I have a lot to say about this, so much so that it's trapped in my throat.  Thoughts of entitlement, of the psychology of dynasticism, of the real nasty and pernicious kinds of racism...just too much.  Too much to express in a mere diary, too much to boil down to a stupid online flame-war.  Maybe my race colors me when I hear things like this and just bristle and cringe.      

I think I'm going to let it just speak for itself, except to add that if it comes down to Clinton-McCain, I doubt very much I'll be voting Democratic this year.  

It's now safe to say that McCain has all but wrapped up the Republican nomination.  He is also the one Republican running who regularly beats or gets within the margin of error against Hillary Clinton in a general election matchup (he beats Obama too, but by less).  McCain, it has to be noted if we're being clear-eyed, is, of the entire Republican field, the one guy that can be competitive outside of the Republican base.  He can bring in Independents, he can cross party lines and poach votes from beyond the Republican core.  He does better the more open the primary, and his popularity ratings, unlike all the other Republicans, actually rises as the constituency gets less right-wing, relative to other Republican figures at least.    

The question is, does that become a factor in your vote?  

I'm talking about the most recent in a long, long string of surrenders on Iraq War funding.  The Democratic party seems to be finding more and more creative ways to write blank checks.

How frustrating to be a Democrat.  I'm not a Democrat, and I'm continually frustrated beyond belief.

Here they are, in the majority, holding positions on most of the hot button issues that a VAST majority of the country agrees with them on, and yet they continually hem and haw and outright balk, and not only fail to pass their agendas, but continually get thwarted at a 2nd grade level in opposing the minority's.  

This was posted to a mostly conservative audience at The Crossed Pond, so it's without some of its context.  

But it's spurred by a reader email debate going on at Andrew Sullivan's (I know, I know), specifically this one.  And, more generally, by something I hear a lot, either privately or on progressive boards and sites.  The sentiment amounts to "I want to like Obama, but I just don't think a black candidate can win" or "I like Obama, but America's not ready for a black candidate" or "I just think there's too many people out there who won't vote for a black candidate no matter what", or some variant.  I'm not talking about any other qualms about Obama, just honing in on this one.  

I post it here because I think it's worth thinking about, particularly if you find yourself saying that.

As an example of the amazing cognitive dissonance within the Republican party, compare that quote to the absolutely apeshit reaction that Ron Paul got last night in the Republican debate.  

The context of that quote:

On September 13, 2001, Jerry Falwell said this on Pat Robertson’s show, "The 700 Club": "The enemies of America give us probably what we deserve." When asked to elaborate, Falwell added, "When we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, ‘you helped this happen.’"

(cross-posted at The Crossed Pond.  The writing is geared for a more conservative audience (so forgive the falling-into of vernacular like "Islamofacism", which annoys me too), but the message, I think, is for everybody.  Nevertheless, I'm still preaching to the unconverted, so excuse the right-lean of some of the language and references).

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters flags a WaPo article about a new report by the Army surveying its troops and their feelings on torture and respect for civilians in a war zone.  Morrissey chides the WaPo for its negative characterization of the report (the WaPo headline "Troops at Odds with Ethics Standards"), instead preferring his own half-full perspective.  Me, I think the report is a much more mixed bag than either are admitting to.  It's the sort of report that people on either side could take either way, and the truth, as it often is, strikes me as a lot more thorny.

You want some retail politics?  

Congressman Ron Paul, the favorite candidate of every libertarian and the best Republican congressman by such a wide margin it's not even worth discussing (anti-war, anti-Patriot Act, anti-everything-not-written-in-the-constitution), visits some kid's dorm room and gives a thirty minute interview.  No kidding.    

Check it out.

Cross-posted at The Crossed Pond, so this comes less from a Democratic perspective and more from the perspective of anyone who calls themselves a conservative, and means it.  

I’ve come around to the idea that the only way to challenge this administration is Keyser Soze style, being willing to go farther than they are, or being willing to go farther than they think you have the stomach for.  This position is not an emotive one on my part; it's not born of disgust, or anger, or whatever else.  Rather, I feel at this point, it's a collected, measured, rational response to the situation as defined by circumstances and, more importantly, the administration itself.  It's gotten to the point where impeachment becomes not an option as a last resort anymore, but as the go-to modus operandi for dealing with the administration at every level, for every battle.  It is a response simply demanded by situation.    

What will it be?  A hardline right out of the gate from the White House, to try and parry the prosecution from further advances and go on the offensive before it gets to Cheney?  Try to tuck it away in some fast-paced news cycle when attention is focused on other candidates not connected to Bush (a nice fuck you from the Old Boss)?  Or the conventional standard, "pack our shit up in boxes, leave graffiti for next administration (seen scrawled in Lincoln bedroom bathroom: "for a good time, call Bob Novak..."), and on the way out, make sure you didn't leave anything, and pardon all our criminal supporters"?

Or, does the Bush administration hang Scooter out to dry?    

So, for the last week or so, I've been thinking a lot about the Digby post that kos quoted, about War Hero Republicans, the sort of right wing nuts that cast the War on Terror (TM) as some kind of machismo fantasy, and themselves as the great Jack Bauers in the struggle.

Read the Digby post, that kos quoted if you haven't already, but I've been mulling it over from a different angle.  Namely, the angle of 24.  

Think again.

Ron Paul has accepted an invitation to participate in the first national presidential debate in New Hampshire on Wednesday, April 4. It will be hosted by Wolf Blitzer and will be carried on CNN TV, radio, and cnn.com from 7-9 p.m. EST.

WASHINGTON -- A Senate Judiciary Committee divided along partisan lines advanced Alberto Gonzales' nomination as attorney general to the full Senate today despite Democratic complaints that he is too close to President Bush to be effective as the nation's top law enforcement official.

"It's hard to be a straight shooter when you're a blind loyalist," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Republicans muscled Gonzales' nomination through the panel on a 10-8 party line vote and are expected to use their 55-44 advantage to confirm him there next week at the earliest.

Slate has a very interesting article up (a short one) regarding the myth that the DNC chairmanship is somehow an important or "direction-setting" position.  The last couple of months, a lot of people have suddenly become interested in the position, but even the candidates and voters themselves don't seem to have any idea why.  Outside of canned phrases regarding "reform vs status quo", nobody seems quite sure what the DNC chair would be able to actually DO.  

Is this all smoke and no fire?  Or is it a self-fulfilling prophecy, by which our acting like it's important may MAKE it important?  Or something in between.  Snippets below the fold.

POLITICAL BLOGGER MASS SUICIDE TO BE DISCOVERED IN SEVERAL WEEKS

BOSTON--By examining web-traffic data for left-leaning DailyKos.com, researchers have predicted that the mass suicide of 14 political bloggers will likely be discovered sometime in mid-December. "After months of doing nothing but sit alone in our rooms at our computers, trying to get our message to the people, we lost the election anyway," read the still-unread suicide pact posted Nov. 3. "We'd rather be dead than live in a country as fucked up as this one." The bodies will most likely be found by property managers, long-estranged parents, or neighbors returning copies of Joe Trippi's The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

Anyway, most of them are pretty benign.  Many of them are negative, but nothing shocking, just the same shit you see on TV (Kerry is liberal, Kerry is wishy-washy, Kerry has a record of cutting defense, blah blah blah).  
 

Jim Infantino is a terrific singer-songwriter from Boston.  Either solo or with his band, Jim's Big Ego, he excels at intelligent, witty songs with great hooks.  He calls his music "unpop" though it's closer to stylized folk.  If you ever get a chance to see him in concert, you should go, he's great.

My list is by no means complete.  Feel free to add.  And, for the ones I couldn't find online, feel free to provide links when they get put up.  I'll come edit everything into a nice and handy list tomorrow afternoon.  

An overview from Editor and Publisher:

"Kerry has picked up 17 Bush papers from 2000, while losing only two Gore papers to Bush.

Kerry now leads Bush 70-58 in endorsements in E&P's exclusive tally, and by about 11.9 million to 7.1 million in the circulation of backing papers."