really don't know why.

It would be wise for Obama to make a similar (equally specious) counteroffer. At least then the "dream team" wouldn't be Hillary's issue.

By the way, SNL has now for the third week in a row opened with a pro-Hillary skit. What is going on there? They've just lost me forever.

ON THE OTHER HAND

In "Terror Dreams," Susan Faludi's focus is on the fact that, creating a myth that manly men were needed to fight terrorists and protect their women, America willingly reversed years of feminist effort. After reading her evidence, I don't doubt that's true, and it's a point worth making.

But the sub-title of her book - "Fear and Fantasy in Post 9/11 America" - called for a much wider scope of examination of the myths which have been perpetrated, the fears that have been created and the advantage that has been taken of both of them. So far, she isn't doing that.

On the other hand, if the subtitle were "Anti-Feminism in Post 9/11 America," I probably wouldn't have bought the book.

But I will say this for her: her descriptions of media and politician behavior which was incredibly insipid (if innocent) or outrageously disgusting (if not) are enough to curdle any hopes you may have for human nature. If this is what people are, do you really want to be one of them?

NOW WE KNOW

So for a while there everyone was wondering what the telecoms did that made Bush so insistent on legislating retroactive immunity for them. Now we know.

According to the AP, the FBI not only admitted at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that as late as 2006 they improperly accessed American's telephone, internet and credit records, but also that banks, telecoms and other businesses gave the FBI more data than they asked for. And it could be further assumed that, since these businesses had lawyers, they either knew or should have known that the requests themselves were illegal.

And we're hearing about a new trend toward corporate responsibility? That's about as real as corporate green campaigns. It was a theoretical given that corporations have no souls. Now it appears the same goes for a lot of their management.

THE MECHANISMS

The flap over the conversations Obama's financial adviser had with Canadians about NAFTA illustrates one very dangerous thing:

If you run your campaign on magic, the slightest little public view of the mechanisms behind the tricks can deflate you so fast your head spins. Clinton's on top of this one, and there's some noise that her position is improving because of it in Texas and Ohio.

Even if this one comes to nothing, for Obama to keep the skein running he simply cannot afford to make ONE mistake. That's an almost impossible burden. He isn't going to meet it. And then we'll really see what the guy is made of.

SIGN UP HERE

Despite the fact that the New York Times says Jews have concerns about Obama vis a vis Israel, Obama won the Jewish vote in Connecticut and Massachusetts and split it in California, losing only New York to Hillary of the states which are believed to have the highest concentrations of Jews (sure, that's where the smart people are.) A November poll by the American Jewish Committee found only 6% of respondents identifying Israel as the most important campaign issue.

So why is it that Jews do not protest the right-wing positions taken in Washington and elsewhere by the organizations alleging to represent them?

I think can think of a few reasons. New York seems to be the focus of right-wing Jewish opinion; it's predominant in wealthier circles; and that's where the organizations are. So an average Jew in Massachusetts does not have much to say about what AIPAC does or doesn't do.

Another reason is that, probably, most Jews don't think they're represented by anybody, are not aware organizations are claiming to represent them and have no idea of the positions these organizations take.

There needs to be at least one point of concentration of moderate or left wing Jewish opinion. If nobody else is going to do it, you can sign up here.

SHUDDER

When the real campaign gins up, Republicans are going to be claiming that George Bush has prevented al Qaeda from striking again in America. The correct answer should be: why would they bother to?

For an investment of $500,000, al Qaeda has cost the US $3 trillion, most of its international prestige, its sense of security and confidence and an increasing number of its freedoms. All of these loss processes are continuing to mount up day by day - and growing wider as the corporate rape of the American economy which used 9/11 as its cover begins to implode on everyone.

What else could al Qaeda do to us now?

Jesus, I shudder to think.

TREASON

Wonder if the idea behind the Fed's inflating the housing bubble by taking interest rates down so low was to fool the American public into thinking they were participating in the benefits of the Bush tax cuts and corporate deregulation?

When do we try Greenspan for treason?

BRITNEYLAND

There has been so much talk about NAFTA lately, on the Democratic side, and I find that very peculiar. After all, it's not as if all the stuff you're buying at Walmart is made in Mexico or Canada.

NAFTA is really pretty much of a nothing. America is losing jobs because corporations are making their products wherever it's cheaper to do so. In some cases, it's cheaper in so-called free trade zones. In some cases, it's cheaper because populations will work for less without any tax incentive to contractors.

All of the talk about NAFTA is misplaced. Blame needs to be put where it belongs - on the dominant corporate culture in America. Sorry, folks, but you can't buy "American" goods cheap and still have a manufacturing plant - that is, until American wages fall below Chinese. (From what I hear China's wages are already starting to get too high, and the corps are moving production to Indonesia, etc. Next thing you know they'll be making stuff in Darfur. Believe me, that's the direction things are going to go.)

John Edwards might have awakened America about this. The fact that he isn't running is the only thing that makes NAFTA relevant. Because it's a Clinton law and a Clinton policy - and you can't tell me that Bill and Hillary were so buffaloed that they didn't realize this was just another step toward unleashing corporate dominance of America. And we're not so sure how Obama really feels about it, either.

This is the big issue of this campaign - except it's not even going to be mentioned except as a tease. On Bill Moyers, Nell Painter was reminding us that the only reason America's middle class ever had a chance was the rise of the populists in the Gilded Age. It amazes me that Americans are so ignorant that they don't realize 1)that what's happening to them now has happened before, and 2) that they can do something about it.

Oh, what am I talking about? This is BritneyLand.

JUST ANOTHER BIT OF CORPORATE ECOLOGY HYPE

In The Know: How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly?

It's a joke, but it isn't. It's almost true.

STARVED

I was watching Dick Gregory on Crooks & Liars at the State of Black Union meeting in New Orleans on C-Span, and it hit me: this is what Obama's got. It's all from the church.

It's the same rhythm and the same emotion that took over American music because whites simply could not compete. To carry the allusion further: when blacks lost their leaders, their music went into the toilet, too. Oh, sure, there was disco, and oh sure there are a lot of great black singers out there, but they've lost the theme - they're not saying anything, and they're certainly not singing anything. Rap music to me is the direct result of the destruction of effective black leadership, and effective positive black community. Blacks decided to take the white route to success - not a foolish decision, since it has worked for a lot of them - but the corollary is that they have faced away from their own race. And rap music has shown utter contempt for its race - for its women, certainly, and for its men, whom they continued to seduce with the prison route. Rap music is corporate capitalism - out for itself alone. But the biggest sin they've committed is - they got no soul, they got no joy, and they don't cook.

Obama's the new black music. He's Aretha Franklin. He's Miles Davis. He's putting the song back out there, and we're all starved for it. And unfortunately Hillary's one of those white girls who just can't shake their booties. You've seen her on a thousand bar mitzvah dance floors.

CLUE ME IN

Again tonight I was struck by what's happening at PBS when Jim Lehrer's program identified its sponsors as Pacific Life, Chevron and AT&T. Let's see - that's an insurance company, an oil company and a telecom company implicated in warrantless phone tapping. On NPR, Tom Ashbrook is sponsored by Liberty Mutual. What in the name of Jesus is up over there? Have all the good guys run out of money?

It's hard to believe these corporate targets of the Democratic campaign hope to sway a liberal audience by paying for their pabulum. So what does it mean? Can we expect to see a 180 degree shift in PBS coverage?

Nothin' happens for nothin'. Clue me in.

ARMAGGEDON BY DESIGN?

Al-Qaeda has infiltrated Gaza with help of Hamas, says Abbas

James Hider in Jerusalem - from TimesOnLine

Al-Qaeda militants have infiltrated the Palestinian territories with help from Hamas, according to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President.

The charges are the most serious yet in the war of words between Mr Abbas, who controls the West Bank, and Hamas, whose Islamist guerrillas expelled his Fatah-dominated security force from the Gaza Strip last summer.

“Al-Qaeda is present in Gaza and I’m convinced that they [Hamas] are their allies,” said Mr Abbas in an interview with al-Hayat, a London-based Arabic newspaper. “I can say without doubt that al-Qaeda is present in the Palestinian territories and that this presence, especially in Gaza, is facilitated by Hamas.”

Israel has long accused al-Qaeda of infiltrating the Palestinian territories. The Israeli army’s intelligence chief said this week that more al-Qaeda members had entered the Gaza Strip after Hamas blew up the wall on the Egyptian border in January.

Mr Abbas’s comments were the first time that such a senior Palestinian statesman has added his weight to the charges.

The accusation came as Hamas fired rockets into a southern Israeli college campus yesterday, killing an Israeli man. Israeli forces carried out a series of strikes in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, killing at least seven suspected militants, including several Hamas senior commanders. Last night Israeli jets struck the offices of Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas Prime Minister, and the nearby premises of his interior ministry. He was not there at the time.

Hamas, a nationalist Islamist organisation whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, has been at pains to distance itself publicly from the fanatical al-Qaeda. “There is no truth in these allegations,” said Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman, in turn accusing Mr Abbas — regarded as an Israeli stooge for his faltering peace negotiations with Jerusalem — of “seeking to mobilise international opinion against Hamas”.

Last year a group calling itself the Army of Islam kidnapped Alan Johnston, a BBC reporter, in Gaza and held him for more than three months while claiming to have links to Osama bin Laden’s organisation. The kidnapping took place before Hamas seized control in June, and the Islamist organisation — which had previously conducted anti-Israeli operations with the Army of Islam — forced it to release Johnston.

Hamas said that the Army of Islam had been financed by Muhammad Dahlan, the hated Fatah security chief in Gaza, who is close to Mr Abbas.

In January, another group calling itself the Army of Believers, Al-Qaeda in Palestine Organisation, ransacked the private American International School. A Christian bookseller was also recently murdered in Gaza, while a gunman shot up a YMCA centre. Western journalists have been alerted to possible kidnap threats.

Some independent analysts believe that al-Qaeda — losing ground in Iraq as local Sunni insurgents reject its ultra-violent tactics — may be seeking to establish itself in new areas. Osama bin Laden said that he was focusing on the protracted Israel-Palestinian conflict in comments disseminated on a jihadist website in December. “We will not recognise a state for the Jews, not even one inch of the land of Palestine. Blood calls for more blood and demolishing calls for further demolishing,” bin Laden said.

The man believed to be the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, this month described Israel as an “evil germ that has infected the body of the Umma [Islamic motherland] and must be extracted”.

I said several years ago that if the Palestinian intifada ever turned from being an economic and territorial war into a holy war, all hell would break loose. I do not doubt that al Qaeda is in Gaza. But it's almost as if the US and Israel wanted them there, since everything done by both nations in recent years seems to have been intended to provoke the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Are we all just stupid, or is there a plan behind it? Are we heading for Armageddon by design?