a few thoughts

because i have a final tomorrow morning (my second of four! haaaaaaaaaay, great end of the semester), i want to a share a few thoughts - random, in no particular order, irrespectively, etc - before i go even more insane with academic saturation. (side note: today, in my usual display of pop culture allusions, i confused julia roberts with richard dreyfuss.) to retain some semblance of interest in things i won't be tested on, i've been reading TEH NEWZ constantly. so here's what i'm thinking about, politically and otherwise, seriously and not-so-seriously, before i creep into dementia and sing radiohead until i die:

• KARL ROVE is a jerk. a foul-mouthed, sick, disgusting, perverted jerk. i don't base this assessment on a newly-revealed sexual scandal - who'd have sex with death, anyway? - or a personal encounter. but you know what? giving barack obama "advice" on combating charges of elitism and then promptly criticizing him for those "bitter, cling, guns, antipathy towards other people, blah blah blah" comments of last century suggests a serious lack of human emotion. i bet karl rove is the one that killed that dude hillary clinton supposedly murdered. and then spread the rumors about clinton. and then clubbed kitties and puppies for fun. what an asshole.
• speaking of, MIKE HUCKABEE's a pretty funny dude. he thought he could win the presidency and everything, even though he taxed and spent, made love to "illegals," and didn't have any money other than the currency of The Jesus. so he makes a joke chronicled by our own brian kaufman, and only racists and rednecks laugh. because the joke's about shooting barack obama. i thought it was weird that huckabee's son would lynch a stray dog, but i guess not. the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, i suppose. (my guess is that mike huckabee probably ate the apple, but only after dipping it in sugar and coke and frying it in bacon grease).
• on an unrelated-ish note, BARACK OBAMA is shaping up to be a great general election candidate. hell, he's running like one, and the media loves it. (how do i know? i haven't read anything - except for this, maybe - about HILLARY CLINTON since wednesday, and that was a very bad day for her. more on that later.) at the same time, i think that for all the great things obama will do for our party - bringing heretofore excluded demographics (read: the youth) into the process, establishing a liberal majority for the rest of time - we might have a slight problem winning. time's swampland has a good post (and link!) on obama's electoral road map to winning the white house. i'm confident we'll win. but the trends in florida and ohio worry me, especially when hillary's strongly positioned to PWN john mccain in the rust belt and my VERY OWN sunshine state. i still think he should pick her as his VP. it'd solve so many problems at once, and it might make him much more appealing to all those racists the media loves to talk about.
• the SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING is an incredible thing, and i must say that i've never been more proud of a state i've come to pettily revile. (for clarification: i hate california because everybody from california just LOVES california, and i find it very irritating. fucking go to stanford and stop complaining about the weather, okay?) i hope it initiates a culture war, because i think we'll win. with "queer eye for the straight guy," andy dick, and ellen degeneres on our side - not to mention TGI friday's best patron ever - we're sure to beat back the religious right that doesn't have a candidate. at the same time, it'll be interesting to see how the dems and mccain run on the issue, because their positions are pretty similar. mccain will use harsh language to appeal to the crazies, but whatever. he won't be able to raise his arm in fury.
• JOHN EDWARDS endorsed obama. surprise! come on, everyone should have seen that coming. he called hillary a corporate democrat and regularly admonished her for her "support" of lobbyists (even though he took contributions from state lobbyists, those who represent and defend lobbyists, and former lobbyists). so he endorsed the similarly "anti-lobbyist" candidate, heralded themes of HOPE and CHANGE, etc. not sure if it'll do anything, but the media loves to talk about racist white people and how john edwards might help barack obama win them over.
• like many feminists, i, too, feel betrayed by NARAL. and it isn't because they chose to support a man instead of a woman; it's because they chose to support a one pro-choice candidate over another. obama and clinton have similar records on choice - though i think hers is stronger than his, if only because of his tactical "present" votes and his relatively short time in public life. so why endorse? why not wait until the end of the primary season? three weeks does not a winning pro-life candidate make, and a negative campaign against mccain doesn't necessitate a positive campaign for the obviously pro-choice democratic nominee. to me, the endorsement smacks of disrespect to senator clinton, effectively adding to the chorus of those irresponsible pundits that want to end her candidacy before she does. and it's made even worse by senator clinton's more than admirable record on agitation for women's rights.

and thus, in my mind, i've come full circle. because i need to study for my final on the history of women, gender, and sexuality in europe. onward!

Alright, I've Had Enough

That's it. No more. Since John Edwards and his beautiful hair left the race, it's gotten pretty boring.

So here's how we're gonna end it: flip a coin. Heads, Hillary's the nominee. Tails, it's Obama. If it ends up balancing on its side, the nomination goes to Edwards (yes, I'm still holding out hope).

Then to decide the General, we roll two 6-sided dice. The candidate whose age is closest to the combined roll is the next President.

See how easy that could be?

Ok, this entire post may have been a result of nostalgia caused by this:

Mike Gravel=Rocky (btw, He is also going to get the Democratic Party Crunk)

Who need Sylvester Stallone? We've got Mike Gravel!

The photo shopped John Edwards image in here is just ridiculously unnecessary. Still, I think Mike Gravel's hip hop is superior to Mitt Romney's. I sincerely hope that he makes himself of good use to society now that his presidential bid has ended to using his vaunted management skills to find out who actually did let the dogs. Who? WHO?!?!

(this a little weird until about 30 seconds in...then it gets a lot weird)

Get pumped for Friday! I am ready to endorse...

A Third Party Election

Alongside today's news that Edwards and Rudy are dropping out comes word that Ralph Nader, accomplice to Bush's 2000 election theft, is exploring another run.  It's pretty clear he waited until Edwards bowed out, as they both fit, to some extent, the same mold.  Except Edwards knew when to bow out with some dignity left, while Nader seems ready to screw things up again.

What's interesting, though, is that this could make 2008 a third party election.  If Mike Bloomberg ends up running and if Ron Paul, realizing he has several million dollars of online donations left after losing the Republican race, decides to run as well, things could get interesting.

While the Democratic race is still fairly wide-open, it's becoming increasingly clear that John McCain will end up with the GOP nomination.  McCain and Paul present drastically different views of conservatism, just as either Clinton or Obama and Nader do on the liberal side.  Bloomberg, having been a member of both parties, can provide something interesting to attract voters from both sides  - drawing from the left for his social stances and from the right for his business experience and managerial skills.

While this is drastically oversimplifying things, let's say most of Paul's supporters stick with him in a third party run and that some (although definitely not all) of Edward's supporters go to Nader.  Who does Bloomberg get?  He'll likely pick up some of Romney's supporters on the GOP side and a few Hillary or Obama supporters regardless of who wins the nomination.  Nader and Paul will cut down the votes of the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees.  And if McCain is the Republican candidate, there's a good chance many of the evangelical conservatives who supported Huckabee will be less likely to vote.

What does this all boil down to?  It's still not likely by any stretch, but for the first time in decades there's a very small, but finite chance that an independent could make it to the White House.

On Edwards' Withdrawal

First of all, I blame Seth Flaxman for texting me with the news at the ungodly hour of 9:45 this morning; naturally I haven't been able to sleep since. Dammit, Seth! Now I'm going to be tired and depressed all day...

John Edwards ran a great campaign and I was proud to volunteer for it; his contribution on the issues was enormous, and it's unquestionable that he pushed the other leading candidates well to the left. If nothing else, he moved the party's Overton window, and that's something we can certainly thank him for. There will be better eulogies all over the Internet today, so I won't go on at length.

The decision to drop out now was also a good one, I think; once you're no longer viable for the presidency, you can only spend so long promoting your beliefs before you become a crank and begin to do those beliefs a disservice. Edwards, for all his personal faults, really was in this because of what he felt in his heart; so I don't think any kind of convention kingmaker scenario would have been a consolation. This is the best way he can move on gracefully, and continue to be a forceful advocate for the economic change we so desperately need.

...I'll have some commentary about where Edwards' voters go, and where I in particular am going (hint: it rhymes with "schmundecided"), sometime soon.

A little debate commentary

Some jumbled and probably biased comments on tonight's debate.

First, points for the format.  I don't think it was particularly fair to exclude Kucinich or Gravel (or Dodd or Biden, who would have been excluded had they not dropped out); it doesn't fit with the principles of the Democratic Party, the principle of an open debate, or the principle of fairness.  That said, it had the tremendous advantage of allowing for a much more in-depth exchange between the candidates.  I don't much like these debates because they're not debates - they are a drawn-out process of Miss America-like interviews, and we all know where that gets us. (Sorry - I know that's old, but I giggle every time.)  This one still had some of the usual question-dodging and platitude-spewing, but there was more of an opportunity for the candidates to respond to each other's claims and draw a clearer contrast between themselves.

Overall I saw no clear victors, although the press seems to have come down somewhat on Obama's side (see pretty favorable coverage, depicting Hillary on the defensive to some extent, at ABC, the Times, and MSNBC).Hillary had definite strong points - a good laugh line with "My feelings are hurt," and a clearly articulated argument that experience is a prerequisite for change - one that the other candidates (particularly Obama, for whom it's most important) did not answer directly. I loved Edwards' defense of why the insider/outsider dynamic in politics is personal for him; he was forceful and compelling, though it may be too little, too late. I also really loved the tirade about Hillary as an agent of the status quo, but for strictly partisan reasons. During the bickering about change versus experience, Obama had some good moments, stepping back from the fray and urging the candidates not to distort each other's records, which allowed him to look like the bigger man, acquire a bit of gravitas, and illustrate the kind of politics that his campaign promises. Richardson had a couple of similar moments (particularly "I've been in hostage negotiations that were more civil than this") and did well referring to his experience.

Of course, every candidate had some issues. While Richardson talked a lot about his executive and diplomatic experience, he didn't form a coherent narrative about it - as policy debate judges like to say, he didn't do the work for his audience, leaving us to connect the dots between, say, Richardson's extensive resume and Hillary's argument about change through experience. Hillary got pretty ticked off when John Edwards accused her of being a force for the status quo, as well as when someone said that Bill Clinton had talked about change and never delivered. The impact of her appearing to go negative - and lose control - depends largely on how she campaigns over the next three days, but this could be very risky, since it's difficult for her to move so rapidly from the clear frontrunner to a candidate on the defensive without appearing to be seriously weakened. Obama failed to answer a lot of the charges that Hillary made against him in the two big categories of flip-flops (on single-payer health care, Iraq funding, the Patriot Act, and the like) and experience. In part this might be because there simply wasn't time for him to jump back in and answer them, but he should have fought harder, spoken more concisely, and directly refuted those charges - I don't think it constitutes a violation of the politics of hope to refute attacks made on your record. Richardson was solid but not nearly as impressive as he needed to be, in my opinion, to make an impression on New Hampshire voters who don't know much about him. He seized the opportunity to play the senior statesman a couple of times (the hostage-negotiation line, for instance), but those were moments, not a theme. Also, he kept pounding the damn table in a way that was picked up by the microphone - if you read the liveblog, you already know that that drove me nuts. Even Edwards' talk about what defines his candidacy - the strident defense of the middle class (funny that there wasn't a word about poverty tonight), the repeated assertion that "this fight is personal for me," the assault on entrenched interests and the defense of change - did more to distinguish him from Clinton than from Obama. A failure to make the latter distinction could quite possibly mean that Edwards' attacks hurt Clinton but don't help himself.

Finally, a big boo to Clinton and Obama for not answering Gibson's last question: what would you take back from this series of presidential debates? Stupid question or not, it's even dumber to blatantly not answer it in a closer that people will probably remember. Even if they had to pick something inane, they should have at least given a direct answer before spewing platitudes, however true, about how much greater the Democrats are than the Republicans.

Overall: not entirely a wash, but also not conclusive enough that three days of good spinning couldn't make this debate work for any candidate's advantage or disadvantage. New Hampshire, here we come.

Obama, Huckabee Win in Iowa!

Well, it appears Obama has edged out Clinton and Edwards (who are in a dead heat for 2nd) roughly 37% to 30% to 30%.

A huge influx of first-time caucus participants, of independents, and even a few Republicans handed Obama the victory, along with the fact that he was the #2 choice for many Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich supporters.

For those who aren't familiar, the way the Iowa Caucus works on the Democratic side, if your candidate does not get 15% of the votes in the precinct, he/she fails to meet the threshhold and then you can switch to vote for someone else.  That Bill Richardson and Joe Biden faired so poorly in the caucus is not reflective of their actual support.  In most precincts they failed to meet the threshhold and so their supporters switched to support another candidate, probably Obama in large numbers.

But the real story of the night is why Howard Dean, who I just saw on MSNBC, looks exactly like Howard the Duck now.  Did anyone else see that?  I'll post a video when I can find it.

Still Undecided?

You’ve probably seen the coverage of Oprah speaking for Obama, and we all know Bill supports Hill, but what about those less than A-List endorsements? For all of you out there who are still undecided, perhaps these lesser-known supporters (courtesy of Newsweek) will help you make up your mind. Or at the least, provide some food for thought…

Hillary Clinton:

• Marla Maples, former Mrs. Donald Trump
• Jerry Springer, talk show host extraordinaire
• Jenna Jameson, porn star (She has apparently said that Bill Clinton's years in office were "the best years" in the adult entertainment industry. I guess she's hoping to get lucky again?)

John Edwards:

• Harry Belafonte, singer/perfomer
• James Denton, “Desperate Housewives” actor (He has said Edwards is the only one who can win the "redneck" vote)

Barack Obama:

• Gene Wilder, comedian/producer (all I can think of is the association: Barack Obama - Gene Wilder - Willy Wonka - Candy - Yay!)

Dennis Kucinich:

• Larry Flynt, Hustler Publisher (but is he really endorsing Kucinich’s wife...?)

For the full article (including republicans) visit:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/82023/page/1

Sunday Nights on the Lam: Going the Extra 61,405 Yards Edition

This week's Sunday Nights on the Lam is an awful lot of old news, which you should ignore in order to go straight to the football.

First, we discover that John Edwards' economic adviser is less oratorically gifted than John Edwards, thanks to this really bizarre metaphor:

At a panel discussion Monday at the Brookings Institution, Edwards’ senior economic adviser, Leo Hindery, explained that underneath the “two Americas” are “five buckets” — poverty, lack of health insurance, poor education, the offshoring of jobs, and the wage gap — that specifically plague the poor.

I would have to say that into those buckets leaks America's soul. Or maybe that's my already-eroded hope for the restoration of the good political metaphor. Jonathan Hawley, it's all up to you now.

In anticipation of Larry Craig's recent trip to Indonesia, Princess Sparkle Pony offers some thing with really big ears:

Today was an excellent day for the Packers: in the process of stomping St. Louis, 33-14, they clinched a first-round bye in the playoffs, and Brett Favre broke Dan Marino's career passing record, making it to 61,405 career passing yards. This was apparently so significant that it warranted mention by the BBC, which, as far as I can tell, hasn't covered American football at all this season except for the shooting of Sean Taylor and the sentencing of Michael Vick. If you go to the homepage for BBC Sport you will sooner see coverage of snooker, whatever that is, than of American football - so apparently it's a big deal. Anyway, here are some highlights from Favre's passing game today (as well as evidence of why I absolutely love Donald Driver):

I'm guessing these clips might be taken down from YouTube, so if that happens, hit up the NFL's version instead - but I didn't want to direct you through an ad.

That's all for this week's Sunday Nights on the Lam, the last edition in 2007 brought to you direct from Cambridge. Next week I'll be celebrating or lamenting the outcome of the Bears game from home, in the company of my equally-crazy family - so expect more enthusiasm. Enjoy whatever winter-affiliated holiday you choose to celebrate or studiously ignore!

Edwards' Best Argument

From his new ad:

"And we can say as long as we get Democrats in, everything's gonna be O.K. It's a lie. It's not the truth. Do you really believe if we replace a crowd of corporate Republicans with a crowd of corporate Democrats that anything meaningful's gonna change?"

Ponder that for a while.

...Meanwhile, Chris Bowers points out that from a statistical perspective it's still entirely possible that Edwards could win the nomination -- going by past trends, a 6-point Iowa win over Clinton or a 4-point win over Obama would give Edwards the lead in N.H., and momentum would presumably continue from there. Bowers adds "in the event of an Edwards, Obama, Clinton 1-2-3 finish in Iowa, I would slightly favor John Edwards to win both New Hampshire and the overall nomination." Given the remarkable strength of Edwards' Iowa organization, I wouldn't count the southerner out just yet...

Watching Out for the Business Lobby

RedState's Erick Erickson -- one of that august institution's only readable writers -- makes an interesting point on the dynamics of the GOP presidential race. Writing from the Family Research Council summit in Washington, (a.k.a. Religious-Right-O-Rama), he proposes a theory as to why Mike Huckabee is struggling to gain any traction among Republican elites:

The social conservatives do not want to rally around Huckabee because he is as distasteful to fiscalcons as Rudy is to socons. Even Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, said he hoped the social conservative candidate would be palatable to the fiscal conservatives out there. Huckabee is not.

That's putting it mildly. Mike Huckabee stands in direct opposition to the tenets of fiscal conservatism; he's a red-blooded Middle American populist, complete with a record of tax hikes and a healthy distate for Wall Street in his rhetoric. Additionally, he's a batshit-crazy religious fanatic who thinks the Declaration of Independence was written by ministers and abortions cause immigration. Neither of these two characterists are particularly appealing to your average CEO, who simply wants someone who'll balance the budget and won't make waves.

Thus the hesitance among religious-right leaders to throw their weight behind Huckabee, even though he's perfect for their constituency (see his remarkable strength at that FRC summit). After all, these people aren't stupid; the last thing they want to do is incite a GOP civil war with the Club for Growth types and all their party's money. Marc Ambinder, adding some thoughts of his own that I don't entirely agree with, nevertheless sums it up very well:

Huckabee has an independent streak. The establishment is threatened. Their interests are at stake and they want candidates who are beholden to them. Huckabee doesn't fit the bill.

At this point the reaction of the Democratic reader is probably some kind of schadenfreude -- but not so fast, this dynamic has consequences for us, too. Here's the scary part of Erick's analysis (emphasis added):

And here we arrive at the conundrum for the GOP and the Press. While the media has been filled with stories about the socons ready to bolt from the GOP if Rudy is the nominee, the real story and the untold story is that the business community is even more ready to bolt from the GOP. For the last eight years they've watched as the socons have scored every significant win on the right — stem cells, judges, etc. Only against Labor have the fiscal guys scored wins. But there have been no budget cuts, no culling of pork, steel subsidies, etc.

The fiscal guys see the writing on the wall. They see Hillary's position. And they are just about ready to cut a deal.

It's not by coincidence that corporate donations to Democrats have soared lately -- access to power is, after all, their driving motivation, and we look increasingly good since the '06 Republican implosion. As a recent example, look how the telecom companies put the otherwise decent Jay Rockefeller in their pockets; and I imagine that's the tip of the iceberg. Of course, business involvement in politics is nothing new, but it has unarguably ramped up on our side since 2006.

The risk here is that business interests will coopt the Democratic Party. Don't think they couldn't do it -- we are agreeable folk by nature, and in purely financial terms we come at a much lower price than Republicans. My God, look how close we are to nominating Hillary Clinton, a first-rate machine politician who fits neatly with their idea of "responsible" (read: malleable) leadership. (It could only be easier for them if we went with Bill Richardson, a Third Way stooge who actually believes the stuff; but thankfully his throwback campaign seems to have disappeared. Has anyone heard from Bill Richardson lately? Is he OK?) I give no credit to the rest of the field, either, save the fringe candidates and of course John Edwards (whose increasingly fiery populism has prompted what looks like a contract on his head among the media, not to mention serious trouble raising funds; whether grassroots support can propel him over these hurdles remains to be seen). The temptation to form such a coalition, with its promises of untold organizing resources and at least a few cycles of total electoral supremacy (until Republicans or a third party got their act together) would be difficult for most Democratic leaders to resist.

But there would be nothing more perverse and dangerous, of course, than an intrusion of the business lobby into our policymaking. For starters, you can kiss off any serious progress on energy and the environment, not to mention the minimum wage and workers' rights or any sort of progressive tax. In the long term, assuming the planet had not yet been fried to a crisp and the disenfranchised poor had not yet risen up in revolt, we'd face a return to the toothless Democratic Party of the pre-radical 1960s when placid status-quo liberalism ruled the day. Nobody, except Exxon and Wal-Mart, wins in this scenario.

I have no concrete proposals as to what we can do about this, except to humbly suggest a vote for John Edwards and a serious look at his government reform proposals; mostly we just need to watch out for the threat of co-optation, and keep our first principles in mind. And of course, keep an eye on the Republican race, specifically on how successful the business lobby is in keeping Mike Huckabee down. It may be an instructive test case for us.

Quick Impressions from the First Debate

If you missed the debate, MSNBC claims you can watch it here. Otherwise, here are some unsorted thoughts as I recover from that, uh, experience...

--NOBODY whose votes are really in play watched that debate. The only people who would possibly tune in are hyper-engaged political types who either have their minds well made up, or who obstinately won't decide until they're in the booth. The soft supporters everyone will be targeting are not nearly involved enough to watch a debate this early. So it was more a sideshow than a real part of the race. But you can take critical interest nevertheless...

--BRIAN WILLIAMS is a tool. I don't care whether he wrote those ridiculous questions or not, having the gall to ask them is all I need to see...

--BARACK OBAMA benefited greatly from his exchange with Kucinich; did you see that incredible camera angle? Light glinting off his profile, body turned just enough to emphasize sharp shoulders and lean chest, calmly delivering a fatherly smackdown to someone just off-camera. It was like something out of a particularly good West Wing episode. I'll give you a 50-50 shot some advance guy saw that angle and told Barack "argue with Kucinich about something." For once Obama looked really, really presidential; that (as well as the content of his answers, which was passable) will help allay the concerns about lack of substance and heft on his part. Although the rest of his performance was unremarkable...

--CHRIS DODD and JOE BIDEN almost stole the show. Dodd was serious and smooth; Biden was charming (as he often is) and listenable. I don't know how much it'll really affect their perceptions or standings, for reasons outlined above, but they both lent themselves respectability anyway...

--HILLARY CLINTON and JOHN EDWARDS did nothing of note. They played their roles perfectly well, made their supporters happy, interested nobody else. Big deal.

--BILL RICHARDSON came off like a used car salesman. He was too self-aggrandizing, too aggressive, too repetitive, and grinned at inappropriate times. I like Richardson on a number of levels, but a performance like this shows why he isn't in the first tier; with some training and some polishing, of course, I still wouldn't rule it out...

--MIKE GRAVEL is everybody's lovable crazy grandpa ("I'm the senior statesman here!" What is it about Alaska?). The campaign on campus is already starting up (as Garrett put it, "have you ever seen a more perfect ironic candidate?"). Posters will read:

GRAVEL 2008
"Who the hell are we gonna nuke?"

--DENNIS KUCINICH seems awfully excitable for a man who calls himself the Peace Candidate. Chill out, dude...

--OVERALL from a horse-race perspective I don't think anything of importance happened tonight, unless something (either one of those wonderful Gravel moments or maybe the Obama-Kucinich argument) starts to climb YouTube, where it would actually reach the important voters.

Anyone pay attention to the policy discussions (were there any?) or what the candidates actually said? I sure didn't. Hazard of the format, as well as my short attention span, I suppose. Feel free to give your own, more informed, opinions in comments.

"But You Just Can't Say That"

Everyone's pal Drudge, in an unusually accurate and realistic headline choice, links to this story as "John Edwards: 'We'll have to raise taxes'...". The gist:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.

"We'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that cost anywhere from $90 to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source," Edwards said on NBC's Meet the Press news program.

Now, it's understandable why Drudge would choose not to embellish this story with his usual breathless right-wing hyperbole (HILLARY: 'I WILL CRUSH YOU'). A politician looking into the camera and saying "let's raise taxes" has, historically, been tantamount to suicide (see: Mondale, Walter).

But I'm not so sure that, in today's political climate, this is the same kind of flamethrower it once was. Since the departure of smaller-government harpies like Newt Gingrich and the emergence of more tangible problems, there has been little public discussion of taxes. The issue is worming its way out of our consciousness, or at least our newscasts. Further, Americans are generally in favor of a more-nationalized health care system, and with reservations endorse such a thing even if it means an increase in taxes (see this ABC/Post poll from 2003 which found a stunning 80% willing to accept a tax raise for universal health care). The 80s are over, Reagan is dead, and it seems like the old "tax-and-spend liberal" accusation might be losing its luster.

And more generally, one can hope that American voters are ready to respect the honesty of such a policy. I'm sure I have a bias here, considering that I worship the ground on which John Edwards walks, but: a scenario can be imagined where the electorate says "Hey, he's got the balls to say it, I'm impressed with his courage and conviction." It's at least a nice contrast from the typical politician, whose campaign produces Miracle Wonder Solutions for everything which never ever have negative repercussions. ("More social programs!" "Lower taxes!" "Balanced budget!" "Tastes great!" "Less filling!")

Edwards may be ahead of his time in rejecting the tyranny of Grover Norquist, and/or Drudge may be behind the times in accusing him of an antiquated political faux pas. I'm not sure. But the way this plays, especially if Edwards' unveiling of his detailed plan on Monday receives significant coverage, may be revealing as to how the tax issue markets in the 21st century. Keep an eye out.

Update: Taegan Goddard at Political Wire is feeling it. "[H]e's the "straight talk" candidate... Edwards seems to have little interest in dancing around tough issues and finessing his answers... he comes across as a very different kind of politician. It's worth watching."

Catfight!

The honeymoon is over... on to '08! Following Obama's announcement yesterday, Hillary coincidentally cancels a very important press conference following a trip to Iraq. Meanwhile, John Edwards points fingers at current members of congress **cough, Hillary, Obama, cough** for silence on Iraq. Clinton's advisor responds with finger-wagging at Edward's "negative campaigning." Let the games begin!

Dana Milbank at WaPo has a good analysis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601524.html

Roundup -- 2007 Lurches Onstage

Wake up, children! 2007 is here and it waits for no man. I understand that many of you, in defiance of Harvard's airtight schedule, are still at home enjoying friends and family -- how ludicrous. I laugh ("Ha ha!") at your pathetic friends and family. Because (after an excellent flight on Air Canada) I am here, by God, in CAMBRIDGE, the intellectual capital of the United States, and I'm... well... ok, I'm playing video games and screwing around on Facebook. Nevertheless. You should be ashamed of yourselves, you, you time-wasters, you.

And the Internet is likewise rolling along, whether we like it or not. Some recent events of note:

--The Harvard Law Democrats have started a new blog, Crimson Blues. There's a nascent discussion about centrism over there that cries out for contribution. Hope they keep it up.

--Rumors are floating that not only has Sen. Chuck Hagel's presumed presidential bid fallen through, he may leave politics altogether. They're probably unfounded, but they're also unsurprising -- after all, he's a Republican with common sense, and that (Republicanus brainiensis) is an endangered species. Note his wonderful recent description of the Iraq "surge" plan as "Alice in Wonderland"; you're OK with me, Hagel.

--John Edwards has been awful sexy of late (politically, that is). His presidential announcement had amusing pictures; then he slapped Barack Obama with a much-needed attack on "hope"; now he's coined the phrase "McCain Doctrine" and has Kos eating out of his hand. Not bad for a week.

--Ha ha, Sean Hannity. I can't quite figure why I like this so much.

--Gadfly pantsed us during our brief website outage last week. I'll get you someday, Mulcahy!

--Pretty much everyone agrees that Gerald Ford was a very good man and we'll miss him -- although, thanks for speaking out on Iraq when it mattered, dude. Good job. (Harsher take: Matt Stoller, who made even me blanch when he called Ford "a coward, an elitist, and a loser".)

--And Dave Barry's Year in Review is, as usual, brilliant.

Speaking of vegetables, the United States Congress is rocked by yet another scandal with the publication of e-mails and instant messages sent to male pages by Congressman Mark Foley of Florida, in which he explicitly discusses acts of a sheepherding nature. As the scandal expands, House Republican leaders issue a statement claiming that they "are not aware of any so-called Congressman Mark Foley of Florida." Democrats cite Foley as another example of Republican corruption, declaring that they would never, ever, under any circumstances tolerate such behavior, unless it involved a consenting page.

After days of chaos at the airports, the TSA issues a new directive stating that "passengers may carry small quantities of liquids on board, but only if they are inside clear, one-quart, sealable plastic bags." This leads to still more chaos, as many TSA employees interpret this to mean that the passengers must be inside the bags. Eventually the TSA issues a clarification stating that "if necessary, the bags can have air holes."

That's all I got. Leave more in comments. And now, a YouTube video: