The campaigns: Generation Kill vs. Civilian World

For the past six weeks, my husband and I have been watching Generation Kill on HBO. This mini-series chronicles the slow march of the Marine Corps 1st Recon Battalion to Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War. Not your father's John Wayne war story, this series is tough to watch. It is gritty, violent, raw and honest.

Based on the book of the same name by Rolling Stone reporter Evan Wright, who traveled with the Marines, Generation Kill shows us what happens to men when they are put into an ambiguous, poorly planned, life or death battle with orders from officers who must make it up as they go along and are more interested in medals than morality. It shows the loss of inhibition and ethics when one has the power of life and death over others, and when the normal rules of civilization are suspended, as they always are in war.

Race becomes something to ridicule, women become sexual objects, and killing ("lighting 'em up") is the day's business. While occasionally an officer or enlisted Marine tries to get the men to retain some semblance of humanity, he is quickly overruled with ridicule or the reality of the situation. In one telling scene, an officer comes up to one of his men to congratulate him on the day's kill, which included mostly civilians. In response, the Marine says "Dog, if we killed this many people in civilian world, we'd be in prison." The officer tells him that in this world, he's going to get medals.

Of course, eventually these men have to come home to "Civilian World," and what occurred to me as I watched the mini-series is how hard it is for many to make the transition. In particular, I thought of the three female soldiers (two of them pregnant) who were killed - just in the past few months - by their Iraq veteran boyfriends/fiancés/lovers after they returned home.

What also occurred to me is that this presidential contest is between candidates who are operating in two different worlds. Barack Obama, having never been in the military, and wanting to run a different kind of campaign, is operating according to the rules of "Civilian World."

John McCain, on the other hand, is running the campaign like he is in a war zone, where anything and everything civil is abandoned and conscience is put into a lock box. Lying, cheating, stealing, and attacking your opponent without mercy is the hallmark of the McCain campaign, as it was in the Bush campaign.

The current controversies over whether or not McCain lied about an incident when he was a POW and about his cheating by knowing the questions ahead of time at Rick Warren's "civil forum" are just nonsense. It's war. Of course you're going to lie and cheat. In Generation Kill, it's okay to use racial slurs, to denigrate women, to have no respect for those on the other side. You want to win and normal rules of courtesy and political correctness are out the window. In this world, a lie isn't a lie; it's simply part of the strategy. It's what you have to do if you want to win, even as you smile your fake smile and tell the American people you are a pro-life Christian. (McCain's recent offer of his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip Contest tells us he hasn't stopped demeaning women.)

John McCain and the Republicans declared war on the Democrats long ago and it is time Democrats realized that. When Republicans play with rules of war, and Democrats oppose them with rules from "Civilian world," it isn't hard to see who wins.

Barack Obama better choose a fighter as his vice presidential nominee, and he better get a few lessons from advisors who have seen combat, or McCain is liable to eat him alive.

McCain's strategy

John McCain's strategy, like that of George W. Bush, is to get voters to fear and resent the superior candidate.

McCain's only hope of winning this election is to paint Barack Obama as not "one of us." If only he can convince enough uneducated voters (his base) that Obama is too different, too "foreign," i. e. "black," and that his Harvard education, high intelligence, and early political success is evidence that he is better than us, an elitist, a celebrity, then perhaps a combination of resentment, racism, and paranoia might get just enough voters to choose the inferior candidate.

Here is a post that outlines the fallacy of McCain's argument.

Arrogant vs. vulgar

There are lots of words we could use to describe John McCain: old, dangerous, ignorant, hot-tempered, or as Paris Hilton said "wrinkly white haired guy." But, sadly, none of them seem to have the traction to damage his candidacy.

So I've been trying to think of a word to describe John McCain, a word that might stick, a word that the mainstream and cable media would never use because they have too much respect for him, but a word that might catch on in the blogosphere, a word that could match the word "arrogant" that his campaign is using to characterize Barack Obama.

John McCain's appearance at the Sturgis biker gathering, where he offered up his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip contest, gave me the word.

John McCain is "vulgar."

And this isn't the only instance of his vulgarity. Check out my article on Outraged Citizen.

The McCain mythology and the derelict press

A study of media bias that came out last week showed that Obama received more television air time, but more negative press, by far, than that received by McCain.

I have noticed in my own survey of one, that reporters and anchors on the cable shows spend more time reporting negative stories about Obama, or emphasizing polls when they narrow, or when he doesn't get a bounce than they report polls where McCain is trailing badly. They constantly wonder aloud why Obama "can't close the deal" but never seem interested in why McCain can't go above 45%. They spent weeks on Reverend Wright and how damaging it would be to Obama, but they could barely find five minutes to talk about John Hagee. They love to talk about Michelle Obama's problems with voters, even though she is rarely campaigning with her husband, but never, ever mention McCain's creepy wife Cindy who was once addicted to drugs and follows him everywhere like a dutiful wife from Stepford. They talk about Obama's "flip-flops," but barely mention McCain's. They certainly don't waste much time tying McCain more closely to Bush.

Why is that?

Are they all in the tank for McCain? Are they all racist?

No. My guess is, with the exception of the reporters and pundits at FOX News, who are obviously in the tank for the Republican, and possibly racist as well, most reporters and anchors are neither.

I think what is going on is this: they are all playing "gotcha," hoping to report on an exciting story about the new guy, trying to be Woodward or Bernstein, and they mistakenly believe there is nothing new to find out about McCain. They see Obama as a fascinating mystery, someone who must have something negative in his background and if they can only find it, they will be lauded as great reporters.

With respect to McCain, it's as if their assessment of him began and ended the day he was released as a POW. The narrative of McCain as all-American hero, honest and patriotic, was only enhanced over the years with McCain's characterization of himself as a maverick and a straight talker. He has been so successful in getting the media to buy into his fairy tale about himself that no one will dig deeper, and when one or two do, the huge media crowd looks the other way. They simply can't believe anything bad about McCain except that he's old, and they refuse to see that as a huge problem, no matter how many times he forgets things, gets things wrong, or changes his positions. Reagan was old, they remind us.

The narrative is still being created about Obama and, of course, the Republicans are contributing to that narrative, with an obedient press following along, trying to paint Obama as both unqualified and elitist, a popular celebrity and someone who can't relate to anyone, too liberal and too much of a flip-flopper. The press is fascinated and wants to be part of the story.

McCain is old news, his reputation set in stone as far as the press is concerned. They just aren't interested. But Obama is new, and the media can help create his reputation, even if they use Republican lies and distortions, even if they fall for smears that are baseless. It's much more interesting than digging deeper into the mythology of McCain. Plus, it increases their ratings.

So McCain stays under the radar, keeps his well crafted brand, and encourages the press to keep up their coverage of the smears they (the McCain camp) create about Obama, and maybe, just maybe, McCain can sneak into the White House with no one noticing what a terrible candidate he has been and what a terrible president he will be.

It's all about popular

John McCain, that "war hero," is acting more and more like a jealous teenage girl who wants to be the prom queen but got passed over for someone prettier. He absolutely can't stand it that Obama is a "celebrity," and more popular than he is. He thought he had it made, being a war hero and having the press in his pocket. But then the new kid came to town and the new kid outshined him.

McCain even went so far as to act like he wanted to be Obama's mentor, said he would take him to Iraq and educate him. Kind of like the very popular Galinda in the play Wicked, who said she would teach Elphaba how to be "popular." When I heard the song today, I couldn't help but think of McCain, how he sees himself, and how others are finally beginning to see him, as someone obsessed with popularity and insanely jealous that Obama outshines him.

Here are some of the lyrics:

POPULAR! I'll help you be popular!
You'll hang with the right cohorts,
You'll be good at sports,
Know the slang you've got to know.
So let's start, 'Cause you've got an awfully long way to go!...

When I see depressing creatures,
with unprepossessing features,
I remind them on their own behalf
To think of Celebrated heads of state,
Or specially great communicators!
Did they have brains or knowledge?
Don't make me laugh!
They were POPULAR!

Please! it's all about popular.
It's not about aptitude, It's the way you're viewed,
So it's very shrewd to be,
Very very popular like ME! ...

You'll be popular!
Just not quite as popular as ME!

Republicans think of "ME" - Democrats think of "WE"

I'm working on a longer analysis of the differences between the two political parties that reflect overarching themes in our nation as well as differences in values.

In short, I see the Republican (conservative) view as one that emphasizes the individual good (mostly of a certain class of people), as well as the corporate good, and appeals to the human selfish tendency, an individualistic and competitive strain, and a focus on "me."

I see the Democratic (liberal) view as one the emphasizes the collective, or community good (in which all people share) and appeals to a communitarian tendency, a desire for shared prosperity, and a willingness to sacrifice as well as be generous to fellow citizens.

Of course there are unselfish and kind conservatives in their personal lives, but the conservative ideology is one that appeals to selfishness, and there are selfish liberals in their personal lives, but the ideology is one that appeals to a communitarian impulse.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: John McCain's phony proposals to help lower gas prices.

With gas prices rising, John McCain first proposed a gas tax holiday for the summer. This appeals to Americans who are thinking of their pocketbook and nothing else. They don't care if a gas tax holiday costs hundreds of thousands of jobs related to infrastructure repair that is funded by the gas tax, they don't care if bridges fall down, and they don't care what economists say about the futility of thinking you can lower gas prices with a gas tax holidy. They hear that someone is going to cut a tax and that's all they care about. The proposal also appeals to the traditionally pro-Republican oil companies, who see an opportunity to benefit even more by tacking on a higher profit margin once the tax is removed. John McCain is appealing to the selfish interests of individuals and big corporations.

Hillary Clinton tried the same thing, but with a majority of Democrats who are educated enough to see that it wouldn't work to anyone's advantage but the oil companies, and who care about the greater communitarian good (i.e. the importance of jobs and the infrastructure), the proposal bombed.

Now, McCain is following Bush and proposing lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling. This amounts to nothing more than another giveaway to oil companies, as well as a phony idea that will do nothing to help consumers for at least ten years, if ever. But many Republican voters, who are attracted to policies that promise to help their individual interests, even if they don't actually do so (selfishness can make one really stupid), cheer madly when McCain brings up the plan. It is wildly popular with his supporters, even though it will not reduce the cost of gas and not make us energy independent (adding only a small amount, after ten years or more, to the huge demand for oil in our country – we would still have to import most of our oil).

Obama, on the other hand, has talked with economists who are nearly unanimous in saying this will help nothing, not in the short term, nor in the long term. Oil companies already have plenty of land to drill on that is untouched. But rather than suggest they begin drilling on those lands first, McCain is going for the big proposal – putting more oil rigs along the coast where millions can see them and be constantly reminded of his effort to lower the cost of a gallon of gas, even if all he is doing is putting more money in the pockets of oil companies by giving them drilling rights on waters that should belong to the people, and tax breaks for the investments they make in setting up their oil rigs. He's once again not concerned at all about the actual cost of gas because he knows his proposal will not help. In lying to the people, however, and spewing the propaganda that more drilling will lower the cost of gas, he's appealing to raw selfishness, of both individuals and corporations. He's also playing the patriotism card as he makes the false promise that this will help us end our dependency on foreign oil.

Obama's plan, on the other hand, is not to merely end our dependence on foreign oil, but to end our dependence on oil, period. He wants to invest in alternative fuels and in the long term move us away from an oil-dependent economy. Besides the long term plan, he is recommending short term measures, like conservation, and simple changes in how we maintain our automobiles, like fully inflating tires to get better gas mileage. He is also insisting the auto companies speed up the development of cars with better fuel economy. As for helping with the cost of gasoline, he is proposing an emergency $1000 rebate to families as part of his newly released economic paper.

None of these things will harm the tourist and coastal economies, nor hurt the environment, all of which could be the result of massive off-shore drilling which will also continue our dependency on oil, give us a false sense of security, and postpone the time when we must shift to alternative fuels. In each of these measures, Obama is appealing to the communitarian instincts of Democrats: the willingness to sacrifice and think beyond themselves to what benefits the greater community, including the importance of preserving the environment, the necessity of repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and the danger to the nation's security if we continue our dependence on oil.

Of course, republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh mock him for suggesting something many other politicians and the auto industry recommend: fully inflating tires. All they can do is mock when they have no reasonable argument. Republicans mocked Jimmy Carter, too, when he warned of the problems we would face in terms of our oil dependency in the years ahead.

And guess who was right? The Democratic president who suggested we sacrifice, improve mileage standards, and find alternative sources of oil. The Democrat who was thinking not about oil company profits nor the selfish needs of individuals, but of the big picture, and what would benefit us all.

Is it still a war?

John McCain has a huge investment in continuing to call the situation in Iraq a "war." So does George W. Bush.

For Bush, calling the situation a "war" allows him to continue to call himself a "war president," which gives him status and prestige he wouldn't otherwise have and allows him to break all kinds of laws and trash the Constitution.

For McCain, whose greatest claim to fame is that he is a "war hero," calling the situation in Iraq a "war" automatically boosts his credentials as the one who best understands the situation, or so his campaign thinks. It also allows him to manipulate the public with words they understand, like "victory" and "win." It enables him to characterize his position as one of wanting to win, while Obama, he claims, wants to "lose."

The press continues to call it a "war" as well, mostly because they have adopted the line of the president, but also because it is simply easier to call the situation a "war" rather than try to characterize it as the complicated situation it really is.

The reality is that the "Iraq War" as a traditional war in which one pits the army of one country against the army of another was over years ago, as soon as Saddam went into hiding and his military collapsed. Bush's "mission accomplished" moment was actually accurate in one sense: Saddam had been overthrown.

After that, the term "war" really no longer applied. At first, it was an occupation, then an insurgency coupled with a counter insurgency, and now back to an occupation. But that's too complicated for the press and most of their audience to comprehend. So they continue to call it a war.

And McCain will continue to call it a war as long as he thinks he can get away with accusing Obama of wanting to lose it, rather than wanting to have a sensible and realistic approach to ending the occupation of Iraq.

There's another reality here. John McCain is simply not qualified to be president. Wesley Clark had it right. Being shot down in a war decades ago, and spending years in a POW camp are not qualifications to be president. McCain knows nothing about the economy, by his own admission, has changed his mind on taxes and immigration, and now has shown his ignorance on what is happening and what needs to happen in the area he claims the most expertise: Iraq. He doesn't know what countries border Iraq and he doesn't understand that the Sunni awakening (which helped defeat al Qaeda in Iraq) preceded "the surge."

The only thing that matters

There is only one thing that matters this November to anyone concerned about our economy, the planet's survival, health care, ending terrorism or severely reducing its threat, ending the occupation of Iraq, protecting women's rights and civil rights, and building cooperation with other nations: electing Barack Obama.

Yet the progressive blogs are full of people complaining about one or another issue and threatening to stay home this November or vote for John McCain, Bob Barr or Ralph Nader.

To me this is political and national suicide.

This time, I want a president who has enough intelligence to be our leader. In the last two presidential elections, the most responsible and most intelligent candidate lost to the long time alcoholic, with a second rate mind, because he said he was a born again Christian and because his campaign manager knew how to appeal to people's fears and biases.

We have another chance this year. We can elect the Democrat who is enormously intelligent and gifted in oratory (which is far more important than Republicans want to admit) or we can elect a second rate brain, who is showing cognitive slippage as he ages, and who claims little knowledge of our biggest national problem: the economic slowdown coupled with escalating inflation.

This is supposed to be a can't lose year for the Democrats, but Democrats are slamming their own nominee or refusing to get behind him because, like immature babies who want mommy to fulfill all their needs, they are mad because they can't have their way.

Barack didn't vote the way they insisted he vote on FISA.

Barack is sounding nuanced on the details of getting out of Iraq.

Barack is not cowtowing sufficiently to Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

Barack is blaming fathers for not supporting their children when he should be blaming the government for not giving them sufficient opportunity.

Oh please!

McCain would have voted exactly as Barack did on FISA, had he bothered to show up. And if he becomes president, you can bet he will abuse his power under FISA in ways Barack won't.

Barack may say he wants to be careful getting out of Iraq, but at least he wants to get out and close the bases we have there. McCain wants to stay indefinitely and maintain permanent bases.

Do Hillary's disappointed supporters really think McCain will be the better choice on women's rights? He has already said he will appoint right wing justices to the Supreme Court, and would like to see Roe V. Wade overturned. When questionned the other day he didn't seem to know that many insurance plans don't cover birth control for women, while they all cover Viagra for men. And he didn't remember that he had voted to allow them to do this. Is this a good sign for women? Barack may not be the woman candidate that Hillary's supporters wanted, but neither is McCain. At least Barack is right on the issues. McCain would be a disaster for women.

And Barack is right to chastise fathers for not suppporting their children and right to encourage children to stay in school. He hasn't forgotten the role of government in harming minorities and he won't abandon the fight to help them, but he isn't wrong when he says we must all do our part, no matter what the government does or doesn't do.

There is nothing more important to this nation than electing a Democratic President this year, and anyone who is willing to risk electing John McCain because their nose is out of joint over one or another issue is being selfish and stupid.

Barack Obama in not a perfect candidate and he will not be a perfect president, but he will be a million times better than McCain who is not only wrong on all the issues, not only a man who will say or do anything just to get elected, but who has some serious mental deficiencies that would be disastrous at a time when we need the best and the brightest running the country and solving our problems.

So let's all put away our desire for perfection, and our disappointments that we can't have a candidate like Santa Claus, who will honor our list of wishes, and vote for the best candidate we have had in a long time: Barack Obama.

Grunts resenting flyboys?

Maureen Dowd, regarding the Wesley Clark distraction, in today's NYT:

This is not even about Obama. It’s the old business of grunts resenting flyboys. Bob Dole made a crack long ago about patrician Poppy Bush flying over the infantry. And Clark, as Fred Kaplan writes in Slate, “was an Army infantry commander during the Vietnam War while McCain was a Navy aviator.”

Getting smart or staying stupid

I've developed a really bad habit. I get up around 5:00 a.m. to watch the last hour of Morning Joke on MSNBC. It's on from 6 to 9 east coast time, which means 3 to 6 here. This bad habit ensures that a) I will not get eight hours of sleep each night, and b) I will be pissed off by about 5:45.

This morning was no exception. I'm pissed. One of the guests was Larry Kudlow, who mostly makes me want to vomit. This morning was a bit amusing, however, in that regular commentator Pat Buchanan, who also usually makes me want to vomit, was actually arguing with him over the immoral multimillion dollar salaries and benefit packages for CEOs. That part was actually refreshing.

What angered me, though, was Kudlow's insistence that we begin drilling immediately off the coasts and in Alaska, as - he claims - it will lower the price of gas immediately. According to Kudlow, once the oil producing companies realize Americans are going to get their own oil, they will release more of their supplies and that will lower the price. Supply and demand.

This is typical supply side Republican economics and politics. Think only of the ideological economic principles you embrace so that American business can reap huge profits, and pander to the people so you can get your guys in office to continue the raping of the middle class.

Kudlow thinks only in terms of dollars, and completely ignores environmental concerns. For decades now we have been watching our climate change and our environment deteriorate. For years politicians have paid lip service to finding renewable sources of energy and weaning this country off of oil. For years they have done nothing.

The technology exists to move us from an oil based economy to an economy that takes advantage of wind, sun, plants and even nuclear based energy. Yet we remain stuck in our dependency on oil, which not only continues to harm our planet, but holds us captive to a destructive and violent foreign policy. Drilling for oil will only give us a false sense of security and waste time we should be spending on implementing long term solutions, environmentally friendly solutions.

We have wasted eight years while two oil men ran the country, started wars for oil, and ignored the looming crisis. McCain is proposing the same policies that these oil men are calling for: more drilling. Why? Not because it would mean we could change our foreign policy - McCain wants more wars in the Middle East. He envisions being there for 50 or 100 years if necessary. No, McCain wants more drilling because it's a good campaign issue. Why is it a good campaign issue? Because people are mad that they have to pay so much for a gallon of gasoline.

During these past eight years, when American auto makers should have been manufacturing more fuel efficient cars, and the people should have been demanding them, the car companies sold expensive gas guzzlers, the Bush administration gave tax breaks for the purchase of large vehicles, and the people bought them to show off. We have all been stupid, but it's time to get smart, and that is not what McCain is proposing. He is proposing something incredibly stupid: retain our dependency on oil, but find the oil here in America.

If we go along with Larry Kudlow, and elect John McCain, we will be signing our planet's death warrant. Even if he only serves four years, we can't afford those years.

This is it boys and girls. We must start changing now. We must switch over to other sources of energy as rapidly as possible. The only candidate promising to do that, the only candidate capable of doing that, is Barack Obama.

Qualifications to be president

Yesterday, on Face the Nation, General Wesley Clark said this about John McCain:

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war."

"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."

"I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."

Now Republicans and media commentators are either saying or implying that Clark crossed over a line. He said something he shouldn't have said. He actually dared to say that being a fighter pilot, being shot down, and being a POW do not automatically qualify someone to be president. I don't care how long you have been a Republican, or how much you admire McCain for what he endured, you cannot disagree with what Clark said.


So why are some making it such a big deal?


Because this attacks McCain's strength? Perhaps.


Because in this country WAR is a sacrament and you can't criticize the high priests of war? Maybe.



Except....Republicans routinely criticize Democratic war heroes. Remember how John Kerry's service in Vietnam was attacked by the Swift Boat liars? Remember how Vietnam war hero and triple amputee Max Cleland was compared to Osama bin Laden just so he could be defeated in an election?


So does this mean in the sacrament of war, only Republicans are allowed to be high priests? Only Republicans are immune from criticism? Democrats may be war heroes, but unless they join the Republican Party they are only war heroes in their own minds?


Barack Obama is consistent. Whenever he mentions John McCain, he always starts by honoring his service and heroism. Republicans, on the other hand, never speak with respect about Democratic warriors.


So if it takes another war hero, Wesley Clark, to say the obvious - being shot down and being a POW may make you heroic, but it doesn't qualify you to be president - then good for him.


We are choosing a president this year, not a general, not a pilot, not a war hero. Part of the job of the president is to be commander in chief of the armed services, which is a civilian role. And we have never, to my knowledge, elected a former POW as president.


The president is much more than just commander in chief, though, as much as the McCain folks would like you to forget that. The president must oversee the economy, the budget, foreign policy, and internal matters such as education, energy, healthcare, civil rights and urban problems. He must understand the Constitution, the way government works, something about economics, civil rights, agriculture, the environment, and America's relationship with the rest of the world.


Being shot down over Vietnam nearly forty years ago, and being held as a POW, may build a man's character, but it doesn't qualify you to handle any of these issues. Nor, for that matter, does it qualify you to be commander in chief.

John McCain sells his soul - to big oil

So first John McCain thinks giving a "gas tax holiday" to Americans will be a winner in the presidential campaign. Apparently, he thinks the American people are so stupid that they believe his inauguration will be on July 1st, in time to get a gas tax holiday bill passed so they can drive to the beach, or the Cape, or the Grand Canyon, this summer. He also thinks they don't understand that a gas tax holiday would: a) rob the government of funds needed to repair roads and bridges and thus b) cause hundreds of Americans who work on the nation's highways to lose their jobs and c) probably not save them any money as the oil companies would keep the price high so they can get a bigger profit.

When he realized this idea didn't help Clinton beat Obama, he came up with another brilliant idea, one his buddy Bush also suggested: opening up the coasts of American to even more drilling. (Currently there is a moratorium on new drilling.) Apparently, his estimation of the intelligence of the American people has not changed. He still thinks they will fall for this even though a) the oil companies are not extracting oil in places where they are already allowed to drill; b) it will take ten years or more to extract oil from new locations; and c) the price of a gallon of gas is controlled by far more complicated things than how many oil platforms we can erect in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Gulf. (Among other things, the oil companies and the oil cartels are gaming the system - anybody remember Enron? - to keep the price of gasoline high.)

McCain is supposed to be the Maverick, the one who bucks the big lobbyists (even though lobbyists are running his campaign), the one who once (but no longer) favored progressive taxation, the one who opposed coastal drilling but has now changed his mind, the one who isn't like Bush, except he is.

McCain is also supposed to be the one Republican who cares about the environment, but this ridiculous proposal, which oilmen Bush and Cheney love, would hurt the environment and the economy in many ways.

It will put America's coasts at risk of oil spills and hazardous waste destroying pristine beaches. This in turn will kill wildlife and destroy tourism, the basis of many coastal economies. And for what? For something that will do nothing to lower the cost of gasoline this year, or next year, or ten years from now?

Even more importantly, though, it will do nothing to get us away from our dependence on oil, and very little to end our dependence on "foreign" oil, which apparently is now all McCain and Bush care about. As long as what McCain is proposing is something that won't have any effect in the short term, as long as it will take a decade or more to get to any of that oil, why doesn't he propose a long term solution that will not only end our dependence on foreign oil, but end our dependence on oil, period? Answer – it would piss off big oil.

Right now, all of our investment should be in renewable and environmentally safe energy, but neither McCain nor Bush are going there with any vigor. Why? Because Bush is an oil man, and McCain is dependent on oil money for his campaign. Once again, all Republicans care about is the giant corporation, because that's the source of the money that gets them into office. They can't depend on millions of people making small donations to their campaign, the way Barack Obama can, because the people will not benefit from a McCain presidency. The giant corporations, especially the big energy companies, will.

McCain is willing to make this pitch to the people because he thinks the people are stupid enough to fall for it. He knows we won't actually do more drilling along the coasts, because his proposal allows the states to make the final decision, and coastal states will not go for it. But by making the proposal, he panders to the oil companies, who will give him more campaign funds, and he thinks he is fooling the people into believing come November, gasoline prices will go down.

I really don't think the people will fall for it this time.

Thoughts on the past week

I took the week off last week - mostly because it was my birthday and I felt like paying attention to other things - but a lot happened while I was contemplating my advancing age.

Barack Obama chose not to opt into the public financing system for his campaign and to continue to rely on individual donors to help him win the election. McCain is screaming that this means Obama is untrustworthy and a flip-flopper and therefore shouldn't be allowed to become president. Considering that no one has fip-flopped more than McCain - on the Bush tax cuts, on statements about Iraq, on illegal immigration, etc. - the flip-flopping charge is silly. As for the meaning of Obama's decision - it means one thing: he wants to win, and the more money he has the better his chances. If McCain had the donors Obama does, he would do the same thing. And considering how the Republicans are so fond of smear campaigns, and are threatening an "October surprise," Obama will need all the cash he can get to counter their atacks. He's doing the only thing a responsible Democrat can do - be prepared for the lies, distortions, and smears by having the kind of war chest that will go to battle in every media outlet to defeat these tactics.

Newsweek has Obama up by fifteen points over John McCain. No other poll has him up by this much and as everyone says, it's still a long time until November. But this is a good indication of the mood of the country, and barring another terrorist attack, an effective swiftboating of Obama, or some other unforeseen event that changes the public's mind, it looks like the country wants the change candidate, the younger candidate, the candidate who knows how to use a computer. Of course, the press still isn't focusing a great deal on McCain's mistakes and gaffes, but as the campaign goes on and the stress builds, we are likely to see more of them. The election could be a Democratic blow out.

Large sections of the Midwest are under water and I wonder if scientists believe global warming has something to do with it, as they determined with Katrina and the disaster in New Orleans. Some of the areas that flooded are considered to be prone to flooding every 100 years, but the last time there was severe flooding along the Mississippi was in 1993, just 15 years ago. I heard that new levees are being built each year along the Mississippi, and considering how frequently the river rises in this era of climate change, and how often these levees fail, this seems absurd. When will we humans stop living in areas that are prone to flooding, and stop thinking levees - or God - will protect us?

The House of Representatives passed the "FISA Compromise," Barack Obama released a statement saying he would support it, and the progressive community is pissed. I haven't read the bill and wonder how many in Congress have. I do know that it gives immunity to telecom companies for their cooperation with the Bush administration in its illegal wiretapping program, portions of which the Congress has now agreed to make legal. It does, apparently, give Bush most of what he wants, which to progressives is always a bad thing, as progressives do not think this president does anything unless it helps his buddies or himself, and believe most of what he does violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. I agree, and I wish Obama would have stood up to the president. More than that, I wish the Congress would stand up to the president. Maybe someday we will know the real reason why they didn't. But progressives shouldn't condemn Obama for this decision. As a legislator, he sees the writing on the wall, and knows the bill will most likely pass. As a presidential candidate, he doesn't want to give the Republicans ammunition to call him "soft on terrorism," and as a future president, he wants to have sufficient powers to fight terrorism. We can hope, however, that as a president he won't abuse those powers. The way I see it, the passage of this bill is even more reason to support Obama. Can you imagine a President McCain with these powers?

Tim Russert was buried. I had mixed feelings about Tim Russert as moderator of Meet the Press. Sometimes (mostly when he was grilling someone I didn't respect) I liked him. Other times (when he grilled one of my guys) I didn't. I stopped watching him for a while, especially when he spent a full hour with each of the primary candidates, as I just couldn't listen to an entire hour of spin and deception. When he died a week ago, unexpectedly at the age of 58, while working at the NBC studios, I felt sadness for his family, and after days of tribute, for his colleagues as well. But what struck me most about the tributes I heard is that they painted a picture of a really good man, a man who was always available for his friends, always there to lend a hand, always ready to offer encouragement. More than a great bureau chief, or host of a popular television program, Tim Russert was an example of a really good and decent person, a devout Irish Catholic with a great sense of humor, who loved sports as much as he loved work, but who mostly just loved the people around him, all of whom he considered family. MSNBC was criticized for its non-stop coverage of his death and funeral - which lasted from Friday afternoon until the funeral on Wednesday - but after hearing the stories about how he was always the first to help a friend in need, I can understand why they couldn't stop talking about him. NBC will find a new Washington bureau chief, and a new moderator of Meet the Press - no one is indispensable in that respect - but those close to him will not find a replacement for the great role model and friend they lost.

Three speeches

Last night, when history was made, three politicians gave speeches.

John McCain started out the evening in front of a hideous green backdrop, having stolen part of Obama's campaign slogan, and gave a dreadful speech in which he attacked Obama with a chorus of "That's not change we can believe in." As he finished each sentence, which he delivered quite seriously, he gave that silly artificial smile. The message, the delivery, the appearance of McCain, even the reaction of the crowd, was not befitting a presidential candidate. Additionally, it was foolish of McCain not only to try to steal Obama's moment from him, but to be willing to pair his speech with Obama's, and have it be compared unfavorably. From here on in McCain needs to realize that no one can match Obama's gift of oratory.

Hillary Clinton was up next, having ramped up expectations of what she might say by sending out little hints all day that she would, then she wouldn't concede, that she wanted or didn't want the vice presidential nod. Her speech was in the basement of a university, where cell phones and other wireless devices could not work. Apparently she held her listeners hostage inside the room, kept in ignorance that Obama had won the nomination, so she could pretend it hadn't happened yet. When she finally gave her speech, she did not acknowledge his victory, only his good campaign, and spent the time trying to tell her supporters what she wanted. The speech was all about her, all about her supporters, with the constant (untrue) reminder that more people had voted for her than for her opponent. By all accounts, except those of her staff, it was a poor loser speech, a speech in which she seemed to be saying to Obama: "not so fast buddy, you still have to deal with me." In my estimation, the speech was one more way of the Clintons saying "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is." It all depends on what the meaning of sniper fire is, it all depends on what the meaning of the popular vote count is, it all depends on what the meaning of victory is. One wonders if Hillary will ever concede.

Then, speaking last, was the Democrat's new presumptive nominee. His speech was generous to Hillary, gracious to her and her supporters, and tough on his Republican rival. The tone varied from humble, to matter-of-fact, to fiery. In stark contrast to McCain, whose delivery of a speech ranges from reading lines to looking up and smiling, Obama knows how to vary his style, to make his speeches interesting, to move from facts to emotion and back again. Obama's speech inspired me and made me proud.

There were three speeches last night, each with its own goal.

McCain's goal was to upstage Obama. He failed miserably.

Clinton's was to deny Obama her concession, taint his victory, and warn Obama that he would still have to contend with her. In future days, it will be obvious that her strategy backfired.

Obama's was to claim the nomination, be gracious to Hillary, and set the tone for the general election contest. He succeeded on all counts.

Delusionists

This is a big week for politicos living with and promoting delusions.

Lanny Davis and the Clintonistas continue to insist Hillary will win the nomination with help from Florida and Michigan (whose delegations they believe will be seated with full voting power), the lead in the popular vote, and help from the superdelegates who will flock to Hill because Gallup says she will do better than Obama in the general election.

The Bush White House, with an assist from retired press secretaries, insists they are "puzzled" and "shocked" by Scott McClellan's book in which he reveals what thinking people already knew: the Bush White House lied to the people. These robotic spokespersons continue to insist that Bush did not lie or mislead the people, because he was given flawed intellligence, which he believed.

The RNC is saying Barack Obama is not qualified to be commander in chief because he spoke of his "uncle" being part of the army team that liberated Auschwitz, when it was actually his great uncle liberating Buchenwald, which the RNC says was not a "concentration camp" but a "labor camp."

It isn't that hard to expose and refute these delusions:

Hillary is not going to win the nomination. At this moment, with three contests left, including Puerto Rico which cannot vote in the general election, she is behind in elected delegates, with no possibility of catching up, behind in superdelegates, many of whom are secretly pledged to Obama and will declare after Tuesday, and behind in the popular vote. The only possible way Hillary can overtake Obama in the popular vote is with Hill-math (you have no idea how tempting it is to call it "Hill-Billy-math"). Hill-math counts all the votes for Hillary in Michigan and gives none to Obama because his name was not on the ballot. Hill-math does not count the popular vote in four caucus states, three of which Obama won. Hill-math counts the popular vote in Puerto Rico, which cannot vote in November.

As for the Gallup poll giving the advantage to Hillary in the blue states and the head to head matchup with McCain, every day there are polls that show Obama leading McCain, Obama leading in those same blue states, and Obama leading in many red or purple states that would give him the victory over McCain even if he lost some of those blue states. Lanny Davis wants us to believe that one poll (Gallup) taken today are perfect predictors of who would win in November, but polls vary, and polls from previous years have been notoriously wrong this early in the season. Barack Obama has consistently shown that when he campaigns vigorously in a state over an extended time period, he wins.

As for the White House's "puzzlement" over Scott McClellan ratting them out, the only way they could be puzzled is if they truly believed in all the propaganda this W.H. has spewed out over eight years. Some probably do, and they are delusional, just as McClellan apparently was while press secretary, but others know better and are just reciting the talking points. Scott McClellan isn't telling well informed Americans anything new, except that it is possible for one Bushie to be cured of his delusion and write about it. Furthermore, if the White House still thinks the American people believe the Iraq War was all about weapons of mass destruction, and the president can be forgiven for waging this "preventative" war because he was given false intelligence, then the White House remains in the grip of the biggest delusion of all time. The American people have turned against this war not just because it is too costly, which it is, but also because they know the president went to war for reasons other than weapons of mass destruction, delusional reasons having to do with remaking the map of the Middle East, securing access to oil, and ushering in the neoconservative dream of the "New American Century."

In light of all the "misstatements" and falsehoods perpetrated by the White House and exposed in McClellan's book, and keeping in mind all the confusion John McCain shows as he runs around the country talking about Shia when he means Sunni, and al Qaeda when he means Iran (and vice versa), it is amusing to see the RNC jumping on Obama's words. First of all, many people call a great uncle simply "uncle" so there's no big deal there, and Obama saying Auschwitz rather than Buchenwald does not seem that big a deal either. Both were death camps, in spite of the RNC trying to downplay the horrors of Buchenwald by calling it "only a work camp." Both imprisoned Jews during World War II. That Obama was a little confused about history seems not nearly as disastrous a mistake as McCain being confused about the present.

Gosh it will be wonderful to be rid of the delusionists!

Electoral psychodrama

We can all overthink, overanalyze, and over-react to any one thing a candidate does or says on the campaign trail. But sometimes there is a pattern, a group of statements and behaviors that hint at what is really going on inside the psyche of a candidate.



I think Hillary has given away what is going on inside her psyche, and John McCain is following her lead.



Both candidates are really pissed that this way-too-young Senator is challenging them for the presidency when he has not, in their opinion, paid his dues. Add to this the fact that both Clinton and McCain have been waiting years for their chance to run. We all know what happened to McCain when he ran against another young upstart, George W. Bush, eight years ago. McCain was treated horribly by that campaign, and in order to be in the best possible position to run this year, he has had to grovel before Bush, campaign for him, and support him in spite of how he must have felt to be the victim of Rovian smears. So in 2008, McCain has paid more than his share of dues and finds himself competing against another young upstart, someone who has only been in the Senate a few years. This must seem completely unfair and wrong to him.

Clinton, on the other hand, watched as her husband, the President, was attacked and ultimately impeached. She was publicly humilated, both by her husband and his rivals who exposed all of his sexual misbehavior in graphic detail. So to get back her dignity, she first ran for the Senate in 2000, hoping to build up years of governing bona fides to qualify her to run for president. Then, just as everyone is declaring her the inevitable nominee, this charismatic kid, who has never had to endure what she has, who doesn't have her experience, but who has loads of charm and likability, comes forward and says "I think I want this job."



This week both Clinton and McCain made their feelings about Obama obvious. Clinton's statement about staying in the race, using the example of RFK winning in June in California and then being assassinated was her big give away. Why pick that example out of the many other nomination fights decided late? Probably because Obama and RFK have a lot in common. RFK was also young(43) and charismatic, and Obama has often been compared to RFK as well as his brother JFK. Kennedy had only been a Senator for four years, the same amount of time Obama has been in the Senate, and was seen as a challenger to the Democratic establishment in 1968, which ultimately backed establishment candidate Hubert Humphrey.



Clinton also saw herself as the establishment, the inevitable candidate, until she found herself challenged by the young Obama. What comes across in all of Clinton's encounters with Obama, and in her demeaning statements about him, is her belief that he does not deserve this nomination, that he has stepped on her toes and her chance at the presidency, and that he is not deserving of respect. That is why she made that snarky comment about she and McCain having a lifetime of experience and Barack having only a speech. That is why she seemed to discount the legacies of both Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy, both young leaders, both assassinated, when she talked about how much more important Lyndon Johnson was to getting civil rights legislation enacted.



It is clear Hillary identifies with party insiders like Humphrey and Johnson, and looks with puzzlement on young charismatic figures like King, the Kennedys, and now Obama. She sees their appeal but does not understand it and cannot compete with it. And her language of feint praise, or in Obama's case disrespect, gives her away.



McCain has a similar reaction to Obama. Obama obviously gets under his skin (in much the same way he gets under Bill Clinton's skin) when he says anything to challenge McCain. On the Senate floor this week, with McCain absent, Obama expressed praise for McCain's personal story, but disagreement with his decision not to support the veteran's bill. McCain shot back immediately with praise for fellow veteran Jim Webb, who sponsored the legislation he opposed, and over the top disdain for Obama:

I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

Whoa! He attacks Obama for not serving in the military, for not, so to speak, paying his dues. He shows his contempt for Obama in this and in other campaign stops, where he calls Obama "inexperienced" and "young man." His tone is dismissive and, like Clinton, his words tell the whole story. McCain believes he has earned the presidency, and no matter how popular or charismatic or intelligent or capable Obama is, he hasn't earned the right to challenge the Vietnam POW.



This year we are observing an interesting psychodrama. Two older establishement candidates struggle to compete against a younger candidate with his amazing gifts of charisma, speaking ability, high intelligence, creativity, and organization. Three other young leaders with those same gifts were all gunned down in the sixties and we haven't really had another emerge since then - until Obama. Interestingly, Obama is, as the first African American nominee, a combination of the Kennedys and King. His supporters all pray that he will not meet the same end, that he will be safe, and with a little luck and a lot of hard work make it to January 20th, 2009, when he will put his hand on the Bible and take the oath of office of the President of the United States of America.

And just as an aside, this explains why so many of us were so horrified by Clinton's remarks about RFK's assassination.

Twelve reasons Obama will win in November

I may be premature in this, but I believe Barack Obama will not only win the Democratic nomination, but will become the 44th President of the United States and the first person of color ever to hold that office.

Here's why:

1. McCain is too old. He is already making mistakes on the campaign trail that signal memory problems. On the debate stage, next to John McCain, Barack will look more youthful and sound more wise. The difference will be obvious and will not help McCain.

2. People are tired of the War in Iraq. In a year in which the American people are weary of war, being a war hero is simply not enough to get one elected. It doesn't help that McCain says the American poeople won't mind being in Iraq for 100 years.

3. The Republican brand is on life support. Congressional special elections in Republican districts are all going Democratic, even when the Republicans try to link the Democratic candidates with Obama and Jeremiah Wright.

4. The Baby Boomers' time is over. Young Americans are supporting Obama in large numbers and are convincing their parents and grandparents that they know what they are doing in supporting Obama. Obama offers a refreshing vision of an America no longer looking to the conflicts of the sixties to define itself.

5. McCain offers nothing to soothe the ills of the nation. The economy, gas prices, and health care are three of the biggest concerns of the American people and these are three areas where McCain has no solutions. Obama has or will present comprehensive plans for relief in all three areas, and will make McCain – who must please the conservative base that wants limited federal programs - look out of touch.

6. The smear machine and dog whistle have lost their power. The typical Republican tactic of painting the Democrats as weak on defense, as "defeatocrats" or as appeasers will backfire on them. The American people will remember that they fell for that in 2004 and they will not do it again. And while racist dog whistle code words may be used against him, Obama has the temperament and the strategy to overcome this.

7. "Liberal" is no longer a dirty word. The American people are actually much more liberal than the Republicans think they are, and conservative ideology is both out of fashion and exposed as a fraud. The people want answers and solutions, and they want them from government, not from the unregulated private sector, which has proven to be so corrupt and brought them so much misery.

8. Evangelicals are divided. John McCain will not have enthusiastic support from the evangelical community, both because he is not seen as one of them and because the community is not as united as it once was. Young evangelicals are more open-minded than their parents and grandparents, and some Democratic issues, like the importance of protecting the environment, are very important to them. Wedge issues like abortion and homosexuality will simply not have the power in a year when Bush's war and the Republican economy are weakening our country and hurting the average family.

9. John McCain will be seen as running for Bush's third term. There are too many sound bites and photos of McCain supporting Bush, and too many votes for Bush's policies, to enable him to adequately distance himself from the nation's most unpopular president ever. McCain's reputation as a "maverick" will not hold up. More likely he will be seen as a one time maverick who is now a political opportunist, what the Republicans like to call a "flip-flopper."

10. Barack Obama is more charismatic than John McCain. Not only does he represent a new kind of politics, one that moves beyond the conflicts of the sixties, but he is generating tremendous enthusiasm among his supporters, based partly on his persona. Obama has charisma and is able to win people over once they get to know him. The candidate with the most charisma (eg. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton) always has an advantage over his opponent.

11. The American people want a leader, not a follower. Obama has set the themes of this campaign, and McCain is now trying to imitate him, just as Hillary tried to do. Obama's early recognition that this is a year in which the American people want change, and his early success in communicating that message, has put McCain in the position of also calling for change, and thus being a follower rather than a leader.

12. Obama has the right temperament. Presidents are expected to be measured in their emotional responses. Hillary Clinton and the Republicans have and will throw just about anything at Obama in order to defeat him. In every instance so far, Barack has remained calm. He shows the right amount of humor in response to some tactics, and indignation in response to others. There are no sound bites, no videotape, and no anecdotes of Obama losing his temper. This is not true of McCain, who is known to lose his temper quite often.

McCain: Justification for going negative

McCain says he will not engage in negative campaigning.

Then he brings up Jeremiah Wright.

When reporters challenge him on why he did this when he said he wasn't going to go negative, he basically said Obama had given him permission to do so when Obama said on FOX News that he understood his relationship with his pastor was relevant.

Then McCain tells reporters that Hamas endorses Obama and that the endorsement is relevant.

Then Cindy McCain tells Ann Curry that her husband will not engage in negative campaigning.

Then McCain brings up Hamas again and Brian Williams asks Obama about it.

Obama, rightfully indignant that McCain would bring up this ridiculous assertion with its highly inflammatory innuendo, especially after insisting he will run a positive campaign, says perhaps McCain has "lost his bearings" in this race.

The McCain campaign sends out a letter of outrage, saying that Obama is playing the "age card."

I think I get it.

Cindy and John will continue to say they will not go negative, and then the McCain campaign will find some excuse for why they have to - Obama gave them permission, or he is using the age card and they simply have to defend themselves.

This will be a negative campaign all right, at least from the Republicans. They don't know how to win any other way and they know it. So there will be many letters like this one, jumping on innocent comments made by Obama, twisting them into something they are not so that McCain will be forgiven for flip-flopping on his promise, just as he has flip-flopped on taxes, on the "agents of intolerance" he now embraces, and on his feelings about George W. Bush.

And by the end of the campaign you can bet they will be playing the race card, especially if it is all they have left.

Passing the torch

How long is the Democratic Party going to continue to pander to "Reagan Democrats?"

For the past few weeks, and continuing today after Hillary Clinton's disastrous loss in North Carolina and near loss in Indiana, the Clinton camp has been using the argument to super delegates that "Obama can't win the white working class vote."

So I want to say a few things about that type of thinking.

First, Obama won plenty of white working class votes. Hillary won more, but he did win some of them. He even won some Reagan Republicans and Reagan Independents.

Second, if we want to play a game of division, it could be said that Hillary can't win the African American vote. She lost it by a much larger margin than Obama lost the white working class vote. The Clintons maintain there are more white working class votes than black votes, and that may be true, but here is another reality:

Some of those white working class voters will definitely vote for Obama when he runs against McCain. When the choice was between two Democrats, many white working class voters chose Hillary over Obama. There are probably many possible reasons for that. One was the great snow job Hillary pulled by painting herself as a regular gal, and calling Obama an elitist. Another was probably racism, which appears to be higher in the working class than in the upper classes.

Those who voted for class reasons will vote for Obama in the Fall because McCain and the Republicans are not good for the working class and they finally know it. And as time goes by, and the people get to know Obama and his history better, the "elitist" label wil disappear.

Those who voted against Obama because of race will probably not be won over, but do we really want to choose Hillary as the nominee because we want to appeal to racists? Can't we use this election, instead, as a chance to help many Americans overcome racism? Bill and Hillary, who actually fueled racism with their primary strategy, could now be Obama's biggest allies in overcoming racism. If Bill and Hillary renounce racism, including that which reared its head in their campaign, they could do a great deal to help this country finally renounce the remnants of racism that remain in this country.

Third, with this election, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the dominance of the white blue collar vote and the importance of Reagan Democrats to every election since, well, since Reagan. Soon Caucasians will be outnumbered in the electorate by Asians, African Americans, and Hispanics and those Reagan Democrats may simply not matter to electoral victory as much as they once did.

Barack Obama may not have won over a majority of Asians and Hispanics, but he is certainly capable of it. Most of those voters will choose Obama over McCain. And Obama definitely has over ninety percent of African Americans as his base. He also has the college educated voters, as Democrats usually do. The college educated voters have been frustrated for years that they could not get their message out to their fellow Americans about how Republicans and some Democrats have been screwing them over, manipulating their vote and making promises to them that they never keep. This election may finally change that.

And finally, what Obama has that Clinton didn't, and what will provide him a new metric for victory, is the youth vote, the vote of those who are members of the Post Boomer generations. And what is particularly hopeful, unique, and game changing about those generations is that they refuse to be stuck in categories so loved by the Boomers. They can't be so easily divided by class, gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

The post Boomer generations are incredibly tolerant. Obama's message of hope and unity resonates with them because they are already unified, and already children of the world.

My children, for instance, who are in their twenties and thirties, see nothing unusual about going to a wedding where two men or two women exchange vows. They all count gay individuals and gay couples among their friends. They don't see sexual orientation - or color or ethnicity or gender - when they choose friends.

All but one have been to Europe. One recently visited Cuba on an educational visa because he was invited by Cuban artists he met at art exhibits here in the U.S. The fact that Cuba is a communist country meant nothing to him. Another counts as one of his good friends a Muslim from Morocco. Another has a seven year old son whose best friends include a boy who is half French and half Iraqi, and a boy who is half English and half Japanese. My children and grandchildren don't divide the world up into categories, as Republicans do, and as Hillary, unfortunately, tried to do.

Division doesn't work with young Democrats, which is why now that Barack has all but clinched the nomination, I hope Hillary and her supporters join the unity march and give up their strategy of division. John Kennedy once said that the torch of governing had been passed to a new generation of Americans. Hillary and Bill Clinton came smack up against another torch passing, from the Boomers to the post-Boomers, and they did not see it. They need to see it now. John McCain will see it soon.

It has been a tough democratic primary fight, and those of us who supported Obama and became increasingly angry at Clinton did so mainly because we saw her as becoming too much like the Republicans who thrive on negativity and divisiveness. But should she give that up, she will redeem herself with us.

Many of the older women who supported Clinton (and older women were her base) did so because they have felt discriminated against in the past and desperately wanted a woman to be their champion. I understand that. But that fight, though not completely won, is largely in the past with the other Boomer causes. That is why her campaign ultimately did not succeed, and why Jeremiah Wright was ultimately rejected. They both wanted to continue the fights of the sixties and seventies, while the younger generations, including Obama's generation, have moved past those fights.

I fault Obama for one thing. He has not addressed the concerns of those women enough. He has never spoken to the concerns of these women because he sees his campaign as beyond that. But there are many women who I believe would come over to his side if he would at least address what they are thinking, what they have been through, the anger they still feel, and what they are hoping for. His late mother was of that generation, and her absence in his life may account for this hole in his strategy. But he needs to speak to more sixty and seventy year old women who can educate him. Then, Obama needs a speech to women, just as he needed a speech on race. I hope he gives one soon, or at least includes women's concerns in his acceptance speech in August and his Inaugural address in January, 2009.

After he does that, perhaps he can convince these women that Hillary wasn't the only one who can create a better world for them, their children, and their grandchildren. Barack and Michelle can do this - they can reach out to Hillary's supporters - women, working class whites, and Latinos - and Hillary can help them in the outreach if she really wants a Democrat to win this Fall. Already Barack's youthful supporters have begun a dialogue with their older Democratic cohorts (many of them have convinced their parents to support Obama) and are leading them into a better, more color blind, more gender blind, more united country, and then into a more international, more peaceful world.

Yes, they can! Yes, he can! Yes, we can!

The media's double standard

Several months ago when HBO started advertising its upcoming "John Adams" miniseries on CNN and other channels, my husband and I decided to upgrade our DISH network subscription so we could get HBO and watch the series. As part of the package we also got MSNBC, which I thought was an added bonus in that we could watch Keith Olbermann.

I wasn't prepared for Joe Scarborough.

What an idiot!

For some reason (my age perhaps) I can't seem to sleep past about 4:30 in the morning. Today I was up even earlier. And when I am up and not yet inspired to write something, I channel surf to see if anything interesting is in the news. Thus I discovered "Morning Joe" which is a show with a lot of interesting guests who never really get to say anything because egomaniac Joe Scarborough, like his t.v. cousin egomaniac Chris Matthews, interrupts every guest he has with attacks on Barack Obama or stupid comments about how the fed should keep lowering interest rates forever. His female sidekick, who is supposed to be the liberal counterbalance to his conservatism, I guess, has become as idiotic as he is. Of course, he interrupts her continually as well, because as the name of the show implies, it's all about him.

Like FOX and CNN, MSNBC made Jeremiah Wright a six day (seven if you count today) story. And no one did it better than good old morning Joe.

Starting last Thursday, when Bill Moyers began this idiocy by releasing clips of the already taped interview with Wright, Joe and his sidekicks began the piling on with non-stop interviews meant to let everyone know that with the return of the Wright story, Obama was doomed. On Friday, they continued the condemnation of Wright, and Obama for not "throwing him under the bus" (the trite phrase every single pundit is using because of course they are all such lemmings they can't even come up with their own phrase). The cable shows were quieter on Saturday because the regular guys are off the air, and also because the actual interview with Wright was not controversial. But the story was still stewing in the political world, and no one had come to Obama's defense. In the meantime, McCain was condemning Obama, and ads began in some southern states using the Wright sound bites from his sermons.

Sunday evening the story expoded again when Wright spoke at the NAACP convention and put on quite a show. It was entertaining and informative, and only somewhat controversial. CNN and MSNBC ran it live as if they were following a car chase, waiting for the crash or hail of bullets from the cops. CNN had commentary for three hours.

By Monday morning, Joe and his moronic sidekicks were at it again, denouncing Wright and Obama, and saying Obama was weak and doomed and Hillary was now kicking his butt. The glee with which they spewed this nonsense was obvious. They interrupted things to show Wright's speech at the National Press Club as if it was a new car chase, one that would be even more exciting and bloody. And, of course, it was. The actual speech was fairly mild, but the Q and A made Wright look like a madman, high from the attention he was getting.

So Joe and gang were at it on Tuesday morning, ready to plan the debates between Hillary Clinton and John McCain because Obama was going to have to go back to Chicago and lick his wounds. He was now dead as a presidential candidate, according to their very astute analysis.

So when Obama finally got around to watching the video of the speech on Tuesday morning (he had been busy campaigning all day Monday and had only seen some of the transcript) he apparently exploded, and held a press conference in which he denounced and separated himself from Wright.

Did that stop the story? Of course not. This morning, Joe and buddies couldn't stop talking about it, with female sidekick asking every guest who came on if Obama's statement came too late.

Jeez!!

If anybody doesn't see a racial double standard here then they are deaf, dumb and blind.

John McCain actively solicited the endorsement of John Hagee who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and said the people of New Orleans brought the hurricane on themselves because God was angry with their depravity. He openly supports Israel based on an interpretation of one book of the Bible which supposedly says Jesus will not return until Israel occupies the entire Holy Land, even though the other part of that prophecy is that most of the Jews will die. There are numerous clips of this guy spewing his disgusting hateful ideology, yet good old morning joe never shows them, nor do any of the other networks.

The Clinton shill George Stephanopolous who loves to question Obama about Wright, also questionned McCain about Hagee, but though McCain expressed disagreement with Hagee's views, he said he was still happy to have his endorsement. That was apparently okay with George.

So why did George let McCain get away with this? Why does morning Joe not make a five day story of the disgusting and anti-American (unless you don't count New Orleans as part of America) speech of Hagee and demand that McCain do something about it, the way he demanded Obama do something?

There can be only two reasons. One is that you treat the black candidate differently than you treat the white candidate. The other is that corporate America (of which the media is the main propaganda tool) wants Obama destroyed.

In the meantime - during the six day Wright funfest, there was not a single story about any of the issues important in this primary season. Not one story on energy, including Hillary and McCain's ridiculous gas tax holiday proposals, on the housing market, the broader economy, Iraq, with its highest American death toll in over a year, or Bush's itchy trigger finger poised at Iran.

The news media neither informs nor educates us. They distract us, so that they can get their guy or gal in the White House, and get Congress to do their bidding.