South Dakota Politics

Blanchard Gets Interviewed by USA Today

If this is my fifteen minutes of fame, I'll take it.

If those are the determining events for the nomination, what are the last few contests for? Bragging rights, momentum and symbolism.

"It doesn't look like it's going to matter in terms of delegates," says Kenneth Blanchard, political scientist at Northern State University in Aberdeen, S.D. "The only thing that does matter is if Mrs. Clinton can pull off another blowout here. That would clearly make it look like she is the one who can win in large parts of the country."

 

More Farm Bill Reaction

I've discussed some of this below, so I'll just provide links here.

David Freddoso discusses the huge benefit Pine Creek Timber, the largest private land owner in the nation, gets from the farm bill. 

An Associated Press story on Congress's failure to fund the McGovern-Dole program to feed the hungry around the world.  Reason: they needed to cut something so they could increase subsidies. 

The House last year voted a big increase for one popular international aid program, the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. But that boost, which would have guaranteed $840 million over five years, didn't make it into the final bill, which is up for votes this week. That program now gets about $100 million each year but is subject to annual appropriations bills.

Instead, the McGovern-Dole program — named for former Sens. George McGovern, D-S.D., and Bob Dole, R-Kan. — was cut to one-tenth of the House amount in recent weeks as lawmakers scrambled for ways to maintain, increase and begin new subsidies for various crops.

Megan McArdlle, an Obama supporter, asks, "When did the Democrats become the party of rich farmers?" 

And finally a video via Instapundit.  Why is it that we don't tax the oil coming from our enemies but we tax the ethanol coming from Brazil?  I think you know the answer.

Some Hillary Coverage

The American News' Emily Arthur-Richardt live blogged the event.  The Argus has a brief story here and KELO has some video here. BTW, the Argus puts the crowd at 600, which tells you what I know about counting crowds. 

Hillary Clinton: A Critique

Now some reaction to what we saw today in the Aberdeen area with Sen. Clinton's visit.  First, my unrefined crowd sensor guesses that there were around 1200 people there [note: look above and you'll see how wrong I was when I wrote this].  I'll keep an eye on media reports to see if someone else has a better number.  I have no sense as to whether that is a good or bad number.  My guess is that an Obama appearance would get more people out.  We'll see how many come to Watertown tomorrow for his event. 

I found the event a bit subdued.  Sen. Clinton's voice is failing her, no doubt caused by heavy campaigning.  Also, given the crowd she wanted to stress agriculture issues.  She seemed unsure of herself here, not really having a well honed stump speech.  Contrast this with her response to the question about veterans I referenced below.  Here is something she probably talks about all the time.  Her answer was solid, to the point, and informative.  I found her very convincing on this issue.  There was simply a lack of comfort with agriculture issues. 

Sen. Clinton is a progressive Democrat. I am essentially a conservative Republican.  So naturally I didn't agree with most of what she said, but let me make a few criticisms.  She says that she favors country of origin labeling for foodstuffs and she touted her support for permanent disaster relief in the farm bill. A minor criticism, but here are two issues that John Thune has worked on very hard (as has the rest of our delegation) and it would have been easy to send some bi-partisan love on these issues.  She chose not to. 

She argued in favor of spending more money to feed the hungry around the world.  Of course she failed to note that the farm bill she likes so much has very little money for just that.  She also said that ethanol subsidies probably have a "small" impact on food prices.  The evidence is otherwise.  Also, the heavy subsidization of agriculture by wealthy nations such as the US makes it harder for farmers in poor nations to compete in the world market, making those nations even poorer.  Overall, our farm policy helps keep the poor of the world hungry. 

Sen. Clinton argues that we must subsidize agriculture as a "safety net" for farmers and rural communities.  Yet she wants to stick it to the oil industry.  Question: why do the rural communities that depend on the oil industry matter less than rural communities that depend on agriculture?   Why is it wrong to subsidize the oil industry, but ok to subsidize big agriculture and the largest private land owner in the United States?  One answer is that the farmer feeds the world.  Well, the oil fields fuel the world.  The answer to my questions are easy.  In the context of today's event the answer is because we are us and they are them, meaning we like it when the government give us money by taking it from someone else. 

Take a look at the Jones family that hosted the event today.  According to the Environmental Working Group farm subsidy data base, Dennis Jones, whose house we were at, has received about $1.1 million in direct payments from the federal government from 1995-2006.    I don't know all of the relations, but the three Jones's of Bath, SD (including Dennis) have received a total of $2,854,635 over the same time period. That's your money into their pockets. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, but let's be honest about what is going on.  Your money is being taken from you to support someone else's way of life.  It might be a good life.  It might be one that we want to keep. But let's not lie about what we are doing.  There is no difference between subsidizing the oil industry and the agriculture industry other than the fact that farmers are popular and oilmen are not.  And yes, I have no doubt that due to the huge amounts of money in oil that that industry gets far more money from the government.

Last point.  Sen. Clinton rightly pointed out that our Defense Department struggles to get supplies where they are needed.  Let me suggest that that is not Bush Administration problem, but a massive bureaucratic problem.  She mentioned that most people who are here illegally actually came here legally, but the system lost them.  Again, rotten bureaucracy.  The VA doesn't treat its clients as well as we'd like. This might be a funding issue, but it is also a bureaucratic issue.  So the same government that can't take care of veterans, that can't get supplies to soldiers, and can't keep track of immigrants is going to provide health insurance to 300 million people?  I don't think so. 

Hillary's Speech

Here is a bit of what Sen. Clinton said. 

The prepared part of her talk was mostly about agriculture.  She began by speaking about the farm bill just passed yesterday by the House.  She appears to be a big supporter of the bill and chided Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain for arguing for a veto of the bill.  She said that saying "no" to the farm bill was saying "no" to farmers and rural communities.  She also praised the bill for having permanent disaster relief and for including country of origin labeling provisions.  She got in a good populist line by saying that we deserve to know if our apple came from New York or from China.  I guess she knows that China is a convenient whipping boy right now.  She also spoke in favor of ethanol, particularly investing in research for cellulose ethanol.  She said that the sun is the ultimate energy source, so anything that grows can be used for energy. 

She also spoke in favor of farmer's markets, high speed internet for rural communities, nutrition programs (a majority of the spending in the farm bill, she noted) and in favor of programs to get food to the hungry around the world. 

Somewhere within this discussion she mentioned that George Bush took us to war without paying for it. 

She also discussed energy policy.  I won't go into detail here.  She basically endorsed the Consumer First Energy Act that I discussed here.  She did talk about her support for relieving consumers of the federal gas tax for the summer.  She said that she'd use a windfall profits tax on the oil companies to pay for it.  She mentioned that she has gotten criticism over this proposal.  But, she said, if you don't like this idea come up with one of your own, a subtle jab at Obama. 

Next she discussed affordable health care.  She said that she endorses allowing everyone to get the same plan federal employees get, including Senators.  She said that when her Republican colleagues complain that this is socialized medicine she asks them if their own health insurance constitutes socialized medicine.  She claims this program will give better service for a lower price.  Here was another dig at Obama.  She said that people will not be easy to persuade on this issue and on other issues.  Essentially she seemed to be saying that you can't just engage in pretty talk and expect people who have vested interests in the status quo to roll over for you.  She also criticized the Obama proposal for not being universal.   

She then took some questions.  One question was from a local member of the Disable Veterans.  She said she supports fulling funding the Veterans Administration. She also mentioned that we need more work done on traumatic brain injuries, which many Iraq vets suffer from.  She brought up the body armor issue and the lack of supplies for our soldiers.  I found her quite eloquent and knowledgeable on this subject.

Another question was on illegal aliens.  She favors "comprehensive immigration reform."  Here she pretty much sounded like John McCain (or McCain sounds like her).  She is in favor of tightening the boarders and making sure that those who come legally don't overstay their welcome (my words, not hers).  She also argued for greater supervision of employers to make sure they are not hiring illegals and she said the federal government should pick up the tab when local governments must deal with illegals.  She also favors a process of getting legal status for those currently here illegally.  We can't possibly deport them all, so what should we do?  They should be made to pay a fine and back taxes. In the biggest applause line of the day she said that immigrants should be made to learn English if we are to remain "one nation under God" (her line). The main idea here was that we need to get these immigrants a legal status so they can be treated fairly by employers rather than being exploited. 

A last questioner asked something about feeding the world (he didn't have a microphone, but that appears to have been the gist of the question).  Without going into detail, Sen. Clinton expressed a desire to fund such programs at a greater amount. 

I have skipped a thing or two, but this is the important stuff she talked about today. 

Scenes From The Clinton Rally

I just got back from the rally Hillary Clinton had in Bath, just about ten miles outside of Aberdeen.  The first thing I am going to do is simply post some pictures, and if I can figure it out I'll post some video.  It was actually quite warm and Sen. Clinton was an hour late (not untypical for candidates).  Once it got started the event took about an hour.  Sen. Clinton opened with remarks largely about agriculture and energy.  She then took about four or five questions from the crowd.  After that there was a brief time to shake hands and sign some autographs and off she went. 

The bright sun threw off some of my pictures and something went wacky with the color on my video.  Either it was the sun or I hit a button I shouldn't have hit.  Any how, here are some pictures. 

Sen. Jim Hundstad segwayed over to the event. 

So did Rep. Burt Elliott:

Some people found a tractor to sit on while we waited:

And then she appeared:

And shook hands at the end:

It was clear that some people there were not from South Dakota, like this dude apparently from Sen. Clinton's staff:

"Hold On One Second Sweetie"

Obama's Coalition Problem

Ben Smith:

Barack Obama’s stinging defeat in West Virginia brings a sharp focus on the new coalition he may have to assemble to win the White House in November.

West Viginians rejected the presumptive Democratic nominee by more than a two-to-one margin, one of the widest margins of the primary season. The outcome was the predictable result of familiar demographics: West Virginia’s relatively poor white voters have been Hillary Rodham Clinton’s base since February.

In a stark rejection of Obama in a state Bill Clinton carried in 1992 and 1996, almost half of the Democratic primary voters — typically the most partisan Democrats in a state — said they’d vote for Republican John McCain rather than Obama in November.

The results also suggested a deeper dissatisfaction among the state’s Democrats with both candidates: John Edwards, who dropped out more than three months ago, registered a substantial 7 percent of the vote, though Clinton immediately used the results to make her own case for electablity.

Ceasar, Lord, Whatever

Don't you hate it when politicians try to cloak their agenda in religious language, as if to suggest that God endorses their policy preferences?  Don't you hate it when candidates make religiously exclusive claims like, "I am a committed Christian," marginalizing other faiths?  I mean, this this theocracy is anti-American.  Don't these candidates know that religion is unique in history in its ability to instigate conflict, oftentimes violent conflict.  What ever happened to the separation of church and state?  Some just don't get it.

Hillary Clinton In Aberdeen Area Tomorrow

The details:

                   Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will speak Thursday morning at Bath area farm.

Doors will open at 9 a.m. with Clinton to speak at 10:15 a.m., according to information in a press release from Clinton's campaign. Clinton will speak at Jones' Farms, 12954 396th Ave. From Bath Corner, that's roughly one mile east and four miles north, but more details will be provided later this afternoon.

   The event is being called a "Solutions for the Rural Economy" town hall.

I hope to make it to this event.  A report tomorrow. 

Obama's Loss in WV

New York Times:  "After Lopsided Loss, Obama Woos Blue-Collar Voters"

Those aren't the only ones he needs to woo:  "Obama only wins 53% of WV DEM PRIMARY VOTERS in a matchup with McCain."  As I wrote last night, the superdelegates might need to reconsider who they're backing.  Seems to me that Obama cannot gain the demographics and important states that will be needed in the general election.  However, Republicans are having problems of their own.

Ideological Affirmative Action at CU

I believe I've written before at SDP that I disagree with the premise behind ideological affirmative action in universities, but I cannot seem to find the post.  Therefore, I'd like to revisit my objections and turn to this Wall Street Journal story about the University of Colorado's plan to create a "Chair in Conservative Thought and Policy."  Excerpt:

Chancellor G.P. "Bud" Peterson surveys this landscape with unease. A college that champions diversity, he believes, must think beyond courses in gay literature, Chicano studies and feminist theory. "We should also talk about intellectual diversity," he says. So over the next year, Mr. Peterson plans to raise $9 million to create an endowed chair for what is thought to be the nation's first Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy.

Mr. Peterson's quest has been greeted with protests from some faculty and students, who say the move is too -- well, radical. "Why set aside money specifically for a conservative?" asks Curtis Bell, a teaching assistant in political science. "I'd rather see a quality academic than someone paid to have a particular perspective."

Even some conservatives who have long pushed for balance in academia voice qualms. Among them is David Horowitz, a conservative agitator whose book "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America" includes two Boulder faculty members: an associate professor of ethnic studies who writes about the intersection of Chicano and lesbian issues, and a philosophy professor focused on feminist politics and "global gender justice."

While he approves of efforts to bolster a conservative presence on campus, Mr. Horowitz fears that setting up a token right-winger as The Conservative at Boulder will brand the person as a curiosity, like "an animal in the zoo." We "fully expect this person to be integrated into the fabric of life on campus," replies Todd Gleeson, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

Be sure to read the rest.  As my colleagues and I have detailed before, the lack of ideological diversity in academia is a real problem.  The lack of ideological diversity causes a variety of problems, such as reducing the diversity of ideas, biasing teaching agendas, and generating a "groupthink" among an ideologically homogeneous group.   

Creating a token Conservative on the campus of Boulder is a poor solution.  This would require the university to define who is a "conservative" for affirmative action purposes.  Furthermore, hiring a "conservative" might make student think this person reflects the views of all conservatives.  Plus, hiring conservatives for their views rather than their qualifications (which may be inferior) would make it difficult for their ideas to be taken seriously by the campus body.  Therefore, the entire premise of promoting academic diversity falls through when academic debates are not meaningful.  I support improving intellectual diversity, but advocating affirmative action for conservatives is not the way to do it.

UPDATE:  CU was involved in another controversy a couple months ago over the hiring of Bruce Benson, Republican and oilman, to head the University of Colorado system.  Another thought: when you have departments like the History Department on the verge of collapse at CU, where is the $9 million coming from to create this chair?  Wouldn't the money be better spent improving the program already in place rather than promote a bad idea?

UPDATE:  Related thoughts at Phi Beta Cons.

Dumbest Generation?

Speaking of Joe K., he links to this book review of Mark Bauerlein's new work Dumbest Generation, which ponders the effect of technology on the way we learn.  See the book website. 

If the review and the book site are any indication, Bauerlein marshals all sorts of data about our under-performing students.  Question for education nerds: how much of this is caused by the fact that we don't educate as well as we used to and how much is this a statistical anomaly caused by the fact that we now educate everyone?   What I suspect is this: the top students are far worse educated now than, say, 1950.  Also, the average student is less familiar with higher culture and therefore is more culturally illiterate than was the case in decades past.  Technology plays a role in this in that it tends to emphasize the immediately stimulating over reflection and thought.  In that sense we may know more than our ancestors but understand less. 

Regarding the use of technology in education, my thoughts on "laptop education" are well known.  Interestingly, I find myself on state task force looking at this issue at the university level.  As I have a policy of not discussing my work for the state on this website I will not go into detail, but I did learn something recently at one of our meetings in Pierre.  Even those who really favor laptops in the classroom have given up arguing that it actually enhances education.  They admit that they have no proof of this.  Instead they argue that the laptop is just another piece of technology that teachers and students can use in the classroom, like the pencil or overhead projector, to enhance the learning environment.  But no additional learning will result from the use of laptops.  This is the argument of those for laptops in the classroom. 

Rethinking Our Party System

Joe Knippenberg has a thoughtful piece on what we can learn about our party system and republicansim from this presidential primary season.  This jibes quite nicely with Jay Cost's thoughts on party reform. Both notice that while we live in times of hyper-partisanship, our political parties are actually weaker than ever.   I have been arguing this for some time, so it's good to see others sharing this view.

Joe's piece is the first of a trilogy.  So look for more to come, and possibly a movie. 

I Think, Therefore I Kill

As noted below, I got an email from Vic about my Carrot Juice is Murder post.  Vic writes:

As Shakespeare might say, me thinks that the lady doth protest too much.  As Shakespeare also might say, there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.  "natural rights"?  If humans and all of the rest of life are the result of millions of years of Darwinian evolution; and thus, if humans have come out of the jungle; from where, during that lengthy and complex transition, did "natural rights" come?  Are there "natural rights" in the jungle?

 

Abortion kills, which prevents the continuation of life.  Contraception prevents the continuation of the life of eggs and sperm.  Abstinence prevents the continuation of the life of eggs and sperm.  "crackpot notions"?  "natural rights"?  Nay, Shakespeare was right when he had Hamlet say that there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.

I'll leave it to my Darwinian colleague Prof. Blanchard to discuss Darwinian natural right if he so chooses, or one can consult Larry Arnhart on the subject (see also Arnhart's blog).  Blanchard and Arnhart actually do tease out a natural rights teaching from Darwin, but I am not well versed enough in the argument to attempt to reproduce it here.  So let's leave it at "it can be done." 

Vic buys into Cartesian dualism sprinkled with a healthy dose of Nietzsche.  Regarding dualism, Vic abstracts the mind from the body, assuming that because he thinks, therefore he is.  His mind is the the "real" Vic.  Let me suggest, briefly, that my body is part of who I am, not merely a carrier for the "real me."  To violate my body is to violate me.  Simply notice how the state of your body effects the state of your mind.

Vic also elucidates a kind of Nietzschean "will to power," that a thing is true simply because I will it to be so.  I suggest that Vic step off a cliff and will a bridge to appear.  That may suggest the limits of this manner of thinking. 

Let me make a brief, and therefore incomplete, defense of natural rights.  As a human being I have natural desires for self-preservation and to provide for myself.  I recognize in others a similar natural desire. If we all act as the beasts Vic proclaims us to be, then none of us get much security or commodious living.  So I recognize for me to attain security I must recognize that others deserve what I want for myself.  Demanding the preservation of myself, I take on the duty to recognize that same claim in others.  That is one origin of the right to life, and it is derived from natural wants and desires.  We then institute government to protect that right.  This is some of the thinking behind the Declaration of Independence (for further discussion, see Michael Zuchart's fine Natural Rights Republic).

Vic also lowers humans to the level of animals, assuming that the "law of the jungle" is also the law of man  (and even the Law of the Jungle may be more civilized than Vic).  One could point out that, unlike the lower animals, humans have the capacity for reason.  This gives them a dignity that lower animals do not have.  We are not brutes, but rational thinking creatures capable of cultivation by civilization.  We can reason from this that man's purpose is precisely to think and improve himself both materially and intellectually.  The cow's purpose is to be eaten; Vic's purpose is to think.  We can extrapolate from this a kind of natural right: it is not man's nature to be used as a thing by others as is the cow's nature. 

Or we can go to Christianity and notice that man alone is created in God's image.  God has given us the capacity to know transcendental truths, a knowledge he has kept from lower animals.   This gives human life an inherent dignity that the beasts are denied.  That might be one reason why God condemns murder. 

Vic brings Shakespeare's Hamlet to his aid.  But Hamlet was not knows for his perspicaciousness. Let me suggest that another Shakespearean character is a better guide.  When one rejects natural right one gets Lady Macbeth:

I have given suck, and know
How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me:
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck'd my nipple from his boneless gums,
And dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn as you
Have done to this.

From The Mailbag

Good emails coming in, so let's respond to some. 

Reader JR, in response to this post on the SDCAC and privacy, writes:

When you contemplate why conservatives may prefer to keep their contributions private please consider the case of Steve Kirby. The radical left more and more is resorting to threats and intimidation against anyone they can identify as an enemy.

True.  And let's not pretend that such tactics are limited to the "radical left."  This is why I mentioned the legitimate interest in keeping one's political activities private.  In making that argument, frankly, I was stealing from Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinion in Buckley v. Valeo. 

Reader Chris sends along this link defending ethanol from my critiques.  Let me point out that I got almost the exact same thing as a pamphlet from the ethanol lobby at our country fair last year.  Let me suggest that Chris's website is not exactly objective.  I have linked to two independent studies showing a link between ethanol subsidies and rising food prices.  But readers can investigate on their own and draw their own conclusions.

Reader Vic gave a substantive rebuttal to my Carrot Juice Is Murder post from yesterday.  I'll respond to that in a separate post. 

Obama & Clinton, West Virginia and South Dakota

Over the last couple of days, I have spent a lot of time on the phone with various reporters discussing the impending visits of the two wings of the Democratic Party.  Clinton will visit Aberdeen on Thursday.  Obama, I gather, will appear somewhere in the "Watertown area," Friday morning, and in Sioux Falls Friday night.  What does this say about the strategies of each campaign?

The last poll taken in South Dakota showed Obama 10 points ahead of Senator Clinton.  But those results were announced back in April, and a lot of muddy water has gone down the Big Jim River since then.  If I had to guess, I would guess that Obama figures to lose South Dakota.  He is showing up to show that he isn't just writing off the rural states.  If I were him, I would skip the Watertown trip, and instead visit Cabelas in Mitchell.  A few photos of him buying a pair of hip waders, and sipping coffee with the locals would be just the thing.  It is the Cabelas demographic he is having trouble with.

Senator Clinton, by contrast, wants to win South Dakota, and by a lot.  She just flattened Senator Obama in West Virgina by 41 points.  Forty one points.  Two hundred and twenty-four thousand to eighty-six thousand, rounded off, is the kind of defeat only Dennis Kucinich could be proud of. Clinton would like to repeat that sort of victory in our state, or as near to it as she can get.  What is she playing for?

There are three logically possible goals for Ms. Clinton to shoot at.  One is the Democrats will panic at the poor showing of Obama in these states, and the super delegates will abandon his ship and anoint her. That hope is all but gone.  It is very hard to imagine that the Democrats will take the nomination away from the first Black candidate who won it fair and square.  A second goal is the Veep Stakes.  She may want on the ticket.  Having half the Democratic electorate behind her, and everyone with a couple Cabelas catalogs laying around the living room, gives her a good claim; but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that this is not in the cards.   

Lastly, she may have her eyes on 2012.  If Obama loses in November, she can say: "you should'a nominated me!"  She will be well-positioned to get the nomination next time, with the only disadvantage that she has plenty of time to blow it. 

In the meantime, South Dakota gets a little attention.  As it happens, I will be visiting Tennessee Williams this week, so Mondak will have to tell me how it went. 

Clinton Takes West Virginia

McClatchy asks the key question:  Clinton scores big win in W.Va., but does it matter?

UPDATE:  Clinton slammed Obama by thirty-five points.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE WEST VIRGINIA WIN:  I've been poking around at some data tonight to see what sort of picture is coming out of West Virginia tonight.  The press declared this race over last week and, after tonight, you'll see the narrative from Obama supporters and the media (but I repeat myself) say the results mean nothing.  However, the superdelegates ought to be on edge.  Important demographics -- white working-class voters, the elderly, Catholics, Jews -- just have not gotten behind Obama.  And this demographic has been the core of the Democratic Party for decades.  Liberal bloggers and the media like to respond that Hillary Clinton's supporters are racists (see this Washington Post story; anyone else feel that one or two claims of racism was twisted into a large expose?), but if Obama cannot carry key demographics, then how is he going to perform in November?  Obama just can't seem to gain traction in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, which will be key for the general election.

Hillary still has a daunting challenge ahead of her in the delegate and superdelegate counts.  However, that Obama hasn't made any significant traction among important demographics might mean we see superdelegates switching sides yet again.  Superdelegates are not obligated to vote for the candidate they express support for (see Joe Andrews), and seeing landslide victories like Clinton picked up tonight might reinvigorate the campaign.

Additional thoughts from Andrew Sullivan, Taylor Marsh, Hot Air, DKos, Red State, Jerome Armstrong, Stephen Green, Townhall, Slublog, South Dakota Moderate, and Comments from Left Field.

MORE:  Matthew Yglesias: 

Her campaign is rescued from the dead. As the Clinton campaign sagely points out "no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916" and therefore Obama’s primary loss shows that despite his large lead in the polls over John McCain, he can’t possible win the election. 

What’s even more interesting is that no Democrat has won the White House without carrying Minnesota since 1912 (it went for Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party) so given that Obama won Minnesota and Clinton won West Virginia, McCain is guaranteed to win the general election unless the eventual nominee can somehow completely replicate the social and political conditions prevailing in pre-WWI America."

YET MORE:  Talkleft:  "The Democrats need PA and Ohio. Hillary can win those states and other big swing and toss-up states. Barack Obama's ability to win them is unknown. He's untested. Hillary may have shown him how to be a stronger candidate, but she can't guide him to the finish line, no matter how hard she campaigns for him if he's the nominee"

Clinton To Aberdeen?

Hillary Clinton may make an appearance in Aberdeen on Thursday.  Thank goodness we didn't move our primary up or we'd be getting ignored by candidates.  It appears Obama is not coming to Aberdeen:

It appears that Barack Obama, the other leading Democratic presidential candidate, will not visit Aberdeen, although his campaign has yet to release details of his Friday visit to South Dakota. Reports have him stopping in Watertown and Sioux Falls.

West Virginia Coverage

PJM will be providing continuous coverage all day long.

Also, Marc Ambinder has the Atlantic's electoral map that's worth checking out.  Related thoughts at Hot Air.

Carrot Juice Is Murder

Ryan Anderson at First Things gives a detailed account of a recent Princeton debate over the value of human life.  Put this down as a must read. 

Anderson begins with a quote from Princeton philosophy professor Elizabeth Harman comparing an unborn human with plant life, an attempt to make the point that the unborn humans have no rights.  Meanwhile in Switzerland they are actually debating whether plants have rights. 

As Anderson points out, one thing the three pro-choice philosophers have in common is the belief that there is nothing inherently valuable in human life.  Anderson writes:

It was instructive to witness the ease with which various speakers could embrace infanticide or dehumanize unborn life—recall Harman’s argument that unborn children “really are a lot like plants.” But even more instructive was how unalarmed many in the Princeton audience seemed to be by any of this. I had forgotten that, for more than a few in the academic elite, this is just par for the course.

This is indeed instructive.  One should not discount how thoroughly natural rights thinking has been discarded by the academics and how comfortable many of our elite ethicists are with infanticide and euthanasia.  Consider the fact that this is the elite which sets the intellectual tone and teaches our best and brightest.  In a trickle-down theory of ideas it isn't long before the crackpot notions of the elite become the common opinion of the average educated person.  I have noted many times that we already have had a presidential candidate, John Kerry, who buys into the notion that humans do not have rights; it is "persons."  Thus Kerry justifies the killing of humans he does not consider persons, namely the unborn.  Recall that Kerry claims to subscribe to the Catholic teaching that human life begins at conception.  It's just that Kerry thinks it is "personhood," not humanity, that has worth.  This is an example of elite philosophy trickling down into our common politics.  Is it any wonder that we are horrified by the euthanizing of a horse yet allow the aborting of the unborn simply because they are inconvenient? 

An audience member appears to have had more wisdom than some of the panelists:

When it comes to bioethics, much is at stake for the foundations of our political life. At the end of the panel, one questioner expressed this well. If we redefine our founding principle so as to exclude those without consciousness or rationality from an inalienable right to life, he asked, what is to keep others from redefining it again to exclude those who aren’t morally upright (as he thought the “radical right” might do) or who aren’t religiously upright (as he thought radical Islam would dictate)? At this time in our national and world history, he wondered, shouldn’t we be uniting around the principle of the Declaration of Independence?

Hear, hear. 

And in honor of the vegetable rights story mentioned above, I offer the brilliant Arrogant Worms and their classic Carrot Juice Is Murder.  Little did they know that their parody might someday become reality.

Obama May Visit Aberdeen

The American News reports:

Aberdeen is on a list of cities presidential candidate Barack Obama could visit during a Friday trip to South Dakota, Mayor Mike Levsen said Monday.

Meanwhile, the manager of the Sioux Falls airport said the Obama campaign has told airport officials in the state's largest community to expect a 5 p.m. Friday landing. (snip)

Mike Marnach, Sioux Falls Regional Airport manager, said Obama's campaign called last week and told officials to expect an evening visit.

Marnach said he didn't know of other potential stops in the state, but that a morning visit to Aberdeen and an evening visit to Sioux Falls would work well enough from a scheduling standpoint. And, he pointed out, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., is an Aberdeen native and works closely with the Obama campaign, so an Aberdeen visit would make sense.

Pheasants: The New Dakota Gold

From the AP:

The GF&P said the 180,828 resident and nonresident hunters spent an estimated $219 million during the 2007 season on motels, food, gas, ammunition and other things. The estimated harvest was 2,123,000 birds.

The department based its calculation on formulas from a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey in 2006 and adjusted it for an annual inflation rate of 3 percent.

Nonresident hunters outnumbered resident hunters 103,050 to 77,778 in 2007. They also outspent residents better than 4 to 1 - $178.5 million by nonresidents and $40.5 million by residents.

The top five counties in total spending were: Brown, $15.9 million spent, 12,735 hunters; Beadle, $13.6 million, 10,277 hunters; Spink, $11.9 million, 8,921 hunters; Tripp, $9.8 million, 6,545 hunters; and Brule, $9.6 million, 6,804 hunters.

Can You Eat Ethanol?

Surely Rep. Herseth-Sandlin is correct that its the damned oil companies who are raising a stink about ethanol:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., blamed the oil industry and oil-producing states like Texas for re-igniting the controversy [over ethanol].

"The petroleum industry had to be pulled, kicking and screaming, to blend any amount of ethanol into their gasoline," Herseth Sandlin said.

Except that she is wrong:

Ethanol is to blame for some of the increase in the price of corn to $6 a bushel from $2 a bushel two years ago, according to a new study by University of Wisconsin agribusiness professor Randy Fortenberry and graduate student Hwanil Park.

The study looked at the rise in corn prices paid to farmers from September 2006 to December 2007. It found that 31 percent of the total price increase was related to ethanol production. The remainder was linked to a combination of other factors - increased demand for food from developing countries, the shrinking value of the dollar and commodities speculators.

Couple this with this previously mentioned study and at minimum the preponderance of evidence is that our ethanol policy is a significant contributor to higher food prices.  And we wouldn't want to reject the judgment of science, would we?    

Obama and American Jews

A lot of attention has been paid to Barack Obama's weakness among White males and especially rural voters.  The Washington Times notes another group of voters among whom Obama might be in trouble. 

The latest Gallup polls show that in a contest with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama would secure 61 percent of the Jewish vote to the Republican's 32 percent. In 2004 and 2006 elections, by contrast, Jewish voters favored the Democratic Party by a 75 percent to 25 percent margin. This suggests that support for the Democratic Party standard-bearer among Jews could be approaching its lowest levels in decades. The Republicans' best showing was achieved by Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he won 40 percent of the Jewish vote.

How much does that matter? 

Jews comprise just 2 percent of the American population. But they could play a large role in a close election because they are geographically concentrated and are more likely than other groups to turn out to vote. States with large Jewish populations — such as California, New York, Florida and New Jersey — account for 128 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio also have large numbers of Jewish voters. Consider two states: Florida, a critical swing state, has 400,000 Jewish voters and Pennsylvania 200,000. In these states, a shift among Jews from one party to the other can determine the overall final result.

American Jews have been loyal Democrats for a number of reasons, including liberal policy inclinations and recently a concern for conservative Protestant influence in the Republican Party.  But we live in interesting times.  Today right wing Evangelicals are strong supporters of Israel.  The American left, like the European left, see Israel as a "rogue state".  And then there are African Americans, who might be the most antisemitic of America's racial/ethnic groups.

Barack Obama has two problems.  The first is that many of his policy advisers have been typical anti-Israel leftists.  This created an opening for John McCain:

On Friday, Robert Malley, an Obama advisor, resigned from the senator's campaign as reports surfaced that he had met with the terrorist group Hamas. Last month, Hamas political advisor Ahmad Yousef said on WABC Radio in New York that he hoped Mr. Obama would be elected president. Mr. McCain said Hamas would never want him to be president, "so if Mr. Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly."

The second, of course, is the fallout from the Wright affair.  Reverend Wright found it necessary to defend his support of Louis Farrakhan  by comparing it to Nelson Mandela's loyalty to Castro!  That is a lot of baggage to be carrying, as Obama courts voters in Florida. 

A Certain Type of Academic Mindset

David Berstein: "Not that this mindset is limited to academics, of course, nor, do most academics have such juvenile ideas regarding politics, but it's sufficiently common in academia that it's little wonder that bright young conservatives will think twice before going into the academy and potentially putting their career fates into the hands of those who think that they are presumptively 'hateful,' 'lunatics,' who are not 'sane' and are attempting to thwart all that is good and just."

MORE:  "There are lots of methodologies and modes of thought that are widely acceptable within at least some circles of academia, but would strike an uninitiated outside observer as nonsensical, academically dishonest, or otherwise discreditable."

Obama Blames the Staff

Jake Tapper:  "For those keeping track at home, that's ten instances of Obama publicly blaming his staff for various screw-ups."  Read the whole thing.

Obama To South Dakota

The report:

Now it's Barack Obama's turn.

Following a stop last Thursday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for a few hours at the Sioux Falls airport for a rally, rival and front-runner Obama will make his first visit of the campaign to South Dakota, the state party said this afternoon.

Party legislative director Matt McLarty confirmed Obama will come to the state Friday, but no other details were immediately known.

Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, campaigned for her on Saturday in Rapid City.

The South Dakota primary is June 3.

Clinton Leads Obama in Kentucky Polls

Lexington Herald-Leader:

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton enters the final week before Kentucky’s May 20 Democratic presidential primary with a commanding 27 percentage point lead over U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a new poll shows.

She leads the Illinois senator 58 percent to 31 percent, with 11 percent uncommitted, according to a Herald-Leader/WKYT Kentucky Poll of 500 probable Democratic voters.

But either Democratic candidate would trail the expected Republican nominee, John McCain, in the state by double digits if the November general election were held today, reveals a companion survey of 600 likely voters from all parties.

The results reinforce the expectation that Obama will lose Kentucky, even as he seems on the verge of securing the Democratic nomination.

UPDATE:  Oops.  I've realized my math was wrong.  I'm in the process of trying to re-tally everything, so I apologize if I mislead anyone.

TALKLEFT:  64% of Dems want Hillary to stay in the race.

UPDATE:  All right, after a bit if deeper research I've reformulated some of my thinking.  First off, it's clear that Obama is leading in the popular vote, the number of states, pledged delegates, and superdelegates.  Obama is 150 delegates away from securing the nomination (the magic number is 2,025), while Clinton needs 330.  Mathematically, the numbers are not in Clinton's favor.  However, that doesn't mean it's over.  Superdelegates are not obligated to maintain support of their candidate (see Joe Andrews).  If the superdelegates begin to see that Obama will have a hard time in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and other states against John McCain, then the superdelegates can put the brakes on his limp towards the nomination and push Clinton ahead instead.  And there's little doubt that Clinton is just going to walk away.  If Clinton wins West Virginia with the projected advantage the media has her at, then the party might start to worry that he cannot get the job done in November. 

Congress Considering Homeowner Bailout

The Wall Street Journal reports this morning in a story entitled "Democrats Face Rescue Backlash" that voters are getting fed up with government intervention in the market.  When Congress and the President decided to bail out the lending industry (which, of course, has lead to more calls for bail outs), some conservatives warned that government was taking too large of a role in the market.  Congress is now attempting to use taxpayer money to bail homeowners out of mortgages they could never afford (the WSJ says "who can no longer afford their mortgages," but they never could afford them to begin with, which is why we're in this mess). 

Much of this is election year pandering.  Government has no role to guarantee freedom from investment risk.  If people make foolish investment choices, they need to be prepared to suffer financial loss.  The market will take care of itself -- financial failures will drop prices in the short run, houses will be purchased by qualified buyers under smart lending terms, and long run stability returns.  However, for the presidential candidates to suggest this scenario on national television would be political suicide.  No matter how one rationalizes this (market forces, heartless policies, intervention important for banking stability) people will expect government assistance to avoid foreclosures.

Many of us, including all of us on this blog, were wary about federal action in the Bear Stearns case.  Now Congress has set a precedent that allows it to consider forcing Americans to pay off the mortgages  of those who made bad choices.  Politicians today don't seem to care about free markets, private property rights, and personal liberty for people to succeed or fail on their own.  Rather than personal responsibility and protection for taxpayers, the theme rests upon guarantees for bad investments.  The subprime mess was created by two groups, lenders and borrowers.  They should bear the responsibilities of fixing the problem.

Disrespect for Appalachia

Randy Neal:

After anointing Obama as the nominee on Tuesday, the media narrative has shifted to the West Virginia and Kentucky "Appalachian" contests. They are reduced to quaint curiosities in which poor, white, uneducated mountain people from a "bygone era" have been trained to make their way to a school gym and push a button just like real people for the delight and amusement of the media elite.

The "dueling banjos" video in this post entitled "On to Appalachia" is a good example. Presumably it is a reference to the retarded West Virginia inbred voter demographic making up Clinton's 20% to 40% margin of support there.

Because it's "silly season," as Obama called it, let's analyze that more closely.

The scene is from the movie Deliverance. It was filmed on the Chattooga River, which is the border between Georgia and South Carolina. Obama won both of those primaries. Other scenes were filmed in North Carolina. Obama won that primary, too.

As they say, check out the whole thing.

UPDATE:  DKos speaks up against anti-Appalachian bigotry: 

Over the last week or so, I've heard a lot of kossacks writing off West Virginia, making fun of West Virginia, and even saying West Virginia doesn't matter. Some have painted all of Appalachia as racist homophobes who will never change. Some even said that Obama is in mortal danger there. Some have suggested that we revert to Clinton-style "states that matter" campaigning, leaving West Virginia and Kentucky behind altogether.

...

I want to talk about stereotypes because so far in this diary, I've talked about the ignorant because that's the stereotype that many kossacks have of Appalachians. But West Virginia and other places like it are not as monolithic as many believe. Sure, they are more skewed to the conservative, but you will find a wide range of people.

SDCAC In The American News

Dueling editorials in the American News over transparency regarding independent political groups.  The News opines the independent groups such as the South Dakota Conservative Action Council owe it to the public to release where their money comes from:

Take for example two of the statewide ballot initiatives coming up during the November election. The initiatives are supported by dollars that come from out-of-state multi-millionaires and conservative organizations. In neither instance can the dollars be specifically traced back to their initial sources because the tax-exempt groups - American Entrepreneurs for Security Reform and the S.D. Conservative Action Council - decline to reveal their sources of funding. There is no law requiring them to release that information.

Lee Breard from SDCAC begs to differ:

First and foremost, contributions to the SD CAC are not kept strictly confidential because we feel we have something to hide. They are kept confidential because the SD CAC is a 501c4 non-profit organization, which means that - by federal law and state statutes - the right to privacy of our contributors is considered sacrosanct. This stringent protection of the right of a citizen to be quietly and privately benevolent dates back to the teachings of the gospel according to Matthew 6:1-6 and 16-18 and our Republic's founding.

The fact is, the SD CAC's many radical competitors and detractors to the left operate under the same federal and state guidelines we do. And as long as they follow the letter and the spirit of the law, as we do, we would be the first to defend their right to pursue both their mission and the privacy of those who support their cause.

You heard it from the SDCAC.  They want to keep their donors private because Jesus said so. 

There is an obvious middle ground here.  There are competing interests in this issue.  First, as a rule people should have the right to engage in political activity, which is what donating is, without the government setting conditions. Public disclosure is a condition put on political activity: you may contribute, but all your neighbors will know it.  Second, there is a legitimate concern that donors will face negative consequences because of their contributions, and so perhaps it is best if that is kept secret.  On the other hand, the public has the right to know who is trying to influence the legislative process, especially directly through the initiative process.  For example, perhaps we should know if out-of-state money behind certain initiatives. 

The solution. Who knows.  Perhaps we could limit our calls for public disclosure to groups behind ballot questions, as their attempted influence is quite direct, and also limit disclosure to contributions over a certain amount (I throw out the number of $500 just to start the bidding), thereby protecting John Q. Donor. 

More Thune VP Talk

The Washington Post has John Thune all the way up the #2 in their John McCain Veepstakes. Conspicuously missing from the list is Louisiana's Gov. Bobby Jindal, about whom there has been much buzz.  Here is what the Post has on Thune:

Thune is handsome and articulate and comes across as a moderate, despite his very clear conservative voting record. Thune is also a hero in conservative circles, thanks to his defeat of then-Sen. Tom Daschle (S.D.) in 2004. The one knock on Thune is that he hails from a state that is already well in hand for Republicans.

In other Thune news, he's working with others for flood control legislation for Sioux Falls:

South Dakota Sens. John Thune and Tim Johnson attached language to a Senate bill Thursday that would help the city of Sioux Falls speed up construction of its flood control project along the Big Sioux River and Skunk Creek. (snip)

"We're trying to figure out a way to get this advance funded and sped up so we don't have those 1,600 homeowners facing a flood insurance bill every single year because the federal government said the levies needed to be raised," Thune said.

One things for sure, there is no way you want Skunk Creek overflowing, what with all the skunks and all. 

Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln, & William Clinton

Anna at Dakota Women has a good post on Obama, with some references to Schaff and myself.  Anna directs our attention to a very good article on Obama in the New York Times.  Here is the point:

I would suggest that our South Dakota Politics friends are sort of right and sort of wrong about Obama. The article suggests something that I've long suspected about him - he's whatever he needs to be, depending upon the people to whom he is trying to appeal. When he's courting the liberal/radical Democratic activists in Hyde Park, he holds liberal views - he's pro-Palestinian, for example. When he starts running for statewide office, and needs to gain the political and financial support of the ardently pro-Israel Crown family, his opinions change, they change pretty significantly, and he leaves his old allies in the dust.

This is certainly a plausible reading of Obama's career, but it leaves us with a question. 

Contrary to popular opinion, there is nothing wrong with a candidate shifting his presentation with different audiences.  Politics is all about forming coalitions, and that means finding out what people in different places want. Abraham Lincoln talked a lot differently about the issue of his time, slavery, in Southern Illinois than he did in Northern Illinois.  But this was always in the service of a fixed agenda: to resort the Missouri Compromise and stop the expansion of slavery in the territories.  Everyone knew where he stood on those things.  Does Obama have such an agenda?  If so, no one knows what it is.

By contrast there was William Jefferson Clinton, who was everything to everybody because he had no agenda beyond scripting himself into a made for TV movie.  Anna clearly thinks that Obama is a Clinton more than a Lincoln. 

My reading of this [New York Times] article is undoubtedly colored by my bias in this race, but what I see here is a desire for power, entirely separated from any core set of personal beliefs, or any real sense of purpose beyond enjoying political power and wanting to move further up the ladder.

Anna may well be right about that.  Here is a bit of the NYTs piece:

For years, the Obamas had been regular dinner guests at the Hyde Park home of Rashid Khalidi, a Middle East scholar at the University of Chicago and an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the 1990s peace talks. Mr. Khalidi said the talk would often turn to the Middle East, and he talked with Mr. Obama about issues like living conditions in the occupied territories. In 2000, the Khalidis held a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama during his Congressional campaign. Both Mr. Khalidi and Mr. Abunimah, of the Electronic Intifada, said Mr. Obama had spoken at the fund-raiser and had called for the United States to adopt a more “evenhanded approach” to the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

Still, Mr. Khalidi said ascertaining Mr. Obama’s precise position was often difficult. “You may come away thinking, ‘Wow, he agrees with me,’ ” he said. “But later, when you get home and think about it, you are not sure.”

That sounds like our boy Bill to me!  Still, I can't helping noticing that Obama has been shedding anti-Israel advisers lately like wool blankets on a warm night. This is political expediency, but the fact that he had so many of these folks hanging around confirms my thesis: Obama is more at home with advisers to the Palestinians and to Hamas with anyone who is friendly to Israel.  Obama the man, as opposed to the politician, would be the most radical leftist we have ever put in the White House, if indeed we put him there. 

If Anna is right that Obama  the politician has no core agenda beyond ambition, it may be so for an odd reason.  I don't think the left really has plausible and coherent policy proposals on most of the important questions.  Like Senator Clinton, he has lots of expensive policy proposals, but won't commit to the tax policies that would be necessary to fund them.  He talks against free trade, then sends his advisers to Canada to assure them he don't mean it.  His energy policy?  Tax big oil, but don't drill any new wells.  It is hard to have a core agenda when you have no ideas that have not been tried and refuted.

I note with some embarrassment  that Bill Clinton was one of our most successful Presidents in terms of policy.  I am not sure that Senator Clinton would not have made a fair President for the same reason.  But that, I think, we will never know. 

Mailbag: Obama, Israel, and Genetic Discrimination

Intrepid and gracious reader Mondak sends this:

Obama's latest win of 56% to 42% over Clinton in North Carolina shows that the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has had literally no effect on his campaign to become the next President.  This is based in part on the North Carolina GOP's effort to demonize Mr. Obama with their commercials tying him to Wright before the primary took place.  Despite the racist overtones cited in those commercials, Obama went on to defeat his opponent, Ms. Clinton, by a huge margin in the double digits.

I cannot agree.  Obama did beat Clinton by a wide margin, in a state where the Black vote comprised about a third of the total and the Black vote went by well over 90% for Obama.  Of those two key facts, one will be true in every state during the general election, and the other will never be true. Furthermore, Obama support among White voters in general, and White males in particular, has plummeted over the course of the primaries.  He won White males in Iowa and California.  Obama lost White males in North Carolina by the same percentage that he won the state.  It is likely that the Wright controversy had something to do with this. 

Clinton is leading in polls in Kentucky and West Virginia by gargantuan margins.  Race no doubt something to do with this, but the Wright stuff gives voters another good reason to vote against Obama.  That may indeed affect the outcome, and especially in November if the contest is close. 

Intrepid and entertainingly sharp reader BB is also keeping me on my toes with regard to Israel.  He has this:

"In prosperity, civil liberty and, let us not forget, military power, she puts her neighbors to shame." Israel only exists because of US aid. As far as civil liberty I would recommend touring the West Bank and seeing what a ghetto is really like. You really need to do a little bit of reading (OK lots). Fox News is rotting your brains!

I reply: If I need to do more reading (you are surely right about that), you need to do at least a little thinking.  America's role in keeping Israel afloat doesn't tell us whether the existence of Israel is a good thing or not.  But to ignore the courage of the Israelis in fighting their enemies, and maintaining their state, suggests a lapse in judgment.  As for the "West Bank ghetto," the only thing worse might be Gaza in the hands of the Palestinians.  My point stands: Israel's Arab citizens enjoy more prosperity and civil liberty than Arabs do in any other country in the region.

BB also has this delightful comment on my post on the Anti-Genetic Discrimination bill:

"A tear dries quickly when it is shed for troubles of others." Cicero. Your argument is all nature and no nurture. Apropos considering the topic but being genetically predisposed to a disease one can take measures to mitigate it. One may have the correct genetic make up to be a concert violinist but without the right conditions in the upbringing all is for naught.

I reply: Yes.  But all the favorable conditions in the world wouldn't put me on the mound or in the NBA.  Some genetic diseases can be mitigated.  Others cannot. Nature is unfair, and no amount of crying over equality will make it so. But keep the Cicero coming.  I admire good ole Chick Peas as much as you do. 

Obama: Chicago Politician Part II

A few days ago I tried to place Barack Obama within the context of the corrupt Chicago politics.  Now someone who really knows his Chicago politics, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune, has weighed in.  His conclusion: while not directly participating in Chicago corruption (the Rezko deal perhaps being an exception) Obama, the so-called candidate of change and reform, has been conspicuously silent about corruption while benefiting from his association with dishonest officials. 

That's an easy political commercial for the Republicans: Mobbed-up white guys party at the old Como Inn with Daley, and they get $100 million in city affirmative action contracts and Daley doesn't know how it happened and Obama endorses the mayor in the name of reform.

Obama had nothing to do with the Duff deal. But he kept mum. He has endorsed Daley, endorsed Daley's hapless stooge Todd Stroger for president of the Cook County Board. These are not the acts of a reformer, but of a guy who, as we say in Chicago, won't make no waves and won't back no losers.

Obama the reformer is backed by Mayor Richard M. Daley and the Daley boys. He is spoken for by Daley's own spokesman, David Axelrod. He was launched into his U.S. Senate by machine power broker and state Senate President Emil Jones (D-ComEd).

If Kass is accurate in his reporting, Obama is much closer to the Daley machine than I suggested in my previous post.  In some ways that's a relief, putting Obama in my "corrupt but competent" category.

For other Obama news, see Stanley Kurtz's investigation into Jeremiah Wright's theology. Kurtz's broad theme is that radical politics pervades in Wright's church, with little to no distinction between politics and religion.  There goes the "separation of church and state" about which Progressives are always preaching.  Here is just one of several examples taken from the church magazine. 

While the nationally distributed issues of Trumpet in 2006 contained no pieces blaming 9/11 on America's "terrorist" foreign policy (as Wright did in a famous sermon), one remarkable piece defended then-congress-woman Cynthia McKinney's suspicion that the Bush administration knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened. This column, "The Beloved Cynthia McKinney" (illustrated with pictures of McKinney in model-like poses), decries the fact that McKinney was "tarred and feathered in the press" for raising questions about possible government foreknowledge of 9/11. The "crimes of 9/11," it darkly announces, are "not only unsolved, but covered up by both Democrats and Republicans."

One might also recall that Cynthia McKinney blamed her 2002 primary loss on a Jewish conspiracy. Here is the central point:

There can be no mistaking it. What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it? Everything. Always.