Obama Vs. McCain

Age versus beauty. Middies and independents are likely to drink the Kool-aid and throw their support behind the change monger. A large slice of conservatives will lack the passion to get out and vote. Obama will also have a towering advantage in debates and campaign speech rhetoric, since the maverick has shown a alarming tendency to rely on the same tired clever tropes that we've heard many times before.

McCain's only hope for winning this one - and it's a grim, awful thought, and obvious not a really hope - is an Al-Qaeda dirty nuke on the National Mall. If that happens many American will stop fooling around with fanciful ideas like hope and unity and support the guy who will bring hardcore war on the enemy.

Hillary Vs. McCain

All of the creatures of Middle Earth unite. Tribes of dwarves come down from the mountains,

The McCain Irony

The Republican Party has a very strong affinity for the establishment candidate. He's the white brother who has been standing around on stage long enough, the patient vice president who is given the helm after sticking with the company through twists and turns.

There have been some mild exceptions. Reagan was not a complete outsider - he'd been around a couple of cycles, and he had a few powerful backers. But he came out of the West, from the ruins of the Goldwater effort. He represented a difficult, riskier direction in the brief period of time before he became an unstoppable force.

And Dubya was only establishment by birthright. But that was good enough in 2000, when he seemed to be the dependable alternative to the upstart Arizona senator who was giving him hell in the early part of the race. Winning the presidency back from the other party was a deadly serious a goal, and outsiders were not to be trusted.

How things have changed. McCain has been standing around long enough in the minds of the voting public, and he's charging forward to the nomination. Until Florida the conservatives could loudly protest that "real Republicans" hadn't yet voted. Now that argument has been kiboshed - not that there won't be second guessing.

The irony is that McCain has become the establishment candidate, and he did it simply by virtue of endurance and patience. Conservative disgust towards him will endure, but it may become an echo chamber discussion; wonks need to be reminded that the average voter thinks the "Gang of 14" is a martial arts movie, and they couldn't pick Sam Alito from a police lineup.

The other irony is that, with the benefit of hindsight, McCain 2000 might have been a much more attractive president through the 9/11 era. Personally, I'd much prefer the outsider then to the establishment guy today. But that's all water under the bridge.

Update: It's possible to construct a scenario where McCain becomes, for GOP hard-liners, a better alternative to staying at home. First, as everyone has said, nominate Hillary. That will help immeasurably. Second - credit Jonah Goldberg on 'Morning Joe' - McCain should clearly and consistently articulate some key promises on issues that are very important to the base. Border security ahead of anything else related to immigration, for example.

Yes, yes - nobody will believe him at first - he needs to say it repeatedly, and possibly have it tattooed on his arm. Another promise might be to really make the tax cuts permanent, which he has made noises about recently, but which again, nobody finds very persuasive. Finally a very shrewd VP pick ... and it might be possible to win back a sizable enough portion of the base that will vote with the help of anti-nausea medication.

Let me add that I have a very hard time respecting Republicans who are taking the line "better to vote Democrat, so Hill or Obama gets the blame for the country going to hell". There's something about that that seems, to be honest, a little un-American, and I don't say that lightly.

We should vote for the right reasons, and we should support the candidate that we think is best for the country, or if you prefer, the least damaging. It's ultimately a serious responsibility - cleverness and resentment should stay outside of the voting booth. I don't want to see the United States of America go downhill regardless of who gets elected, and it's still our team, even if we don't like the current coach. And the Democrats might be gravely wrong on many issues, but they really don't want to destroy America, regardless of what you've been told - and I've even heard it whispered that some of them actually love their country. (Of course, civic, cultural and economic damage may be the net result of their policies - but that's something different.)

Flori-Duh

Can't we somehow detach this state from the union? If we can find some excuse to get rid of Florida, maybe we could nick Alberta and keep it an even fifty. They've got that impressive cavalry, and by all accounts they're the most pro-market.

Let's cede the sunshine state to the AARP, Disney, and the Greater Miami Cuban Businessman's association.

They're on TV talking about voting irregularities.

And now Clinton is giving her "victory" speech - a bogus gesture. She issued a press release following her defeat in South Carolina, a vote where the delegates actually matter. Proof, once again, that Hillary is the candidate of choice for the ignorant and aloof - and you better believe Florida has a lot of folks who fit into those categories.

And it's looking like McCain might have won the GOP side of the race, much to the chagrin of Rush Limbaugh and the hard right. Honestly, it's almost eerie the way Romney can't get enough traction to win one simple state. I've heard it suggested that the press has a special degree of resentment for Mitt, because he looks like a fake 1050s dad, an authority figure who naturally arouses the ire of scruffy socialist journos.

Onto Tuesday. Let's be thankfully done with Florida.

Reagan and Darth Vader

Jack Kelly observes the carnage and brutality that have occupied the Republican field lately and concludes:

Both Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney are too flawed to reunite and reinvigorate a dispirited Republican party. There is only one candidate who can do that. And she might lose to Barack Obama.

As one who has followed the Obama campaign very closely, and as the son of a family of Kennedy Democrats who came to their senses to vote Reagan in 1980, I can say with certainty that something fundamental has changed again this year. The only question is how it plays out.

There are plenty of 50 somethings on autopilot, with hazy, thoughtless memories of the 1990s. If they show up to vote en masse next Tuesday - if nothing else has interrupted the dial tone politics - then there's every chance that Hillary continues her Vader march to the nomination. And anyone of a certain age can hum that tune.

But the rebel coalition is gaining strength, and unlike the faceless troops of empire , it's comprised of wookies, independents, idealistic farm kids, Admiral fish-guy, and boozer old semi-wise men from Nantucket (hey, even his staunchest opponents will admit Ted's a legislative genius). It's a motley crowd, and the odds are long, and there's a certain amount of believing in airy concepts like the Force that seems to be involved.

If Hillary wins the nomination she will be substantially weakened, because everyone will have been reminded so acutely of the smash-mouth partisan era to which we will be returning. If Hillary wins the nomination it will be the Republicans race to lose - but don't put it past them. With all of the seething anger over who makes the best pseudo-conservative, there will almost certainly be a segment that stays at home.

But that's later. At this point, the choice still exists between Obama and four to eight years of Death Star politics.

ABM and Romney Syndrome

Two local, respected conservative blogs that I track regularly provide a neat illustration of why this election has devolved into mutually assured destruction for the GOP.

On one hand Dave at Nixguy claims to have "gone ABM" - he's willing to support Anybody But McCain. On the other hand Tom at Bizzyblog continues to hammer away at the candidate he decries as "Objectively Unfit Mitt". And these are not mutually exclusive conditions. I suspect for instance, on the basis of things he's posted about in the past, Tom is hardly a McCain supporter either.

These are the two front-runners. Statistically, one of these characters is very likely to be the nominee. Rudy continues to crater, and everyone else in the field stands very little chance of re-gaining momentum in advance of Super Tuesday, which will carve out a massive hunk of the electoral chicken.

You will rarely see the Democrats categorically swear off the possibility of supporting the nominee if it goes to a rival candidate. Admittedly the Clintons are in the process of inspiring that level of acrimony with their ruthless attempt at a third term. But mostly you will hear harmonious talk about falling in to support their party.

It's still too early to write the full obituary for the post-Reagan Republican Party, but I've got the post saved as a draft. Meanwhile I don't ever want to hear anyone, anywhere claim the right wing marches in "lock step". Because those days are done.

The Future Versus the Past

The image below was taken from the Washington Post website today:

There's no way to prove it of course, but I think the picture and the headlines taken together are likely the result of mischief on the part of the web page designers, and not a planned editorial decision.

That aside, one of the great underplayed themes of this election is generational. Mr. Obama's claims that this election is not about the young versus the old, but the truth is he enjoys an unparalleled popularity among people under the age of thirty. Everyone I know in this demographic is incredibly excited about his campaign. And as I've said before, conservatism offers the young very little.

The Clintons in contrast represent the worst aspects of the Baby Boomers - a lack of self control, self infatuation, and themes that haven't changed since 1968. The generation that once admired Camelot has become the entrenched establishment, willing to stoop to anything to win.

Fred Checks Out

One of the last great conservative hopes decided to bail out of the presidential race today after a handful of lackluster electoral performances. Of course, "conservative" these days is an elusive term hotly debated by the warring factions that used to be the GOP. Fred was simply the guy everybody argued about the least.

But he looked much better on paper than in the heat of the campaign trail, and he was dogged by the lingering impression that he'd rather be playing golf, or parked at the bar of a steakhouse in North Carolina near the airport - or pretty much anything besides running for president. That, plus disorganization, made him all but irrelevant.

And the real shame? Jeri won't be the First Lady.

So it's down to Mitt, Rudy, and John. The first two are viewed as treacherous east-coast types who are insufficiently intolerant on social issues, and the last one is widely seen by right wing bloggers and radio hosts as the Republican Alger Hiss. Huckabee gets some credit as a snake-wrangler, but he's about as small-government as Rob Reiner.

Anyway, happy trails Fred. Nobody doubts you're a decent man, and there may yet be a part for you on the American political stage.

That Tingling Sensation Is Normal

According to TechWorld:

In a knowledge base article published on Wednesday, Dell acknowledged that "a tingling sensation may be noticed when connecting devices to Dell notebook computers or printers and touching exposed metal parts of the devices being connected or the parent device," but denied that the "tingling sensation" is cause for alarm.

Apparently they did an internal study and the engineers suggested that the power leakage situation was sufficiently minor, and not worth the cost of sending consumers a free three-pronged (in other words, electrically grounded) AC connector.

In general, we as consumers are power-happy. Despite the never ending protestations of sensitive environmentalists and progressives we use more and more electricity each year, in every facet of our lives. Talk about irony: A roomful of coal is burned every time an email is sent out among Green activists urging sustainable choices. It's measured in the electricity used by the servers, routers, the Internet backbone, the energy consumed by each of their monitors as they read the latest call to outrage from their messy, Marxist apartments.

Go ahead an make it more efficient. We'll only use more.

And now it's spilling out of the devices themselves, and we're considering it normal that we're getting zapped.

You Idiots Aren't Voting for Bill Clinton

During the last couple of hours of the Nevada caucus, Bill Clinton was walking down the Las Vegas strip, going from casino to casino, talking to every voter in sight. Looks like this may have helped Hillary to win Nevada.

It's about more than name recognition. I'm afraid these voters think they are voting for Bill Clinton, the sequel. These folks do not seem to fathom that that Hillary will be, in fact, the president of the United States, and she won't be taking orders from Bill, and she doesn't think the same way. And furthermore, Bill will be at large with a great deal of unofficial influence (but zero constitutional authority) at the highest level of American power. If you don't understand why that's a bad arrangement - you are hopelessly naive.

And based on the pure chaos that seems to pervade the GOP race - not to mention where we stand with regard to the perceived success of the president for the past eight years - I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are headed for a Democrat president. Repeat after me: It won't be the end of the world - and the same is true if a Republican does miraculously pull off a win. The country will survive, and ultimately prosper, either way.

But as far as I'm concerned, there is only one more terrible choice than Hillary Clinton when it comes to the presidency, and that's Edwards. Although I'd even take Edwards with a solid Republican congress over Hillary.

(These posts may be getting "rantier". I've been hooked on the coverage. And I just installed the Newsgator Go news reader on my Blackberry. That sure doesn't help.)

Those Traitorous Moderates and Independents

A great cry has gone up from the political Right, spurred by talk radio, and it goes like this: The true base of the Republican party has yet to be heard, and the only reason where talking about phony so-called "conservatives" like McCain and Huckabee is because the states that have voted, thus far, allow independents and moderates to participate. And until that happens these charlatans are going to strut around the stage, with the media's encouragement.

There's a problem with that scenario, and it's one that might not be noticed by folks who merely pump their fist in the air and go with the received AM radio wisdom without stopping to think.

One question to ask might be - why would the GOP officials in these states bother to set up their primaries and caucuses so that independents and moderates can vote? Were people back then stupid?

And the answer, I submit to you, is that no, they certainly weren't stupid. They simply lived in a time when the Republican message had broader appeal, and it was easier for a candidate to target their message in such a way that people from the "middle" of the political spectrum could easily join the GOP tent. The middle, in other words, was much closer to the Right, and a candidate could easily supplement their electoral support by picking up a healthy swath of folks who were Republican-leaning, but not registered.

So then the argument becomes - gee, is the average American more liberal than their counterpart from 20 or 30 years ago? Who left who behind - did the conservatives stay in place while America shuffled leftward, or has the Right become increasingly ideological, to the point where they have left mainstream America behind?

It's a provocative question, and the answer may be unknowable. But the actual implication is the same, if you follow the AM radio host's logic. The ideal conservative Republican will only win by appealing to a more narrow swath of the voting population than ever before. And somehow, once the litmus test candidate has been selected, we're expected to believe that they will go on to win the presidency with a majority vote - despite the razor thin margins of the past two elections and the 2006 midterms.

Maybe the received talk-radio wisdom goes unquestioned for a good reason.

What Fresh Hell

As if we haven't heard enough about Osama and the gates of hell from Senator McMaverick, we've now got the Baptist minister entering the contest to become the GOP's biggest anti- jihadi crusader (er, probably a bad choice of words):

Asked whether the American commanders on the scene were right in not attacking the Iranian boats, Mr Huckabee said he backed their decisions, before warning Iran: "Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that."

This is a ritual that must be endured, I suppose - a political inversion of the competition on the Democrat side to determine who, if elected, promises to pull the fastest Iraqi reenactment of the helicopter scene from the Fall of Saigon.

Sure - those idiots that were harassing U.S. warships were very close to ending up bubbling downward in an oily heap to the sea floor.

But there's an old folksy nugget about speaking softly when it comes to projecting foreign power - one that apparently isn't considered until you win the big stick of the American presidency. Except the Democrats seem to have it reversed - loudly tell friend and foe exactly what you plan to do - while carrying ... well, you can figure out the rest.

(Bonus points for anyone who knows the reference in the post title - without using Google. Honor system.)

McCain the Frontrunner

Polls have him ahead or very competitive in both Michigan and South Carolina. And according to The Politico he came out unscathed in last night's debate. (I couldn't watch. I've watched every one recently, from top to bottom, and the pundit post-game. It's beginning to impact my relationships, and I keep claiming I have my habit "under control".)

If you would have told me, two years ago, that John McCain would be leading the GOP field in 2008 I would not have believed you. If you would have told me seven years ago that I'd be so unimpressed - I would have been quite surprised.

My problem with John McCain these days isn't his stand on certain key issues, although I can understand why some critics have found him exasperating over the years. By and large I have no problem with leaders who go against the party line, provided they defend their stance with intelligence and wit.

These days, my problem with John McCain is temperament. I think the guy can fly off the handle too easily, and I'm concerned that his passions could over his judgment. This isn't a problem for a Senator because there are 49 other people that need to be involved in various key decisions. But it can be a problem for an executive, who can , owing to the nature of the office, bully past advisers and cabinet members if they so choose.

The presidency is a different nut. McCain hopefully understands this - and much will be decided if it comes to the point where he needs to pick a running mate. Order me up one rock-ribbed, fiscal conservative with strict constructionist tendencies and I might just get back on the Strait Talk Express.

And I would vote for McCain in a New York second over Hillary.

Hillary Reanimated, GOP Burning

In any good horror movie it takes more than one attempt. By rule of cinematic law the soul-consuming zombie must spring back to life repeatedly, and spend the final few minutes of the flick chasing you around with an axe sticking out of it's head.

Oh, but there I go, being too mean to Hillary. I've probably inspired a phalanx of old biddies to vote sympathetically in her defense in response to those bloggers. That's what happened in New Hampshire, of course, where the 50 to 60 female demographic raised a stiff middle finger at Chris Matthews and the expectations game.

Not that the breathless media didn't partially deserve it. Everything is so thoroughly overblown during this phase of the game - within moments of their proven failure as electoral prognosticators the goon squad of pundits on MSNBC were falling all over each other to come up with more and greater hyperbole over the stupendousness of Hillary's return.

Why not overdo it the other way?

Meanwhile, the Republican field is incoherent. Twenty percent of all conservatives loathes one of them - Romney, Huckabee, and McCain - whose victory speech was staggeringly awful. It's not that momentum is shifting - it seemly doesn't seem to exist. Fred is on life support, and Rudy's only chance is to stage a bigger come back than - well, the 2004 Red Sox in the World Series, in the ninth inning of game four.

Obama gets a separate post - except to say that his concession speech last night was the best speech in American politics since Reagan at Normandy.

This Young America

What does the Republican Party have to offer young people?

The core elements of conservatism are the subject of much contention these days, but let's assume for the moment that they are smaller government, lower taxes, and strong national defense. What does sound like to a young, smart person who has the energy and capacity to do something positive with their lives?

It sounds like this: Go get a job and make money. You have material value as a producer and consumer in the economy, but that's about it. If you want to actively improve society it's sweet, but naive. Perhaps you can get involved though your church in some way - but stay away from the government.

And with regard to national defense? [Assume for a moment that the young person is smart enough to understand that we are in danger, and that America shouldn't be blamed first.] Well, unless you are going to join the military - which is very laudable, but there's no conscription - there's not much to be done. Mostly you should keep participating in the economy in the event there's some kind of threat to our security, such as 9/11. Acquire a mortgage, take a vacation, or keep up your spending.

That's what Republicans seem to offer young people. The best energies of youth cannot and should not be directed towards any type of civic impulse to improve their country. Don't ask what you can do for your country - ask how you can make a larger impact on the various ledger entries for the corporations for which you work, and from which you buy. These are the true measure of your worth.

I'm oversimplifying - but I'm afraid, not by much. Why would anybody under the age of 30 be anywhere besides an Obama rally? What's the point of being young if you can't do something selfless, or creative, or compassionate - for the common good or to make the world around you a better place? That's change. And now a politician who speaks up and says - I'm going to try and provide that opportunity, but it's a compact, we need to do this together. Young people (but not only young people) are going to enthusiastically support a leader who aspires to bring that type of structure to our civic lives, and by necessity also ridding our public life of the partisan ideological battles that have come to seem like shackles weighing down a possible better America.

It's correct to claim this dangerously idealistic. But the story of the United States from the very beginning has always been moved forwards and upwards by ideals made dangerous by virtue of the fact they destabilize the status quo.

We are a young country.

The Next President and Iraq

The standard rejoinder among Democrats, including the candidates, is that despite Iraq's increasing safety there are few signs of political reconciliation. In response to the critique, Bret Stephens observes in the Wall Street Journal:

Have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with nothing worse to overcome than their Republican opposition, done better in their first year in the majority than Mr. Maliki, who must run a government besieged by al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias?

This is an important point. Legislative impotence and political standoffs are common features of democracy - whether it's practiced in Washington D.C. or a former dictatorship.

And we - not to mention the Iraqi people - still in very big trouble if that country goes downhill. The lessons of precipitous withdrawal after war are scattered all over the 20th century, for anyone bothered to learn them.

And furthermore, by nearly unanimous agreement, the surge has shown success. It would have been much easier to simply pull out the troops before, when the violence level was much higher - since any resulting uptick in bloody chaos could have been written off as more of the same. Now whoever initiates a troop withdrawal will own the consequences, especially if the level of slaughter begins to rise.

The irony is that Hillary is alone among Democrats in making the grown-up argument, that you can't simply pack up and leave without regard to the consequences. And after George W. Bush leaves office Iraq will still be our problem, and it will be the responsibility of the next president to make sure things don't get worse - and if possible, continue to improve.

This is bizarre

“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” Mrs. Clinton said when asked about Mr. Obama’s rejoinder by Fox’s Major Garrett after her speech in Dover. “It took a president to get it done.”

George Will on Populism and Power

Quote of the day from George Will, emphasis mine:

The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the role of government in distributing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth. Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this iron law: Concentrate power in Washington and you increase the power of interests whose representatives are concentrated there.

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

Every would-be third party, progressive reformer tilting at the power of corporations and special interests needs to consider these words. If you think the answer is more government, or different government - and when you question them about the specifics, once they stop changing the subject more government is always where the solution ultimately resides - then you haven't provided anything else beyond the status quo, which leads you back into the same old situation.

You can't be a socialist and a quasi-libertarian at the same time. If you want to put power in the hands of the people, you have to actually trust them with liberty, and the economic consequences of that liberty, including the way prosperity is distributed and social decisions you cannot centrally control.

And, hmm. Did you read what Will said (and didn't say) about Barack Obama? Very interesting.

Republicans, Scattered and Struggling

The ascent of Mike Huckabee had exposed a deep fracture in the Republican Party even before the caucus results came back from Iowa. For many years now there has been an uneasy alliance between religious conservatives and their fiscal brethren. There's no clear, bright line between both camps, and there is common ground on defense and very general cultural issues - but in the wake of George W. Bush it seems like the wheels might be coming off the GOP bus.

It's everywhere: Name calling, confusion, defeatism, and relentless negativity.

It's too early to declare the kind of collapse that political parties seem fated to endure every few cycles - November is months away, and we're only one race into a 50-state nominating cycle. But everyone wants to argue about who passes the conservative "litmus test" - or indulge in uncompromising, schoolmarmish tirades about some Rightward policy point. I just listened to a few moments of Rush Limbaugh chiding his audience about how they need to be taken back to school on the basics of ideology. Like Rush or not, his analysis is usually valuable. But in this case it was too bitter to endure.

Huckabee and Obama have one thing in common - an uplifting populism with broad-based appeal. Their moment, however long it lasts, has not come because they embody their party's respective "core" ideology to the Nth degree. It has come, I think .... and here I'm abandoning the sardonic pragmatism that is usually my M.O. ... voters, in contrast to the political/chattering class, really crave a likable, trustworthy president that they can get behind and support, one with some overlay of classic American idealism.

And idealism, in contrast to ideology, is a much-needed balm.

And Incidentally, He's Black

During the Iowa post-game one of the pundits, Juan Williams, interrupted the round table chatter with the observation that this is a historic moment, an African-American candidate has become the front-runner for one of our major political parties, winning a mostly white state.

Oh ... yeah. That's a good point. That aspect of Obama's win is undeniably part of the story. But the biggest part of the story might be the fact that it's NOT the biggest part of the story. Obama won Iowa and became the front runner because he did a better job crafting a message that connected with the voters - who had a clear choice among other alternatives, some of whom represented the "old guard" of the Democrat Party.

And that's the real news. Gone for good, perhaps, are the days of African-Americans being yet another constituency that must be brokered. Gone are the days of Reverend Al or Jesse assembling a 7% coalition of ragged liberals (black and white), which they then take to the convention as collateral for some concessions in the party platform - using race as a foil in an act of cynical extortion.

The Old Media, the Boomer Media, doesn't fathom this. Watching Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell and Joe Biden the rest of them on TV last night it occurred to me that their template has been shattered, the same tedious perspective they've used on race and politics since the 60s. Race is a part of the story, but it's not the simplistic (and ultimately, insulting) formula they've always applied in the past.

At this moment Barack Obama, unmodified, is a strong and serious force in American politics, on his own terms, in the face of the old guard.

The Hawkeye Howdown

You can come up with any plausible scenario: Romney seems to be leading the pack on the Republican side, at least the last time I refreshed my web browser. But Huckabee went Hollywood last night with an appearance on Leno, and McCain has mustered a sudden burst of support - to the point where a 3rd-place showing in Iowa would be a victory. Any combination of Hillary, Obama and Edwards in the top three spots seem squarely within the realm of possibility for the Democrats, although with vastly different implications for each conceivable order.

Some observations:

• Romney might be emerging as split-the-baby consensus candidate. Mormonism is somewhat strange, but leave it to the Lefties to hammer away on that issue and thereby appear intolerant.
  
  
• Fred should hang it up. A likable old hound dog, but zero competitive chops.
  
  
• It's hard not to want Obama to trounce Hillary. She's ultimately a dreary candidate, and despite what legions of pure Democrats would like to believe, Bill won't be president again - and what does that say about women that people would think along such lines?
  
  
• The nightmare scenario: Hillary against Huckabee. The next ten months would become the most brutal chapter of the American culture war imaginable - a bone-shattering, blood and viscera duel between the Sean Hannity and Michael Moore wings of the electorate. And whatever the outcome, it would continue long after the inauguration.
  
  
• It's extremely unlikely Edwards will take first place, but he's the Republican dream candidate. His message would seem very sour in the general election.
  
  
• Guiliani is playing a very, very risky strategy by waiting out these early contests. He may be buried in the mind of the general voting population in the next two weeks, since all of the talk will be about Romney, Huck and (possibly) McCain.

Let's play ball. Also, don't miss Novak's column, titled (ahem) Hillary's Premature Triangulation. He may be a flinty old gorgon, but old man Bob has lost none of the gimlet-eyed political analysis that has made him notorious.

Saudi Bloggers and Media Symbiosis

In the New York Times, news of a Saudi blogger, Fouah al-Farhan, who has been detained for questioning for reasons the government won't divulge, except to say they "are specific violations of nonsecurity laws". From the article:

“An incident like this has its effect,” Mr. Omran said by telephone. “It’s intimidating to think you might be arrested for something on your blog. On the other hand, this means that these voices on the blogosphere are being heard. But it’s really sad that a blogger who is writing about important issues out in the open would get arrested, while there are extremists who call for violence and hate, and the government is not doing much.”

The story, and the meta-context of the story, gets at the wierd symbiosis of the old media and the new. No old media is capable of the threat to power posed by people like al-Farhan - getting out the truth, or at least a destabilizing response to government propaganda, in an society that is truly repressive and controlling. The mere willingness to post those messages is a heroic, dangerous act.

Then again, you can't discount old media's role in amplifying the story. By merely reporting this item the New York Times is contributing to a growing (well, one hopes it's growing) sense of shame that these dictatorships should feel among the community of nations for denying their citizens basic freedoms.