"This is Baltimore, gentlemen. The gods will not save you." --Burrell

For those of you who watched the last and final season of The Wire, you know that detectives McNulty and Freamon basically staged a fake serial killer scare in Baltimore in order to turn back on some much needed funding for their investigation of the Stanfield organization. You also know that Kima--after McNulty confessing the caper to her--tells the bosses in the department of their gambit. Who is right?

I've lately been reading through The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Her analysis of political evil suggested the question to me: in particular, not just the corrupt or fanatical leaders at the top who set the sinister objectives of a criminal state, but more specifically their bureaucratic enablers who pretend they have no moral responsibility for carrying out these orders.

Obama's appearance on Fox News today is predictably giving the blogosphere fits. Personally, I don't really care. Fox News isn't going away. Anyone who thinks so is kidding themselves.

Nevertheless, we are seeing the typical bile from the HRC crowd. Exhibit one is Jerome Armstrong's typically bitter response to it. As always, his guiding principle is based on cynicism. "See. Your candidate panders just as much as ours does."

As I see it, there are about two lines of attack on Obama from HRC supporters.

For those of you interested in seeing what a good victim complex can get you to, check out MyDD today.

First, there's an update on Dailykos writer's strike we're all so broken up about.

Next, we have someone named Mike Pridmore's diary outlining Donna Brazil's continuing subterfuge over the Wright "scandal."  Apparently he and his whole church are anti-semetic, leninist, America haters.  

After that there's this work of genius which has actually been recommended.  

My background is in political philosophy.  Over this election season found it interesting that one could break down the three most promenient candidates roughly into the three competing ideologies of the left over the past 50-60 years.  

Edwards would obviously represent the old economic left which has made up such an important part of the Democratic coalition since the time of William Jennings Bryant.  Because the left was globally so deeply influence by Marxism, this was the most radical wing of the party through the Depression era.  U.S. labor history is unusually violent. The Depression was perhaps the only time America has come close to outright revolution.

I find it amazing that people in the media think this is likely to John Edwards' last run at the presidency.  Isn't McCain pushing 72 right now?  Obviously, he's built a huge base of support in the Party--as an Obama supporter, I know I would have perfectly happy with him as a nominee.  

Obviously, a governorship is a possibility.  But I think the presidency is definitely within his reach.  White male southerners are a perinnial hot commodity in Democratic Party presidential politics.  In 2016, he'll still be plenty young enough to run again, but still older, an thus seem more venerable.  What sticks out to me, though, is 2012.  Personally, I think Clinton loses to McCain if that is the match up this year.  However, I have a hard time believing that Americans will sign on for 16 years of the GOP.  McCain will be getting older--he's even suggested he might not run for a second term.  Either way, I think Edwards would end up being our strongest candidate against him.

Any thoughts.

Follow my reasoning and correct me were I'm wrong here.

Hillary is liked by rank and file democrats, disliked by independents, hated by republicans.

Obama is liked by rank and file democrats, liked by independents, indifferent to Republicans.

McCain is indifferent to rank and file democrats, liked by independents, basically acceptable to Republicans.

Where does this put us in a match up of the two frontrunners?

Jump.

I'm just saying.  

If Hillary gets the nomination after she and Bill leverage nasty little wins like New Hamshire and Nevada, she's not going to have much of a base to energize for the general.  I personally would be surprised if she even reaches 51%.  

The ironic thing is that, despite all the talk about Obama ushering in a realignment election, Clinton-Obama is probably the best shot the Democratic Party has for something like this.  Obama solves all her--and Bill's for that matter--problems.  He injects all the hope, optimism, and energy of the Obama movement into their ugly, by the book campaign.  African-Americans will forgive them for using race to win whites and hispanics in Nevada and California.  He is immensely appealing to indepentents and even a certain segment of Republicans.  Finally, he brings anti-war cred to two of the most prominent democratic sellouts in the lead-up the Iraq War.  

The real question is does Obama take it?  Does he consider running at the top of a ticket with Bloomberg?  Does he wait till 2016?  Something tells me this will be his only shot.

This is not an Onion article.

NPR

ABC News

Dozens of people in a small Texas town are talking about an unexpected visitor, but the question is, where did it come from?

The residents of Stephenville, Texas, claim to have seen a UFO, described as a mile-wide, silent object with bright lights, flying low and fast. So what was it?

More than 30 residents insist they saw the unthinkable a gigantic UFO.

Note: I've decided to change my screen name to my real name, Jonathan Schwartz.  Mainly, because the pseudoname thing just isn't me.  I prefer it if people know the real me.  Also, I've long since started to feel that a screen that mixed Socrates and Decartes was a little on the presumptious side.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

I'm sitting here right now while, literally, there is one of the biggest Fourth of July parades on the west coast going by my window, and I am amazed at how repulsed I am.  Where has my patriotism gone?  I can remember that I once truly believed in America, and I that believed in the values it stood for.  Well, I still believe in the values, but I'm not sure I believe in America anymore.

Note: I've decided to change my screen name to my real name, Jonathan Schwartz.  Mainly, because the surname thing just isn't me.  I prefer it if people know the real me.  Also, I've long since started to feel that a screen that mixed Socrates and Decartes was a little on the presumptious side.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

I picked up the link to this paper by progressive economist, Steve Rose, at Donkey Rising the other day.  It's an extensive paper about how much economic self-interest voters actually have in the typical policy prescriptions of old line Liberalism.   His basic point is that the safety net in its current form does not take in as many people as is typically thought by most Liberals.  

Note: I've decided to change my screen name to my real name, Jonathan Schwartz.  Mainly, because the surname thing just isn't me.  I prefer it if people know the real me.  Also, I've long since started to feel that a screen that mixed Socrates and Decartes was a little on the presumptious side.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

I was listening today to Terry Gross interview former Republican Senator Danforth about what has become of the Republican Party.  At one point Gross asked him about the filibuster and he responded that in his day it would have been virtually unthinkable to imagine that a low level political nominee like the UN ambassador would have been filibustered.  An up or down vote was always considered a courtesy to the President in his work of filling executive branch posts.  

Note: I've decided to change my screen name to my real name, Jonathan Schwartz.  Mainly, because the surname thing just isn't me.  I prefer it if people know the real me.  Also, I've long since started to feel that a screen that mixed Socrates and Decartes was a little on the presumptious side.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

Today, Ed Kilgor points out something I was wondering about myself.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

Before I read anything else, I wanted to  give my take on the speech tonight.  Here it is.

A sad moment.  That's all I can describe Bush's speech as.  Sad.  

Throughout our nation's history, we have at times had statesmen as our leaders who were willing to rise above the partisanship and bickering, rise above their own arrogance and agendas, and explain things the way they needed to be explained to the American people, to level with them in a way that they can accept the way things are, accept what has happened, and sacrifice and soldier on.  Sadly, tonight George Bush finally proved once and for all that he has never had the kind of vision and honesty that such a thing would require.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

There's been a lot of discussion of wheather it is possible for Bush's approval rating to fall below 40%.  At this point, I would say I think there is a real possibility.  Teixeria yesterday, commenting on the recent ARG poll argues that it is in fact likely.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

You get the impression right now that the Administration is really flailing for some sort of politically feasible way to support the Iraq War over the next few years.  Let's walk through the various approaches they've used since the election.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

The irony of Karl Rove's now infamous commentary on liberals last week is in how much the truth is the diametric opposite of what he suggested.  Since I've been spending so much time lately blogging about conservative psychology, I would be remiss not to comment on the dysfunctional militarism of radcons.  It this militarism that is one of the chief reasons it is conservatives that weaken America, not liberals.

One of the defining traits of the current conservative mindset is a truly bizarre self-identification with the military.  This self-identification has a highly protective attitude toward the military and its purrogotives.  It also has created an "us vs. them" mentality in them, were it is impossible of people like Rove to comprehend how liberals could deal effectively in military policies.  

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

What's so facinating about the current trajectory of the Bush administration is the psychodrama that is playing out before our eyes.  Today, Annie Lamott does a pretty good job of explaining where the whole crowd is at.

I'm still thinking a lot about the possible ramifications of a McCain run for the presidency.

The first thing that comes to mind would be a cautionary nod to Democrats. Its becoming more and more likely, imho, that we may be witnessing the early rumbling of the eventual implosion of the Bush administration. Most liberals will logically assume that this will favor them in the next election--and they may ultimately be right. However, its important to really understand what exactly will be the collateral damage of such an implosion.