May 13, 2008

5/13: Ready For The Main Event

Now that Barack Obama appears to have a near-stranglehold on the Dem nod, liberal bloggers are gearing up for the general election. After spending the past few months focusing on Hillary Clinton, the netroots have recently been directing most of their fire at John McCain, criticizing his climate plan and repeatedly linking him to George W. Bush. Conservative bloggers, of course, have been in full-blown anti-Obama mode for weeks now, and they continue to slam Obama for his relationships with shady figures and his foreign policy views (especially with respect to Israel). Will Clinton force the blogosphere to pay more attention to her with a blowout win in WV today, or will bloggers continue to focus on the brewing Obama-McCain battle?

DEM FIELD: Obama's Appalachian Problem

In anticipation of Obama's expected drubbing in WV today, Daily Kos' DHinMI argues that Obama's problems with white voters are confined to Appalachian residents and their descendents: "It would be great if pundits and politicos would recognize and acknowledge that race doesn't appear to have been much of a hindrance for Obama in the Democratic primaries, except, it appears, in Appalachia and in some regions where descendants of Appalachian migrants settled, such as the Ozarks, Oklahoma, and some isolated rural communities on the Plains. Obama doesn't appear to have much of a problem with white voters. But it seems quite likely Appalachia has a bit of an Obama problem."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees: "In Arizona, Clinton won the white vote by 53-38 (she won Latinos 55-41.) In Florida, Clinton won whites by 53-23 (she won Latinos by 59-30). In Indiana, Clinton won whites 60-40. Are these three states in Appalachia too? [...] In Massachusetts, Clinton won whites 58-40 (she won Latinos 56-36). In Rhode Island, Clinton won whites 63-37. In New Jersey, Clinton won whites 66-31. Unless the entire country East of the Mississippi is now referred to as Appalachia, I think this proposed theory explains very little and indeed is part of the entire Ostrich approach we now see from Obama blogs. It is just plain silly now. I believe Obama can do better. I believe his problem goes beyond race issues. Obama is indeed the wine track candidate, the candidate of the Creative Class (and of course African Americans.) But he must do better -- with white women, with the white working class, with seniors and with Latinos. [...] Pretending that saying 'Appalachia' will solve it is no answer."

Daily Kos diarist dawnt urges the netroots not to write off Appalachia: "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 have suggested that we revert to Clinton-style 'states that matter' campaigning, leaving West Virginia and Kentucky behind altogether. Well, progress hasn't left us behind, and I hope that progressives won't either. [...] I know that we cannot win West Virginia on Tuesday. We cannot win Kentucky next week. We cannot win Appalachia in November. But that does not mean we should give up on them or work less hard for them. It does not make the 50 state strategy less important -- it makes the 50 state strategy more important. It means we should work even harder. Call it bridging the ignorance gap, if you will."

Obsidian Wings' publius examines Obama's "race problem": "Today's Post article on the ugly racism that Obama campaign workers have faced is disappointing, though (sadly) unsurprising. It's also been humiliating -- as a native Kentuckian -- to read some of the openly racist sentiments being expressed to reporters on the ground there. But let's face it -- race is playing a big role not just there, but throughout the Midwestern white working classes. That's not saying all white working-class Americans feel this way, or even that most do. But a lot do -- and everyone knows it. And that's a big reason why Clinton is up by such obscene margins in West Virginia and Kentucky. We should stop pretending otherwise. But that said, I think Obama supporters should see this ugly reality as an opportunity -- and as a motivation to double down in support and effort. [...] An Obama victory...would be a true watershed in that it would signal to future campaigns that a new national political majority has emerged that not only rejects race-baiting, but that (more crucially) doesn't depend upon the votes of those swayed by race-baiting."

Meanwhile, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis tries to rebut the Clinton camp's electability arguments: "As we approach the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, Hillary is once again telling us that how a candidate does in a primary dictates how they will do in the general election. Meaning, if Obama loses to Hillary in the primary in a certain state, then he will lose to McCain in the fall in that state. It's total bull, but nonetheless, that's what Hillary keeps saying. So, I guess that means that no blacks will be voting for Hillary in the fall since they're not voting for her now. Specifically, Hillary will only get 8% of the black vote in the fall, dooming her candidacy, were she to be handed the nomination by the Superdelegates."

DEM FIELD II: Obama Veepstakes

Several liberal bloggers are discussing potential running mate choices for Obama:

Open Left's Chris Bowers lays out his VP criteria: "It is essential that Obama choose a running mate who opposed the war from the start. This criteria quickly eliminates a wide swath of potential VP candidates, including Bill Richardson, [ex-Gen.] Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, [AZ Gov.] Janet Napolitano, [VA Gov.] Tim Kaine, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, [MO Sen.] Claire McCaskill, and [ex-SD Sen.] Tom Daschle. [...VA Sen. Jim] Webb and [KS Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius...each have a lot of support online. Further, both also do a good job of reinforcing Obama's other campaign arguments: unity and change. Both have strong bi-partisan ('unity') records, Webb in working for [Ronald] Reagan, and Sebelius in convincing several high-ranking Kansas Republicans to become Democrats. Both also hit he 'change' note pretty well, since Webb has only been a Senator for a couple of years and since Sebelius has been outside of D.C. since 1994."

Bowers continues: "Now, comparing Webb and Sebelius themselves, as both a progressive and as an electoral strategist I don't think it is much of a contest. Sebelius appears to have a consistently strong progressive record, and a lengthy series of electoral victories that swan against the national and local tide. Webb, by contrast, is something of an electoral neophyte with a narrow primary victory and narrow general election victory under his belt. His Senate record is not particularly progressive (FISA being an egregious example), and I have also heard that he isn't exactly the most energetic or disciplined campaigner. [...] So, until some potentially better options begin endorsing Obama for President, right now, by process of elimination, I think Obama's best choice is definitely Kathleen Sebelius. Should either [OH Sen.] Sherrod Brown or [WA Sen.] Patty Murray endorse Obama, I could be persuaded to change my mind on this, since both of them would, I think, be extremely strong Veep choices for Obama. However, Brown remains neutral and Murray is currently backing Clinton."

Big Tent Democrat, on the other hand, thinks the only logical pick is Clinton: "One other reason Hillary Clinton has to be at the top of Obama's VP list is her finely honed campaigning skills. Just for a moment imagine the VP debate, for instance. Does anyone imagine Hillary Clinton will not clean the clock of the Republican VP candidate? Does anyone imagine Clinton will not be a huge benefit to Obama on the campaign trail? There really is no argument against Hillary Clinton as the VP candidate for Obama, other than petty nonsense. I hope and expect Barack Obama will rise above the nonsense we see from some of his supporters and choose a unity ticket that will guarantee a big Democratic win in November."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt, who strongly supports Clinton, disagrees with Big Tent Democrat: "While Big Tent Democrat has been sold on a unity ticket for months, I am not, regardless of who is on top of the ticket. I don't think they have a better chance of retaking the White House in November together. I think together they will drive Republicans and conservatives out in force. It's not a balanced ticket. I also don't want to see a joint ticket because I think Hillary Clinton would make a great President, and I don't think she ever will get the chance if she starts off as Vice President under Obama for 8 years. As for the speculation that Obama would convince Hillary's supporters to vote for him if he picks another female VP candidate like Napolitano or McCaskill, I highly doubt it. There is only one Hillary Clinton. Women are not interchangeable. In fact, it would be rubbing salt in the wounds of her already disappointed supporters. Like showing off the new girlfriend to the jilted one. I think millions would stay home. If Obama wins the nomination, let him go forth against McCain in November without leaning on Hillary or choosing another female VP candidate just because he wants the female vote. Let him pick his best candidate for a VP and go the distance."

DEM FIELD III: Go Forth And Endorse, Young Supers!

Some of Obama's supporters are urging the undeclared superdelegates representing Young Dems and College Dems to endorse Obama:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Per 'The Page,' Crystal Strait from Young Democrats endorsed Obama this past weekend. Good for her. [...] The remaining 3 student Superdelegates, Lauren Wolfe, David Hardt and Awais Khalil, need to decide. And, their votes should reflect the work of the young voters in the Democratic party who aren't superdelegates, but are putting their hearts and souls into electing the next President. This is a no-brainer for Wolfe, Hardt and Khalil. So what are they waiting for? It's soon going to be too late, Obama will pass the 2,025 mark, and Wolfe, Hardt and Khalil will lose their chance of helping elect America's next president. Yes, our next president could owe them one. That's a hell of a missed opportunity."
• Actor Kal Penn writes an open letter on The Huffington Post to Wolfe and Khaleel: "As representatives of a college group, I respect your decision to have waited until your constituents made their voices heard in a clear fashion. But that time has come and gone. You are no doubt aware that this election season started with an increase in youth voter turnout of 135% above 2004 levels in Iowa. Senator Obama won the 'youth vote' by a 4-1 margin in that state, followed by 3-1 in New Hampshire, and 2-1 in Nevada. [...] Your failure to pledge now risks returning those passionate, first-time voters to a political landscape of the same old games that caused them to maintain such distance from the Democratic Party before."

OBAMA: Weak Sauce

Conservative bloggers are slamming Obama for comments he made about Israel and Hamas during an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Barack Obama is the least-prepared-to-be-president major presidential candidate in modern times. The combination of naivete and arrogance in the interview he gave to The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg ought to stop every supporter of Israel in his or her tracks. Obama's 'we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy' is a huge red flare. There isn't much nuance needed when terrorist organizations on Israel's northern and southern borders are proponents of the destruction of Israel. 'Nuance' when it comes to dealing with terrorists equals appeasement at best, surrender at worst."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "[Obama] seems to be suggesting that one of the main obstacles to peace is 'hawkish elements', when I would suggest constant rocket attacks, suicide bombers, refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist, and national leaders threatening to wipe Israel off the map might be bigger factors."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Does Obama seriously believe that Hamas endorses his candidacy because he is 'worldly,' has a Muslim middle name and won't be a 'cowboy?' If so, he is even more out of touch with reality than we thought. If not, he completely ducked the interviewer's question (not that the interviewer, another Obama fan, noticed) and has yet to explain why he thinks Islamic terrorists want him to win."

OBAMA II: Where's The Outrage, Senator?

Several conservative bloggers complained that Obama didn't express enough indignation at receiving praise from a Hamas spokesperson:

• NRO's David Frum: "Obama's words are unexceptionable so far as they go. What's striking here is what is not said: There is no revulsion, no affront that Hamas would name him as its preferred candidate. [...] I do not believe that Obama is in any sense hostile to Israel. I am certain that he would be honestly disgusted by anti-semitism in any form. But do I believe that he would be cavalier with Israel's security? That his belief that anything can be negotiated and that dialogue is always the answer exposes America's allies to risks? That his understanding of the origins and causes of the Arab-Israeli dispute is dangerously wrong? That he will 'engage' Hamas and Hezbollah for exactly the same reasons that he will seek to 'engage' Iran and Syria? Yes I do. He may consider himself Israel's friend. But he will be a dangerous friend -- made all the more dangerous by the reluctance of many in the pro-Israel community to ask searching questions of this supremely evasive politician."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "This has always been the problem with the Hamas endorsement -- the Obama camp never once got their backs up at the notion that Hamas would welcome an Obama presidency. It would have been just as easy for [strategist David] Axelrod or Obama to turn this to their advantage -- to say that Hamas clearly doesn't know anything about Obama or John Kennedy if they think an Obama administration will be a friend to Hamas. But instead they said they were 'flattered' by the comparison to JFK, and have since taken to repeating that Obama's policy with regard to Hamas is no different than Clinton's or McCain's -- which is a tough sell given that his whole foreign policy approach centers on talking to tyrants and terrorists."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "What is most disturbing is [Obama's] acceptance of the perspective that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the source of all of the region and 'all of our foreign policy' problems and his blasé attitude toward Hamas. He does not seem the least bit concerned that a terrorist organization would endorse him. At the very least this should demonstrate how absurd is his claim that there is no difference between his position and John McCain's on this topic."

MCCAIN: A Third Bush Term?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about McCain surrogate/MO Rep. Roy Blunt's admission that McCain "would be" a third Bush term on the economy:

Wolf Blitzer: "So it would be in effect a third Bush term when it came to pro-growth tax policies?"
Blunt: "It would be. I think it would be. And I think that's a good thing."

• Think Progress' Faiz Shakir: "It's nice to see Blunt conceding the point. McCain is promising more of Bush's economic agenda -- unaffordable massive tax cuts for the rich that offer no help for the average family. [...] All this coming from a man who once said he 'cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us.'"
• Crooks and Liars' Nicole Belle: "Bless his little heart, let's have House Minority Whip Roy Blunt on every week to talk up John McCain's candidacy! Talk about living within a bubble, Blunt thinks nothing of touting the McSame presidency as a Bush third term, despite the record disapproval rating for the man and the vast majority of the country believing that the country is going in the wrong direction under his leadership."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "The GOP has put this country in a world of shit. And it seems that most Americans understand that all too well. [...] So, with that in mind, what in the hell were the Republicans thinking trotting out Roy Blunt for some seriously mixed up messaging yesterday?"
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "What's the top message priority for Democrats hoping to win this year's presidential election? When it comes to defining John McCain, it's pretty obvious: he'd offer more of the same. [...] McCain is aware of the dangers here -- no one wants to be closely associated with the most unpopular president since the dawn of modern polling, and no one wants to run on a 'stay the course' platform when four out of five Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. With that in mind, it's always encouraging when some leading Republicans seem anxious to make it easier for Democrats to hammer their message home."

MCCAIN II: Better Than Bush, But Not Good Enough

While acknowledging that McCain's environmental stance represents a step forward from Bush, liberal bloggers believe that McCain's proposals are vastly inferior to Obama's and Clinton's:

• Grist's David Roberts: "My initial reaction is that [McCain's climate plan is] better than expected, somewhat short of Lieberman-Warner, and far short of what Obama has proposed. It should comfort us that a McCain presidency will mean real action on climate change, not the shell game Bush is engaged in. But it's hard to see how McCain can claim the allegiance of voters who rank climate change as a top concern. He's still behind the curve."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "It's great that McCain acknowledges the reality of climate change and great that he acknowledges that we need to do something about it. But his cap-and-trade proposal is pretty weak tea."
• Firedoglake's Eric de Place: "To the extent that McCain's new proposal, flawed as it is, constitutes the lower bound of new national climate policy, we've just made a gigantic step forward. And it's about freaking time. Honestly. So what's wrong with McCain's plan? Let me count the ways. (1.) The targets are too modest. It calls for 60 percent reductions (below 1990 levels) by 2050, rather than the more aggressive 80 percent targets favored by the Democratic candidates. [...] (2.) It allows for unlimited 'offsets' from both foreign and domestic sources. There are two big problems with the anything-goes approach to offsets. For one thing, there's simply no guarantee that the offsets are real [...]. And two, a huge offset program drastically reduces the incentive for businesses to innovate and adapt. Why invest in efficiency measures when you can just keep polluting and pay for a phantom tree-planting project in Indonesia? (3.) It gives away carbon permits for free at the outset of the program, moving toward auctioning only later. [...] A better approach is auctioning the permits and then using the revenue for the public benefit, perhaps simply rebating the funds on a per capita basis."

Daily Kos' Devilstower doesn't trust McCain when it comes to the environment: "Back in 2000, candidate Bush also said the climate change was an issue and pledged to regulate CO2. It wasn't until after his election that that cuddly, caring, compassionate conservative Bush's positions gave way to the standard GOP line. So what's the difference between Bush and McCain? One is a Republican who is already in office, the other is a Republican running for office. Far from making him different from Bush, McCain's empty promises make him exactly the same as the man whose administration he's running to extend. What evidence is there that McCain would break Bush's flip-flop record if he gets the chance to sit in the Oval Office? How about this: McCain is being advised on these issues by Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, who just this morning put out an op-ed explaining how we can't let the environment get in the way of cheap energy. And of course the proposals McCain put forward today don't align very well with his other big push for a gas tax holiday. [...] As has already been demonstrated time and again, 'maverick' McCain's difference from the hard right extends as far as his words, and stops well short of his deeds. Coming from McCain, any promise on climate change is nothing but hot air."

The American Prospect's Kate Sheppard agrees: "Despite his lip service, all signs indicate that McCain lacks a grasp of the gravity of environmental concerns, and will push policy only as far as it does not inconvenience special interests and the conservative establishment. While his own values may be greener than those of the current Republican administration, chances are slim that he would make the strides necessary to reform the nation's environmental agenda."

MCCAIN III: The Maverick At His Worst

Conservative bloggers are also critical of McCain's climate plan, albeit for totally different reasons. They are accusing McCain of proposing "a massive regulatory intervention" in an effort to address "a supposed crisis that rests on skewed science":

• AmSpec Blog's Peter Suderman: "There's an old saying that everything becomes funnier if you add 'on ice!' to the end of it. Walt Disney...on ice! Nuclear winter...on ice! John Kerry...on ice! [...] Anyway, John McCain seems to be taking a similar approach to climate change legislation. Come up with whatever expensive regulatory scheme you want, and then just add the words 'market-based.' Suddenly, it's all good! So here he is telling the New York Times today that he'll 'propose a domestic cap-and-trade system that will mobilize market forces to develop and commercialize alternatives to carbon-based fuels.' It's as if he believes a massive regulatory intervention will somehow become more palatable if you repeat the word 'market' as many times as possible."
• Michelle Malkin: "A rational, free-market-based approach to environmentalism requires a commitment to scientific truth, accuracy, and honest cost-benefit analyses. For the last several years, McCain has been committed to none of those. [...] Like Barack Obama, McCain touts a 'cap-and-trade' system as the free-market answer to reducing carbon emissions. Analysts who haven't been bitten by the global warming alarmist bug beg to differ –- and evidence from cap-and-trade systems already in operation back them up. [...] A true 'free-market' approach to environmentalism means protecting the free market, not destroying it in the name of supposedly 'cost-free solutions' to a supposed crisis that rests on skewed science."

Hugh Hewitt, in contrast, defends McCain's cap-and-trade proposal by arguing that Obama's proposal is worse: "Skeptics about any aspect of the global warming debate -- the significance of the temperature rise, its origins, or the ability of humans to affect the temperature change -- thus have a choice: A candidate with a plan that includes a push for nuclear energy and accountability for China and other rapidly industrializing countries, or a candidate who will push an America-first, only, and without nuclear power plan. McCain has occupied the center on this debate, and the GOP and conservatives should get over it and begin working to keep enough Republican senators in place to assure that President McCain's emphasis on a new generation of nuclear power plants becomes a reality, thus keeping cap-and-trade from becoming a suffocating blanket."

MCCAIN IV: You Stay Classy, Joe!

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman for claiming that a Hamas spokesperson's positive statement about Obama "suggests the difference" between Obama and McCain:

"The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, 'Why?' And it suggests the difference between these two candidates."

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Lieberman is clearly emerging as a chief attack-dog for McCain on foreign policy, and here he is echoing McCain's talking points with unerring precision: While we all know that Obama doesn't in any way support Hamas or its goals, it's okay to use the group to tar the Illinois Senator anyway, merely because McCain and the Republicans want to. One wonders whether Harry Reid will keep this sort of stuff in mind when considering committee chairmanships in 2009."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "John McCain and Joe Lieberman = A Third Term of Stupid. Joe, this is why you're not allowed to be a Democrat any more. Too f*@#ing dumb, and too f*@#ing transparent. Note to the rest of you: this is the kind of intellectual honesty 'everything but the war' gets you."
• Benen: "Shortly after promising not to engage in these kinds of attacks, John McCain went after Barack Obama a few weeks ago over an ostensible 'endorsement' from a Hamas spokesperson. It was a cheap and ridiculous move -- especially given the fact that McCain and Obama have the same position on Hamas -- which Time's Joe Klein accurately described as 'gutter crap.' It was therefore not surprising at all to see Joe Lieberman repeat and legitimize the bogus line yesterday on CNN."
• Crooks and Liars' SilentPatriot: "This ridiculous guilt-by-association crap needs to stop already. Ed Schultz made a great point the other day: What if someone in, say, the KKK came out and said they would welcome the election of McCain over Obama? Does that have bearing on McCain, his candidacy or his beliefs? Of course not. But we wouldn't then go around, adding the caveat, 'Why does the KKK support him?' Only desperate neocons stoop that low."

MCCAIN V: McCain's Nader?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about ex-GA Rep. Bob Barr's entry into the Presidential race, which they perceive as a blow to McCain:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Barr is enough of a media darling that if he runs he'll get a lot of free media. And there's enough weirdness going on in the Republican party right now that I could imagine a few scenarios where he'd draw non-trivial numbers away from McCain. [...] A lot of Barr's drawing power will be a test of just how much opposition to the Iraq War there is in the Republican party. How many Republicans are there out there who just won't accept McCain's Iraq forever position but can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat? And how many of them could Barr sop up?"
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "The GOP brass begged Barr not to run. And Sean Hannity's complete freak out on this clip shows you just how spooked the wingnuts are over this. Make no mistake: this is a huge blow to the Republicans, who are already fighting with one arm tied behind their backs thanks to Dubya, Iraq, the economy and Dubya. And, as an added bonus, the Paulites, who were already plotting against McCain, now have a place to go in November. Go Bob!"
• Meanwhile, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher has a question: "Now that Bob Barr is running for president, inquiring minds want to know...will Tim Russert give a highly publicized, 'exclusive' campaign kick-off interview on MTP as he did for Ralph Nader? If not, why not?"

MCCAIN VI: Go Home, Bob

Most conservative bloggers are unenthusiastic about Barr's candidacy:

• Malkin: "Many readers have e-mailed asking what I think of former Ga. Rep. Bob Barr's presidential candidacy. [...] Two words: Not much. On immigration, he's virtually indistinguishable from all the other remaining presidential candidates. On homeland security, he's joined with what Heather MacDonald calls the 'privocrats' in whipping up unfounded hysteria about intelligence-gathering efforts in a post-9/11 world. On Iraq, he's what Allahpundit calls the 'poor man's Ron Paul'. And doesn't the ACLU, for which Barr consults, already have enough candidates in the race?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Barr has more problems than a little whipped-cream licking to overcome. Based on his own platform, Barr will have to conduct a John Edwards campaign, running against pretty much his entire voting record during his Congressional career. On every issue Barr names, he voted in the manner in which he now criticizes. [...] What will he use for a campaign slogan -- 'In hindsight, I was a lousy Congressman'? That didn't work for John Edwards this year in a major-party primary, and it won't convince people to vote Libertarian, either."
• Meanwhile, AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain likes Barr's immigration stance: "'If a person is illegally in this country, the taxpayers of this country and the government of this country owe them nothing,' Barr said. This notion that government owes something to people, simply because they're here, does not resonate with me as somebody who believes in responsible government. If one were running a charity called the United States of America, that would be one thing. This is not a charity, this is the people's business."

MCCAIN VII: Huck, No!

Several conservative bloggers are upset about James Pethokoukis' report that Mike Huckabee "is currently at the top of John McCain's short list for a running mate":

• Malkin: "Huckabee for VP? That's the buzz. It's the GOP immigration drag queen ticket! La Raza/The Race gives it two thumbs up. [...] All they need is sanctuary-friendly Rudy Giuliani as DHS Secretary, and the open-borders nightmare team will be complete. Can someone please fast-forward to 2012? Please."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit understands the rationale for putting Huckabee on the ticket: "Having not one but two media darlings on the GOP ticket might convince the press to go merely hip-deep into the tank for Obama instead of face-first, like they're planning. Finally, now that Barry O's the nominee, McCain has both a worry and an opportunity that he wouldn't have had opposite Hillary: Turnout among black voters in the south is sure to be huge this year, which, coupled with a weak turnout among southern evangelicals, could be lethal by putting red states in play. Adding a prominent Christian to the ticket solves that problem and frees McCain up to focus on the battlegrounds instead of fighting a rearguard action to preserve his base. Adding Huckabee specifically to the ticket, with his blue-collar populist rhetoric, holds an extra advantage in giving him a shot at Hillary's base of working-class Democrats in Pennsylvania and Ohio. All of which is to say, while Hot Air readers might not like this idea, I can understand why Team Maverick might."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Lessons From The Corleones

The New Republic's Isaac Chotiner:

"John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell have a fun and smart article in The National Interest comparing the Corleone family's response to the attempted assassination of Vito to America's response to 9/11. Tom Hagen counsels prudence and negotiation, and therefore represents the 'liberal institutionalism' of the Democratic Party. Sonny Corleone wants vengeance and conflict, and thus represents today's neocons. And then there is Michael, the realist, who saves the Corleone family, and also presents a good model for the United States to follow in the post-9/11 world. [...]

Still, I was left wondering: Do these guys know that The Godfather movies are a tragedy? That the entire point of the story is that Michael sells his soul? Considering the fact that certain 'realists' have been happy to sell their souls for a long time now (Henry Kissinger somehow comes to mind), this might have been an interesting direction for the piece."

LEST WE FORGET: The Comedic Possibilities Of Eclipses

A Deep Thought by Jack Handey:

"I bet a fun thing would be to go way back in time to where there was going to be an eclipse and tell the cave men, 'If I have come to destroy you, may the sun be blotted out from the sky.' Just then the eclipse would start, and they'd probably try to kill you or something, but then you could explain about the rotation of the moon and all, and everyone would get a good laugh."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at May 13, 2008 12:48 PM