August 2008 Archives

Republican presidential contender John McCain is if anything a good listener. The instant he heard the loud squeals from Republican pro-life hawks that his campaign would be DOA if he dared tried to shove former Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge or maverick Senator Joe Lieberman on the ticket, he back pedaled fast. Both are moderates on abortion. And that made them anathema to the hawks.

We'll never know whether McCain's brief float of their names as GOP VP possibilities was a trial balloon, a deft feint, or just loose talk. But it did set things up nicely for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Despite much talk from McCain's camp and the pro and con pundit chatter touting her as being fresh, young, a reformer, anti-GOP establishment and an ingenious pick, or slamming her as a political school girl novice, and a disastrous pick, the fact is Palin's on the ticket to assuage the pro-life hawks. But more importantly to fire up the millions of men and women voters who demand that a GOP presidential candidate firmly oppose abortion. That's the price for their vote.

The polls that show that the abortion issue languishes on the far back burner in the 2008 election badly miss this. Several major polls since 2003 have shown that while the abortion question at times has slid lower on the public's issues radar scope, it never slipped entirely off it. Americans have been almost evenly divided between those who call themselves pro-choice and pro-life. In the five presidential elections between 1984 and 2000 the majority of voters who said that abortion was a major issue for them backed the GOP candidate. Pro-life leaning voters were more likely to dash to the polls to back the GOP candidate.

A Gallup Poll Values and Belief survey in May measured the effect of pro and anti-abortion sentiment on the presidential race. It found that the pro life voter edge translated out to about a 2 to 3 percent bump up for the GOP presidential candidate.

In a runaway election for either the Democratic or GOP presidential candidate that percent wouldn't mean much. In a tight down to the wire election that percentage jump could be huge. The 2008 election appears to be just that; a squeaker win for either Obama or McCain. The Gallup Values survey also found one other thing that Team McCain almost certainly picked up on and that's even when voters say abortion is only a minor concern, or one of many issues, that changes as Election Day gets nearer. It found a measurable jump in those who suddenly said that they do care where a candidate stands on abortion. The big majority of those for whom it matters label themselves pro-life.

Palin is a made-in-heaven choice to rev them up. Even amidst the heavy pot shots and ridicule at her non existent foreign policy and national security resume, the GOP cash tills have started to ring loudly. The Republican National Committee gleefully said that millions poured in within hours after McCain picked Palin.

The dilemma for Democrat's is how to defuse the pro-life hot box. The obvious counter is to fire up pro choice advocates. They also number in the millions, and an aroused, impassioned plea to them and their march to the polls potentially could give Obama the bump up he needs from the pro choice side. NARAL-Pro Choice America and NOW wasted no time in lambasting McCain and Palin. They called his picking her a cynical ploy and smoking gun proof that he's a rigid extremist on abortion. The big question though is will the blasts do more to fire up pro choice or pro life men and women voters?

A too bare fisted, down and dirty hit against her for her hard nosed pro-life stance could backfire in another way. Many might see this as tantamount to witness badgering. In criminal court trials, DA's and defense attorneys always tread carefully with a witness who is a middle-class or working class mother. Beating up on them could stir juror sympathy for them and cost them a case. Palin is not only a tough politician but to some the epitome of the struggling American mother. Millions of struggling working class mothers could identify with her no matter what their views on abortion.

The pro-choice groups, though, had no choice but to quickly go on the attack. Palin has drawn a harder line on the abortion issue than any other presidential ticket candidate in the past two decades and that includes W. Bush. He showed a slight tinge of flexibility by at least saying that he opposed abortion except in instances of rape and incest and when a mother's life is in danger. Palin opposes abortion even on those grounds.

It matters little where one stands on abortion or Palin. Plopping her on the GOP presidential ticket assured that abortion won't stay on the backburner much longer this election.

No one who enters political life is ever ready for what happens. No one can imagine the prying, the distortions, the lies. Even in local politics--from small district school boards to city councils, the world plays rough with our families and our lives.

When you enter into political life at the national level--and as a relative neophyte, as Sarah Palin did--you cannot, literally cannot, imagine what is going to happen to you. There is no conceivable knowledgeable waiver or informed consent you can give.

What is about to happen to Sarah Palin and her daughter is terrible, and while I have no political common cause with her and it is easy to say that she should have known better, she couldn't have. Without judging her, this is part of what keeps good people from running for office.

One of the best places to watch the emerging political spin is in the comments sections of some of the major right-wing and left-wing blogs.

It was on those blogs that liberals swiftly rose up to mock the inexperience of Gov. Palin. As the volunteer shock troops of the GOP, conservative loyalists howled at the hypocrisy involved in Obama fans criticizing someone else's inexperience.

There were inconsistencies on both sides. If Obama fans believe that judgment and character outweigh decades of Washington experience, then they can't rip Palin for her political callowness. Yet conservatives need to acknowledge that Obama fans are hissy about the experience issue precisely because conservatives have made such a, um, federal case out of it.

The GOP loyalists counter that an inexperienced Palin is "merely" the bottom of her party's ticket, whereas an inexperienced Obama is at the top of his. That's a bit disingenuous. We all know the bottom of the ticket is supposed to be as poised for presidential service as the top. Thus, conservatives now need to back away from the experience issue, having lost credibility there, and focus on proving that their ticket offers a better blend of values, character and decision-making.

McCain seems to be acting on a hunch, but his choice seems gimmicky. Further, he has taken a risk by choosing a candidate who has not yet had a public baptism by media fire. Joe Biden had that baptism 20 years ago, and surmounted it. Palin? We'll see.

Again, having argued recently that veep picks don't affect the typical presidential race, I'm now curious to see if I'm wrong.

Team Obama wasted no time in jumping all over Alaska governor Sarah Palin as they brusquely put it she has zero experience in statecraft. The obvious point is that this automatically flushes down the drain Republican rival John McCain's prime hit point against Democratic nominee Barack Obama and that he's simply too much of a greenhorn on foreign policy and national security to trust White House command too.
This may or may not work. Palin certainly has no discernable experience in dealing with Iran's potential nukes, North Korea's real nukes, Middle East turmoil, thorny Cuban and Venezuelan relations, India-Pakistan rivalries, the war on terrorism, China rivalry, globalism and trade, foreign oil controls, and Iraq and Afghan war policy. And if McCain is indeed a heart murmur or a there's a dangerous flare up of the cancers that he's suffered from and he goes down as president, then Palin would step in. Democrats say that would be a disaster of the highest order because the country would be in the hands of a foreign policy novice.

That's the sell job that Team Obama and the Democrats will push on voters. It's a good one, except for one thing. The statecraft challenged Palin is not running for president, McCain is. Voters pick presidents on their foreign policy and national security experience not their vice president's experience or the lack of that requisite experience. We need look no further than 1988 and George Bush Sr. and his presumed equally disastrous VP pick Dan Quayle.

The inexperienced, unknown, and much maligned Quayle was absolutely no asset to the Bush Sr. ticket. But he didn't have to be. The point of Quayle was that he didn't muck up things. Or to borrow an old football analogy, if you have a championship caliber team that's driving for the Superbowl the team doesn't necessarily need a quarterback who can win the big one for team but the quarterback must not do anything to lose it for the team. That year Bush Sr. had the money and a united party behind him as does McCain. But Bush Sr. also importantly had a solid record of administrative, diplomatic and national security experience, and even more importantly his Democratic presidential opponent Michael Dukakis was just as foreign policy and national security lite as Obama. He picked long-term Texas senator Lloyd Bentson as his VP mate. Bentson brought along a bulging portfolio of foreign policy and administrative experience to shore him up in that area.

During the campaign, Quayle was the butt of endless jokes, took colossal hits from the Democrats and pundits for everything from his Midwest preppie looks and odd name to his lowly status in the GOP pantheon. That also included Bentson's smackdown of the ages in their debate when he coldly told him that he was no JFK. But that and Bentson on the Dukakis ticket didn't make much difference. Bush Sr. still won, and though Democrats peg Dukakis's loss mostly to the Willle Horton ambush by the GOP, the truth is that that wouldn't have worked without widespread public belief that Bush was simply fitter to be president when it came to making the big decisions than Dukakis.
But McCain figures that Palin's inexperience and the endless hits he'll take on it is worth the risk because she brings assets to the ticket. There's the obvious. She's young, a woman, pro-life, nuanced anti gay marriage, has an impeccable record on ethics, and has shown a willingness to thumb her nose at some in the GOP establishment. In other words, she's the GOP's version of hope and change.

The bigger reason she's on the ticket though is the less obvious. She is the breathing embodiment of the much needed signal that McCain needs to send that his administration is not simply a recycled four more years of Bush policies. Democrats wore that line out at their convention. And Team Obama will try to pound it home relentlessly in every breath, sentence, speech, statement, and in every nook and cranny on the campaign trail. And with Bush approval ratings wallowing at Ocean bottom depth and showing absolutely no sign of rising before November, the McCain-Bush Siamese Twin joined at the hip graft is the ultimate trump card. Democrats bank that this will propel Obama into the White House. At least that's the Democrat's hope. Palin is the antidote to that. At least that's the GOP's hope.

McCain answered one of the great theological questions with his pick of Sarah Palin: Can a Baptist throw a "Hail Mary" to an Evangelical? Yes is the clear answer.

He gave up, as Rob pointed out, the 3 AM phone call attack ad, as well as the age and experience to be Commander-in-Chief on day one argument. What he got was a person who would help to shore up the right-wing base that neither loves nor trusts McCain. They also hope that she will bleed some of the female vote from the Democrats.

It is fair, if awkward to admit, that there is identity politics on the Democratic side. Some women who might not have been either personal or ideological fans of Hillary voted for her because she was a woman, and they wanted to be part of making history. It is also fair to observe that there was a reason that many pundits felt secure that the African-American vote would go to Hillary in recognition of all she and Bill had done over the years.

In the beginning, few thought that Sen. Obama would long be a factor. After Iowa, however, everything changed, and American Blacks realized that there was a literally an African American with a legitimate chance. Surely, we must admit some voted for him out of sense of pride, history and solidarity.

Well, Obama will pretty clearly keep the Black vote by an overwhelming majority. The question is not about real Democratic women who supported Hillary. They will not, with rare exception, vote for a McCain Supreme Court. But independents and conservative women who wanted Hillary for reasons more historic than ideological will come to McCain and Palin. Will their numbers be enough? I don't know, but I do not believe so.

Given the wars, the economy, the general sense of "malaise" the Republicans should not have a chance. Given that McCain has no single segment of the Republican Party that is passionately for him, he needed to do something. He did. He threw a Hail Mary.

By picking the unknown and relatively inexperienced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, is John McCain trying to frame his own experience and fitness for office?

Is McCain saying that Barack Obama's choice of Senate veteran and foreign-policy expert Joe Biden is a pick designed to shore up the Democratic presidential candidate's lack of experience?

With McCain choosing a newish governor of a small (in population) state, he seems to be adding the requisite "executive experience," however thin, to his ticket.

And obviously McCain's not a woman.

But isn't John McCain really saying that he doesn't need to bring any additional experience, gravitas, leadership quality, or any of that kind of thing to his ticket because he lacks none of these things himself?

And a pick of an unknown with little relevant experience also says that despite whatever lingering injuries John McCain has from his captivity in Vietnam, and his recent bouts with skin cancer, that the presumptive nominee, like his 90-something-year-old, still-alive mother, is healthy as a proverbial horse and isn't likely to ever need to tap his veep for anything except attack-dog speeches and breaking ties in the Senate?

It worked for George H.W. Bush ...

You could feel the history of it all.

Seeing Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama deliver a rousing yet measured acceptance speech to a packed arena, how could you not feel the moment?

Even if you're a Republican, Libertarian, Clintonian or other, seeing an African-American accept a major-party nomination for president and, in the long process leading up to this moment, change the political landscape of America, is nothing short of momentous.

During the speech, I heard the theme of responsibility tied to government, business and the individual. He had the line about Republican's telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, along with the paradox of not having said boots or the straps that go with them.

But Obama made it clear that America is the place where fairness can and should reign and where dreams can be realized.

He mentioned helping displaced workers some two decades ago, but he also recalled pushing welfare reform while in the Illinois statehouse.

Obama didn't come out against abortion, but he did talk about how to discourage the practice.

He pledged to support the Second Amendment as far as gun rights go, referring specifically and positively to hunters in Ohio, but deliberately excluded assault rifles from what he'd consider OK.

As far as an energy policy goes, he veered into "land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth" territory by pledging to make the country to become foreign-oil-free in a scant 10 years.

He wouldn't support gay marriage but instead called for equal rights and protection for all.

On many of these issues, he's counting on his base to look the other way.

Let's face it, Obama is middle of the road.

He didn't want to be in Iraq, wants to get out, but is hell-bent on the fight in Afghanistan.

He wants to pay teachers more (I don't know quite how the federal government could make that happen) and said that some kind of federal standards would go along with any federal money. I waited for him to mock "No Child Left Behind" by name, but he didn't take that bait. Maybe he likes it.

He talked about the Rev Martin Luther King Jr. and the importance of the March on Washington some 45 years ago.

But Obama was careful to say that all Americans — the ones who aren't rich, anyway — are hurting.

He talked about opportunity not for any specific racial group or gender, but in a different way. OK, he did mention women, veterans, college students, teachers, auto workers, steelworkers, parents, grandparents ...

The whole "leaving behind the politics of the past," and "politics of hope"? It could be a lot of smoke.

I don't know if presumptive Republican nominee John McCain really thinks you need to drag in $5 million a year to be considered rich, or if he just has a very dry sense of humor, but did that really need to be in Obama's speech?

It sounds pretty "politics of the past"-ish. Effective but not the high road.

Obama's challenge leading up to November is to get specific. What does he want to do? Where will the money come from? Can he get anything out of Congress?

Speechmaking ability matters. Organizational discipline matters. Obama and his campaign have those two bases covered.

But can Barack Obama close the deal? A whole lot depends on how detailed he's willing or able to get over the next couple of months.

As far as who will prevail in November, Obama or McCain, much depends on what happens in this country and around the world.

Falling gas prices won't help Obama. Nor will unrest around the world that the current administration deals with effectively.

If Iraq makes any progress whatsoever, it favors the pro-surge McCain.

If the mortgage crises and the overall economy worsens, that would help Obama. And does anybody see the economy getting any better any time soon? That's a good enough reason to campaign on McCain's $5 million blunder.

And with the Republicans setting up shop in Minnesota next week for their convention, John McCain and the GOP have a very tough act to follow.

Sarah Palin as the veep pick for a 72-year-old candidate who at times seems feeble? That seems puzzling.

I argued last week that veep picks don't help or hurt the top of the ticket. I think I still agree with myself. But this may actually hurt McCain. An ardent pro-lifer such as Palin won't draw Clintonites, but it may soften the Bubba base of the Bible Belt, where people don't feel comfortable with the prospect of a young woman being in charge. This isn't exactly Golda Meir that that the GOP is putting forward.

Most of all, it invalidates McCain's central contention, that experience is crucial. Apparently he believes you can be a rookie governor of a truly marginal state and still have the "right" experience from the job. But that won't fly with voters.

Why is tonight different from all other nights? Tonight an African American officially became the nominee of the Democratic Party for the presidency of the United States of America. Wow!
I have such a sense of joy and hope in my heart that they are pushing tears out my eyes and down my cheeks. I know that this is partly generational, that those younger than my generation (and that is most of America) are not as blown away by the positive changes we have marked this year. They don't understand the length of the journey and our shared accomplishments because they did not see from how far back we started.

For those who never saw a "coloreds only" drinking fountain or a "whites only" waiting room, for those who never heard a young white call a grown black man "boy," for those who never saw the sign in the Hollywood bar (in West Hollywood before it became a city) that read "No Faggots Allowed," for those who knew that no woman could ever be nominated, no less seriously considered for the presidency of this nation--you cannot understand my feelings. And I don't blame you. You had to be there.

It is easy to look at our world and our own society and see it all going to hell. This is the traditional observation of older people. With the astigmatism of nostalgia, we see all the great things from the past, but the pain and injustice are imperfectly remembered--unless they happened to us. We sentimentalize the 50s and see it through the distorted lens of Happy Days and Ozzie and Harriet. While there was some truth to those depictions--they didn't apply to the poor or most Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. They didn't apply to gays or to left-leaning liberals. We forget blacks and black lists, browns and brown shirts--re-rapped in red white and blue.

I too forget my own prejudices and assumptions--some harmless, some not. I repress the memory of fag jokes, the racist assumptions I made, not out of hate but ignorance and inexperience and, of course, the sexist assumptions of my time. Gays were hidden or if suspected assumed to be potential child molesters. Blacks were not teachers or lawyers, doctors or accountants. Their women were maids and the men invisible. When Watts exploded, many in my area asked "Where?"

When I was a kid, boys wanted to be Mickey Mantle, Johnny Unitas, Bob Cousy or Rocky Marciano. Something began to change when I started hearing kids fantasize about being Willie Mays, Jimmy Brown, Bill Russell and Mohammad Ali. It may seem a small thing, but I think not. The kids were beginning the on-going process of seeing not primarily the color but the excellence.

Nat King Cole was the first Black to host a TV show. Black and white musicians and singers appeared together and expressed and modeled some affection for each other. But there was no black white kiss till 1968. Captain Kirk boldly went where no white TV actor had gone before with Lt. Uhura. Bill Cosby became popular--twice: Once in a spy drama and then as a doctor in a comedy. TV certainly played a part in mainstreaming integration and making the formerly unimaginable appear before our eyes--albeit in electronic form and not flesh.

TV has also helped on issues for gays and lesbians. We've come a long from Milton Berle in drag--not an image that either gay or straight people cherish--to Tom Hanks in drag, funny and silly but without ridicule. We've come from the late John Ritter in Three's Company pretending to be gay to Will and Grace. We have learned not to fear Ellen DeGeneres. Rosie's legacy is more difficult to assess. Many preferred her closeted incarnation of the Queen of Nice to the Queen of Mean. But that's okay too. Men, women, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, gay and straight are people and some we like, and it's okay not to like others--based on their individual virtues or foibles.

Women were assumed to be physically weak. They were not allowed to run the marathon. They did not play football or lift weights. Tennis and swimming were okay. We just knew they didn't have the toughness, the endurance and certainly not the upper body strength to compete in some sports. Just over ten years ago when a friend said her niece was a champion pole-vaulter I said, "No. Can't be. Surely you must mean she vaults over the horse in gymnastics." Everyone just knew that pole-vaulting takes upper body power that no girl could possibly have.

In 1987, on the 40th anniversary of Jackie Robinson, the first Black in Major League Baseball, Dodger General Manager Al Campanis was asked on Nightline why there weren't more African Americans in management positions in baseball. His reply was that they didn't have "the necessities." His remark was not based on hate, but like mine about a woman pole vaulting, just an abundance of ignorance and failure of vision.

That's the thing about failures of vision: We don't know what is possible. We certainly have no idea of the time it might take. Twenty years ago, I was sure AIDS would be cured in 10 years. When we landed on the moon in 1969, I thought we would have colonies on Mars by now. In 1960, when I saw Inherit the Wind, about the Scopes "Monkey Trial," I never dreamed Darwin and evolution would ever again be issues.

On the other hand, I also failed to credit our society with the ability to legalize--if incompletely--gay and lesbian marriage. I did not foresee America truly becoming the "melting pot" that we bragged about so well in advance of the facts. In my own little mostly Eastern European Jewish family, we are also ethnically Irish and Polish, Italian, Korean and Norse, Persian, African and Chinese. We are the world.

No, we have not reached the Promised Land. We have racism, sexism, homophobia, terrible class issues and inequality of education and opportunity, but we also have both hope and reason to hope.

When John F Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 Daniel Patrick Moynihan remarked, "We'll laugh again, but we'll never be young again." Tonight, with this milestone of progress--and only a milestone, not a finish line--I am laughing through my tears, and I am young again!

I was appalled to hear that a leading conservative Christian group, with a proven track record of Obama-bashing, would stoop to even momentarily calling on God to rain out Obama's acceptance speech.

I have defended Focus in the Family in the past, and I have good friends who work there (I was there just this past June). Yet in the aforementioned link, Rupert Murdoch's Times of London, no liberal "fruitcake" paper, calls Focus an "ultraconservative" group, and the moniker increasingly seems appropriate to me. It is sad that Focus staffers can believe that such prayers, even in "mildly humorous" jest, are consistent with their stated commitment to the "kingdom of God," as they attempt feebly and laughably to persecute a man with a sincere faith in Christ that he attempts to balance with the imperatives of a pluralistic democracy.

Their satirical aspirations aside, as one wag noted, Focus could have been better spending time praying for the safety of Americans threatened by hurricanes. This all adds to the notion that Focus is focused on its own "unequally yoked" marriage to secular society's right wing rather than to the inclusive "kingdom principles" of the scriptures to which they pay lip service.

My first reaction to Obama's acceptance speech is of wonder, and of envy. As a speechwriter, I wish I could write a speech with that mix of passion, directness and poetry. David Gergen, on CNN, just now called it less of a speech than a symphony, and I would agree.

This may turn out to be a transforming moment for this nation's political culture -- even if Obama does not win the election in this particular year. He showed a form of leadership that reminds me of an old comment by political commentator Jonathan Alter: Any one can take people where they already want to go; but true leaders can take people where only their better selves are willing to tread.

McCain will promise money and security to Americans next week. Obama said that America's true promise requires a commitment to sacrifice -- a shared commitment. And he said it beautifully.

To be quite honest, Hillary's speech was goosebump-worthy. Powerful, assertive and compelling--but was it convincing? Most of the speech was a highlight of Hillary's campaign-trail tales and a re-cap of her own personal political achievements. It seemed as though the Barack Obama endorsements were awkwardly placed throughout her speech, just for good measure. I'm scared for Obama--is he strong enough to carry this election toward a presidential victory? Throwing in the visual support of a Clinton or Kennedy might have surface results (i.e. goosebumps, tears of joy, liberal hey-day nostalgia, etc.) but is it enough? At this point, it doesn't seem so. Obama's support is flailing, so we'll have to see if the past few weeks' Biden-Kennedy-Clinton formula will bring election glory, come November.

Bill Clinton is always fun to watch. He was a great audience for Hillary's passionate, well-crafted and perfectly delivered talk. He smiled, laughed, wept a little and even qvelled. (Yiddish for bubbling over with joy at the accomplishments of one we love)

His own talk was equally masterful, of course brilliantly delivered and filled with the joy and charisma of someone who loves the large crowds and the spotlight at center stage.

With Bill one always has to look at the language and parse the words carefully. Clinton said that Obama "is the best man for the job" (of president). Now normally this would be just fine and would be understood as a full-throated endorsement. Some sensitive modern analysts might carp that it is unconscious sexism and doesn't recognize the possibility that women should be included. They would be wrong in this case.

Bill clearly knew exactly what he was saying. He believes that Obama is the best man for the job and that Hillary is still the best person for the job. Bill Clinton the loyal husband at last.

I'm not sure that Earl is prescient when he says that Clintonites won't heed Bill n' Hill's plea to get behind Barack.

Those Clintonites will soon stew while watching a Republican convention that will mock Obama for his association with the values of Billary.

Those Clintonites will watch Republicans air ads and publish books that demonize all liberal political values. Those Clintonites will recall how conservatives who recently hated McCain managed to rally around him once the Democratic alternative became clear, and that will help the Clintonites rally around Barack.

And if the uber-egotistical Bill and Hillary can support Barack, so can and will their fans.

Hillary and Bill Clinton were as good as their word and did everything they could to prod the legion of Hillary's still very diehard backers to get behind Obama. But it will take more than carefully scripted and orchestrated TV spots from Clinton blasting McCain and imploring America to get behind Obama to win this recalcitrant crop of Democrats over.

The bitter truth is that many did not vote for her because they liked her and her policies. They simply didn't like Obama. She was the only other Democrat on the ticket in the primary contests. And the reasons they don't like him -- racial fear, distrust, uncertainty, his inexperience, patriotism questions, and a too liberal voting record - won't magically vanish just because the Clintons tell them they should.

This week, the DNC was supposed to be all about Obama. But for many people, Hillary was the star -- their glorious falling star. And she lit up for one brilliant speech Tuesday night as she graciously -- and presidentially -- threw her support behind Obama. It was one of the most poignant moments of the race so far for me, and I don't even support Hillary.

I've been conflicted all along about the two democratic candidates, going so far as to pen a column endorsing Hillary before the February primary election in California. Immediately after the election I wrote a column changing my support to Obama, mostly because I realized not only could he win, but he would win.

My decision wavered again Tuesday night with Hillary's address and, at least, to me, the obvious sincerity of her plea for party unity. This is what it would have been like to have her as president. And it would have been good.

Even if Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama didn't utter Martin Luther King Jr.'s name once in his Democratic presidential acceptance speech, the legacy of King and the civil rights movement would hang heavy over Denver's Invesco Field. Obama's meticulously scripted decision to break convention tradition and give his acceptance speech in an open air site on the 45th anniversary of the March on Washington dispels the myth that Obama is a post civil rights generation African-American politician.

To his credit Obama never bought into the myth. It would be hard for him to anyway. He has frequently praised King and the civil rights movement, and has said that he has read and studied closely King's writings and speeches. But even if he hadn't read a word of King's speeches, Obama is not just the symbolic embodiment of the civil rights struggle, but an embodiment of the still unfinished business of the civil rights movement. That's with one added caveat and a risk. The caveat is that the civil rights challenges that King faced and that he so eloquently spoke of in his I Have a Dream speech 45 years ago are even more complex forty five years after the March on Washington. The risk is the great temptation to see Obama's historic candidacy as the end not the continuation of the civil rights battles.

The checklist of problems that King faced and Obama now faces includes astronomically high unemployment among young blacks, gaping racial disparities in the criminal justice system, resegregation of neighborhoods and schools, rampant housing discrimination, racial glass ceilings in corporate hiring and promotions, black family instability among the black poor, police abuse, racial profiling, and racially motivated hate crimes.

There are challenges that King didn't have to deal, or were barely issues a half century ago. One of those is that race problems in America are no longer exclusively a black and white problem. That's because blacks are no longer America's top minority. Latinos are. Immigration reform, the English Only wars, and the fight for political empowerment are the new civil rights concerns.

Obama also faces a glaring problem that King had only begun to wrestle with in his last days. That's the plight of the urban black poor. As America unraveled in the 1960s in the anarchy of urban riots, campus takeovers, and anti-war street battles, the civil rights movement and its leaders fell apart, too. Many of them fell victim to their own success and failure. When they broke down the racially restricted doors of corporations, government agencies, and universities, middle class blacks, not the poor, rushed headlong through them. More than four decades later there are now two black Americas. The fat, rich, and comfortable black America of Oprah Winfrey, Robert Johnson, Bill Cosby, Condoleezza Rice, Denzil Washington and the legions of millionaire black athletes and entertainers, businesspersons and professionals. They have grabbed a big slice of America's pie.

The black America of the poor is fragmented and politically rudderless. Lacking competitive technical skills and professional training, and shunned by many middle-class black leaders, they have been shoved even further to the outer margins of American society. The chronic problems of gang, and drug violence, family breakdown, police abuse, the soaring incarceration rate of young black males, the mounting devastation of HIV and AIDS disease in black communities, abysmally failing inner city public schools have made things even worse for them.

Then there's the political rise of, and influence of black conservatives, the black evangelicals, and the rancorous internal fights among blacks over gay marriage, gay rights, and abortion have tormented, perplexed, and forced civil rights leaders, who are mostly liberal Democrats to confront their own gender and political biases. They have tried to strike a halting, tenuous balance between their liberalism and the social conservatism of many blacks.

In his drive for the White House Obama has had to walk a tight line between those who demand that he say and do more about civil rights, and from those who watch hawk like for any hint that an Obama White House will tilt toward minorities. That would have rendered his campaign DOA on arrival.

Obama's decision to peg his acceptance speech to the March on Washington is not mere showy campaign symbolism. It stands as a fitting tribute to the civil rights movement that challenged the nation to make King's dream of justice and equality a reality. Obama faced that challenge as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, during his stints in the Illinois legislature and in the Senate. He'll face that same challenge in the White House. And that can hardly be called post civil rights.

Hillary got 18 million votes and Obama 18 million plus just a few. Dead heat. Call me a sore loser, but Michael Phelps didn't really win the Olympic 100 butterfly either. Milorad Cavic really won. Like Hillary, Cavic says, "Let it go," but I can't. Not in my nature.
What's 1/100 of a second? Nothing. Cavic worked his heart out. He comes from Serbia--a land the American media hates. Americans always win swimming. This was Serbia's turn.

Hillary worked her heart out, she trained, she charmed, she laughed and she cried. She worked hard enough and got close enough that she should have won. This was her turn. The media were against her too.

Anyone else suspicious of the timing by Omega and that Phelps endorses Omega? Anyone else think it isn't fair that Cavic has to swim against Phelps' disproportionately large feet? Given those huge advantages, losing by a mere 1/100 of a second can't be considered losing. I won't recognize Obama's, uh I mean, Phelps' gold. Unfair!
Bill

It all started innocently enough. At least I was innocent back then. Mayor Reardon called me and asked for my support. Before I could respond, I had to put him on hold to answer Governor Arnold's call. I felt very popular and honored to be asked for my support by two such important politicians whom I barely knew. Still, it was possible. I'd met Reardon on a bike ride some years before. Seemed a good chap and Arnold I'd known back in the early 70s at Gold's Gym in Venice. Reluctantly I asked Arnold to hold. When I got back to the mayor I realized that it was only a robocall. Of course, I didn't even know the term robocall back then. They didn't want to consult me. They were after what parents used to warn their girls about, "Just one thing." In this case that would be money. These days I just hang up on the robocalls.

However I have recently discovered the downside of signing up to get Obama's early notification his Veep pick. Sen. Obama is my new best friend. Since Saturday I have gotten three emails from Barack (as he signs his missives) and my new friend Joe Biden.

Ah, the New Media. Somewhere between networking and cyber-stalking. By phone, by junkmail, by Blackberry and iPhone, I am never beyond the reach of their important messages, pleas for help, support and yes, I know that eventually--sooner rather than later--they'll be looking for my money.

I know that this creation of an email and phone data bank can be an important tool in modern campaigning. It can raise money, give encouragement, organize events and enlist help in getting out the vote. But it can also be abused and turn people off. I will think twice about ever signing up again. In the mean time, am I really going to mark Obama's email as SPAM? Suddenly, I feel very powerful.

You know it's the August news slump when A) there are front page stories about which state has the most fatties, B) all halls of every legislative body in the land are empty and C) the news media is breathlessly waiting for the announcement of Barack Obama's running mate in the presidential election. I don't know about you, but I don't care that much unless it were Hillary. Wouldn't that be a fun match up? Death Race 2008.

On Friday evening this were really bad with broadcasts saying, excitedly that Obama had picked his candidate, but we still didn't know who it was. Talk about a non-story.

Truth is, unless the veep candidate is either truly fantastic (George Clooney), truly reprehensible (Dick Cheney) or truly goofball (Dan Quayle), who cares? I don't.

John Nance Garner, two term vice president under FDR, declared that the vice presidency was "not worth a warm bucket of spit." The actual word wasn't spit. It was "piss."

This is no longer true--as Dick Cheney has proved. There is power beyond the traditional attending of funerals for the famous and powerful who are not quite famous and powerful enough to warrant the president.

This season, with the public questioning of the readiness of Obama and the age and health of McCain, the VP candidate could play a role in people's decision making process.

While no VP candidate has brought a state since LBJ delivered Texas, this year it could make a difference in the election and more importantly in governing the nation.

I had to grin when I heard that the California Supreme Court restored a tiny bit of sanity to the criminal justice system. I'm talking about its narrow ruling telling a meddling, political pandering, eye on the voter's governor (i.e. Governor Schwarzenegger) who noses in when an inmate shows they're a cross between Mother Teresa and St. Paul behind bars to butt out and stop trying to keep the inmate in the slammer.

The court, of course, said that the things that should matter most in determining an inmate's release are good behavior, rehabilitation, productivity, remorse, and of course will they be a pussycat in their behavior if they're let loose.

Even though Schwarzenegger lost this round with the court the good Guv won't give up on trying to keep the good guys behind bars. It's bad morality and law, but good politics.

Rob is right that veeps don't matter -- except for when they do. Yes, not even Dan Quayle could sink George H.W. Bush, but that's because he was running on Ronald Reagan's coattails. Bush also had the good fortune of running against the pathetic Michael Dukakis.

Other veeps have made a big difference. Walter Mondale, Al Gore and Dick Cheney all brought D.C. street cred to their outsider running-mates. LBJ and Bush Sr. unified shaky coalitions -- which can be priceless if it frees up the candidate to focus his efforts on swing voters.

Such gains are hard to detect, but meaningful nonetheless. What's most important at this stage is that no one bungles his pick. Could you imagine if Obama had chosen John Edwards?

Veeps don't matter. The exemplar is 1988.

Trailing Michael Dukakis badly, Bush Sr. named a young laughingstock-in-training, Dan Quayle, as his mate, while Dukakis tapped the charismatic, statesmanly Lloyd Bentsen. Dukakis chortled about how Bush flunked his first test of judgment. But Dukakis got Willy-Hortoned to within an inch of his life by November of that year. VP candidates can't help or hurt this race, unless someone picks a minority with a Muslim middle name. Oh. Wait.

Here's a bet I'm up for: I'll bet dinner if one of the candidates actually gets a demonstrable, lasting poll boost through his selection.

Let's be brave and bet lunch. It's about time we were held responsible for our guesses. We brag when right and hide when wrong. Time to go out on a two limbs--one which will be sawed off by the time this goes to press.

Biden bloviates and has plagiarism scandal in past. Bayh is bland, boring and young. Kaine has no foreign policy experience, and General Clark has hoof in mouth disease.
Obama picks Chris Dodd! Dodd brings grey hair, experience, gravitas and humor. He follows the first law of Veeps: Do no harm.

McCain can't go pro-choice with Ridge or Lieberman. Jindal takes the youth and inexperience charge off the table. He hates Romney. Picks Pawlenty. Doesn't annoy right or terrify middle. Safe.

The ideal VP would complement the Presidential candidate - be the butter to his bread.

In the Obama camp, rumors are currently flying that Senator Joe Biden of Delaware is Obama's top choice (though Biden denies this). It makes sense: Biden, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, could provide the strength and muscle to Obama's foreign-policy Achilles' heel. That's achieving one goal when picking a VP (as Earl noted): making up for what you lack, a.k.a. do what'll reap the greatest benefits at the polls.

On the other hand, McCain is stuck in a controversial situation: he named pro-choice Tom Ridge (former governor of Pennsylvania and ex-head of the Department of Homeland Security) as a strong VP possibility. This leaves McCain in a political pickle - alienate the ultra-conservatives or attract those who are more in the center?

The rule of thumb in picking vice presidents is that they must do three things. They must balance the ticket, make up a real or perceived deficit that the presidential contender has, and hopefully help him win the presidency, or at the very least don't help him lose it. This rule of vice presidential thumb applies more than ever to presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain.
If Obama or McCain had been able to widen the poll gap comfortably over each other, the vice presidency would still be important, but not as crucial. That hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen. So this election the VP will do something that seldom happens, he will help seal or sink the deal for Obama or McCain.

A hundred college presidents say here that the over-21 drinking limit is a sham that actually promotes binge drinking. I agree.

The Culture Code, by famed marketer Clotaire Rapaille, contains a gripping analysis of America's peculiar relationship with alcohol. Americans view alcohol almost the way fundamentalist jihadists do -- as a naughty instrument of moral rebellion. It's naughty to the MADD crowd, and it's naughty to the frat-boy crowd. The naughtiness is the very fuel for the bingeing.

Europeans don't binge in nearly the same way (except for British dockworkers and football fans), because alcohol isn't "naughty" there. It's something that brings out the taste of good food. Ten-year-olds are given tastes of it and are encouraged to cultivate a sophisticated appreciation of it, and so it becomes demystified.

And after all, anything that mom and dad want you to try can't be all that cool. But if mom and dad and Uncle Sam forbid you from drinking it, now that is cool, and that increases the temptation to do it in feckless abundance.

As reported by CNN, UCLA has refused to offer academic credit to some Christian schools' courses on science and history, jeopardizing the admissions prospects of graduates from those schools. Good for UCLA and the UC system.

One religious school administrator offered this other-worldly defense of his school's academics:

Our teachings reflect that God exists ...whereas UC wants courses to be taught from a perspective that there is no God.

And one student offered this defense of her religious school's curriculum:

When you look at our science curriculums -- we're given every theory from intelligent design to evolution... whereas it's more narrow in public schools so I think we're given a broader spectrum.

Sure, that's great. But it's fair to say that, at any school where creationism is taught as a legitimate theory, evolution will be taught as a weaker cousin. In other words, such a school intentionally places its ideology above the ideology of empiricism, which drives American higher education.

So they've made their choice. And choices have consequences. They'll need to go to Azusa Pacific instead of UCLA.

Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf wanted to help his country, but he also wanted to cling to power, because he convinced himself he was essential to his country's salvation.

That's to be expected. The gene that makes a person the kind of alpha dog who leads others is the same gene that makes a person cling to a leadership role after he's no longer welcome.

This wouldn't have happened if Musharraf listened to my humble advice a few years ago... (Please forgive the dated photo.) Instead, he's attempting to choose between resigning in disgrace or being impeached. I'm not sure he's being handled wisely or fairly, but this wouldn't have happened if he focused more on succession and less on personal success.

Obama and his advisors made a terrible mistake today. They caved to the Clintons. They withered before the whining, needy grievance of Bill and Hillary. They had already given Hillary Tuesday night primetime, Bill Wednesday night prime time, and now they got rolled into Hillary having her name put into nomination, getting a roll call vote and even letting Hillary's media team do her own set up and filming.

Bill is despondent because he is no longer in charge of the party and was not a successful kingmaker--or queenmaker in this case. Hillary's motives are less clear; however, what is clear is that she had the choice of saying no, of not pressing and insisting on this. Bill predictably passed up the chance for peace and was willing to risk the election for his narcissism. Hillary just miscalculated. Her recalcitrance will cost Obama in several ways.

Her last woman standing hard-enders cannot be assuaged. There is no therapy or ransom that will satisfy them. "Catharsis" is what Sen. Clinton claimed her supporters deserved. We should remember is a term from Greek tragedy. It usually follows the death of the hero. Nice.

Most importantly, in this horrible miscalculation by Obama, is the material it will provide to the Republicans. We can predict that their talking point will be: If he can't stand up to Hillary, how can we trust him with Putin and Ahmadinejad?

It's a phony issue but possibly an effective weapon, aimed at the sense of uncertainty some have concerning Obama's toughness. Obama has lost the appearance of control over the up-coming convention.

The Republicans run ads picturing Obama between two white blonde starlets, with phallic towers and obelisks in the background. The Clintons unhelpfully counteract this image of potency by trying to un-man him. This is not good for Obama and the democrats.