I have a friend who is a classic cynic when it comes to politics.  He says "one politician is as bad as another".  You know the drill: he thinks they are all corrupt, and just say anything to get elected and then enrich themselves and their friends once in office.  He is convinced that Democrats are just as guilty of this as Republicans.

So I countered by talking about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  But this guy doesn't benefit from any of these programs (he's uninsured--and telling him what Democrats are promising to do in the future vis-a-vis health care will not resonate as he'll just write that off as empty promises).  So what else can I throw out there in terms of tangible achievements to point to?  

This diary is based on the premise that Obama wins the election this November, and that Democrats will continue to control the House and Senate as well.  That's no gimme (particularly in Obama's case); but it's not a longshot either--and I don't think it's too early to think about protecting Democratic control over the levers of government, given the object lesson of the disastrous 1994 midterms that came after only two years of a similar situation under Bill Clinton.

There are recent projections that gasoline will be $7/gallon within two years--just in time for the 2010 midterms.  If you think people are freaking out now (and they are), wait until it costs $125 to fill up their Accord or Camry.  We will get wiped out in those midterms (and quite possibly in the '12 Obama reelection effort as well) if we let the GOP have this gift of an issue.

He should whip up media attention, as he did before the big speech on race, declaring that he plans to give a major speech devoted to Hillary Clinton and their battle for the nomination.  The speech should go something like this (tuned up by Obama and his great speechwriter Sorenson, of course):

"I believe I am best qualified to lead this great nation forward; if I did not, I wouldn't be running.  However, I also strongly believe that either Sen. Clinton or I would bring a needed change of direction to the Oval Office, while John McCain would bring us simply more of the same failed Bush policies.

"So I call on my supporters tonight to set aside the relatively small differences we have as Democrats and pledge to unite as a party to oppose John McCain's plans to continue those failed Bush policies.  If Sen. Clinton becomes the nominee, I pledge my wholehearted support: I will do everything I can to help her win the general election contest against John McCain.

::continued below the fold::

We all know what she said--I don't need to requote her (basically, for those just back from the moon: Obama's lucky to be a black man in American politics).  My aim with this diary is to make a brief (but, I believe, dispositive) refutation of this notion.  

My premise is that (a) only U.S. Senators and U.S. Governors have a realistic shot at the presidency; and (b) since the Electoral College makes the presidential election a series of winner-take-all state elections, the relative success of women and African Americans in gubernatorial and Senate elections should give us a good indication of "who has it easier".  By the numbers, as of today:

White Female Senators: 16
Black Male Senators: 1

White Female Governors: 8
Black Male Governors: 1

I was amused by the SNL thing, and there is certainly a vibe out there that (like many of the rest of us) reporters are not immune to Obama's charisma.  But this AP story struck me as being excessively generous toward Hillary:

After women turned away from her in Iowa, Clinton grew emotional days
before the New Hampshire primary.

"This is very personal for me," she said, adding, "Some of us are
right, and some of us are not. Some of us are ready, and some of us
are not."

That moment of humility has been credited with helping her win back
women who ultimately brought her victory in New Hampshire.

Let me point out that I was impressed by the "emotional" moment, just as I had been earlier that weekend when she said tongue in cheek at the debate that it "hurt [her] feelings" to hear that people liked Obama better.  But whatever else the quoted passage above may have been, it was hardly a moment of "humility"!  

I've been increasingly alarmed to see Hillary Clinton solidify and extend her lead in intraparty polls.  This is not an uncommon feeling around the left-blogosphere, of course.  Many of you are anti-Hillary because of her many positions on Iraq, her refusal to eschew lobbyist money, her assault on violent video games, and her general cautious, poll-tested centrist triangulation.  

But I frankly don't give a rat's ass about any of that.  If all her strategic moves enabled her to be a strong, electable general election candidate, I'd be sanguine.  But I have long suspected that she is in fact a very risky horse to back in '08 when it is so crucial that we get back the White House (and along with it, the federal judiciary including the SCOTUS).  Below the fold, I'll describe the Hillary/Rove/Obama dustup, and show why Obama and Rove win this argument.  

[If this looks familiar, see below the fold for the explanation.]

For those who didn't catch it, the NASA administrator told NPR he was convinced that humans were causing climate change, but he was not convinced that it was actually a great calamity we must try to stop in its tracks.  These statements more or less echo what I've been saying for a long time.  

But please hear me out before you judge me an enemy of the environment.    I do not own a car, and ride a bicycle everywhere I go.  I cut my lawn with a hand tool called a "grass whip" and in fact do not use gasoline or other fossil fuels at all.  I use a pretty small amount of electricity (right now just the computer, plus the fridge if you count that--it's not running at the moment).  All my lights are CFCs, and even those I use minimally at night.  And I think it is incumbent upon us for many non-environmental reasons as well to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I have many very strong environmental concerns (see below fold):

As an Edwards supporter, this makes me both exhilarated and nervous:

Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror"[...]

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st-century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set — that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

In the first presidential debate last month in South Carolina, Edwards was one of four Democrats — including Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel — who said they did not believe there was a global war on terror. Front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) indicated that they did.

As JMS pointed out earlier, Rudy Giuliani has decided the equivocation wasn't working well for him, and is now going to be an unapologetic pro-choice candidate.  Given that many GOP primary voters are in a pragmatic mood (they see 2008 as a very tough year), plus the fact that states like NY and CA are voting early this year, I think he may still win the nomination--particularly if the field stays crowded and the social conservative vote is not focused on any single rival.

If Giuliani does become the nominee, could hardcore social conservatives actually bring themselves to vote for a fast-talking, cross-dressing, "babykilling" Yankee with a funny name in the general?  Sure strikes me that an election like this would provide a huge opportunity for an independent run from the right--for an "anti-Nader".  And that, of course, would be a dream come true for us.  I think Edwards in particular, and perhaps Obama as well, would be well positioned to take advantage and potentially poach some normally deep red Southern states, if a Southern "anti-Nader" were in the race.

A friend of mine offered an NRO "endorsement" of Sen. Clinton as evidence that she might be well positioned for the general election:

At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton.

But my gut has been telling me all along that if any of the top candidates can manage to lose in Nov. '08, it is Sen. Clinton.  Now, in the process of responding to my friend's email, I have found polling data to back me up--and I'll share it, below the fold...

On NPR today, Melinda Gates stated that her goal was for 100% of Americans to go to college.

Robert Siegel was perhaps almost as taken aback by this audacious idea as I was:

That would be a dramatic increase of the share of high school students, if 100 percent went on to college. I mean, you would be effecting an enormous social change if you could reach –

Melinda Gates responded:

Correct, and that is the idea.

This is just nuts, and below the fold I'll explain why I feel that way.

I thought he made a fantastic point in his front page post.  Most people teed off on the suggestion that candidates give to charity, but there was very little discussion of this part:

The fourth visit from volunteers is more irritation than enticement.  The fifth phone call is more likely to generate rage than a positive response.

I'm really glad to hear this, because I was somewhat disillusioned with the experience I had volunteering last election cycle, and I've felt ambivalent about it ever since.  Join me below the fold for the details of my experience:

I've heard a lot of stupid pundit commentary (and I'm usually kinder to the MSM pundits than most blog commenters) about how this bill is meaningless because Senate Republicans will filibuster it, and/or the president will veto it.  Well, uh, excuse me, but...that would mean the war funding would be completely cut off (which is why those hardcore antiwar Dems who voted against this were being shortsighted).  So unlike many other kinds of Democratic legislation Republicans might oppose, filibusters and vetoes cannot accomplish here what they want to accomplish (funding the war with no strings attached).  

So to me it's fascinating to ponder the future of this chess match (and it's a very near future, as apparently the Pentagon will face crunch time funding-wise within the next six weeks).  Join me below the fold for some semi-informed speculation...

I'd like to think that Democrats are about pushing back against reflexive "law and order" authoritarians, insisting that people be actual criminals--not just apparently shady characters--if they are to be locked up in prison.  A perusal of the feminist blogosphere as regards a bogus rape conviction in Maryland causes me to question this supposition.  So I'd like to hear what Kossacks have to say.

I discovered this case from a report in the media (TIME magazine, I think it was).  But to get a real sense of what happened, I think one needs to read the appellate court transcript, linked here.  To get the context, I urge you to read pages 1-9 or at least 3-5, before taking the poll or adding a comment.

The U.S. has lagged behind other advanced countries for decades in terms of its public policy support (or lack thereof) for parents (esp. mothers) and children.  I have long seen paid maternity leave as crucial to improving Americans' standard of living in many other areas--from health and wellness, to workplace fairness, to family bonding, to the balance of women's rights and the special needs of infants (especially breastfeeding).

But a statistic I just saw showed that we've fallen even further behind than I thought.  According to the McGill University Institute for Health and Social Policy, among 173 nations studied, the U.S. is one of only five that lacks paid maternity leave.  (The others: Lesotho, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, and Swaziland.)

I'm shocked and disgusted by what I just saw, flipping through broadcast channels here in St. Paul, Minnesota.  

A man in a black suit and red tie stands in front of an ersatz star field, accompanied by a maybe eight year old boy in the same outfit.  At first I thought it was one of those "Star Hustler" deals about astronomy.  But then they kept talking about "pro-choice" and how great it is.  How "fortunately, people don't get to vote on it: it's all protected by unelected judges", etc.

Of course, by this point I had gotten the picture, even before words appeared on the screen identifying this duo as "Devil" and "Devil Jr."  And as far as I'm concerned, broadcasters have the right to spread their propaganda, though it would be nice to have some balance.  But what really bothered me was using a young child this way.  Abortion is a difficult issue, but it is an adult issue and the wingnuts should be ashamed, dragging children into it.

Let me apologise for the short diary; but here's my plea.

I was a TU before I got all those donuts from the "Adam the Soldier" fracas.  But seeing as how I was right (as were those from whom I drew inspiration), is it too much to ask to get some mojo to try to get it back?

A few "sorry--you were right" comments would be cool too.  ;-)

UPDATE: When I posted the diary, I had just read Hunter's post stating definitively that Adam was "a fraud.  Sigh" (his words)  Since then, he has posted

But I'm no longer going to state that it's 'confirmed' that it was so-and-so because it ain't. I apologize for my error.

I remain very sceptical of "Adam's" story; however, I would not have posted this diary, at least not in this form, had Hunter expressed his newfound uncertainty before I posted.

I was reading a discussion of this on a diary which shall go nameless, and those arguing "fraud!" were pressed to explain why the poster in question would engage in such fraud ("trolling"), when it was hard to see how Republicans could gain.  Those making the accusation of fraud were hard pressed to answer, mumbling about "well, it discredits Democrats somehow...uh..." etc.  But I think while their sniffers may have properly registered alarm, they are overlooking a much more likely scenario (and my apologies if someone already covered this; I haven't read it all).

What if someone were not a GOP troll, but in fact a true blue progressive?  What if said someone wished they could put their rants in the mouth of someone who would not normally be expected to say such things, and would thereby have more credibility, more "authenticity" if you will?

Just a thought.  Comments welcome...