Michelle Obama and the Gospel of Bitterness

Scott Johnson at Powerline lays out a compelling thesis on the "gospel of bitterness" that drives Barack Obama and his wife's politics.

The key here, though, is that Barack's stump speeches are more polished than are Michelle's. She spews bitterness, of course, and as a power couple, the Obamas are representative of the elite thinking among many "what's the matter with Kansas" Democrats:

Michelle Obama seethes with bitterness. While she preaches the gospel according to Barack, she wears resentment and bitterness on her sleeve. It is therefore painful to listen to her. She's apparently even still angry about her SAT scores. She didn't test well in school, she explains. Somehow, she has overcome.

Mrs. Obama seeks to convey convey the impression -- she expands on the theme at great length -- that Senator Obama's campaign is, to borrow Joe McCarthy's formulation, the victim of "a conspiracy so immense..." It is not clear whether the Obama campaign can overcome the power of these sinister forces.

According to Mrs. Obama, the Obama campaign has been constrained by nameless forces constantly changing the rules of the game and thereby preventing Senator Obama from securing the nomination. Who are "they"? Mrs. Obama says just enough about these nameless forces for us to infer that "they" include the Clintons and their supporters. "They" seem also (incredibly) to include the mainstream media. These nameless forces have approximately the same specificity as the names on Joe McCarthy's list.

In her North Carolina speech Mrs. Obama reiterates the condescending political sociology that she elaborated in her Fort Wayne remarks and that Barack Obama preached at his closed-door fundraiser with the San Francisco Democrats. Given the modesty of her and her husband's family backgrounds, Mrs. Obama denies that she or her husband could be elitists.

Yet Mrs. Obama's political sociology comfortably fits the What's the Matter With Kansas? school of thought held by the Demoratic Party's liberal elite. Indeed, it was an elite group of wealthy San Francisco Democrats to whom Barack Obama was preaching the gospel of bitterness in San Francisco.

Mrs. Obama mocks the notion that she and her husband are elitists. She implicitly asserts that only those born to wealth are capable of looking down their noses at their fellow citizens. She does not think highly of those of us who want to be left alone by advocates of the administrative welfare state such as she and her husband. Moreover, she finds us guilty of making our children the victims of our fears. We are raising "young doubters." (I confess!)

But aren't those in her audience afraid of the sinister forces struggling to hold the Obamas down? Apparently not any more than she is. If her remarks were to be believed, they would by themselves instill deep fears. Her audience seems to understand that her impassioned whining is not to be taken seriously.

She says that she and Barack were born to parents of modest means, not with "silver spoons" in their mouths. Nobody knows the trouble they've seen. The burden of paying for her undergraduate education at Princeton and her law school education at Harvard has scarred her. It remains a motif of her stump speech. No one is accorded a chance to ask her if she thought about attending the University of Illinois, or if she's grateful for any of the financial assistance that facilitated her and her husband's attendance at the finest institutions of higher learning in the United States.

Note too, Christopher Hitchens' post yesterday, where he warned that we're getting two-for-the-price-of-one in Barack's presidential bid:

What can it be that has kept Obama in Wright's pews, and at Wright's mercy, for so long and at such a heavy cost to his aspirations? Even if he pulls off a mathematical nomination victory, he has completely lost the first, fine, careless rapture of a post-racial and post-resentment political movement and mired us again in all the old rubbish that predates Dr. King. What a sad thing to behold. And how come? I think we can exclude any covert sympathy on Obama's part for Wright's views or style—he has proved time and again that he is not like that, and even his own little nods to "Minister" Farrakhan can probably be excused as a silly form of Chicago South Side political etiquette. All right, then, how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?

This obvious question is now becoming inescapable, and there is an inexcusable unwillingness among reporters to be the one to ask it. (One can picture Obama looking pained and sensitive and saying, "Keep my wife out of it," or words to that effect, as Clinton tried to do in 1992 when Jerry Brown and Ralph Nader quite correctly inquired about his spouse's influence.) If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.

I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama's 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be "read" at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language. Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she's much influenced by the definition of black "separationism" offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa's most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, "You can't say 'Never Again' to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you're there forever." I have the distinct feeling that the Obama campaign can't go on much longer without an answer to the question: "Are we getting two for one?" And don't be giving me any grief about asking this. Black Americans used to think that the Clinton twosome was their best friend, too. This time we should find out before it's too late to ask.

I've noted many times - after first hearing Michelle Obama's comments that she's never been proud to be American - that I cringe at the thought of having Mrs. Obama as first lady.

Some have suggested that we elect the president and not his wife, but the office of the first lady has always been a integral component of any presidential administration, and over the last few decades first ladies have often served as powerful political actors in their own rights. Just this morning First Lady Laura Bush spoke out on Myanmar, urging the government to allow humantarian relief teams into the country; last fall Mrs. Bush called on Myanmar's ruling junta to step down.

Hillary Clinton's claims to expertise on healthcare derives from her experience spearheading health policy reform as first lady in the Clinton administration. We could go back at least to Edith Wilson to look at historically powerful first ladies.

Michelle Obama, reflecting on the possible "emulation" of Hillary Clinton's precedent as first lady, suggested a potentially activist role in a Barack Obama administration:

I never think in terms of her or anybody else, because I don't know Hillary Clinton … I don't think I can honestly emulate somebody else. I think I can only be who I can be in this role. And that's going to come with all the pluses and minuses and baggage and insecurities and all the things that I'll bring into it, plus my hopes and dreams along with it.

All the pluses and minuses, the baggage and bitterness.

All the more reason to vote McCain.

Phote Credit: Newsweek

Obama Goes Negative

Barack Obama apparently can't stay up in the clouds of political above-it-all-ness, as indicated by his new attack ad on Hillary Clinton's "negativism":

The spot begins with: "A war that should never have been waged..."

And continues: "And what does Hillary Clinton offer us? More of the same old negative politics."

But what does Obama offer us? A return to Carter-esque appeasement and international dishonor?

See also my earlier entry, "The Fight Goes On: Today's Indecisive Primaries."

The Fight Goes On: Today's Indecisive Primaries

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama go head-to-head in Indiana and North Carolina today. These are potentially decisive primaries, but unless Clinton loses both contests, she'll maintain enough momentum to make the credible case for staying in the race.

The Economist had a very good editorial on the Indiana contest yesterday:

Indiana, though, is another matter. It ought to be solid ground for Mrs Clinton. It resembles states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where she has done well, being somewhat conservative, mostly white and above all relatively poor. Average incomes in Indiana are $36,500, versus $40,000 for Pennsylvania, where Mrs Clinton won by 9.2 percentage points. Her appeal has consistently been strongest to voters earning between $15,000 and $100,000 a year.

This expectation carries great danger, though. Should Mrs Clinton stumble in Indiana, her campaign will almost certainly be doomed. Her recent comeback critically depends on maintaining the momentum generated since her breakthrough in Ohio on March 4th, which has allowed her continually to close the gap in the popular vote between her and Mr Obama. If that process goes into reverse, she will lose the most convincing argument that she is able to deploy to the wavering superdelegates who will determine the final outcome because the tally of elected delegates is so finely balanced.

But for more of a youthy, Obamist perspective, see Rolling Stone's piece, "Hillary's Bitter Victory," which makes an interesting argument that the Democratic race represents the most important round in the "culture wars" in recent times:

Seldom in American politics has the same side of a single party split into such distinct and acrimonious factions. As virtually identical as the two candidates are in their political positions, there is no longer any common cause left between Hillary lovers and Obama supporters. There is only a culture war of epic proportions, featuring some of the most unlikely and absurd combatants in the history of impassioned conflict. Ordinary suburban Americans, people who consider Tina Fey biting satire and whose only "fighting" experience has usually been against trans fats or hair loss, can now be seen running through the streets, screaming war calls like Maoist guerrillas in the jungles of Nepal.

As Hillary finishes her speech in the ballroom, plumes of confetti shoot into the air out of a pair of paper-cannons. The loudspeaker — which for hours now has been playing an agonizing loop of patriotic classic rock, with heavy emphasis on Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down" — is now blasting John Cougar Mellencamp's "Our Country."

I raise an eyebrow. The song is (1) the soundtrack to a hideously overplayed truck commercial and (2) possibly, just possibly, a weird and weirdly gratuitous dig at Obama, who at that very moment was making his gloomy "I'm fucked" concession speech in Evansville, Indiana, flanked by Indiana native Mellencamp and his wife, Elaine. Is the Clinton camp trying to make a joke about the fact that Obama is grasping for the endorsement of some gnomish Eighties B-lister while Hillary is grabbing America by the balls? Yeah, this is our country, motherfucker! Suck on this!
Has it come to this? The political equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?" On both sides, this Obama-Clinton race has turned into something very like the vicious rivalry of a pair of blood-lusting high school student bodies — Odessa Permian versus Midland Lee, only with the fate of the free world hanging in the balance.

This race has already seen such juvenilia as one would previously have considered inconceivable in a contest between two ostensibly cerebral Democratic presidential candidates, including a surprisingly serious argument over which camp had the right to invoke Rocky references in their Pennsylvania campaign rhetoric — an argument settled, amazingly, when Gov. Ed Rendell declared "by executive order" that the right was Hillary's alone. The problem has been exacerbated by the relatively minor policy differences between the two candidates, although one suspects that even if those differences were major, they would take a back seat to the emerging tribal schism now cleaving the Democratic Party — a wholesale regression to clashing teenage emotions that turns these supposedly profound electoral battles into feverish squalls of car-honking and sarcastic sloganeering.

How long before one side kidnaps the other side's mascot? Will we wake up some morning in the near future and find Obama's campaign bus taken apart and reassembled on the roof of the Indiana Statehouse? Will Obama hooligans steal Hillary's Botox kit and gleefully paint the word "suck!" at the end of every yes she can sign in Guam?

Seldom in American politics has the same side of a single party split into such distinct and acrimonious factions. As virtually identical as the two candidates are in their political positions, there is no longer any common cause left between Hillary lovers and Obama supporters. There is only a culture war of epic proportions, featuring some of the most unlikely and absurd combatants in the history of impassioned conflict. Ordinary suburban Americans, people who consider Tina Fey biting satire and whose only "fighting" experience has usually been against trans fats or hair loss, can now be seen running through the streets, screaming war calls like Maoist guerrillas in the jungles of Nepal.

As Hillary finishes her speech in the ballroom, plumes of confetti shoot into the air out of a pair of paper-cannons. The loudspeaker — which for hours now has been playing an agonizing loop of patriotic classic rock, with heavy emphasis on Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down" — is now blasting John Cougar Mellencamp's "Our Country."

I raise an eyebrow. The song is (1) the soundtrack to a hideously overplayed truck commercial and (2) possibly, just possibly, a weird and weirdly gratuitous dig at Obama, who at that very moment was making his gloomy "I'm fucked" concession speech in Evansville, Indiana, flanked by Indiana native Mellencamp and his wife, Elaine. Is the Clinton camp trying to make a joke about the fact that Obama is grasping for the endorsement of some gnomish Eighties B-lister while Hillary is grabbing America by the balls? Yeah, this is our country, motherfucker! Suck on this!
Has it come to this? The political equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?" On both sides, this Obama-Clinton race has turned into something very like the vicious rivalry of a pair of blood-lusting high school student bodies — Odessa Permian versus Midland Lee, only with the fate of the free world hanging in the balance.

This race has already seen such juvenilia as one would previously have considered inconceivable in a contest between two ostensibly cerebral Democratic presidential candidates, including a surprisingly serious argument over which camp had the right to invoke Rocky references in their Pennsylvania campaign rhetoric — an argument settled, amazingly, when Gov. Ed Rendell declared "by executive order" that the right was Hillary's alone. The problem has been exacerbated by the relatively minor policy differences between the two candidates, although one suspects that even if those differences were major, they would take a back seat to the emerging tribal schism now cleaving the Democratic Party — a wholesale regression to clashing teenage emotions that turns these supposedly profound electoral battles into feverish squalls of car-honking and sarcastic sloganeering.

How long before one side kidnaps the other side's mascot? Will we wake up some morning in the near future and find Obama's campaign bus taken apart and reassembled on the roof of the Indiana Statehouse? Will Obama hooligans steal Hillary's Botox kit and gleefully paint the word "suck!" at the end of every yes she can sign in Guam?

More important, when will this thing end? Is there any relief in sight?

The short answer to this question is no, there isn't. This contest no longer has anything to do with the electoral math. After the Pennsylvania contest, Obama holds some 1,724 delegates, which include 1,488 pledged delegates and 236 superdelegates. Hillary, by contrast, has 1,593 total delegates, broken down into 1,334 pledged and 259 superdelegates.

The popular vote is a more confusing story, but even there the margin is substantial: 14,417,619 votes for Obama to 13,917,393 for Hillary. Those numbers can be skewed in several different directions, depending on one's inclinations (Obama's number is artificially low because it fails to reflect caucus-state populations; Hillary's number is artificially low because she doesn't get credit for Michigan and Florida). But either way, the final count will almost certainly favor Obama.

The fact that the race seems so closely fought now makes it hard to remember Obama's crushing streak of victories in the middle of this campaign. But the truth is that he built up so big a lead back then that even a major victory in a major state like Pennsylvania has little influence on the outcome: Hillary picked up only nine delegates on Obama in the process.

By the time the primary season officially ends on June 3rd with Montana and South Dakota, Obama will almost certainly be leading in delegates and the popular vote — but there almost certainly will be no nominee, either. The remainder of this race has therefore become a matter of each candidate making a case for his/her electability to the 300-odd superdelegates still uncommitted — people like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, who ultimately will decide this contest at the convention.

In the meantime, one thing about this contest can be said with absolute surety: Everyone involved has lost their minds. For Clinton supporters, the race has taken on a meaning that transcends politics. One gets the sense that Hillary's campaign has become an idée fixe for any Democrat of a certain type who has ever been fucked around or disrespected or abused or disappointed. Far more than any policy position, it is Hillary's "fight to the finish" mantra that is reaching her supporters on some elemental level that is hard for outsiders to comprehend.

Here's the killer conclusion, which is penetrating:

With all his verbose deflections of Hillary's attacks and unconcealed annoyance over silly nonissues like his failure to wear a flag lapel pin, Obama inadvertently painted himself into a corner as a know-it-all, a pointy-head who would rather yammer in polysyllables and talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than wear the fucking American flag on his chest — as Hillary, meanwhile, was promising to "obliterate" Iran and in the process roping in hordes of nondescript suburbanites who'll crawl through the mud for "Madam President" while marching to classic rock tunes like the "Horst Wessel Song." Clinton's genius was in seeing that it was possible to play the liberal/intellectual-baiting game not only with Republicans but with Democrats — and that by forcing her opponent to take the high road, she could scour the fish-rich waters of the low road.

The result has been an epic clash, a war of cultural types that has nothing whatsoever to do with issues and everything to do with self-image. It's become a pitched fight between the fucked-over suburban little guy and the vilified intellectual, two groups that for years have felt put upon and dispossessed, for different reasons. The fact that their respective champions are identical superstar U.S. senators/multimillionaires makes the bitter hatred this schism is inspiring absurd, but it doesn't make it any less real. Or likely to end anytime soon.

I'll have more later.

Debating the "Hot New Foreign Policy Book of the Season"

I'm not a big fan of Matthew Yglesias' foreign policy views (if you hadn't noticed), although I'm about half-way through his new book, Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.

I've got posts brewing on Yglesias' latest writings (he's extremely far to the left on foreign policy, despite his repeated efforts in the book to locate his positions as basically a "neglected centrist" alternative to compliant, opportunistic Democratic Party "liberal hawks"), but until then, here's your chance to get the inside dope on the book straight from the horse's mouth.

The video's an Atlantic magazine production, featuring a surprisingly friendly exchange between Yglesias and Ross Douthat, two commentators of widely divergent in political ideologies:

Douthat looks to be a tolerant guy, sitting pleasantly as he is with Yglesias, considering his own tightly argued right-wing conservatism.

I guess it's possible, though, to explain bookish pleasantries between these two, as I do maintain some professionaly collegiality with the few genuine Stalinists I happen to work with in my school division.

I'll have my own take on Heads in the Sand in upcoming posts, but don't forget Jamie Kirchick's killer review of the book, as well as the non-photoshopped picture of (a fundamentally incredible) Yglesias in a kafiya.

Orderly or Precipitous? A Plan to Exit Iraq

Anthony Cordesman makes the case that the U.S. should downsize the Iraq mission from 15 brigades scheduled for this summer to 5 brigades by 2010, which will be midterm during the next presidential administration:

IF the United States is to succeed in Iraq, if the Bush administration is to manage a credible transition to the next president and if there is to be any hope of a bipartisan approach to the war there, we need a clear plan to move forward. Good plans cannot guarantee the future, but they can provide good options.

Over the next few years, the United States should seek to decrease its forces from the 15 combat brigades planned for July to no more than five, and reduce their role to a largely advisory one. This would largely eliminate the heavy loss in lives and reduce the cost of the war from $12 billion a month during the peak of the surge in 2007 to about $12 billion a year.

We should also phase out most aid to Iraq by the middle of the next presidency. The United States has already disbursed most of the $20.9 billion it has appropriated for the Iraqi Reconstruction and Relief Fund. And the State Department’s request for economic and security aid has dropped from $2.1 billion in 2007 to $960 million this year and $397 million for 2009. The United States should also give Iraq the military equipment that is already there and too expensive to bring back.

During this process, the United States needs to encourage the various Iraqi factions to reach a political compromise....

Well-timed troop withdrawals and a reduction in war costs, along with credible Iraqi elections, would move the United States down a path that most Americans and Congress would support — one the next president would have a reason to take.

Five brigades would be roughly 20,000 troops, if we count brigade size at the higher end of about 4,000 soldiers.

That sounds a little low to me, given that some analysts have suggested a residual force continent of 70,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq for a decade or more.

The Cordesman plan is driven by domestic political realities, rather than short-term military or long-term strategic needs.

(Extra: Cordesman's plan, which GOES TOO FAR toward the precipitous side, in my view, is apparently rejected by antiwar surrender hawks Spencer Ackerman, Tristero, and Matthew Yglesias, who are unhappy with the New York Times' exclusion of genuine far left-wing antiwar fanatics from Sunday's Iraq symposium. )

Malicious Anonymity vs. Online Free Speech

We all get them: The nasty, hate-filled drive-by attacks that make many bloggers screen their threads through comment moderation. The worst of these are usually anonymous, which makes dealing with the issue even more frustrating.

I've had a couple of death threats, so legal recourse isn't out of the realm of contemplation.

Anyway, I'm just reflecting on this stuff as a blogger (see my recent post, "Neo-Confederate Hate Comments), but in the online world of social networking, things may be coming to a head.

It turns out that the issues of online anonymity are attracting the attention of regulators, according to this piece over at Business Week:

Melissa heard the gossip about her Princeton University classmates on JuicyCampus.com even before she saw the Web site.

She's anorexic.

He's a closeted homosexual.

She's spreading sexual diseases.

Since it was set up last year, JuicyCampus has become a popular place for college kids around the country to share such gossip. Melissa ultimately found her own name connected with the malicious rumors. But the Princeton junior couldn't do anything about it. All the comments were anonymous and JuicyCampus won't remove posts based on students' objections. "The second someone's name appears on the site, it's a death sentence," she says.

She's not the only one who feels that way. Complaints about the site have poured into the office of New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram, and Milgram has opened an investigation into JuicyCampus. She wants the site to provide a way to remove defamatory posts, but the problems go beyond slander. Milgram worries the Web site's guarantee of anonymity could lead to harassment, assault, or worse. One young woman said strange men started knocking on her door at night after comments were posted on the site detailing her alleged sexual activities and giving her home address. "There are public safety issues," says Milgram. Her effort has generated support among legal authorities from Connecticut to California.

JuicyCampus denies any wrongdoing. Founder and Chief Executive Matt Ivester says the site has no legal responsibility to police or remove comments based on claims of defamation. "We are confident that we haven't violated any laws," he says, "and we're disappointed that this is where [the attorney general] is focusing her time." The Web site doesn't charge its users any fees, instead generating revenue from advertising.

Ivester has plenty of support. Many tech executives and legal experts argue that anonymous, unfettered speech is essential on the Internet. It's not just the principle; it's the business. Web sites such as Amazon.com, YouTube, and MySpace depend on user participation to generate content. Monitoring or screening users could prove costly or impossible for some sites. "To shift the burden [of screening content] to Web site operators is precisely the opposite of what has led to a well-developed Internet," says Matt Zimmerman, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit civil liberties advocate.

Adeo Ressi has seen the controversy at first hand. He founded a Web site called TheFunded, which allows entrepreneurs to anonymously rate venture capital firms and provide comments on firm employees. He says cloaking participants' identities is essential to elicit candid assessments, and allows the Web site to provide valuable information about the venture industry. "Anonymity is necessary in order to get to the truth," he says.

The proliferation of such interactive Internet sites is what's given rise to the current debate. In the past, there were a relatively small number of sites that allowed user comments, players such as Yahoo! and America Online. If needed, prosecutors like Milgram could subpoena a site's host to discover a user's identity. But now there are thousands of Web sites that allow comments, and many wipe out or fail to store the records necessary to track down visitors to the site. "It used to be that if someone slammed you anonymously, you subpoenaed AOL and they got his home address and his full name," says Michael Fertik, chief executive of ReputationDefender, which tracks commentary for clients online. "But that's no longer the case."

Melissa understands the issues only too well. The confident 20-year-old welcomes a reporter to her dorm room dressed for the gym. She talks about JuicyCampus dismissively. She doesn't believe the site deserves any attention and is annoyed that it has gotten so much of hers. "It is just a mean concept and no one uses it for anything more than reporting mean things," she says.

The posts about her, with her full name, include attacks on her integrity, accusing her of backstabbing friends and social climbing. Normally, she would have shrugged it off. But because the posts could stay online for years, she frets about their effect on her reputation, perhaps even as she interviews for jobs. "It's not funny," she says. "I don't know if an employer would consider this a reliable source of anything, but if they went on and found a prospective employee's name, it's worrisome." She asked that her last name not be used for this story to avoid calling more attention to the posts.

Milgram believes JuicyCampus' own terms of service could require it to remove such material. The site asks users not to post content that is abusive, defamatory, or invasive of privacy, among other things. Not upholding those terms could violate New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, Milgram says.

There are few legal means to compel Web sites to police message boards. For more than a decade, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has protected sites from suits concerning user comments, defining such sites as akin to public parks rather than publications. Now some lawmakers are saying those protections are too broad. One member of California's state assembly has called for suggestions to change state law to address the problem.

The growing dangers of online speech have been illustrated by tragic cases, such as the suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier in October. The young teen hanged herself a day after being insulted online by a person she believed to be Josh Evans, a 16-year-old boy with whom she had formed a friendship on MySpace. Evans didn't exist. He was later revealed to be a false profile allegedly created by a neighbor.

As the legal debate rages, Princeton students are trying another tactic to shut down anonymous gossip online: attacking the sites' business model. They're organizing boycotts of JuicyCampus and similar ventures, to cut off traffic and, by extension, ad revenue.

Behind the movement at Princeton is Connor Diemand-Yauman, 20-year-old president of the 2010 class. He created a new Web site, OwnWhatYouThink.com, that asks students to pledge not to visit anonymous gossip sites and to stand behind their online statements. "This is about changing the way our generation and our culture look at the way we communicate with one another," he says.Since the campaign's launch on Apr. 1, nearly 1,000 students have signed the pledge. Ivester says the boycott won't have any damaging effect on the site.

One warm afternoon, Diemand-Yauman and dozens of other students held a rally to promote their cause. As an antidote to abusive content online, hundreds of positive statements about students from their classmates were projected onto a massive screen.

She gives the best hugs.

He is sweet and smart.

She is always around when I need a friend.

Some wore shirts, emblazoned with a retort to JuicyCampus and sites like it: "Anonymity = Cowardice."

I have a few libertarian readers, and I'd be interested in some thoughts on this.

I'm not against some degree of governmental intervention to regulate some of this, at the least to make the laws more serious for cases like Megan Meier's, where her parents had no legal recourse after hate-filled social networking attacks drove her to suicide (see, "Anguish ForMother of Suicide Girl as 'Cyber-Trmentor' Ecapes the Law").

Of course, in the absence of legislation, online users, and especially parents, simply need to be more vigilant. It's a jungle online sometimes, and a nightmare.

Israel's Political Crisis

When you hear the phrase, "Israeli political crisis," does the larger military/strategic problem of Israel's ongoing Palestinian conflict come to mind?

Or would your first thought be that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's close be being indicted on some major corruption charges, or something of that sort, since the premiere's under investigation, and it's all hush-hush?

I naturally think of the long-simmering challenge to the Israeli state, but as today's New York Times reports, an internal crisis in the prime minister's office has hampered hopes for a peace breakthrough amid U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent shuttle diplomacy to the Middle East: "Israeli Political Crisis Overshadows Rice’s Trip":

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held a series of talks on Israeli-Palestinian peace here on Sunday, saying she believed an accord was attainable by year’s end. But the process was overshadowed by an intensifying police investigation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel....

The nature of the accusation against Mr. Olmert is under a strict court-imposed gag order, so Israeli commentators, some of whom have received leaks of key details, have been talking around it. “The issue under investigation is serious, of that there can be no doubt,” wrote Nahum Barnea, a columnist for the newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “If it turns out that the allegations against Olmert are well founded, he will have to resign his post if not more than that.”

Mr. Barnea hinted that the core of the issue seemed to be bribery. “Sometimes affairs of this sort end with nothing,” he wrote. “Other times they become bogged down in an argument over interpretation: an act that one jurist interprets as bribe-taking is interpreted by another as entirely legitimate and by a third as a technical mishap.”

Because Mr. Olmert is under investigation in several other cases, and because he has many political enemies, some in the Israeli news media have urged caution, arguing that the inquiry could be just another attempt to bring him down.

But others argued that the sheer quantity of the investigations was one reason he would not survive.

Channel 2 News said Sunday night that Mr. Olmert’s long-time close aide, Shula Zaken, had been questioned under caution for the third time and had maintained her right to remain silent all three times. It also quoted “senior sources” as saying that the case was moving quickly toward an indictment.

Mr. Olmert addressed the investigation at Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting, trying to dispel rumors of its gravity but without making a specific claim of innocence.

According to his spokesman, he told his cabinet: “To my regret, for reasons that do not depend on me, the country has been swept with a wave of rumors regarding the investigation. I am certain that when matters are made clear, with the permission of the proper authorities, matters will be presented in the correct proportion, in their right and exact context, and that this will put an end to the rumors.”

Olmert's political crisis sounds potentially devastating, but should his government fall, perhaps Israel can embark on a different track toward the state's relationship to Palestine and terrorism.

The political-strategic situation, after all, hasn't been going all that well, under both the Bush administration's belated diplomatic push, or under the attempted good offices of Jimmy Carter.

Caroline Glick offers a penetrating and sober assessment of the way forward:

Another ordinary week has come and gone in southern Israel. Bombarded by rockets from Hamastan in Gaza, residents of Sderot, Ashkelon and nearby towns watched as their national leaders conducted negotiations by proxy with Hamas to release hundreds of terrorists in Israeli jails and consolidate Hamas's weapons supply lines by suspending Israeli counter-terror operations during a "cease-fire." Between trips to the local bomb shelter, they watched Israeli trucks deliver fuel and supplies to Hamas in Gaza in the morning and they watched Hamas store the fuel and supplies in depots near the border in the afternoon. In the evening they watched news reports echoing Hamas's claims that Israel is depriving Gazan hospitals of fuel and Gazan civilians of basic foodstuffs.

Wednesday night they tried having a Yom Hashoah ceremony in Sderot but it was interrupted by incoming rockets. For its part, Hamas marked the Holocaust with a documentary series claiming that the genocide of European Jewry was a satanic Jewish plot to cull the Jewish population of its handicapped and to manipulate the world media.

Hamas captured headlines this week with its allegation that Israel was responsible for the death of a Palestinian woman and four of her children in an explosion in Bet Hanoun in Gaza as the IDF targeted Hamas terrorists from the air. The IDF conducted two investigations showing that the woman and her children were killed by something else: a secondary explosion caused by bombs the Hamas terrorists - one of whom was her husband - were carrying at the time the IDF targeted them.

Hamas's allegations that the IDF killed four children and their mother were reported by both the international and Israeli media as facts. Those "facts" were only questioned when the IDF began its probes. Neither the local media nor the international media thought the fact that the source of their accounts was Hamas should make them question the veracity of the initial reports.

When its spokesmen are not busy accusing Jews of planning genocide and Israel of killing mothers and children, Hamas devotes its efforts to accusing Israel of killing sick Palestinians by refusing to let them into Israel for free medical care. As no good deed by Jews goes unpunished by the UN, early last month the World Health Organization punished Israel for admitting more than 7,000 Palestinians from Gaza for free medical care during 2007. Echoing Hamas propaganda, the WHO accused Israel of causing the deaths of 33 sick Palestinians between October 2007 and March 2008. They died, the WHO claimed, due to the Jewish state's heartless refusal to allow them into its hospitals.

The WHO report made no mention of the fact that Hamas now controls the hospitals and clinics in Gaza. No mention was made of the fact that Israel bears no responsibility for providing health care to non-citizens from enemy territories, or of the fact that there is no place in the world where such care is provided other than Israel. No mention was made of Hamas intercepting and hoarding hospital supplies for propaganda purposes. No responsibility was assigned to Egypt - the other country bordering Gaza - which does not admit any Palestinian patients. The report never questioned the credibility of its Gazan sources.

As Andrea Levin, the executive director for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) noted this week in The Jerusalem Post, it was only due to the quick and detailed response of Israeli officials refuting Hamas's allegations that Israel wasn't widely condemned for murdering sick people....

BUT THEN, the media can perhaps be forgiven for their refusal to admit that their reports from Gaza are generally nothing more than terrorist propaganda for they are far from alone in their refusal to acknowledge the significance of Hamas's regime. From Jimmy Carter to the Bush administration to the Olmert-Livni-Barak government, denial is the order of the day.

Carter defends his decision to meet with Hamas's leaders in Syria and Judea by noting that the jihadist, genocidal, Iranian-sponsored terror group won the Palestinian elections. Since a majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas and still support it, the jihadist, genocidal, Iranian-sponsored terror group is legitimate, Carter argues. Certainly no peace agreement can be reached without it.

But then as Hamas clarified just after its leaders met with Carter, any deal it may reach with Israel is merely a tactic in its ongoing war to destroy Israel. So while it may be true that no Palestinian-Israeli peace is possible without Hamas, it is absolutely true that no Palestinian-Israeli peace is possible with Hamas.

Far from demonstrating the necessity of negotiating with Hamas, Hamas's popularity shows the futility of attempting to coax peaceful coexistence out of a Palestinian society committed to its neighbor's destruction. Yet just as the media and Carter refuse to acknowledge the significance of Hamas's terror regime, so the Bush administration refuses to acknowledge the significance of its broad-based popular support among Palestinians.

In her remarks Tuesday before the American Jewish Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that Palestinian society today overwhelmingly supports Israel's annihilation through terrorism when she said: "Increasingly, Palestinians who talk about a two-state solution are my age. And I'm not that old, but I'm a lot older than most of the Palestinian population."

But then, after acknowledging that most Palestinians do not support peaceful coexistence with Israel, Rice argued that Israel must give them more land, more guns and more money because as she sees it, now is the time for a Palestinian state and leaders need to "make hard decisions confidently for the sake of peace and for the sake of their people."

Rice went on to explain that this appeasement must be done while enabling the Hamas regime in Gaza to remain in place. As she put it, "The only responsible policy is to isolate Hamas and defend against its threats, until Hamas makes the choice that supports peace."

So from Rice's perspective, not only must Hamas not be defeated, it would be irresponsible to even try to defeat it. The only "responsible" policy for Israel is to allow Hamas to continue stockpiling arms and building its army while trying to reach a cease-fire with it. Then too, as far as Rice is concerned, Israel must curb its counterterrorist operations in Judea and Samaria, dry out Israeli communities there and in post-1967 Jerusalem neighborhoods and allow US-trained and armed Fatah militias (who are also terror-supporting) to deploy in Palestinian towns and cities by the thousands. This, she believes, is the best way to make Hamas transform itself into a peaceful political party willing to live at peace with Jews.

Read the whole thing.

Glick says forget political compromise with Hamas, which is the representative of a large Palestinian majority that wants nothing but the compete and utter annihilation of the Israeli state.

No, Glick argues that the only solution is for "Israel to lay waste to Hamas's terror army in Gaza and overthrow its regime."

That doesn't sound so politically correct, given Glick preceding analysis of the U.N. et al., not to mention the delegitimate status of preventive war doctrine among left-wing appeasement circles in the U.S.

I'm sure Olmert would rather get over his personal political crisis than have the weight of the U.S. and Third World community denouncing the Israeli "genocide" of the "peaceful" Palestinians.

Photo Credit: "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, right, leaving his office in Jerusalem on Sunday. Mr. Olmert is under police investigation but the accusations are covered by a strict court-imposed gag order. Some commentators in the Israeli news media have received leaks about the accusations," New York Times

John McCain: Unite Us, Ignite the Economy

For all the far right attacks during the primaries about how John McCain was just another "liberal Democrat," as we get closer to the general election, the differences between McCain's philosophy and the Democrats' on individual choice, opportunity, and the role of the economy's coming into greater relief.

This new McCain campaign spot captures the campaign's thrust: John McCain: Unite Us, Ignite the Economy (vie YouTube):

Also, the Los Angeles Times has a interesting piece on party differences over health care this year:

If John McCain becomes president, Americans would be steered toward buying individual health insurance policies, and job-related coverage eventually could decline. If Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton wins, more people would get their insurance from the government -- with many workers offered the equivalent of Medicare and employers facing new coverage mandates.

In the past, voters sometimes have complained that there was little difference between Republicans and Democrats. That's far from true in the 2008 campaign, at least where healthcare is concerned. On this issue, which many voters rank near the top of their concerns, the two parties offer clear choices.

The Democratic and Republican candidates espouse similar goals: making medical insurance more available and more affordable for more Americans. But their strategies for achieving those goals are fundamentally different. So are the ways in which, over time, the nation's healthcare system would change.

McCain, for example, says he would give individuals more freedom of choice; critics say he could destabilize the employer-based system that the middle class has relied on for more than half a century.

Clinton and Obama, meanwhile, say their fairly similar strategies would give better and more affordable coverage to more -- eventually all -- people; critics say they would march the country toward socialized medicine.

For the approximately 60% of Americans covered by employer-provided health insurance, none of the plans would bring dramatic changes overnight. But over a period of years, employer-based coverage could decline.

McCain's way is to de-emphasize job-based insurance and encourage people to choose their own coverage in a yet-to-be-created national marketplace; he would offer tax credits to help them pay for such coverage.

The Democrats' approach is to shore up the kinds of large pools that traditional insurance programs rely on -- using the premiums of the many who don't file claims in any given period to pay the claims of the relatively few who do.

They would also put the insurance industry on a tighter regulatory leash.

"The specifics can be sort of mind-bending, but on the very broad choices, McCain emphasizes a vision where individuals get more choices in the marketplace and are less reliant on employers and government," said Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health, an expert on public attitudes about healthcare reform.

"The Democrats are emphasizing that people need employers and government to create large pools so that they can get group rates for much less than as individuals."

He added: "There's a big debate about which way would you do better."

On the problem of the 47 million uninsured, Clinton's plan would have the most dramatic effect, all but eliminating it, said John Sheils, vice president of the Lewin Group, a prominent consulting firm. McCain's plan would probably cover 20 million or so of the uninsured, he estimated, whereas Obama's would be somewhere in the middle.

"Clinton's plan would cover the most people because it's a mandate," Sheils said.

She is the only candidate who would require all people to get coverage, through an employer or government plan or on their own.

Ideology is not the only thing that divides the candidates. In a practical sense, they view the problem differently.

For McCain, the main problem is cost: Bring healthcare costs under control, and more people will get coverage. For the Democrats, the main problem is lack of coverage: Unless everybody is in the risk pool, spending can never be brought under control because different players will try to shift the costs of caring for the uninsured to one another.

Some economists think that one of the main reasons U.S. healthcare costs have grown so rapidly is that Americans are not aware of what they spend on healthcare. That insight is the starting point for McCain's plan.

Since many people get healthcare as a tax-free fringe benefit, relatively few are aware of what it actually costs -- about $12,000 a year, on average, for family coverage and $4,500 annually for an individual plan.

Yep, there's a pretty big ideological gap in these differences, and the election this fall's going to clarify some big questions on where this country wants to go on the balance beween private interest and public purpose. We could be in for a classic partisan realignment toward the later, and I wouldn't be surprised if we end up headed toward market socialism under a Democratic administration next January.

The wild card is Barack Obama, who is proving himself untested for the national stage, and radically out of touch with Middle America (especially in his political associations).

McCain by far exceeds Obama on leadership qualities, and McCain remains ahead of the shady Chicago socialist in trial heat polling matchups, so a savvy GOP campaign may save the country from confiscatory oblivlion after all.

In any case, I wrote about McCain's healthcare plan in an earlier article, which is crossposted at Heidi's blog.

I'll have more later.

Left-Wing Smears Heat Up as Obama Falters in the Polls

In the comments to my post yesterday, on Barack Obama's weaknesses in public opinion, I cited Victor David Hanson's explanation as to how the Wright controversy could prove fatal to the Democrat in the fall (the white working-class vote's not in the tank).

TBogg, an attack-master at Firedoglake, drove by here to leave this slur against Hanson's working class thesis:

Yes. Because if there is anyone who understands "white working-class" voters it is a classics professor who collects wingnut welfare from the Hoover Institution and who has staked his somewhat minimal reputation on having others fight his Thermopylae wetdream.

"Wingnut welfare"? I haven't heard that one before, but the "Thermopylae wetdream" is a classic in the "chicken hawk" genre.

Well there's more of this anti-neoconism from "Attaturk" at FDL, who tries to take down William Kristol's commentary this morning (Kristol suggested Obama's "vulnerability" has been exposed in recent polling trends).

Attaturk takes issue with this paragraph from Kristol:

In a New York Times/CBS News poll in late February, Obama was defeating John McCain 50 to 38. Two months later, the Times/CBS poll had McCain and Obama tied. The poll that came out yesterday showed Obama reopening a lead over McCain — but clearly over this period a vulnerability for Obama was exposed.

Here's Attaturk's comeback:

The latest CBS poll, that shows this awesome damage to Obama?

Obama (D) 51%
McCain (R) 40%

Wow, that's really, um, not at all devastating. No matter how much the chattering classes -- the wealthy, white, actually elitist chattering classes -- cannot grasp it. Sadly, for Kristol and the rest of the fans of things like Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos", Clinton kicks McCain's ass by a similar margin.

And unnoticed by the nation's editorial writers and gasbags of cable news, especially by the Kristols and the Stephanopouli, the public seems to have determined the real culprit in the Jeremiah Wright matter:

Concerning Rev. Wright's coverage in the media the new poll sites that according to registered voters polled the attention paid has been:

Too Much.....56%
Too Little.......5%
About Right...34%

Not that this fact will stop a talking head from trying.

The problem here?

Kristol never discounts Obama's floated back up a bit in the polling data. He's suggesting Obama's got potentially fatal liabilities. He also provides polling data (from Fox) outside of CBS's survey that shows McCain running very strong against Clinton, and beating Obama outright (see also Gallup's findings from May 1, "Clinton’s vs. Obama’s Strengths in the General Election").

Note too USA Today's survey out this morning, which reveals more weaknesses in the Obama camp:

Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability.

The erosion of support among Democrats and independents raises the stakes in Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries, which represent a chance for Obama to reassert his claim to a Democratic nomination that seems nearly in his grasp. A defeat in Indiana and a close finish in North Carolina, where he's favored, could fuel unease about his ability to win in November. Such results also could help propel Hillary Rodham Clinton's uphill campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in August.

In the USA TODAY survey, taken Thursday through Saturday, Clinton leads Obama among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by 7 percentage points, the first time in three months she has been ahead. Two weeks ago, before the controversy over comments by Jeremiah Wright reignited, Obama led by 10 points.

In February, Democrats and Democratic leaners by 33 points said Obama had a better shot at beating Republican John McCain in November. Clinton is now seen as the stronger candidate by 5 points.

Obama led Clinton by 10 points?

Hey Attaturk! No damage to Obama, eh? No siree, bob!

USA Today says otherwise:

The Wright controversy has been especially problematic for Obama's campaign because it has helped shape Americans' emerging assessments of the candidate. In the USA TODAY survey:

• Obama's unfavorable rating climbs to a new high, 37%. His negative rating among independents, usually the swing voters in national elections, jumped from 27% in February to 36% now.

Even so, Obama's favorable-unfavorable rating of 58%-37% remains more positive than Clinton's 52%-45%. McCain's standing is the strongest of all: 62% favorable-30% unfavorable.

• One in four Americans who are following the controversy say their "best guess" is that Obama agrees with Wright's views, even though the senator has said repeatedly he finds them offensive and wrong.

• Obama has lost the 8-point advantage he held over Clinton in February as someone who "shares your values." Clinton has a 5-point edge among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

Now, folks can debate the validity of various polls, but the trend in the data - as measured by a range of surveys - has been a significant drop in Obama's favorables.

But looking at the range of data is not the point for Attaturk, or TBogg. Nope, it's all about slamming those evil neocons, living high off the hog at NYT and the Hoover Institution.

We can't let a little disconfirming data get in the way of a good smear!

Raising the Standard of Moral Clarity

Readers may notice how I occassionally suggest that the United States represents "the good" in the world. I mean this in the sense of the universal concept of good in the universe, of a moral being, either Platonic or Christian, and I'm convinced that America's history bears it out, that we have indeed embodied the notion of the "City on a Hill."

I'm routinely attacked by lefties who say "Are you kidding? This country's going to hell."

I don't have much to say in response, because for all the ups and downs of politics, and for all the injustices that mar our history, no other nation has made as many strides toward providing equality and opportunity for more people in history, and our foreign policy has been the savior of the world for more than a half century. Who're ya gonna call? You know?

In any case, it turns out Susan Neiman's got a new book, Moral Clarity, that puts these things in perspective. In Gary Rosen's review, at the Wall Street Journal, he suggests Neiman's work is "A Reading List For Democrats":

The seemingly endless contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is, among other things, a referendum on that perennial question: What ails the American left? Is the problem a failure to offer clear alternatives to the corporate coziness of the Republicans, or is it a lack of cultural and religious sympathy with the heartland? Is it a matter of substance or style, of insufficiently "progressive" policies or bicoastal swagger? To this stale discussion Susan Neiman brings a new thought: The problem with our liberal elites, she insists, is lame metaphysics – a lack of philosophical nerve. What they need is a bracing dose of the Great Books.

An American philosophy professor who directs the Einstein Forum in Potsdam, Germany, Ms. Neiman is a subtle and energetic guide to the unjustly maligned Western "canon." But she is not some kind of scold or stodgy traditionalist, wagging a disapproving finger at our fall from a golden age. She is, in fact, a self-conscious woman of the left. She knows that our own debates over political and economic fundamentals have intellectual pedigrees worth learning, even at the cost of long hours spent among the most formidable of dead white European males. Her interest in the Bible and Plato, Hobbes and Burke, Hume and Rousseau springs not from nostalgia or an itch to debunk but from a need to think well in the present.

The task that Ms. Neiman sets for herself in "Moral Clarity" is to rescue today's political left from its own philosophical handicaps. How can it be, she wonders, that "moral clarity" has come to be a catchphrase of conservatives while eliciting the knowing sneers of liberals? Why are irony, detachment and pessimism the favored modes of supposed sophisticates? Why is there such a fear of being "judgmental"? What has made firmly asserted ideals seem naïve if not dangerous?

Ms. Neiman points to many factors in the left's retreat from universal principles. The demise of socialism has played a role, as has despair over the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. But the real source, she suggests, is a "conceptual collapse," a self-destructive descent into identity politics, postmodern theory and victimology. Her peers have become paralyzed, she writes, by the view that moral judgments are, ultimately, little more than "a hypocritical attempt to assert arbitrary power over those with whom you disagree."

I can hear the criticism of this thesis now: It's all a bunch of "dead white males," that this is Straussian totalitarianism, or that conservative academics are nothing more than classicist chicken hawks.

What I don't see among hard-left partisans in a grounding in universal values and conceptions of the ultimate good of the cosmos, secular or spirtual.

So, yes, there's a need for more reflection, for a weighing of costs and sacrifices for the purpose of a larger vision of the trajectory of human morality.

I don't think the Democrats embody that drive to deeper reflection.

Poll Shows Wright Controversy Could Affect November Voting

The New York Times reports on a new survey showing that the Jeremiah Wright controversy has not affected opinions on Barack Obama overall, although many respondents say the issue could affect their November vote decisions:

A majority of American voters say the furor over the relationship between Senator Barack Obama and his former pastor has not affected their opinion of Mr. Obama, but a substantial number say it could influence voters this fall should he be the Democratic presidential nominee, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll....

The survey, conducted after Mr. Obama held a news conference on Tuesday forcefully renouncing Mr. Wright for making incendiary comments, found most Americans said they approved of the way Mr. Obama had responded to the episode and considered his criticism of Mr. Wright appropriate.

But nearly half of the voters surveyed, and a substantial portion of the Democrats, said Mr. Obama had acted mainly because he thought it would help him politically, rather than because he had serious disagreements with his former pastor. The broader effect of the controversy on Mr. Obama’s candidacy among Democratic primary voters was less clear-cut in the poll, but enough of them expressed some qualms about Mr. Obama’s relationship with the former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., to suggest it could sway a relatively small but potentially important group of voters in the remaining primaries.

The survey was taken in the days leading up to the primaries on Tuesday in North Carolina and Indiana.

The relatively small number of Democrats surveyed limits the conclusions that can be drawn about its findings regarding sentiment within the party. Moreover, as a national poll, it does not necessarily reflect the sentiments of voters in either Indiana or North Carolina.

The issue of Mr. Wright continues to shadow Mr. Obama — he spent the first 18 minutes of his appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” answering questions about it — and thus could be continuing to mold the public’s views of him. And questions involving racially charged episodes have historically proved difficult to poll, particularly when it comes to asking white voters about black candidates.

Still, the survey suggested that Mr. Obama had lost much or all of the once-commanding lead he had over Mrs. Clinton among Democratic voters on the question of which of them would be the strongest candidate against Mr. McCain, the likely Republican nominee.

That's putting it mildly, I would argue.

Obama's going to be "Hortonized" in the fall, by outside 527s, and fairly too. The Wright relationship's raised deep questions of character and judgment surrounding Obama, particulary on issues of courage, integrity, and veracity under fire.

Why, though, are voters giving Obama a pass? Victor David Hanson nails the answer:

I think we have sort of reached an impasse on Rev. Wright. Most Americans, I think, accept the following realties. Obama, by what he wrote in his memoirs, by what he said when he spoke in his early campaign speeches, by his frequent praise of Wright, and by his 20-year presence in front of, and subsidies to, Wright knew exactly the racist and anti-American nature of his odious pastor.

But many also seem to accept that they have invested too much in Obama and have come too far to accept anything that might end his candidacy. (Hence their hysteria over the Wright “smear”.)

In other words, privately they acknowledge:

—that their candidate made a devil’s bargain with a racist to create an authentic black persona in order to jump start a political career in Chicago;

—that their candidate was so inured to de rigueur anti-American speech from his church days, black-liberationist friends, assorted reverends, and former radicals like Ayers, that he never really thought things that Wright said were all that big a deal — hence his deer-in-the-headlights approach to the initial scandal and serial hedging. After all, in Obama’s adopted world, his church really isn’t “particularly controversial;”

—that their Obama messiah is hardly a new politician, but instead a very gifted and charismatic actor, who, in skillful fashion, can talk about utopian politics but then backstep, hedge, and get away with more than anyone since Bill Clinton in his prime in 1992 (one of the reasons that those two dislike each other so is that they are so much alike) — and that is not such a bad thing after all.

So while Obama is hurt in the primaries, and perhaps mortally so in the general election (the white working classes have a long memory), he will probably get the nomination, because his base will overlook all the above: they despise George Bush, will do anything to prevent another Republican in the White House, are tired of the Clintons, and feel Obama offers them symbolic capital, making them liked abroad and free of guilt at home.

That really says it.

For Democratic voters - particulary the virulent Bush-haters in the base of the party - Obama is the complete antithesis of the Bush/Cheney cabal: a non-white, far-left candidate, likely to recoil from the deployment of millitary force, and certainly geared by upbringing to implement orthodox hard-left policies on race, rights, taxes, and social policy.

I just hope Hanson's white working-class voters stick to their guns, handing an Obama candidacy a defeat of Dukakis-sized proportions.

President Bush: A Global Struggle Against Thugs and Killers

I'm with Dr. Sanity in my respect for President Bush:

Watch the video ... and you will see why I remain a fan of George W. Bush and will continue to like him and stand behind him as President despite flaws and missteps...

Dr. Sanity continues:

The last time I felt this way about a US President was Ronald Reagan, who also managed to evoke a visceral hatred from many of my peers and colleagues for the same sort of moral clarity. History has since vindicated Mr. Reagan, and I believe it will do the same with Mr. Bush, who--whatever his failings--has, IMHO, got the one thing that is most important in our generation absolutely correct. And he has unflinchingly faced its reality with a clarity that is stunning for any politician, despite the unpopularity it has brought him, and despite all the anger, rage and hate that has been directed at him for it.

I switched to the Republican Party because of George W. Bush.

I admire the president mostly on national security issues, but the administration's ideas behind the No Child Behind Act - that all children can learn and be held accountable - constitute one of the most important directions in civil rights policy since the 1960s.

On Iraq and the GWOT, I'll always be grateful for Bush's leadership.

Has he been right all the time? Of course not, but he's been right on the big issues, and if he didn't start out on the right foot, as in Iraq, he's kept at it.

The president's resolve is America's resolve. If the administration would have paid undue attention to public opinion polls in 2004 we would likely have turned tail rather than stand and fight.

Look again here, as Bush says:

I know full well that we're facing a determined enemy. I know it's in our interests to defeat that enemy. So yeah, we're making progress. But it's also a tough battle! We're facing people who're willing to strap bombs on themselves and walk into a place where the innocents dwell, and where the innocent shop, and kill 'em ... we are in a global struggle against thugs and killers! And the United States of America's got to continue to take the lead; so in Afghanistan, yeah, we're making progress....

Is it tough? Yeah. Difficult? Absolutely. It is worth the fight? In my judgment yes it is...

I stand with the president. Our fight is long and hard, but it's in our interest, and it's an ideological struggle, indeed.

It's politically incorrect to say such things (look at how the president's being questioned on national security like a common dime-store thief), and this administration - like Reagan's before it - has been demonized endlessly for standing up for what's right in the world, and being willing to use force when most nations cringe at the thought.

I agree, too, with Dr. Sanity, in that the administration will be looked upon favorably by history.

For more information, see the White House press release.

"Iron Man": Unleashing America's Inner Survival Instinct

I'm taking my youngest son to see "Iron Man" this afternoon.

My boy loves superheroes, and he's been ready for "Iron Man" for some time.

I haven't paid much attention to the film, frankly. I saw previews over the Christmas holidays - when we see a lot of movies - and with the movie's pending release it's been hard not to miss it, with, what, all the Burger King promotional tie-ins: "Daddy, can we go to Burger King for dinner?"

So, I was pleased to see Sonny Bunch's review of "Iron Man" over at the Weekly Standard.

Bunch suggests the Robert Downey's "Tony Stark" character from the film reveals "America's inner id," which is of course our Freudian subliminal drive for the survival of human pleasure (or just survival, for that matter):

SUMMER IS FINALLY here, arriving with a bang in the guise of Iron Man. The latest hero from Marvel comics to get the big screen treatment, Iron Man is brought to life with vigor by the newly rehabbed Robert Downey Jr.

With the possible exception of Christian Bale in Batman Begins (and this summer's The Dark Knight Returns), I can't think of a better actor to don a comic-inspired costume. The subtlety Downey brings to the role, and his interplay with costars Jeff Bridges (Obadiah Stane), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), and Terrence Howard (Jim Rhodes), are fantastic.

Downey portrays Tony Stark, a playboy billionaire arms dealer. His father worked on the Manhattan Project and his company, Stark Enterprises, arms the Pentagon. Stark couldn't be prouder of the work he does: When an obnoxious reporter criticizes him for being a merchant of death, he gives as good as he gets, noting that whoever has the biggest stick dictates the terms of peace. A genius at weapons development, Downey's Stark is clearly someone who takes great pride in his country--and himself.
That all changes when, in the midst of a missile demonstration in the mountains of Afghanistan, Stark is captured by terrorists. Director Jon Favreau goes to great lengths to portray them as an odd international band--one of the terrorists speaks Hungarian, for example--but they're a clear stand-in for al Qaeda and the Taliban. Determined to make Stark build a weapons system capable of leveling an entire city, the terrorists treat him roughly--submerging his head in water, slapping him around--but Stark resists. Until, that is, he discovers that the terrorists already have their hands on some of Stark Enterprise's finest hardware.

Enraged, he sets to work, creating not a missile phalanx but a suit of armor. Powered by an electromagnetic pacemaker, Stark emerges from his prison-cave determined to right the wrongs his company has committed. (This pacemaker is a fine example of comic-book medicine: Implanted in Stark's chest, it somehow keeps his heart pumping while using magnets to repel shrapnel from its valves.) Having seen American troops killed by weapons he designed to protect them, Stark understands the stakes: Nothing less than total annihilation will suffice. A flamethrower and a handy missile do the trick, destroying the terrorist forces--and, of course, relieving them of their weapons....

Iron Man is the American id unleashed. Before his encounter with terrorists, Stark lived a life of hedonism as only a billionaire can, taking his private jet (complete with stripper pole and compliant flight attendants) to Las Vegas, zipping around Malibu in his $120,000 Audi R8, and drinking the finest scotch. After his own personal 9/11 he reacts as most Americans wish they could have reacted on 9/12: By flying to the Middle East and personally stomping out a vicious terrorist cell that had been wreaking havoc on a civilian population.

This is not a "conservative" movie, per se, but it is the film equivalent of a Rorschach test. If you go into Iron Man seeking right-wing imagery, you'll find it: Tony Stark is a patriot, pro-military, and likes unilateral intervention. If you go into Iron Man looking for left-wing imagery, you'll find that, too: The true villain here is Stane, representing an out-of-control military-industrial complex. Still, it's refreshing to go to the multiplex and find a universe where terrorists are despicable and Americans are heroic.

This is refreshing.

As Ross Douthat noted recently, the movie industry's lost the tradition of silver-screen trumpeting of our glorious American cowboy interventionism.

I'm just up for a good movie experience with my kid, and without a bunch of moral relativism.

Tony Stark to the rescue!

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times

Neo-Confederate Hate Comments

I've mentioned to a couple of close-contact blogging buddies - Big Girls Pants and GSGF, for example - that I get the most hate-filled anti-Semitic attack comments from time to time.

Of course, they're always pseudonymous, with no blog URL or e-mail address attached. The absence of these reveals pure, abject cowardice, but I always delete them anyway, because I will not host such vile intolerance in my comment threads.

But this morning's attack needs to be shared, so I can at least make reference to the kind of neo-confederate isolationist hatred that's common on the extreme right-wing of the political spectrum.

In response to my post on Corrente's "Contemporary Left-Wing Manifesto," check out this, from "Warrior":

And you, jew, are not any less fake as them.

Just what does a neocon provide for the American people? Protection against camel jockeys and their camel launchers 7000 miles away?

The American people are rejecting the Americanist MLK imperial narrative and becoming more isolationist and ethnocentrist, principles that are applied between "Little Liberia", "Little China", and "Little Italy" in our very own cities. We are getting nothing out of the empty multicultural "American dream" nonsense peddled by both parties, except cake nonintellectual professorships, of which there was never a need.

So, the slur starts out with an attack on me as a "Jew"?

I'm not Jewish, but I am neoconservative, and I've been a supporter of the Jewish state my entire life (I've written in defense of Israel of late, as well, in "Israel at 60: Can the Jewish State Survive?").

Plus, "Warrior" closes with this part about unneeded "nonintellectual professorships."

"Warrior" 's ignorant attacks themselves rebut the case on unneeded professors!

Still, if you're getting attacks like these, your message must be hitting home.

Cinnamon Stillwell, who broke onto the national scene with her must-read essay on post-9/11 conservativism, "The Making Of A 9/11 Republican," routinely posts on the extremist attacks she's subject to as a columnist.

Here's Stillwell's blog post from last November, "Lefty Hatemailer Promises Reeducation Camps for Conservatives":

In a revealing, and nasty, example of the sort of hatemail conservative columnists like myself receive on a regular basis (further examples here and here), I thought I'd share the following missive. It seems that "liberal" tolerance, diversity, and protection of free speech stops at the ideological border, and those of us unlucky enough to fall on the other side had better start packing for the reeducation camps. Something tells me this guy has a future as a speechwriter for the Democrat Party...

I hope you rot with your friends Bush and Cheney. Get out of San Francisco you do not belong here you fascist. Your "conservative"voice will hopefully be classified as hate speech in a new America that will be ushered in with a Democratic president and veto proof Democrat congress in 2008. They will appoint the judges to the supreme court that will redefine free speech. Your time is coming. Free speech will remain protected but conservative positions such as your amount to hate speech that WILL BE OUTLAWED. I hope to help ensure you end up in jail to be reeducated with your friends Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Leave San Francisco now or you will be rounded up with your filthy hater conservative friends. Go to hell monster.

Can't you just feel the love?

Yep, I feel it!

Note how the far left and the far right converge in their mutual hatred for the evil neocons.

This is the ideological nexus where the paleocon neo-confederates and neo-Marxists meet.

Note: Warrior's comments have been deleted, and his weren't the nastiest I've received.