New ad includes Laura Bush, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney expressing support for same-sex marriage.

Laura Bush didn't approve of the use of this video clip (which comes from a 2010 interview with Larry King) and she's voiced her objection to it:



Who knows what she secretly thinks, but officially, she's saying you shouldn't have used me without asking. Of course, the group that made the ad — the Respect for Marriage Coalition — has the right to appropriate this clip and use it in their political message. Imagine how hard it would be to make political ads if you couldn't use clips like this. I suspect that secretly she's happy to influence opinion this way — especially as she's able to hold herself at some distance from politics. She clearly likes to seem modest and completely unpushy, as you can see in the longer clip from the Larry King show:



What a terrible shame that the Republican Party didn't accommodate itself to this idea at least 10 years ago. Really, it's a shame they didn't buy in even earlier, 18 years ago, when Andrew Sullivan's "Virtually Normal" came out. At the time, the left-liberals I knew were antagonistic to the institution of marriage and viewed Sullivan's contribution as an unwelcome conservative intrusion on the gay rights movement, which they saw as belonging within a left-wing ideology that transcended traditional institutions. Back in the 90s, I sat through serious, lawyerly presentations aimed at stopping the marriage equality proponents from changing the focus of the movement. There was a wonderful opportunity then for conservatives to embrace the issue, and they missed it.

The Republican Party saw the advantage elsewhere, and now they're stuck with the result.

UPDATE: The Respect for Marriage Coalition withdraws the ad.

"Powell: GOP has 'a dark vein of intolerance.'"

Dark?

So dark is... bad?

It's so hard to do racial politics. But keep trying, folks. It's worth building your skills here, because it's so helpful, so constructive.

Rush Limbaugh tripped all over himself yesterday, talking about Colin Powell.

From the transcript of yesterday's Rush Limbaugh show:

Isn't this, by the way, the Colin Powell who was first appointed to a big job by Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan? Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who pinned the four stars on General Powell? It was, ladies and gentlemen. And wasn't it George H.W. Bush who named him chairman of the Joint Chiefs, another Republican? And wasn't it George W. Bush who named him secretary of state? Yes, another Republican. By tomorrow this time, the political impact of the Powell endorsement will be mostly irrelevant, but his betrayal will be forever.

Betrayal? Is Colin Powell "General Betray-Us" to you? Presumably, Powell deserved the positions the Republicans offered him, and these positions were not in exchange for future party loyalty. Powell never even stated that he was a member of the Republican Party. He was an independent thinker, which is one reason why his support was so valuable. [ADDED: Has Powell identified himself as a member of the party? On "Meet the Press," he kept saying "the party," but does at one point say "my own party." I was influenced by something Rush said on the Monday show: "I'll never forget Powell threatening with running for president back in 1995, remember that? And he wouldn't identify what party he was from. He had these approval ratings in the seventies. He knew if he identified himself as a Republican or a Democrat, that he'd lose some of the numbers, he wouldn't take a position on abortion, for example. Everybody on our side was so excited about Colin Powell. I said, 'Folks, don't you think it matters whether or not he's a Republican or Democrat? He won't tell us.'" Back to the Tuesday transcript:]

And you people in the Drive-Bys [i.e., the mainstream media] who have been out there claiming that my disagreeing when Powell says his endorsement of Obama is not about race, and I say, yes, it is, it's totally about race, is a transformational figure, what else is transformational about Obama if not his race?

Everybody knows that Democrats in the media think history is being made here. What's so hard to admit you're supporting a guy because of race? And they're trying to tell me that I'm being racist and that I'm accusing Secretary Powell of being a racist. I'm not accusing him of being a racist. The Democrats have gotten away with defining our language or redefining our language for far too long....

What I said, my simple quotes to Jonathan Martin. "Jonathan, he says it's not about race. Okay. I'm going to search all the inexperienced white liberals that he's endorsed. I'll get back to you with what I find." Not only is that not racist, it's brilliant, if I say so myself, because it expresses it in a number of ways. What I'm saying is, well, this is interesting. He says it's not about race, but where all the inexperienced white liberals? Of course it's about race. And then when I said -- now, nobody brings this one up -- but he said he couldn't deal with two more Republican appointments to the Supreme Court. I said, "I didn't know he disliked John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia." I guess he also doesn't like the fact that it was Republicans that made him who he is. This is betrayal.

You know, it's possible to like and respect John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and still think the next 2 appointments should be made by a Democrat. That's my thinking on the subject. Political moderates tend to want a balanced Supreme Court, and replacing Stevens, Souter, or Ginsburg -- the 3 most likely departures -- with a reliably conservative Justice would upset the balance we have known for the lasts 20 years and more.

As for all that material about race, here's what Powell said:

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

Powell used the word "transformational" in the context of generational change and also "who he is," which we can take to include Obama's race. That is part of "his ability to inspire." But it's absurd to say that race is the only reason Powell would support Obama. Limbaugh is relying way too much on a strained idea of party loyalty.

Tom Brokaw immediately pressed Colin Powell on the matter of race, saying: "And you are fully aware that there will be some--how many, no one can say for sure--but there will be some who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race."

Powell said:

If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud--not just African-Americans, but all Americans--that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it'll electrify the world.

So he openly stated that he's excited about the prospect of a black President.

Back to Limbaugh:

What General Powell did is betrayal, and of course he's gonna say it's not about race, but if Biden were the nominee you think he'd be endorsing Biden? Do you think he would endorse Hillary? It's possible. I'll tell you why.

Ha. Limbaugh backs down from his own theory! He loves his theories so much that he can't resist spinning out another one, even when it screws up the last one.

Because in addition to the race factor here, what's most important to Colin Powell is Colin Powell.

Huh? Suddenly, Powell is a big egoistic careerist?

And that means what's most important to Colin Powell is his standing in the New York-Washington elite corridors of power, and he has been on thin ice since the Iraq war and since he went up there to the United Nations and made the case for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. So this gets him back in good graces, this gets him back in good stead....

After a commercial break, he goes back to the issue of race:

Just one more stab at this, folks, this Colin Powell business. I'm not calling him a racist. I'm saying he's disingenuous. It's not about racism. It's about his lack of candor. He can't admit what's obvious. Race plays a huge role. The whole campaign is about race. It's "historic." Why is it historic?

Hey, read the transcript I just quoted. He wasn't disingenuous. He said it! "And I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president."

Why can't you Democrats acknowledge this? What's so hard about it? Just say it! Be proud of it! It would have been refreshing if Secretary Powell had stated the obvious, not danced around it. But, see, if he'd admitted it was about race it wouldn't have helped him with the media.

With the help of the media? Look at Brokaw's question! Limbaugh was tripping all over himself in this segment, and what would be so hard about admitting he was wrong? Just say it! Don't dance around it!

"He is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage" -- Colin Powell endorses Obama.

On "Meet the Press. "Obama displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge... He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage says:

Since when did “intellectual curiosity” become a big selling point for Commander-in-Chief, anyway?

Oh yeah, that’s right, ever since eight years of teh Most Stoopedisht Pretzledent in teh Historectomy of teh Universed Worzlzd EVVVAAARRR1!!!

Way to sell it, Colin baby!

Is Colin Powell about to endorse Obama?

He'll be on "Meet the Press" this Sunday, and why else would they book him on the third-to-the-last show before the election?

IN THE COMMENTS: Triangle Man said:

The third-to-last show is the antepenultimate show.

Antepenultimate is an anagram of:

Team Planet Unite

The rest is obvious.

John McWhorter worries about the way, if Obama loses, black people will (wrongly) say it was racism.

In this TNR piece:

Even now, the idea that white swing voters might pass on him because of his positions or campaign performance is considered a peculiar notion, likely from someone unhip to the gospel that America remains all about racism despite Colin Powell and Oprah. The money question is considered to be why our Great Black Hope isn't polling tens of points ahead of John McCain and his discredited party. But Obama has been a sure shot only with Blue America college-town sorts, animated not only by Obama's intellect, but also by his "diverseness" and its symbolic import for showing that our nasty past is truly past....

The Wisconsin chairman of the Republican Party notes, then, that for lunch pail whites, "I don't think race is an issue at all. A bigger problem is that Barack Obama has a sort of show pony style. The speeches and the classic double speak and being a great orator, that kind of thing doesn't play well in Wisconsin." That is, there are plenty of non-racist whites who need a candidate to show them something more than I.Q. and a poignant multicultural provenance. In not finding Obama's dreams of his father worthy of a vote, they are evaluating him as Dr. King would have counseled.

These are transitional times. In a recent Bloggingheads dialogue, Ta-Nehisi Coates admitted to me that Iowa had forced him to "reassess" his pessimism as to how far America has come on race.

He means this:



Continuing the TNR piece:

If Obama loses, people like Coates will desist in their reassessments, and settle back into their cognitive comfort zone. Whites will cheer on the sidelines: Nothing would establish a Good White Person's bona fides on the race thing more than assenting that the racism "out there" is "still around" and has vanquished the audacity of hope.

The grievous result of this fetishization of racism would be that it would put a kibosh on the upsurge in black voters' political engagement amidst the Obamenon.

(Don't you just hate it when fetishization puts the kibosh on an upsurge? Note: McWhorter is a linguist.)

Newspaper articles would quote blacks disillusioned from getting excited about any future black candidate--e.g. "I thought maybe America was finally getting past racism but it turned out not to be true." 2009 would be a year of countless panel discussions, quickie books, and celebrated rap couplets wallowing in the notion that the white man wouldn't let Obama into the Oval Office where he belonged, urgently reminding us that to be black is still to be a victim.

Promising black politicians like Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Adrian Fenty, and Harold Ford would find it harder than Obama did to attract support for presidential runs: No matter how stirring their speeches, the good word would be, "Look what happened to Obama!" And for years to come, professors would teach the 2008 election as a lesson about racism rather than about a heartening near-victory that no one could have imagined as recently as 15 years ago.

A true vision?

Weird analogy: If Obama loses, you can say it was racism the way you can say "pneumonia is often what kills AIDS patients."

No one would claim that this means that pneumonia... is a grievously urgent medical crisis in America. Yet black America's shorthand consensus will be founded upon just such a logical fallacy: that "Obama lost because America remains a deeply racist country."

McWhorter asks: "Why would such an athletically pessimistic conclusion be so attractive to black people?"

Attacked by Drudge and Malkin, Gwen Ifill breaks an ankle.

1. Drudge, Malkin, etc., lay into Ifill -- the chosen moderator for the VP debate -- because she's got a book coming out about the success of various black politicians, notably Barack Obama.

2. Suddenly, we hear that Ifill has tripped at home on a staircase and broken her ankle. Coincidence? Looking for a graceful exit via a clumsy fall?

***

So far, Ifill is not backing out, and I don't think she should. The campaigns agreed on the moderators, and the McCain campaign agreed on Ifill. I'm sure their desire for a black/female moderator led straight to Ifill. It's pathetic to whine now that they weren't specifically informed about this book, especially since it's not "Why I Love Barack Obama" or some piece of gushing fluff.

Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.

It would be low -- and stupid -- at this point to impugn Ifill.

What do you think of Ifill and her book?
	Outrageous! She should be replaced.
	Not a big deal, and the McCain campaign should have known.
	Bad, but complaining or replacing her will only make it worse.
	Not that bad, but she should be replaced to preserve the appearance of neutrality.
pollcode.com free polls

"A black McCain - a sort of Colin Powell type figure - versus a white Obama - a sort of leftist Adlai Stevenson - would win in an absolute landslide."

Nice comment, on a post over at Volokh, on the same Randy Kennedy op-ed that we were talking about yesterday.

Bernard-Henri Lévy says why Barack Obama will be President.

The French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy is writing about America again, getting things wrong, of course:

Then there is ... the American art of "junk politics," especially as practiced by the Republicans, and its unpredictable, often devastating effects. When will the below-the-belt stuff begin? On what Internet site will the first photomontages appear of Barack Obama tricked up as a radical Islamist? How many other pastors à la Jeremiah Wright will we see paraded out by "527s," groups on the fringes of the principal parties that are allowed, without bearing any moral or financial responsibility, to launch all kinds of slanderous campaigns?

Can you get things wrong with questions? Why, yes you can! Note the sleaziness of implying that Republicans will begin the "below-the-belt stuff" at some point, when we know that below-the-belt stuff has already happened and it came from that Democratic source known as the Hillary Clinton campaign.

And this notion of "other pastors à la Jeremiah Wright" implies that Wright was just some pastor unfairly associated with Obama and not the religious leader Obama chose and stuck with for 20 years. And 527s have no financial responsibility? They're responsible for paying for their own ads. Presumably, Lévy's referring to their independence from the legal restrictions that apply to the campaigns. And as for "moral responsibility" — we all have moral responsibility, and if there is actual "slander," there can be lawsuits to hold 527s responsible.

Anyway, Lévy identifies 3 reasons why he thinks Obama will win:

1. America has changed. ... America is no longer a Protestant, Anglo-Saxon country, European by tradition and white by vocation, that cannot seriously imagine a black man running for the presidency....

Not much of a reason why he will win. Obviously, Obama's success to this point establishes that Americans can "seriously imagine" him running. Lévy is so stingy about saying anything complimentary about Americans that he won't make his own point more strongly. He could say: a large proportion of Americans love the idea of a black President.

But Lévy pads out his first point with verbiage about the America that went "far right" after 9/11 and opposes abortion and Darwinism. Without establishing that people with such opinions are racist, Lévy simply decides that they are giving up. He tells us that he perceives their efforts as "the shock and desperate mobilization of an America that knows it is dying but is trying nonetheless to delay the moment when it realizes it must surrender." The Frenchman exhibits pride in his sharp, early perception of the need for surrender. That's rich.

Point #2:

2. Obama is not a typical African-American. Unlike, say, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Condoleezza Rice, he does not carry with him the heritage of slavery or the memory of segregation because he was born of a Kenyan father.

Note to Lévy: Men don't bear children. Your pretentious locution is generating ludicrous errors. (Note to commenters: Spare me references to the "pregnant man.")

The difference is enormous, because the mirror he holds up to America is no longer one that reflects those dark times, no longer one of unbearable ancestral culpability. Barack Obama can win because he is the first African-American to take, by the grace of his birth, a step away from the two sides of a deep divide--and the first who may now play the card--not of condemnation or damnation--but of seduction, and--as he says over and over--of reconciliation.

So point #1 is that we're not racists anymore, but point #2 is that we still kind of are. And these are 2 of the 3 reasons Obama will be President? Lévy could make point #2 more strongly, and why doesn't he? The point is that white Americans love the idea of transcending race, and Obama has cleverly exploited that hope. But, as Jesse Jackson reminded us the other day, that can be a tricky enterprise. So #2 could be a reason that Obama will win, or it could be a reason why he's come this far but will be tripped up in the end.

So there's one more reason left. This better be good:

3. He is good.

Ha ha. It is good!

What I mean is that he is not only the most charismatic but also the most gifted politician produced by the Democratic machine in a long time.

Charismatic and gifted? Has such an amazing combination ever been seen before? Good lord. Did you know that Obama is also tall and has impressive height? Simultaneously!

So, yeah, anyway, okay, Obama is charismatic and gifted. We know that. It's gotten him very far. He defeated Hillary. But is there no limit to what you can do with charisma?

IN THE COMMENTS: Simon says:

All of this is designed to set up the narrative that if Obama loses, it's because we're a racist country. Cut away the fluff, and that's the clear purpose of this an a million similar commentaries advancing the same idea. To say that Obama will win because we aren't racists any more is to claim - or at least set the stage for the claim - that if he lost, the opposite is true.

"On what Internet site will the first photomontages appear of Barack Obama tricked up as a radical Islamist?"

It's true that the Rethuglican noise machine does things like that. Remember the last Senate election in Connecticut, when Republicans depicted then-Democratic Senator Lieberman in blackface? Oh, wait... Hold on, that wasn't the Republican party, it was the left.

Ann said...
"[I]f there is actual 'slander,' there can be lawsuits to hold 527s responsible."

Indeed. There is a reason why Senator Kerry has never sued anyone over the so-called swift boat veterans' claims.

Exactly.

Revenant said:

Obama is not a typical African-American. Unlike, say, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Condoleezza Rice

If the guy wasn't a Frenchman unfamiliar with American society I'd be tempted to call him out for racism. Referring to Sharpton and Jackson as "typical African-Americans" is an insult to black people. For that matter, the term "typical African-American" is suspect to begin with.

What I mean is that he is not only the most charismatic but also the most gifted politician produced by the Democratic machine in a long time.

So has Bill Clinton officially lost his status as "charismatic and brilliant politician", or does Levy think it has been "a long time" since the 1990s?

Ha ha.

The Drill SGT said:

The difference is enormous, because the mirror he holds up to America is no longer one that reflects those dark times, no longer one of unbearable ancestral culpability. Barack Obama can win because he is the first African-American to take, by the grace of his birth, a step away from the two sides of a deep divide--and the first who may now play the card--not of condemnation or damnation--but of seduction, and--as he says over and over--of reconciliation.

Forgive me for thinking that Colin Powell could have had the Republican nomination for the asking and likely the WH if Alma Powell hadn't said no.

So Lévy managed, in short order, to forget Bill Clinton and Colin Powell.

Henry said:

I was wondering why anyone cares about this guy and found out that Wikipedia is not a fan:

Critics of Lévy are not limited to pie-throwers, however; French journalists Jade Lindgaard and Xavier de la Porte, in a biography of the philosopher, claimed that "In all his works and articles, there is not a single philosophical proposition." The book is contested, however, and Lévy sought legal action against the authors.

You can see why Lévy doesn't like America. It's harder to sue your critics here.

Oh, so then he does know about defamation lawsuits. He likes to bring them for mere insults. So that's why he thinks the 527 are not held accountable? In America, we get to insult each other with impunity. I can say John Kerry is not a war hero and there's not a damned thing he can do about it.

By the way, LOL at "Wikipedia is not a fan."

Former law student said:

Don't be so hard on his "born of a Kenyan" locution; note that the article was Translated from the French by Sara Sugihara.

Oh. Good point. So maybe he didn't say "surrender" either. This "translated from the French" business is frustrating to textualist bloggers like me. If that is supposed to be a defense, I will counter with a new attack: How can this man purport to instruct us on the subtleties of American political discourse if he doesn't write in English?

"I would say, 'Go, Obama, you're black enough for me.'"

I was traipsing about San Francisco yesterday, and, snapping dozens of pictures, I made my way over to Fillmore Street for a little window shopping. I saw this...



... and was struggling against the glare and reflections to frame my shot — and also, idiotically, talking on my iPhone — when a woman — who I now understand to be Ruth Garland-Dewson — swept out of the store and flung herself between me and the picture of Barack Obama.

"Are you trying to take a picture of my man?" she said dramatically.

But she wasn't what I for a second thought she was: one of those shopkeepers who are touchy about having their place photographed. She wanted to come out and talk — about Barack Obama and other things as well. I got off my phone conversation and complimented her on the great shop and asked if she had extra large hats. I love women's hats, but since I need a men's extra-large size, I can never find a woman's hat — aside from something stretchy — that fits. She found me what might have been her largest hat, and it almost fit. You know, I should have bought it! It was ocher-colored with a dark purple spiral — a felt hat with a large brim. I think I would have bought it if she'd tried to talk me into it (as so many sales people have nudged me beyond my initial resistance — it's not very hard).

But she wanted to talk about Barack Obama. Do I like him? Yes! I think he's a good man, and that he would be able to do a lot of good. I added, "But I kind of like Giuliani." That was okay with her, it seemed — so long as I don't like Hillary.

So here's the shop, Mrs. Dewson's Hats:



And here's a San Francisco Chronicle blog post calling Ruth Dewson "a fixture in the African-American community," and quoting her saying "I'm not a Hillary fan."

Here's a Chronicle article about her and her store (and the musical "Crowns"):

She grew up in Paris, Texas, where people always wore hats to church. She grew up making her own hats because, like lots of people she grew up with, she didn't have any money.

"You take a piece of fabric and put some binding inside and put it on your head, adorning it with different flowers, feathers, things like that," she said.

Her favorite hat was a little yellow bonnet with a big bow under the neck, worn with a yellow dress.

"Hats really empower you," she said.

I note that Hillary Clinton doesn't wear a hat — although she did at least once and got mocked for it.

Here's the website for the store Mrs. Dewson's Hats, with some nice pictures of Dewson. I'm kicking myself now, not only for failing to buy the ocher-and-purple hat, but also for not asking Dewson if I could take some pictures of her in her store. If only I'd been wearing a hat, I might have felt empowered enough to ask.

And here's her book about her hats:




ADDED: Here's her "black enough" letter printed in the Chronicle:

I agree wholeheartedly with the views displayed in this Open Forum ("Black American from Africa offers his view on Obama's 'blackness,' '' March 1). At this time in America, who or what determines our blackness?

Media portray blacks as low income and uneducated. Therefore, does success and education remove any trace of blackness? The truth of the matter is, most black Americans are of mixed ancestry. Maybe genealogy should be a required course in every school.

I would say, "Go, Obama, you're black enough for me."

RUTH GARLAND-DEWSON

She's responding to this, from Willis Shalita:

The recent rumblings from some quarters of the black community that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is not black enough or that "he has not lived our experience" because his ancestors have no ties to slavery, are utter nonsense....

The black author an essayist, Debra J. Dickerson, said, "His father was African. His mother is a white woman. He grew up with white parents." And then she goes on to say; "But there's a lot of distance between black Africans and African Americans."...

If the credential for being black enough is growing up in the "hood" and experiencing the ugly side of our race-conscious society, Lord have mercy. Obama has lived the American experience, has worked hard for his community, has never denied his people and he is uniquely qualified to run for president.

Interesting enough, many great black Americans, such as Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman elected to Congress, civil rights activists W.E.B. Du Bois and Stokely Carmichael, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, -- to mention but a few -- are, like Obama, descendants of African immigrants.

White America never questions those white immigrants who have paid their dues and made it to the top, such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, retired U.S. Gen. John Shalikashvili, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and others of European descent. Leave it to black America to lay the land mines that will sabotage meritocracy.

What did Ann and Rush and Jimmie talk about?

As long as we're reading the gossip column this morning, let's keep going:

Talk about random: Jimmie (J.J.) Walker of "Good Times" fame dined at Elaine's with Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

So... what did they talk about? Ann's latest publicity baiting? Rush's eBay auction? (He's got one of the great documents in American history for sale over there with the bid up over $2 million now.) But what about Jimmie? Will Ann and Rush help him dream up a scheme to rake in millions?

Is Jimmie a right winger? Let's see. He's got a website with a tab for "Jimmie's Views." Here he is on Barack Obama:

" Nothing from nothing leaves nothing"... That sums up the " Golden Boy" of the Democratic Party... Barack Obama... Obama has been annointed the Savior of the Democratic Party... But what has he done or said?... NOTHING... Until the Democratic Convention of 2004 when you mentioned the name Barack Obama... people thought you talking about Osama Bin Laden... Obama doesn't seem to be a bad guy...but there's nothing of substance in anything he's said or done ... maybe that's what so appealing about him to so many people ... he's managed to say a lot of nothing... His best selling book doesn't have any policies or new ideas... it's more like a Tony Robbins feel good book...Barack is Tony Robbins on speed...There are tough decisons to be made as president of the United States... and not everyone is going to like you... Unlike Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Mr. Obama is a candidate white America can live with, like Colin Powell... But unlike Colin Powell, Barack Obama is more than willing to accept whatever the party will give him... with the Black critics using the " He's not Black Enough" card ...He is the Johnny Mathis of candidates to Black voters...... But that's more than enough to get the white liberal establishment behind him... Ivy league educated and the first Black editor of the Harvard Review...Obama hasn't used the Black card... but he's let others around him play it ... to the point of " All In "... Every Democrative operative From Hillary Clinton to John Kerry to James Carville has mentioned it ... Every news organization has run with the Black card... But never Barack Obama...He has learned his lessons well ... never speaking about policy... but instead giving feel good Tony Robbins speeches...getting into the Senate was a lucky break for Obama... he was elected on a pass... late in the race, his opponent was caught up in sex scandal with a vengeful ex-wife, and dropped out ... Ultra conservative Alan Keys was brought in to as a carpet bagger to run against Obama on short notice... and was soundly defeated... Two schools of thought come in... With Hillary Clinton being the clear front runner... what is her real chance of being elected... why not have the " Star" of the 2002 Democratic Convention make a run.. Or with Hillary Clinton it would be great to have the fair haired boy run with Hillary... to have a woman and a Black running together... Barack Obama hasn't been in the " cess pool of American Politics"...He hasn't had to defend his record or policies... 'cause he doesn't have any...the American Public hasn't seen nor heard a negative word or political ad from Obama and the American people have no Idea what he stands for ... Maybe that's good... but is it good enough to be President...

So what's the scheme here? Is someone writing for Jimmie (and taking the trouble to misspell Keyes and insert typos to throw us off the track)? Did Rush/Ann spot this writing — which I note is dated "11-21-07" — and pounce on an opportunity? Or are we to think this dinner at Elaine's was just a wacky, "random" meetup that belongs in the gossip column?

Can we get creative with the debate format?

A couple days back, my son John IM'd me -- from his bar review class -- a question he had about the presidential debates. Why do they keep the Democrats and the Republicans separated? After I gave my instant reaction -- because we're at the stage where people need to pick one from each group and because the top candidates wouldn't agree -- I made a post about it to see what people would say.

One of our regular commenters XWL said he'd written something along those lines a few weeks ago:

[I]nvite four candidates from each party to bi-weekly debates....

Have each candidate be the "host" for ten minutes at a time, asking questions to the four opposing party candidates. Have a moderator ensure that they don't use their time to ask 9 minute questions full of their own campaign talking points, but instead reward candidates for engaging the other side directly....

By forcing the two sides together as early as possible, that would change the tone of these debates from monologue to dialogue. It would be up to each candidate to decide whether that dialogue should be shrill, informative, cooperative, or combative. This would give the primary voters real information on how these folks would perform come general election time, and it would generate far more interest amongst that big group of independents who sit these things out till the last minute usually.

XWL has another post today, and he notes that Patrick Ruffini just wrote:

With candidates trying to shore up their general election creds, who will be the first to challenge a debate across party lines this year? ... It would be a risky move, and a gutsy one. Think of the huge earned media moment it would be, giving us the excitement of a general election slapdown a year early. It would be a make or break moment for a candidate a few points back looking to roll the dice. If you were looking to mess with the other party's frontrunner by elevating a top-tier challenger, this would do it. And it would teach the voters vastly more about those candidates than the current debates joint appearances can.

That seems to make it pretty obvious that frontrunners won't do it.

XWL has another idea: Have the candidates "send their 'policy experts' and 'advisers' out into the internet to have debates with each other."

When we pick a President we aren't just picking a single person, we are picking a team, and I want to know as soon as possible what the make up of that team will look like. A Bloggingheads type format would be perfect, with dingalinks, and a relatively unstructured time frame. Would Clinton have beaten Bush in 1992 if we had known it would have been a bunch of dweeby munchkins, a few crusty Carter leftovers, and heavily favoring academic over real world folks? Likewise, in 2000 if folks had known Bush was skipping past his father, and even Reagan to pick folks with experience in the Nixon and Ford years, would Gore have won more than the popular vote (although in this scenario I think he would have had a stable of far lefty policy wonks that would make Hillary look like Ayn Rand, so he probably would have lost resoundingly, even against the Bush/Ford/Nixon team).

Could any of the Republicans get Colin Powell to speak on their behalf? Would Clinton be crazy enough to dust off Albright? Does anyone know who Obama's people are or what his cabinet would look like? Does McCain have any friends (aside from a few in the media)? Would Rudy look past the five boroughs for advisers?

Any more creative ideas out there... and good arguments for getting the candidates to submit to them?

Rice running for President.

Here's the transcript of the Washington Times's interview with Condoleezza Rice, in which she leaves open the possibility of running for President in '08. That prompts follow up questions about "domestic policy," which she's had little occasion to talk about so far. "Domestic policy" turns out to be abortion, because, unfortunately, abortion has far too much to do with how people think about who should be President:

[Interviewer]: [O]ne of the things people are confused about and they understand your foreign policy positions, you've been very clear about those but there is some confusion about some of your domestic policy issues. And I know that's not your bailiwick, but, for example, I interviewed Colin Powell last year as secretary of state and he talked about how he was pro-choice, how he was pro-affirmative action, how he was against an amendment that would ban the burning of a flag, these kinds of social issues. I "googled" Condi Rice and abortion and I've gotten so much murky, contradictory information. Could you clear it up for us today? Are you pro-life? Are you pro-choice? What is your thought on abortion?

Miss Rice: I believe if you go back to 2000, when I helped the president in the campaign, I said that I was, in effect, kind of Libertarian on this issue, and meaning by that that I have been concerned about a government role in this issue. I'm a strong proponent of parental choice, of parental notification. I'm a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be. I've called myself at times mildly pro-choice.

[Interviewer]: That was the phrase that kept coming up.

Miss Rice: Yeah, mildly pro-choice. That's what that means. I think that there are a lot of things that we can unite around, and that's where I would tend to be. I'm very comfortable with the president's view that we have to respect and need to have a culture that respects life. This should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to have a culture that says that, "Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or, you know, a sibling go through something like that?" And so I believe the president has been in exactly the right place about this, which is, we have to respect the culture of life and we have to try and bring people to have respect for it and make this as rare a circumstance as possible.

[Interviewer]: The only reason I even brought it up was because there is a school of thought that says that no conservative Republican can be elected president if they are not firmly pro-life. I know you haven't ruled anything in or out but...

Miss Rice: I'm not trying to be elected.

[Interviewer]: But it sounds like you do not wish to change the laws that now allow ...

Miss Rice: Well, I don't spend my entire life thinking about these issues. You know, I spend my time really thinking about the foreign policy issues. But you know that I'm a deeply religious person and so, from my point of view, these extremely difficult moral issues where we have — where we're facing issues with technology and the prolongation of life and the fact that very, very young babies are able to survive now — very small babies are able to survive — these are great moral issues.

What I do think is that we should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other. So, for instance, I've tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it.

A nicely articulated middle position. Her weaving in the topic of religion prompted this line of inquiry.

[Interviewer]: You mentioned your deep religious faith. We talked to the president the other day in our interview with him, and he talked about how his faith and how it bears on the conduct of his duties. Could you talk about how your faith bears on your duties as secretary of state and how?

Miss Rice: Well, first, my faith is a part of everything that I do. You know, it's integral to who I am and it's not something that I can set outside of anything that I do because it's so integral to who I am. And prayer is very important to me and a belief that if you ask for it, you will be guided. Now, that doesn't mean that I think that God will tell me what to do on, you know, the Iran nuclear problem. That's not how I see it. But I do believe very strongly that if you are a prayerful and faithful person, that that is a help in guiding us, as imperfect beings, to have to deal with extremely difficult and consequential matters.

As an American, when I talk to others out there in the world, particularly people who are going through processes of democratization, I would be the first to say that I think America has it right in that you can worship freely in any way that you wish, but you can also choose not to worship if you wish, and that you can choose to believe or you can choose not to believe, and that that is the genius of the American system — that somebody as deeply religious as I am is a fully appreciated and respected American as someone who has no faith at all.

So I can speak in terms of faith and my personal circumstances, but I can also, I think, speak from the perspective of an American, where I think we've gotten this balance right.

That is just brilliantly put. I so hope we are lucky enough to see -- and hear -- Condoleezza Rice run for President.

Colin Powell, screaming in outrage.

I'm always amazed at the unflappably fluent Colin Powell. He calmly and efficiently explains everything. But what's this?

MR. RUSSERT:  There's a front-page report in The Washington Post today that the administration is considering a prison to detain alleged terrorists where they do not have enough evidence to bring them to prosecution.  What's your role in that and do you seem...



SEC'Y POWELL:  I am not familiar with that and I can't talk to it.



MR. RUSSERT:  The State Department is involved.



SEC'Y POWELL:  I just don't have the facts on that one.



MR. RUSSERT:  Why would the United States detain people for life without bringing them to trial?



SEC'Y POWELL:  I have no information on this one, Tim.



MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you about the Middle East. 

The transcript does not show the repeated throat-clearings. Powell maintained his usual steady demeanor, but for the throat clearings and perhaps a slight hint of unease. Powell has steadfastly defended everything he has been called on to defend over the last four years. I'm sensing that this is how Powell, that intensely controlled and restrained man, looks when he is screaming in outrage.

So: Condoleezza Rice for President in '08.

ABC News reports:

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, one of President Bush's closest counselors, will be nominated to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state...

UPDATE: Andrea Mitchell on Hardball tonight, giving a reason why Rice may be more effective than Powell: "She is really an extension of George Bush."

Interesting times ahead.

Bush is buoyant, Colin Powell is resigning, Arafat is still dead, there was quick victory in Fallujah, new places may open on the Supreme Court. There are interesting times ahead. From the first linked article:

The West Wing is buzzing with a new sense of possibility...



The president is moving briskly to seize the moment. He is consolidating power at the White House, channeling ever more influence to Vice President Dick Cheney, his closest confidant, and counselor Karl Rove, architect of his November 2 victory. Senior White House officials tell U.S. News that Bush plans to replace at least half his cabinet over the next few months. His aim is to remove officials who have become lightning rods for controversy or who seem to have lost their desire to serve in Washington. ...



White House officials say they've rarely seen Bush so upbeat. "He's got the wind at his back," says a senior aide. "He's in very high spirits. He looks at the election as strong validation of his agenda."

"The Pentagon crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated 10 times more than Saddam."

Shockingly harsh words from Thomas Friedman. If there is one commentator who seems in command of language, it is NYT columnist Thomas Friedman. A line like that is no accident.

The TiVo dialogue.

CNN.com has the transcript of Colin Powell on Larry King from the other day. I just read the part about TiVo (which Throwing Things linked to). I love Larry King transcripts, because Larry has his own special way of talking that just seems so funny transcribed. And he seems like a bit of an idiot (doesn't know the word "Luddite") and a bit nutty (afraid of email). King views push-button phones as new technology: they came out in the 60s!

KING: Is it true -- I learned from sources, that you are a technocrat, that you like TiVo, that you like all of these -- you like it.



POWELL: Yes. I like TiVo, I like computers.



KING: Why?



POWELL: Because it makes work easier for me. It speeds up communicating with people. ... And I understand that you are an absolute Luddite.



KING: What's a Luddite?



POWELL: Nevermind.



KING: Sounds like some division of my faith. I'm a Luddite. No, I don't ...



POWELL: You don't do any of this stuff.



KING: I don't like computers, I don't ...



POWELL: How can you not like computers?



KING: I don't like e-mail. Because it's scary. Do you like cell phones?



POWELL: Yes. Cell phones, e-mail, TiVo ...



KING: Push-button phones.



POWELL: TiVo would change your whole way of viewing television.



KING: My wife likes it.



POWELL: Yes. We don't want to get into product endorsement here.



KING: Well, the ability to tape without tape.



POWELL: Yes, right. Right.



KING: So, you do that a lot.



POWELL: Do that a lot.



KING: "LARRY KING LIVE," you TiVo me.



POWELL: Yes, Larry, every night.

Aw, that's sweet. I wonder what TiVo "season passes" Powell has and what "wish lists." I was asked today what I used my TiVo for if I don't care about sitcoms. Reality shows? Not really. I watched "The Apprentice," and "American Idol" is different, but I don't watch any of those dating shows (everyone's boring!) and I don't watch "Survivor" (I watched the first season until the episode where there was a long contest to see who could stand on a stump longest: how is that entertainment?). I TiVo "Meet the Press" and "The Daily Show" and Letterman (so I can watch the part between the monologue and the first guest) and Conan and some other things that I usually don't watch (news and talk and non-sitcom comedy). I TiVo "Joan of Arcadia," but I've just about had it with God telling Joan to start something new (get a job in the bookstore, join the band, join the chess club, become a babysitter, join the yearbook, learn the piano, build a boat). Is that what God wants, shallow club-joining? Anyway, lately I've enjoyed HBO-on-demand more than TiVo. It's basically TiVo but out there somewhere, with all HBO. But what does Colin Powell TiVo? Probably a lot of C-Span. Maybe the History channel. Probably sports. Maybe he watches old movies with his wife.

Political art, that old oxymoron, rears its ugly head again. This time the victim is Tim Robbins, whose new play about the Iraq War, called "Embedded," is trashed by NYT reviewer Ben Brantley. And Brantley loved "Bob Roberts":

There is little compelling sense of the sustained, dizzyingly absurd reality that Mr. Robbins achieved in his spoof movie about a presidential candidate, "Bob Roberts."

Well, I went to see "Bob Roberts" when it came out because I read the raving reviews, and I walked out on that film, something I rarely do, because it wasn't trenchant or funny or anything it was cracked up to be. But then I wouldn't be one of the people in the audience for "Embedded," and the kind of people who would be were, per Brantley, struggling to stay awake.

According to Brantley, the play depicts:

[A]n elitist Washington cabal ... [whose] members have resonant names like Dick, Rum Rum, Gondola, Woof and Pearly White. They wear sinister half-masks and offer Black Sabbath-style hymns of praise to Leo Strauss, the neo-conservative philosopher. And though they plot their military strategy with icy detachment, they become sexually aroused at the mere prospect of more power.

Is Pearly White supposed to be Colin Powell? Well, okay, maybe if that was written broadly and brilliantly enough it could work a la Dr. Strangelove (which Brantley cites), but apparently it fails miserably. But what I'd like to comment on here is the whole "sexually aroused at the mere prospect of more power" idea. It seems to me that years ago, linking political power with sexuality was far more common. With the decline of Freudianism, there's been a decline in observations about sex and power. Too bad! It was interesting. What remains of that sort of commentary seems to lie only on the left. I was thinking about that just the other day, reading this passage in a great article about fundamentalist terrorists, which I linked to here. (Hmm... the Times won't let you get back to the article anymore--some of the old Times links work and some don't. How irritating.) The part I'm interested in is already quoted at my old post and put in some context:

''You can't have a girlfriend in this society. ... It's too expensive to marry, and as a young man, all you're thinking about is sex. So the 'teachers' would tell us, Don't worry, no need now, when you kill yourself you'll have plenty of girls in heaven.'' ... ''If there were girls in our high school,'' he said. ''I never would have joined those groups.''

We tend to be so respectful of religion that we don't even want to begin to explore the whole sex-religion-politics-violence tangle of human psychology that statement reveals. Of course there can still be a play about sex and violence when we are critiquing ourselves. But we don't dare to apply the same sort of satirical attack to our enemies. Go at both sides with your satirical weapons, Mr. Robbins, and I'll go see your play!


UPDATE: On reflection, I think "Pearly White" refers to Richard Perle. It really would be pretty crude to refer to Colin Powell that way, but calling attention to Perle being white is just dumb and dull, though the attempt to connect him to teeth and hence viciousness is noted. Don't know why Perle's name didn't occur to me when I wrote this post several hours ago. If you've read this blog back to day 1--January 14th--you'll see I was cleaning my office and listening to streaming audio of a Fresh Air interview with him (about his book "An End to Evil") when I decided to start a blog.