When Campaign Ad Analysis Goes A Bit Too Far

I thought she was kidding, but apparently not.  Ann Althouse claims the new Hillary commercial has a subliminal message. Her headline reads:  “Why are the letters ‘NIG’ on the child’s pajamas?”

Now, if you squint just right, stand on your head, and howl at the moon, you'll see the word Althouse says proves a vast racist conspiracy on the behalf of Team Clinton.  As with the Bush "RATS" controversy in 2000, this is just silly.  You cannot convincingly argue that this was planned out, nor is anyone going to walk away from this ad thinking Hillary is a racist.  Of course, Althouse has done strange posts before.  When the Clinton campaign released their Sopranos parody ad, she found sexual "symbols" throughout the entire thing.

More importantly, however, is this: what exactly does the upside down "GO" really mean?  (via Memorandum)

UPDATE:  Patterico:  "Once the subliminal analysis starts, my friends, it never stops."

FISA Deal in the Works

Ed Morrissey : "Heartbreak Alert on the Left: FISA deal rumor"

What Hath She Wrought?

New York Post:

Angry tribal elders in Kenya are calling on Hillary Rodham Clinton to "clear her name" over any involvement in publication of photos of Barack Obama wearing a turban and African garb on a trip to his ancestral homeland.

The leaders are planning a protest in their community today, and are turning up the heat on the US government over the incident.

The photos appeared nationwide after they were published earlier this week on the Drudge Report Web site with a report that they had been circulated by Clinton staffers.

Obama aides blasted the Clinton campaign for "shameful, offensive fear-mongering."

The pictures show Obama wearing traditional Somalian garb on a 2006 visit to the Wajir region of Kenya, where his late father was born.

"The US government must apologize to us as a clan and the old man," Mohamed Ibrahim told Reuters, referring to a highly respected tribal elder who is also shown in the photos.

"We have been offended, and we cannot afford to just watch and stay silent."

He also said it was essential that Clinton "clear her name."

July 32d?

Now here's an idea I could get behind.  Aye, Mr. Epp!

WFB: Fortune Teller

Upon the death of William F. Buckley, Jr. last week, NRO posted the original mission statement for National Review.  Give it a read if only for its delightful prose.  One of my favorite passages:

There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals'. Drop a little itching powder in Jimmy Wechsler's bath and before he has scratched himself for the third time, Arthur Schlesinger will have denounced you in a dozen books and speeches, Archibald MacLeish will have written ten heroic cantos about our age of terror, Harper's will have published them, and everyone in sight will have been nominated for a Freedom Award.

The names change, but some things remain the same. 

Take a look at magazine's list of "convictions."  Yes, some things never change.  Parts of this list read like they could have been written for the 2008 campaign. Examples:

It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly....

The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order....

The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than "newness") and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity)....

The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties(under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as "national unity," "middle-of-the-road," "progressivism," and "bipartisanship.")

William Buckley and his compatriots certainly had a keen eye for the essential rifts in our politics and the hold liberalism had and has on our culture.  While that liberal control of cultural institutions is still there, there are now counter institutions that are taken seriously and have impact.  These would not exist without Buckley's efforts to make conservative opinion both smart and respectable. 

I recall the first time I came to South Dakota.  It was 1989 and I had just graduated high school.  We had gone to a family reunion in Mott, North Dakota and basically said, "Hey, as long as we are this close, let's go to the Black Hills."  I read Buckley's On The Firing Line during those many hours in the car.  I would go off to college that fall as a journalism major, telling one instructor that my goal was to be the next William Buckley (I would learn this is not something one says idly to a college professor).  Obviously, things didn't quite work out that way (for one thing, I found out early I didn't want to be a journalist).   But Buckley had a profound influence on me, and undoubtedly many like me, who grew up in the age of Reagan and received their political education from Firing Line and National Review. 

Rest in peace, William F. Buckley.  You are now nearer your God. 

Another 60 Minutes Scandal

Another election, another CBS scandal.

UPDATE:  Oops, I see Prof. Schaff beat me to the punch.

Obama's NAFTA Double-Talk

At the same time that Barack Obama is telling crowds in Ohio he plans to renegotiate NAFTA, one of his senior economic advisers is telling Canada that Obama's talk is nothing but hyped rhetoric.  According to CTV, Austan Goolsbee told the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago that Obama's talk on opting out of the free trade deal shouldn't be taken seriously.  Goolsbee, a professor at the University of Chicago, is Obama's "lead economist" and has been advising Obama since his 2004 Senate bid.  Related thoughts from Ed Morrissey (at his new outpost, Hot Air) and Megan McArdle.

UPDATE:  Power Line:  "Change you can disavow."  More on "Goolsbee Gate" from Mark Ambinder.

Oops, I Did It Again

Looks like CBS and 60 Minutes got duped again. 

Tim Johnson, Steve Kirby, and Nicolo Machiavelli

The Argus has yet another story on the Johnson campaign's attempt to smear Steve Kirby before he even announces for Senate.  What is obvious is that the Johnson campaign legitimately fears Kirby, otherwise they would not attack him so vigorously. 

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said Democrats could be trying to scare Kirby out of the race. Under current conditions, Sabato thinks Kirby would have a difficult time winning, but those conditions could change, and Democrats know that.

"Suppose he had a health glitch during the campaign," Sabato said of Johnson. "That, I think, is what they're worried about."

Johnson suffered a brain hemorrhage in December 2006 and spent nine months recovering.

Kirby, Sabato said, is a viable candidate, and in small states, incumbents can be vulnerable to a "living, breathing candidate."

The Johnson campaign is using good old fashioned class envy against Kirby, claiming that a wealthy man like Kirby cannot understand the problems of the "common man."  According to Johnson campaign manager Steve Jarding:

Jarding said Friday that Kirby's wealth insulates him from issues that many people are facing."Anybody worth $200 million is not sitting there worrying about, 'Is my home going to get foreclosed on,' " he said.

Really?  Take a look at the list of wealthiest U.S. Senators.  How rich do you have to be to not worry "Is my home going to get foreclosed on"?  Herb Kohl, Democrat from Wisconsin is also worth over $200 million.  John Kerry is worth over $165 million.  Are they out of touch?  How about Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Clinton?  Jay Rockefeller for goodness sake!  He's a Rockefeller!  Are these Democratic Senators, multi-millionaires all, out of touch with the American people and unfit for the Senate?  And two of them, Kennedy and Rockefeller, didn't even work for their money, they just inherited it.  How about the sainted Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a man who came from vast wealth and privilege?  Was he out of touch?  No, this is a clear example of an ad hominem attack:  they attempt to discredit Kirby not by attacking his ideas but by attacking the man. 

Naturally, Sen. Johnson himself was "unavailable for comment."  Smart move.  Have other people do your dirty work to inoculate you from criticism.  Quite Machiavellian of him. In Chapter Seven of The Prince, Machiavelli tells the story of Cesare Borgia and his efforts at placating the newly conquered Romagna.  He found the region under weak rule, so, "Thereupon he promoted Messer Ramiro d'Orco [de Lorqua], a swift and cruel man, to whom he gave the fullest power. This man in a short time restored peace and unity with the greatest success."  Ramiro pacified Romagna with dispatch, cruelty, and, as Machiavelli tells us, great success.  But the goal being achieved, Borgia had only one more use for Ramiro.  Ramiro was hated by the people due to his cruelty, and so:

[Borgia] desired to show that, if any cruelty had been practised, it had not originated with him, but in the natural sternness of the minister. Under this pretence he took Ramiro, and one morning caused him to be executed and left on the piazza at Cesena with the block and a bloody knife at his side. The barbarity of this spectacle caused the people to be at once satisfied and dismayed.

Let's hope Steve Jarding earns a better fate. 
      

SDP Jazz Note: Thelonious Monk & Johnny Griffin

If Thelonious Monk dropped a penny into a coffee can, you could tell by the sound it made that it was Monk that dropped it.  Or at least that it was someone who was hanging around Monk.  When Monk played the piano, every note seemed slightly or more than slightly odd.  A sax or a trumpet playing behind him takes on the same quality.  In a Monk composition, when you hear it for the first time, every change seems all wrong.  Each melodic line seems to start in the wrong place and end too soon or too late.  It seems like you have entered a twilight zone where the geometry is non-Euclidean and the flavors are all new.  And yet, if you keep listening, you notice that the echoes in the room are pure juke joint piano, and every thread in the musical tapestry spools back into the traditions of African-American music.  This explains why those with a seasoned ear for jazz often think that Monk's music was perfect, while those hearing it for the first time wonder if he could play the piano at all. 

It is proof enough of his genius that jazz musicians have found his compositions to be persistently fascinating.   "Round Midnight," and "Straight, No Chaser" are among the most frequently covered standards.  It is true that a lot of jazz men have been perplexed by his work, especially when they were working with him.  But there has been a lot of good pudding. 

One place to start is Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers with Thelonious Monk.  The title is deceptive.  Blakey's Jazz Messengers wasn't a combo, it was a jazz school.  One brilliant jazzman after another drifted in and out, while Blakey's drum rhythm kept up the institution.  This disc represents Monk 101.  Five of the six pieces are Monk standards.  One is a Johnny Griffin composition.  Griffin is one of the lesser immortals in the jazz pantheon.  But he is one of my favorites.  He played tenor sax on this session. 

Griffin's tenor can also be heard on two lesser known albums recorded live at the Five Spot Cafe.  Misterioso, and Thelonious Monk in Action, document these performances. Both are available for a handful of quarters at eMusic. Griffin's ability to enter and master Monk's logic is awesome.  This is what jazz is all about: the marriage of intelligence and passion in the realm of melody. 

That Didn't Take Long

Barack Obama has released a predictable campaign ad in response to Hillary Clinton's "Children" ad:

Note:  If anyone has any problems with SDP loading slowly because of the videos, email me and I'll work out something different for the videos. 

Superdelegates, Democracy, and Parties

My dear friend and Keloland Colleague, Todd Epp, has a problem with super delegates. 

You see, in America, I thought, these little things called ELECTIONS were supposed to decide who represents us.  And by the time the convention rolls around, even tiny South Dakota will have voted and expressed who its residents want to be the next Democratic nominee. Same with all the other states through their primaries and caucuses.

The Super Delegates like Tom and Nic—both good men—are a renunciation of the Party’s past—actually of South Dakota’s once great influence through favorite son, U.S. Senator George McGovern. ...

But of course, diversity is messy.  “Those” people discover they actually have power and don’t always do what the party apparachniks want.

So, the McGovern reforms have been rolled back and we get stuck—not with bad people—but with a bad system.  People who have achieved their position—not through an election to be a delegate for the rest of us schmucks in the party—but simply through their past or present position.   They then get to make the most important decision in our democracy—who gets to run for President.

I think Todd misunderstands the institution of super delegates.  The problem with diversity is not that it's messy, but that it is diverse.  Each party represents a vast coalition of diverse populations and perspectives.  Each defined subgroup within a party could no doubt come up with its own ideal candidate.  The point of the nomination machinery is to focus the will of the various groups behind one candidate. 

Republicans do this with winner-take-all primaries.  Voters are encouraged to abandon candidates who cannot achieve a plurality in primaries, however much they are fond of them (see: Romney and Thompson).  McCain is obviously a compromise candidate: he will achieve the nomination by becoming the second or third choice of a lot of voters.  Compromise is as democratic as "I want what I want and I want it now!"  I also think it is more healthy.

Democrats have preferred proportional representation in their primaries.  If Candidate O gets 66% and Candidate C, 33%, they should get two thirds and one third of the delegates respectively.  That's representing the popular will!  Unfortunately, it makes it more likely that a strong second place candidate will deny the first place candidate enough delegates to win the nomination on a first ballot.  If Ms. Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, the Democrats are on track for that outcome. 

If neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton come out of this with a winning hand, one of two things will happen:  either the super delegates will make the difference for one of the two, or there will be deadlock on the first ballot.  Then we will see something we have not seen for a long time: all the delegates will be free, and the process of selection will start all over again and proceed vigorously for a few days.  Such a process would be chaotic and magnificent and, for a political scientist, a lot of fun to watch.  But be sure of this: it won't be the voters but a few thousand delegates who decide who gets to run as the Democratic candidate. 

The super delegates are designed to prevent this.  In the case of a near tie, party leaders like Daschle, with a lot of experience under their belts, will throw the vote to one candidate or the other.  I think it very unlikely that they will chose to override the popular vote.  If Obama comes out with a million more popular votes than Clinton, the super delegates will anoint him.  Super delegates are not an elitist alternative to democracy.  They are a remedy for the defects of a poorly designed democratic process.

Who Ya Gonna Call?

I agree with my esteemed SDP colleague Jason that Hillary's telephone ad was very good.  And I agree with the sly Professor Schaff as to why the ad does more good for McCain than for Clinton.  Walter Mondale ran a similar ad against Gary Hart in 1984, and it was very effective.  But Mondale had been Vice President.  Ms. Clinton's resume is a much more mixed bag, and there aren't very many impressive items in it.  Still, the ad may help Clinton in Tuesday's critical contests.

The recent exchange between McCain and Obama on Iraq is very telling.  Obama said he would send troops "back to Iraq" if Al Qaeda is "forming a base there."  McCain jumped on that one. 

"The fact is, al Qaeda is in Iraq," McCain said. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. If we left Iraq there's no doubt that al Qaeda would then gain control in Iraq and pose a threat to the United States of America. Ask anyone who knows about the situation on the ground in Iraq. I look forward to continuing this debate."

Obama responded:

I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.

I give the win to Obama, on immediate political impact.  It is clear that public doubts about the Iraq war have greatly weakened Republicans in general, and Obama's reply is part of a pretty good argument that Iraq created a lot more problems than it has yet solved. 

On the other hand, Obama's reply contains an obvious weakness: it works only if the election continues to be about the past.  Anyone whose major passion is to punish Republicans for the war will surely vote Democrat no matter who the nominee is.  But we are electing the next President, not grading the last one.  The only real choices are to stay in until it is safe to leave, or leave and let come what may.  To leave and then have to come back would surely be the worst possible policy, the most expensive in lives and treasure.  That Obama has boxed himself into advocating that is a sure sign that he is not thinking about policy at all, but only about how to win an election.

Just right now, Obama is resting his case against Senator Clinton and McCain squarely on the fact that he was "opposed to the war from the beginning."  It may be that all his talk of change and hope is really about the past as well: it's just another way of saying, over and over, that he is anti-Bush.  That may work, as it worked for Bill Clinton in 1992.  But if McCain, or events, persuade us to think seriously about the future, the advantage will be with McCain. 

Re: Devastating Ad

I agree with all of Prof. Schaff's comments below.  If McCain simply edits out the last five seconds or so, he'd have a great campaign spot for the general election.

HEH:  Erick Erickson provides the editing for the ad.

Devastating Ad

I must say, I agree with Jason.  What a devastating ad he presents.  Hillary Clinton has it right.  Whom do we need in place when the White House phone rings late at night?  Someone who knows the world's leaders.  Someone who knows the military.  Someone already tested.  I can't think of any better reasons to vote McCain in 2008. 

Obama the Race-Baiter?

That's what historian Sean Wilentz claims in his latest New Republic piece entitled "Race Man: How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton."  Wilentz, a Clinton supporter, claims that Hillary's campaign troubles are not a result of her flaws as a candidate but because of Obama's "cutthroat, fradulent politics," which, according to Wilentz, are "the most outrageous deployment of racial politics since the Willie Horton ad campaign in 1988 and the most insidious since Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, praising states’ rights.”  Kevin Murphy picks apart Wilentz's article and says "Wilentz jumps the shark."  Indeed.  I'm afraid the Princeton historian's attempt to portray Obama as a race-baiter will be no more successful than the attacks we've seen emerge from the Clinton camp over the last week.

Maybe Dana Milbank was on to something Tuesday when he wrote the Clintonites seem eager to present "a fascinating tour of an alternate universe."

HT to Cliopatria.

UPDATE:  More criticism of Wilentz's article over at Too Sense.

A Brief History of Telephone Campaign Ads

Here's the new ad the Clinton camp has released in Texas that's getting lots of buzz in the blogosphere:

Some are comparing this to the Lyndon Johnson "Daisy" ad that the campaign ran against Barry Goldwater in the 1964, but I don't think it goes quite that far.  However, this certainly has the flavor of Walter Mondale's "Red Phone" ad he ran against Gary Hart.  Indeed, Roy Spence, the Texas-based advertising guru who has been advising the Clinton campaign, was the media adviser for Mondale in 1984:

Before Spence's commercial, however, LBJ also ran a telephone ad entitled "Hotline."  Compare this to Mondale's ad and note the messages are alike (along with the phones almost being identical):

Mrs. Clinton isn't the first to do a telephone-themed ad, nor will she probably be the last.

Dems Targeting Kirby

UPDATE:  Argus Leader:  Johnson campaign attacks Steve Kirby

The Argus Leader reports this morning that the South Dakota Democrats have launched a new website taking shots at Sioux Falls businessman Steve Kirby, who has considered running against Tim Johnson:

Democrats on Thursday launched a pre-emptive strike against Sioux Falls businessman Steve Kirby, who is considering a run against Sen. Tim Johnson.

Kirby, a former lieutenant governor, will make a decision in the next few days. Demo-crats aren't waiting to see if the Kirby-for-Senate balloon takes flight before opening fire. On Thursday, national Democrats launched a Web site depicting Kirby as a would-be, third-rate candidate for a desperate Republican Party.

"Steve Kirby: Somewhere between #9 and the bottom of the barrel," reads the Web site, www.10thchoice.com.

"There was some argument about whether that ought to be 11th or 12th, depending on who was counting," said Matthew Miller, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which paid for the site.

Miller said Kirby "flamed out" as a candidate in the 2002 GOP primary for governor, coming in third out of three candidates.

"He is not exactly an all-star candidate," he added.

The site refers to Kirby as a "wealthy businessman" and criticizes his history in politics and business.

The Johnson camp apparently endorses the attack and calls the Republican response "comical."  We'll see if things remain "comical" when ads start showing up going after Johnson.  Given the flack Johnson has received before by attacking opponents (recall the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party"), I'm surprised to see them not walking away from this.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a news release yesterday announcing it plans to send $125,000 to the South Dakota Democratic Party.  Remember that Kirby hasn't even announced himself a candidate yet, so the amount of cash coming in and the attack on Kirby indicates how seriously the Democrats are taking this Senate seat.

UPDATE:  Dave Kranz has a column this morning claiming Republicans are running low on time to stage a run for Congress.

Unintended Compliment

Howard Dean says the Republican presidential field “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.”  I guess that means they are very clean and stand firmly for the natural rights of all, just as Republican Abraham Lincoln did in the 1850s.  Thank you for the compliment, sir.  Although, with all due respect sir, it is your party that is now for tariffs, not the Republicans. 

All We Need Is A Flux Capacitor And 1.21 Gigawatts!

Barack Obama has the solution to the Iraq problem: we should have never gone there (parody alert):

Senator John McCain questions whether I have experience enough to deal with Iraq, but the  fact is that he's old. No one faints at his rallies... unless they forgot their heart medication because they're as old as he is. And I do have experience: Experience at not going to war. That's why not having gone to Iraq is the perfect solution for me. It's one I'm uniquely able to espouse and have been consistent on. Years ago I said we shouldn't invade Iraq, and that is still my solution.

A few have said that not going to Iraq isn't a solution anymore since we already have gone there. I hear your concern and I have three words  for you: Hope. Change. The future.

That's right: The future. And not just any future; a future where we look forward and say, "We shouldn't have gone to Iraq."

Next up for Sen. Obama: Saving Lois Lane by spinning the Earth backwards.    

Natural Born Thriller

I read through Matt Franck's piece at National Review, as suggested by Professor Schaff.  I don't think the question is "foolishness," as Franck says.  It would be a good sign that the New York Times was, for the first time in decades, taking an interest in what the Constitution really says; except that, of course, it is only doing so because it might lead some people (the voters) to suspect that John McCain might not be a real and legal American (though that, of course, is not what the Times is saying). 

The questions is whether John McCain is a "natural born citizen," and thus eligible for the Presidency, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.  From the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The question is reasonable, because a reasonable person might take the phrase to mean someone born in the United States.  The Times points out that, in fact, every person ever elected President was born in one of the fifty states. 

I regard the following as dispositive:

First, the phrases "natural born citizen" and "naturalized citizen" are exhaustive categories: a person can only become a citizen of the United States in one of these two ways. Since to be "naturalized" is to become a citizen by  a specified legal procedure, "natural born citizen" means nothing more nor less than a person who is a citizen from, and by virtues of the circumstances of, birth.   

Second, it is clear that, under long standing legal practice and tradition, a person born abroad to American citizens is a citizen from birth.

Therefore, a person (John McCain) born abroad (as in the Canal Zone) to parents who are American citizens (Mr. and Ms. McCain, Sr.) is a natural born citizen and thus eligible under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, to be President. 

This is so regardless of what the Times might think someone might think about what the Times appears to be but is not really saying. 

Down With Laptops!

Finally, education reform I can get behind.  The legislature has cut $3 million requested by the governor to fund laptop initiatives for K-12 education.  Cory has more.  Now if only we could achieve this kind of success with all "mobile computing" initiatives! 

Panama John: The Last Word

Matt Franck gives the whole "is McCain a natural born citizen" question a pretty thorough going over.  Answer: yep! 

Natural Born McCain

Professor Schaff reviews the question of McCain's eligibility for the Presidency, in light of his birth outside the Untied States.  I am in agreement.  Since no court record or congressional proceedings seem to exist to clarify the phrase "natural born citizen", we have to ask how such cases have been treated in the past apart from the question of presidential elections.  My guess is that persons born outside the U.S., but to parents who were citizens of the United States, are regularly treated as "natural born citizens."  They enjoy the status of U.S. citizens without any naturalization process required.  Moreover, a U.S. military base, like a U.S. embassy or a territory, is under U.S. jurisdiction and may well qualify as U.S. soil for this purpose.  I believe there are cases where birth inside a U.S. embassy was sufficient to prove citizenship.

I note that the New York Times article on this topic is full of mealymouthed phrases: "The question has nagged", certain facts "are reviving a musty debate,"  and "given mounting interest."  Questions nag, facts revive, mounting interest on the part of unnamed parties has a given effect.  No actual persons seem to be doing anything here. 

Is John McCain Eligible For President

This piece asks a question: does John McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone make him ineligible for president?  In listing the eligibility requirements for the presidency, the Constitution says:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

What does this mean?  On their face these words from Article II plainly mean that one must be born a United States citizen, not made one.  If one favors an original intent interpretive scheme, clearly what the founders were trying to prevent was a foreigner becoming president.  John McCain was not born in the United States, but he was born a U.S. citizen, i.e., not a foreign alien. 

This interpretation is bolstered by how the Constitution deals with this question elsewhere.  Article I, Sec 8 speaks to immigration.  It gives Congress power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen.  There appear to be two ways of becoming a United States citizen.  You are born one or you become one.  Becoming a U.S. citizen is a process of "naturalization."  You are not "naturally" a citizen, so you must be made "naturalized," i.e., go through a process.  John McCain was not required to go through any such process. As he is a "natural born Citizen," he did not need to go through a process of "naturalization."   He meets the Constitutional standard. 

Federal Reserve Keeps Digging

The first rule of being in a hole, it is said, is stop digging.  Yet this lesson is lost on the Federal Reserve Board.  Despite new information that inflation last year was the highest in a quarter century, the Board is preparing for yet another interest rate cut.  It cannot be exaggerated how bad this policy is.  The Board must encourage savings and tighten the reigns on the money supply or we will get both inflation and a recession.  It is my opinion a recession is almost inevitable at this point.  The question is whether it will be coupled with back braking inflation.  The Fed continues to pursue a loose monetary policy that will not stave off that recession but will make it more painful by encouraging wrecking an already weak dollar.  It is time for responsible leaders to tell the Fed to stop it.  Where is the oversight from Congress? Thank goodness they are all over the Roger Clemens issue.  Congress really is really focusing on the important matters.   

Bookshelf Etiquette

Some thoughts on bookshelf etiquette. 

William F. Buckley, Jr.

I am suffering the slings and arrow of an outrageous sinus infection, and so will not comment on the passing of WFB at any length, now.  Let me say that I met him once, briefly.  He appeared at a celebration in honor of my teacher, Harry V. Jaffa.  Buckley was as gracious and delightful to talk to as any man I ever met.  I also heard him talk at Cal Poly in Pomona.  He was one of America's intellectual treasures for a good half a century. 

WFB, RIP

William F. Buckley, dead at 82.  More to say, but too little time now.  I encourage readers take in one of Buckley's most recent books, Miles Gone By.  A great read with insights into the man. 

Bill Buckley, Godspeed

The New York Times reports that William Buckley, a giant among conservatives, has passed away at the age of 82, at his desk probably working on his next column:

William F. Buckley Jr., who marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse, died Wednesday at his home in Stamford, Conn.

Mr Buckley, 82, suffered from diabetes and emphysema, his son Christopher said, although the exact cause of death was not immediately known. He was found at his desk in the study of his home, his son said. “He might have been working on a column,” Mr. Buckley said.

Mr. Buckley’s winningly capricious personality, replete with ten-dollar words and a darting tongue writers loved to compare with an anteater’s, hosted one of television’s longest-running programs, “Firing Line,” and founded and shepherded the influential conservative magazine, National Review.

He also found time to write more than 45 books, ranging from sailing odysseys to spy novels to celebrations of his own dashing daily life, and edit five more.

The more than 4.5 million words of his 5,600 biweekly newspaper columns, “On the Right,” would fill 45 more medium-sized books.

Mr. Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism, but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal post-World War II America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964, and saw his dreams fulfilled when Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office.

We owe Buckley an incredible debt for bringing conservatives together under a single political banner and for his great legacy, National Review, which stands at the center of the movement.  It's sad to see him go but we should be grateful of his remarkable life and legacy.  God bless, sir, and thank you for all you've done.

Lots more over at The Corner.  You can send your tributes, condolences, and memories to rememberingbill@nationalreview.com.

UPDATE:  Buckley vs. Vidal

Democracy

This blog, generally, is concerned with the sum and substance about the practice of democracy.  We examine the mechanics of democratic politics and often take note of others in the world who launch their own bold attempts to bring democracy to undemocratic regions.  That's why it's depressing to read stories like this in the Seattle Times entitled "Putin's iron grip on Russia":

Over the past eight years, in the name of reviving Russia after the tumult of the 1990s, Putin has waged an unforgiving campaign to clamp down on democracy and extend control over the government and much of the economy. He has suppressed the independent news media, nationalized important industries, smothered the political opposition and deployed the security services to carry out the Kremlin's wishes.

While these tactics have been widely recognized, they have been especially heavy-handed at the local level, in far-flung places like Nizhny Novgorod, 250 miles east of Moscow. On the eve of the March 2 presidential election that was all but fixed in December, when Putin selected his close aide, Dmitri Medvedev, as his successor, Nizhny Novgorod stands as a stark example of how Putin and his followers have established what is essentially a one-party state.

McCain Repudiates Radio Talk Show Host

During the introduction for John McCain at a rally in Cincinnati today, talk-radio host Bill Cunningham found it important to emphasized Barack Obama's middle name.  McCain was quick to apologize for his emcee's disrespectful tone:

In a possible foreshadowing of a potentially bruising general election campaign, a speaker who introduced presidential candidate John McCain at a rally here today accused Barack Obama of sympathizing with “world leaders who want to kill us” and invoked Obama’s middle name — three times calling him “Barack Hussein Obama.”

Local conservative radio talk show host Bill Cunningham described Obama as “a hack Chicago Daley-style politician who is picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you — all you’re going to have in your pocket is change,” he said.

McCain quickly distanced himself from the remarks, which he did not hear, saying that using Obama’s middle name in repetition like that was inappropriate. “I absolutely repudiate such comments and again, I will take responsibility,” he said, calling the use of Obama’s middle name inappropriate. “It will never happen again. It will never happen again.”

What's the point of suggesting the middle name?  Are there so many Barack Obama's in the national media that commentators must use his middle name to differentiate them?  It's clear that Cunningham wants to pander to fear and emotion by sustaining the myth of Obama's supposed Muslim identity (just as Team Clinton did).  And he gave his full name three times during the introduction.  I disagree with Obama on many of his policies and question some of his past, but sandbagging like this has no place in politics.  McCain did the right thing by disassociating himself from Cunningham's remarks.

More at The Swamp.

UPDATE:  Brendan Loy:  "John McCain already seems intent on running a more honorable campaign against Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton has."

Religion In America

Joe Knippenberg also directs our attention to a major study (pdf alert) on religion in America by the Pew Foundation (they don't stink!). Joe has a series of links commenting on the story, so feel free to follow the link to NLT for lots of fun with religion. 

There are two phenomena indicated in the report toward which I'll direct my comments, with the caveat that I have only read the summary and looked at the charts.  The first is the rise in the religiously "unaffiliated."  Joe is probably right that this is largely a function of a nation that marries later.  The "unaffiliated" seem to be two groups.  There are atheists and agnostics who appear to be older, wealthier, and educated.  Then there are the seculars who are younger, poorer, and less educated.  Of course being young tends to go with being poor and less educated.  These "nothing in particular" folks, who make up the lion's share of the "unaffiliated," may become affiliated with a particular church as they grow older, get married and have children.  But since Americans more and more delay marriage and children, there is a large group of relatively young people (mostly men, I suspect) going through life as social solitaries.

Another finding of the study is the decline of Catholicism.  It is only Hispanic immigration that keeps Catholicism from being in statistical decline.  Why the decrease in membership?  Various thoughts come to mind.  One certainly must start with lack of faith, although that is an answer likely to be unsatisfying to social scientists.  So what else?  The priest scandals certainly do not help.  I suggest a main factor is profoundly bad religious education (or as we fish eaters like to call it, catechesis).  Catholic religious education is extremely good at teaching the what but very bad at teaching the why.  Catholic education tends to focus on learning how to do this or that (do a sign of the cross here, kneel at this point in mass, don't eat meat on Friday during Lent), but avoids teaching doctrine, its connection to scripture, or how it all connects to Christ.  So young people looking to find meaning in their lives are all too likely to find empty ritual, thereby conforming to one of the Protestant stereotypes of Catholicism.  I wish to point out that Catholic doctrine and ritual is full of meaning and can provide profound comfort, but this is all too infrequently imparted during religious formation.   

More Evidence Of Educational Failure

A report by this group shows, once again, that our education system fails our students.  In a study of 17 year olds:

Among 1,200 students surveyed:

•43% knew the Civil War was fought between 1850 and 1900.

•52% could identify the theme of 1984.

•51% knew that the controversy surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy focused on communism.

In all, students earned a C in history and an F in literature, though the survey suggests students do well on topics schools cover. For instance, 88% knew the bombing of Pearl Harbor led the USA into World War II, and 97% could identify Martin Luther King Jr. as author of the "I Have a Dream" speech.

Fewer (77%) knew Uncle Tom's Cabin helped end slavery a century earlier.

"School has emphasized Martin Luther King, and everybody teaches it, and people are learning it," says Chester Finn of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank. "What a better thing it would be if people also had the Civil War part and the civil rights part, and the Harriet Tubman part and the Uncle Tom's Cabin part."

Interesting that "students do well on topics schools cover."  The fact, then, that students cannot place the Civil War in the correct half century tells you that the schools cover the wrong material.  Other nuggets you can find if you choose to read further about the study are that "nearly a quarter" of students could not identify Adolf Hitler and 10% think he was a munitions manufacturer (I suspect confusing Hitler with Oscar Schindler).  Forty-five percent cannot identify Oedipus while 44% think The Scarlett Letter is about a witch trial or a piece of correspondence. 

Yes, like a broken record I will say it again: by all means let's spend more money on education, but as long as we spend more money teaching the same things in the same way we will raise yet another generation of culturally illiterate citizens.

HT to Joe K., one stop shopping for all news on education. 

Michael Kinsley Explaining What He Is Not Accusing the NYT's Of

This is utterly devastating.  From Slate:

I have come under some criticism for my criticism of the New York Times for its criticism of Sen. John McCain. Many readers of last week's New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist. This is obviously a much more important question.

To be absolutely clear: The Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance.

Similarly, I am not accusing the New York Times of screwing up again by publishing an insufficiently sourced article, then defending itself with a preposterous assertion that it wasn't trying to imply what it obviously was trying to imply. I am merely reporting that some people worry that other people might be concerned that the New York Times has created the appearance of screwing up once again.

The American Left and Cuba's Independent Librarians

Much of the American left continues to admire and support Castro's regime. 

Consider the case of the American Library Association and the Independent Library Project in Cuba. If you are one of those Cubans who doesn't have the "convertible pesos," and you want to get books that the Castro regime doesn't approve of, you have to find an independent book lender. And you would have to convince the book lender that you are not a government agent, because the government's response to this movement is to arrest and imprison the independent librarians. 

Now you might think that the American Library Association, which categorically "deplores any restrictions ... that inhibit the free flow of information among librarians", to side with the Independent Library Project in Cuba. You would be wrong. 

The ALA Latin American and Caribbean Subcommittee (of the International Relations Committee), refused to recommend that the ALA condemn the Cuban government's treatment of independent librarians.  After hearing both sides, those who favor the Cuban government and those who are being thrown in the slammer, the LAC Subcommittee issued a report.  Here is a juicy passage:

Data presented on both sides of the issue are inconclusive, with each side questioning both the accuracy and the intention of the other. While the civil oppression of individuals associated with these collections appears to be documented by Amnesty International and other observers, it is not conclusive whether these conditions result from the denial of intellectual freedom or from anti-government activities by the persons involved. The "independent" nature of the various collections of books and other documents, as well as the political agenda of those individuals responsible for them, are questionable, but seem to represent the political orientation of special interests positioned in opposition to the Cuban government.

Let me unpack that for you.  The Cuban government regards independent librarians as agents of outside powers, hostile to Cuban socialism.  That, of course, is how tyrannies view any attempt at freedom of thought: it is treason against the state.  The ALA subcommittee endorses this view.  Because the independent librarians get help (see: books) from folks outside Cuba who are not fond of the Cuban regime (where else would they get them?  Not, I think, from the ALA), they are therefore not really "independent." 

Of course that doesn't mean that the ALA doesn't take sides.  It is firmly on the side of the regime. 

During the discussion, Ms. Neugebauer affirmed her belief that any condemnation by ALA at this point, based on information that may be inaccurate and politically loaded, could be offensive to library colleagues in Cuba and might harm the peer relationships American librarians are trying to develop with Cuban librarians.

Of course the "library colleagues in Cuba" aren't "independent" either.  They are creatures of the regime.  The ALA has made it clear whose side it is on.

The Paradise that is Cuba

Like the Energizer Bunny, Castro's Cuba just keeps going, though finally without Castro.  Much of the American Left still admires Castro, and they talk endlessly about how good the free medical care is.  So consider the report of one unreconstructed British socialist after his trip to the Caribbean paradise.  Neil Clark tells the story in the British Spectator:

My wife and I, as unreconstructed paleo-lefties who support Clause Four, free school meals and NHS dental provision, had long wanted to visit Castro’s Cuba. All the people whose views we respect had said that the Caribbean island was a progressive model whose policies on education and healthcare ought to be copied throughout the world. We went there last April desperately wanting to like the place — after all, if George W. Bush and other right-wing nasties hated Cuba so much, then the country must be on the right tracks. 

But we returned home terribly disillusioned. Neither of us had been to a country which was so utterly decrepit.  ...Dilapidated buildings with wires hanging out, streets that haven’t been resurfaced for more than 50 years, balconies that look like they’re going to fall down at any minute. In my travels in the Middle East and Asia, I’ve certainly witnessed squalor, but nothing prepared me for the back streets of Havana.

But decrepitude is merely physical, however nasty its psychological impact.  Poverty is a moral fact. 

The average wage in Cuba is a pitiful $17 a month. The monthly ration which includes 283g of fish, 226g of chicken, ten eggs and 1.8kg of potatoes is barely enough for a fortnight, meaning most Cubans need to work the black market to stay alive. Things that we in Britain take totally for granted — such as toilet paper, toothpaste and pens — are luxury goods in Cuba. I’ll never forget the look of joy from an old lady when I handed her a couple of old marker pens and a coloured pencil.

A worker's paradise that feeds the workers fourteen days out of each month.  But what really got Clark's biscuit wet was the "currency apartheid" in Cuba. 

The heartbreaking consequences of Cuba’s currency apartheid were bought home to my wife and I on a Saturday afternoon visit to Havana’s Coppelia ‘Ice Cream’ park. To the right of the park gates was a long queue of Cubans who had only Cuban pesos. They have to wait on average two hours every weekend to get their weekly scoop of ice cream. On the left, there was walk-in access to tourists and the lucky locals who had convertible pesos. Fifty years on, the Cuban revolution has turned full circle in a truly Orwellian fashion. Once again the locals find themselves excluded from the best beaches in their country, as they were under Batista. And prostitution, so rife in pre-revolutionary days, is back — the jineteras being the only group of Cubans allowed to enter the new purpose-built resorts.

In fact, Cuba has preserved in fine fashion the brutal two class system that characterized so many Latin dictatorships. This is the system that so many British and American Leftist hold up as an ideal.

Noted Headlines

If I can take a page out of Prof. Blanchard's book:

• Suicidal pets get anti-depressants

But...

• Study casts doubt on anti-depressants

Now there's a dilemma. 

Global Warming And Drought

The American News reports on a talk on climate and drought given by Iowa State climatologist Elwynn Taylor.  There is much of interest in the story, mostly about how long term climate patterns seem to indicate a major drought is predicted in the coming years.  But there is the looming specter of global warming.  Dr. Taylor seems to buy into human caused global warming, but at the same time illustrates that there are periods of global warming and cooling.  We happen to be on the tail end of a natural global warming period. 

The cycle, called the Gleissberg Cycle, is solar-controlled, he said, and seems to be responsible for the variations in global temperature over, in general, a 30-year period: the global warming that was experienced from 1800 to 1850; global cooling from 1850 to 1880; warming from 1880 to 1940; cooling from 1940 to 1972; and warming since 1972.

But is nature in still in control?

That's if nature is still in control.

But, Taylor said, “if people have taken over the situation, then it would just keep getting warmer.”

It is known that people are contributing, he said.

“It's not yet clear the magnitude of our contribution versus nature's contribution,” he said.

This is of some note.  Dr. Taylor argues that there are clearly defined cycles of global warming and cooling and that it is uncertain how much human activity contributes to global warming.  Perhaps nature is more the cause of global warming than some care to admit. 

The Obama Smear

Drudge has been carrying a photo of Barack Obama all day that appears to have originated with the Clinton campaign.  If true, Team Clinton is getting desperate and trying anything they can to derail Obama's rise to the front.  Plus, this is downright nasty politics since the subtext suggests "Obama is a Muslim that that should worry you."  This will probably hurt Clinton much more than it helps.  I've already seen a few Democratic blogs (see Josh Marshall) denouncing Clinton for doing this, and I imagine the Democratic establishment isn't far behind from doing the same.  Tomorrow night's Democratic debate might be rather chilly.

I didn't post on this earlier today because it was unverifiable if the Clinton campaign actually circulated the photo.  Drudge should never be taken at face value because doing so would be just as bad as the New York Times McCain smear.  But, as the day has gone on, the Clinton camp's non-denial denial from Maggie Williams makes it look like it originated with them.  Democratic voters -- indeed, all voters -- ought to be outraged.

UPDATE:  Some photo evidence from Captain Ed who shows that Barack isn't alone.  Plus, is George W. Bush secretly Vietnamese?

This Is News?

Is it really news that Ralph Nader is running for president?  At this point, isn't that a little like announcing Lindsey Lohan is drunk? 

Darth Nader

Mr. Heppler notes the entry of Ralph Nader into the presidential race.  Politico thinks that this is a huge boon to Republicans.  John Hinderaker at Powerline thinks Nader won't matter, and I am pretty sure he is right.  I think it very unlikely that George W. Bush would have won the presidency in 2000 without Nader in the race.  Consider ground zero, Florida, in the US Election Atlas. 

                                         

Presidential Candidate	Vice Presidential Candidate	Political Party	Popular Vote		Electoral Vote
	George W. Bush	Richard Cheney	Republican	2,912,790	48.85%	25
	Albert Gore Jr.	Joseph Lieberman	Democratic	2,912,253	48.84%	0
	Ralph Nader	Winona LaDuke	Green	97,488	1.63%	0

Bush officially wins Florida by 537 votes out of nearly six million cast statewide.  Now for a number of reasons, you can't just add Nader's vote to Gore's to see what the latter gets without the former in the race (Nader made Gore look more moderate by comparison, a lot of the Nader voters would have stayed home rather than vote for Gore, etc.); but it's hard to argue that Gore wouldn't have gotten a net gain from those 97,488 Nader voters that would have dwarfed Bush's narrow margin.  Likewise with New Hampshire. 

                                         

Presidential Candidate	Vice Presidential Candidate	Political Party	Popular Vote		Electoral Vote
	George W. Bush	Richard Cheney	Republican	273,559	48.07%	4
	Albert Gore Jr.	Joseph Lieberman	Democratic	266,348	46.80%	0
	Ralph Nader	Winona LaDuke	Green	22,198	3.90%	0

A net gain of half the Nader voters would have given Gore that state.  Since Bush won 271 electoral votes, he couldn't afford to lose anything. 

But all that was in a year when Nader did relatively well nation wide.

                                                                       

	George W. Bush	Richard Cheney	Republican	50,460,110	47.87%	271	50.4%
	Albert Gore Jr.	Joseph Lieberman	Democratic	51,003,926	48.38%	266	49.4%
	Ralph Nader	Winona LaDuke	Green	2,883,105	2.73%	0	0.0%

Nearly three million votes out of a hundred million cast was good for a third party candidate (though not nearly so good as Ross Perot in 1992).  Four years later it was a much different story.  Instead of 3% nationwide, Nader could less than one half of one percent.  He did not come close to making a difference in Florida, and I don't think he was even on the ballot in Ohio. 

Presidential elections can't get much closer than the last two. Nader is unlikely to draw near enough votes to give McCain the election. 

More Veep Speculation

At National Review, Byron York interviewed two of the men mentioned most often as potential running mates for John McCain, governors Tim Pawlenty and Mark Sanford.  Both men have been mentioned in early VP predictions.  They both recently were re-elected as governors, both have governed from the center-right, and both are relatively young and potentially good candidates for a later GOP presidential run:

On Sunday, I spoke with two leading contenders for the McCain ticket, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, both in Washington for the annual meeting of the National Governors’ Association. While each expressed strong support for McCain, neither would deny differences with the candidate on two of the issues that have caused McCain the greatest trouble with the conservative base: immigration and campaign-finance reform. ....

Both men praised McCain’s desire to fix the system — “I don’t begrudge him for trying to do something on that,” Sanford told me — but it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that both think McCain’s reform crusade was profoundly misguided.

Yet both enthusiastically support McCain, and both stressed to me that, in light of their agreement with him on big issues like Iraq, the war on terror, and federal spending, their differences on a few other issues did not diminish their zeal to help him win election in November. “John McCain is a conservative,” Pawlenty told me. “Now, there are some particular issues that have disappointed conservatives. He acknowledges that, and he has got some work to do to convince and reassure people that he is in fact a conservative…. But if you look at the totality of his record over the total time he’s been in Congress, it would seem to be unfair and incomplete to label him as something other than a conservative. And if the definition of conservative is going to be so narrowly construed as to only be those things to the right of John McCain, we’re going to have a fairly narrow market share.”

In the interview, both men offer some criticism to McCain's position on McCain-Feingold and his stance on immigration.  But they're enthusiastic about McCain's run and can lay out an intelligent case to support him and their own future aspirations for higher office.  Pawlenty and Sanford would both be a fine choice for VP.  If McCain chooses a running mate that is willing to dissent with him on issues, that could send a signal to skeptical conservatives that McCain is open to other options. (HT to Captain Ed)

Rosebud Project

Argus Leader excerpt:

It is a painful truth of the Rosebud Reservation that some of its children born into the grinding poverty and hopelessness decide that death is a better path than life.

For this is their reality: Young Rosebud Sioux males between 10 and 24 years old kill themselves at a rate of 200 per 100,000 population - a number that some on the reservation privately speculate is the highest in the world.

But now a group led by two South Dakota State University professors thinks it knows a way to change that. They think a child who climbs out of bed each day with a baseball game to play, or a pond in which to float a bobber, or a golf club to swing, is going to choose life.

In fact, they're so convinced of it, they've asked tribal officials and corporate America to join them in late May in Mission to discuss creating a field of dreams - a sports emporium they intend to call the Code Talkers Veterans Memorial Park Complex.

Check out the whole story.

A SD Income Tax?

SDWC:  "Whether by accident or design, the door to an income tax in South Dakota has been cracked open. And those of us who live here will now have to watch as the sucking rift of a new tax grows over the coming years."  Read the whole thing.

Might SD Play a Part in Deciding the Dem Nominee?

See this Associated Press story entitled "States With Later Primaries May Count."  Excerpts:

Democrats in states that refused to join the stampede to the front of the presidential nominating calendar might end up with the final say by voting last.

Instead of being an afterthought in a contest that had already been decided, states with springtime primaries and caucuses may yet play a role in the hard-fought and unusually long-lived race between Democratic hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In Indiana, for example, which hasn't been in a position to help decide the Democratic nominee in 40 years, excitement is building among political supporters like Gelone Broadnax of Indianapolis, who began attracting attention when she donned an Obama campaign button recently.

...

Twenty-two states held Democratic nomination contests on Feb. 5, creating a virtual national primary. But instead of deciding the nominee as once expected, Super Tuesday turned out to be a split decision. Obama has since gained the upper hand, but neither candidate is close to the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

The candidates now are focused on contests in four states on March 4, including the big prizes of Texas, with 193 delegates, and Ohio, with 141. However, even a clean sweep by Obama wouldn't be enough to put him over the top, and polls in Texas and Ohio indicate a close race.

Two other states hold Democratic contests next month: Wyoming, March 8, and Mississippi, March 11.

After that, more than 500 delegates wait to be awarded in the latest-voting states. Besides Indiana and Oregon, those include Pennsylvania on April 22, North Carolina on May 6, West Virginia on May 13, Kentucky on May 20, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3.

Rounds Elected Leader of MGA

New York Times:

Members of the Midwestern Governors Association have elected South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm as their new leaders.

Rounds replaces Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle as chairman, while Granholm will become vice chairwoman. The move makes Granholm the organization's presumptive chairwoman in 2009.

The governors were in Washington, D.C., over the weekend attending the National Governors Association meeting.

Granholm said the dozen Midwestern governors already are working on Rounds' and the association's main focus for the coming year: transportation and infrastructure, which she said tie into climate change and renewable energy.

The region's governors last November signed an agreement to work together to reduce energy consumption, focus more on renewable energy and limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Nader Enters the Race

Ralph Nader has announced he will run for President in 2008:

Ralph Nader announced on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he'll run as a third-party, anti-corporate candidate for president this fall, which would be likely to drain votes from the Democratic nominee and provide a huge boon to Republicans.

Democrats say they will work behind the scenes — and use court challenges, if necessary — to try to thwart his access to ballots.

The longtime consumer activist said on "Meet the Press" that Washington has become "corporate occupied territory" and that none of the current presidential candidates are sufficiently addressing corporate crime, labor rights or Pentagon waste.

"In that context, I have decided to run for president," he told host Tim Russert.

Nader’s comments mirror those made in an interview with Politico last month, when he said he was considering a candidacy around "the overriding issue of corporate control, of our political economy and anything else the dogma of commercialism wants to latch on to."

Democrats and bloggers are already reacting with fury, fearing a rerun of 2000, when Nader drained crucial votes from Al Gore.

Districts 2 and 3 Legislative Races

This American News article about yesterday's cracker barrel states that all District 2 and 3 legislators are running for re-election except Burt Elliott who is term limited.  The story is partially wrong.  Rep. Al Novstrup is not running for re-election.  He is circulating a petition to run for Senate against District 3 Senate incumbent Democrat Al Hoerth.  That leaves an opening for the House in District 3.  Isaac Latterell, who narrowly lost to Hoerth in the Senate race in 2006, is circulating petitions to be a Republican candidate for the House slot left open by Al Novstrup's race for the Senate.  And this story reports that Burt Elliott's wife, Elaine Elliott, will run for the House in District 2, essentially running to fill the spot left open by her husband.    Burt Elliot, by the way, is running for Brown County Commission. 

Odds Against Hillary 2

What is the difference between an Obama rally and a church service?  Answer: in the latter, Jesus doesn't actually deliver the sermon.  That joke, which I stole from Peter Sagal on NPR's Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me, identifies both the strength and the one great weakness of the Obama Campaign.  There is something Messianic about it.  Obama may yet walk across the water all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but like a cartoon character who has just walked off a precipice, all that has to happen for him to fall is for someone to notice that he isn't standing on anything. 

That said, Obama isn't likely to lose his buoyancy any time soon.  Professor Schaff directs our attention to John J. DiIulio Jr.'s argument that Senator Clinton can yet win the nomination.  I saw nothing there that should encourage the Clinton organization.  It may be that Obama's case is shot full of logical and empirical holes, but Hillary has been poking at those for months without effect.  Her real problem remains herself.  She is deeply unpopular with half the nation, and hasn't done much better with half her own party.  Her only real asset: that she is a Clinton, has become a burden.  All her chips are on Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and her cards are looking week on two of the three.  I haven't checked Pennsylvania lately. 

Senator Clinton's supporters have been resting a lot of hope on the super delegates, among whom she once had a commanding lead.  But they seem to be abandoning her as well.  From the AP:

The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters — straight to Barack Obama.

In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton's are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.

The result: He's narrowing her once-commanding lead among these "superdelegates," the Democratic office holders and party officials who automatically attend the national convention and can vote for whomever they choose.

As Obama has reeled off 11 straight primary victories, some of the superdelegates are having second — or third — thoughts about their public commitments.

I just don't see what Senator Clinton can pull out of her hat at this stage.  Maybe she does win Texas and Ohio.  But that just means that the war goes on, not that she wins.  John McCain must be hoping that Ms. Clinton survives as long as possible, and tears as big as hole as possible in the Democratic ass.