FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY 22,  2008

The detached

I watched the Democratic debate last night after spending some valuable time with Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, an astute and respected Iranian human-rights activist.  She has walked the walk - her father was a political prisoner of the mullahs - as well as talked the talk.

Why is it, I wonder, that this Iranian fighter for human rights seemed more connected to the world than two candidates for president of the United States?  First, she knows.  Second, she cares.  As far as the Dem candidates are concerned, they probably know, but either they don't care or think the voters don't.  There was little enough discussion of foreign policy last night.  What there was essentially became Bush-bashing and "let's get out of Iraq."  I'll be discussing Banafsheh's battles in future posts. 

As far as the debate went, it cured my insomnia.  It wasn't much.  I thought, on balance, that Clinton won on points, but not by enough to turn the race around.  I simply felt that, whatever we might think of her, she had a greater command of the issues and showed a "feel" for the way they could be addressed.  Obama, on the other hand, sounded like a man who believed all wisdom came from term papers. 

The audience seemed to consist mainly of young people, who, with their whoopin' and cheerin', provided a good case for raising the voting age to 30.  Make that 35.  Would you go to 40? 

I thought, by the way, that Campbell Brown asked outstanding questions.

Texas and Ohio vote March 4th, a week from Tuesday.  I can't dispute the conventional thinking on this.  Clinton must win both contests to stay alive, but I'll just add one caveat:  If she wins Ohio convincingly and loses Texas by a point or two, she could conceivably last through the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd.  However, during the stretch between March 4th and April 22nd, six or seven lifetimes in politics, the so-called super delegates would probably start rushing to Obama.  Voters often feel a need to be with the winner, and that psychology could wipe out Clinton's current lead in Pennsylvania polls.

Advantage:  Heavily with Obama, but you never know.  During the summer people were suggesting that John McCain drop out.  He didn't.

Like all of us, McCain survives The New York Times

There is no late word of John McCain jumping off a cliff or his wife hiring a Beverly Hills family lawyer.  The New York Times story reporting a possible romantic link, in the past, between McCain and a lobbyist, has pretty much fizzled.  Unless The Times has some hot pictures, I can't see any real damage.  Michael Gerson, President Bush's former speechwriter, analyzes the issue for The Washington Post:

But the Times did not even make a direct accusation of infidelity. It just implied that about nine years ago something hot and heavy was going on -- reporting that unnamed McCain staffers were concerned about an inappropriate relationship. Without the sexual angle of the story, questionable letters from the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee to regulators would not rate the front page of the New York Times. But the sexual angle is unsubstantiated -- no incriminating poems, no torrid diary entries, no spurned and talkative lover. Raising the prominence of a news story with sexual innuendoes is irresponsible -- unless there is more proof to come. 

And this...

But the Times makes its case based on statements from two disgruntled former McCain associates, who are anonymous in the article. This is thin evidence on which to hang a serious charge. Their stories eventually could be substantiated -- and I assume other news organizations will try. But as it stands now, there is every reason to take McCain's word over unknown sources.

The most important line, long-term, is this, and it will carry the day:

But I called a lobbyist -- no friend of McCain's -- who insisted that McCain is "well known to be the most difficult senator to influence in any way. He is not a fraud."

If I were the McCain campaign, I'd frame that. 

From England, with no love

The number of writers willing to take on Obama, and the religion he's created, is growing.  Rarely, though, does it get as tough as this, from Gerard Baker of The Times of London.  I've always felt Britain had a split personality - the Churchill side, and the Chamberlain side.  The bulldog and the pussycat.  This is the bulldog, and very hungry:

For most ordinary Americans, those not encumbered with an expensive education or infected by prolonged exposure to cosmopolitan heterodoxy, patriotism is a consequence of birth.

Their chests swell with pride every time they hear the national anthem at sporting events. They fill up with understandable emotion whenever they see a report on television about the tragic heroics of some soldier or Marine who gave his life in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And...

But not, apparently, Michelle Obama, wife of the man who is now the putative Democratic candidate for US president, and at this point favourite to succeed to that job. In what might be the most revealing statement made by any political figure so far in this campaign season, Mrs Obama caused a stir this week. She said that the success of her husband Barack's campaign had marked the first time in her adult life that she had felt pride in her country.

This, even by the astonishingly self-absorbed standards of politicians and their families, is a remarkably narrow view of what makes a country great. And though she later half-heartedly tried to retract the remark it was a statement pregnant with meaning for the presidential election campaign.

It goes on...

There is a caste of left-wing Americans who wish essentially and in all honesty that their country was much more like France. They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it did not have such a “militaristic” approach to foreign policy. Above all, that its national goals were dictated, not by the dreadful halfwits who inhabit godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the counsels of the United Nations.

Though Mr Obama has done a good job, as all recent serious Democrats have done, of emphasising his belief in American virtues, his record and his programme suggest he is firmly in line with this wing of his party.

He goes further...

While he speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship (“We are not blue states or red states, but the United States” is a campaign meme), when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party. If you think about it for a second, it's not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson.

Finally...

That a new era in American politics is beginning is not in doubt. But are Americans really ready to leap all the way across in one go to embrace a European-style Left?

That is the question.  I've never seen the argument against Obama stated so bluntly, or so well.  Read, read.

Political philosophy 634 - advanced seminar

Of course, there are other voices.  Urgent Agenda strives to give you the best of modern thought, no matter what the position.  Now we hear from Professor Willie Nelson, D.C. (doctor of strumming), who gives us the benefit of his many years of study:

AUSTIN -- American icon Willie Nelson says he supports efforts to impeach President Bush and "throw the bastards out," adding that the administration will do anything to stay in power, including staging an event to cancel the election.

Nelson made the comments on a radio show Thursday, saying that he supported Dennis Kucinich's attempt to impeach Bush.

"If you break the law you have to pay for it one way or another, and if these guys haven't broke the law nobody has," said Nelson. "The deck's been stacked and we need to figure out a way to get a new fresh deck in there in the deal and I don't know how else to do it except throw the bastards out."

Nelson said he doesn't see the Democrats as any kind of viable alternative.

"We went through a couple of elections now and we didn't do anything, we thought we did but come to find out that the voting machines are crooked, everything's stacked against us, the politicians that we vote for won't stay and fight and they won't count the votes," said Nelson.

You mean even Obama isn't left-wing enough for you, Will? 

That does it.  Now watch the groundswell for Kucinich.  The Dem race is wide open again. 

By the way, didn't this Nelson chap have a bit of bother with the IRS not long ago?  Taxes for thee, but not for me.  He should set that to music.  Big hit.

Something up?

I always stress that there's a world outside our elections.  There's now some rumbling in the Middle East.  The situation between Israel and the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, seems to be getting worse.  The Iranians have been making very threatening statements.  There is worry, in adult circles, that the Iranian nuclear program may be further ahead than we'd thought.  Now there is talk that Israel may mount a major operation in Gaza, and that the United States not only is backing it, but wants Israel to eliminate Hamas entirely.  The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz has a well-connected Washington correspondent, who reports this:

The mysterious Israeli attack in Syria last September and the assassination of Imad Mughniyah in Damascus last week may improve Israel's operational image, but will not completely restore the American confidence in its ability to complete a more ambitious campaign: occupying the Gaza Strip, crushing the military power of Hamas and restoring the Strip to the trained Palestinian forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas.

This is the only realistic scenario that may bode a better future for the Gaza Strip, and which also aligns with what is relevant to Washington: it is both realistic and meets U.S. aims, namely to avoid dialogue with Hamas and not to weaken Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas by rewarding the extremists.

This is a well-written military story.  I can't vouch for its accuracy, but Rosner has been a careful reporter.  Also, an Israeli military operation during an election year means Israel won't get any public lectures from the United States.  Very interesting.

Entrepreneurship - the American spirit

We close with an economic story.  Is there no end to Yankee ingenuity?  It seems that doormen in Las Vegas have reinvented their calling, and some are now making more than the president of the United States.  Quick!  Get a uniform.  Get a whistle.  Learn which light on top of the cab means it's available.  And remember - there's gold in those revolving doors:

Sources have been telling me that doormen at several clubs are clearing $8,000 to $10,000 a night before they share tips. So much cash is pouring in that some doormen are making $400,000 to $500,000 a year, several nightclub executives told me.

"Pure has guys at the door making more than the president," said one executive with intimate knowledge of the cover-charge system. He was referring to the annual salary of the president of the United States, which is $400,000, plus benefits.

A Pure executive told me over the weekend that 5,000 people showed up for Paris Hilton's 27th birthday party and her guest appearance with the Pussycat Dolls.

About six months ago, on a busy night at Pure, I overheard two men bitterly complaining about the cover charge. "They wanted $1,000 per person. I said the highest I'd go was $800!" one said.

Next entry on the Forbes list of the nation's wealthiest:  "Sal, who works the 4-12 shift."

I always knew he'd make it.

And I'll be back later.

Posted on February 22, 2008.