Surreal Gaza

From VDH:

Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On December 31, 2008 @ 11:07 pm| 52 Comments

The World Reacts

I spent today reading accounts of Gaza—NY Times, AP, Reuters, etc. There are no terrorists, just militants. Not much about past rocket attacks on Israel–most everything on the crowded conditions of Gaza. Iranian aid is rarely elaborated on; stories about quiet Arab support for defanging Hamas are likewise rare; common is the buzz about protests in Europe. In reaction, I jotted down the following random thoughts.

Gaza as Monte Carlo, perhaps Hong Kong, or is it to be Switzerland of the Mediterranean?

Gaza is a sort of lab experiment in the Middle East. Recall for a minute: the Israelis withdrew en masse, a so-called “retreat” that reverberated all over the Middle East. The West supported free and open elections that gave Hamas their legitimacy, such as it was. Gaza is strategically placed on the Mediterranean with a prime shoreline. It borders Egypt the traditional center of the Arab world. Hundreds of millions of dollars of Middle-East oil money, and Western relief donations have poured into the tiny state. Israeli clearly wants no more of it, and would love to let Gaza alone to be Dubai.

The result?

Hamas with its serial rocket attacks on Israel interprets all of the above not as an opportunity for prosperity, but as a stage one for the great accomplishment of its generation—the absolute destruction of the Jewish state. Its agenda is clear and unambiguous, and apparently shared by millions of elites in the West itself, without whose support Hamas could not exist. The common theme of Western press coverage is the misery of Gaza, never the misery of Gaza as a product of the garrison-state mentality of Hamas’s radical Islamic vows to wage perennial war against Israel.

The Enablers

Hamas counts on the fact that its own losses will be characterized as a “holocaust” and appear comparable in the Western media to something like Darfur or the slaughtering in Zimbabwe, or the usual carnage that we wake up to on the news. Take away Western press attention from Gaza, and Hamas is just another violent, illiberal regime that impoverishes its own people while seeking victim status in the West.

Is that too harsh? I don’t think so. Again, if it were to call a one-year truce with Israel, seek normal relations with Egypt, and swear off Iranian-Hezbollah terrorist aid while it sought to rebuild infrastructure, ensure security, and recruit foreign capital, then there would be no more world attention, and its cadres of hooded youth would lack the pizzazz of “militants.”

Jenin Redux

Meanwhile, we suffer through the Jenin reinvention of the rules of war: (1) proportionality: Hamas is allowed to keep trying to kill as many Jews as it can to “balance” those lost to far more lethal Israeli countermeasures. Rule I. War is a tit-for-tat game, where fairness is defined as killing no more than you lose.

(2) Civilians and warriors: there is no such difference. Hamas’s terrorists who shoot rockets against Israeli families burrow into their own civilian infrastructure. They are tragic innocents to the world when they are killed and heroes to their own if can they kill innocents Jews through their barrages. Rule II. The age of uniforms and battle lines is over, replaced by the civilian shield as the best mechanism of defense against Western mastery of traditional arms.

(3) War that is lost on the battlefield can be won through the international media. The Palestinians have counted on six truths in the international arena (a. the world remains largely anti-Semitic; b. the world appreciates the strategic calculus that Arabs are numerous with oil; and Israel is tiny without it; c. Westerners fear Islamic terrorists, not the IDF; d. The West is prone to self-loathing, and romanticizes any who best capture the mantel of victimhood; the Palestinians have brilliantly reinvented themselves by claiming a status akin to women, gays, Hispanics, and blacks—fellow victims of rich while male Westerners; e. Any culture abroad whose hospitals Westerners would not like to be operated in are idealized; any who emulate Western technological supremacy are shunned. Rule III: Just copy any group that sets up shop on an American campus free speech area, and the resulting sympathy is worth a division.

Incremental Victory

The Hamas way of thinking is that it has constantly redefined losses to such an extent that 300+ killed are now dubbed a “Holocaust.” Meanwhile the frequency and range of its rocketry are expanded and embedded into the “normalcy” of the Middle East. Hamas seeks to establish the principle that it can daily wear away the psyche of Israelis while carefully constraining Israeli responses. What a Westerner would call an Israeli “victory” (e.g., terrible destruction of Hamas infrastructure with far greater casualties inflicted than suffered), Hamas and others would call “progress” in a century-long war (e.g., the world now accepts that showering Israeli with rockets is not an act of war, and not deserving of serious retaliation).

A final note: some of the most vicious anti-Israeli sentiment comes from Europe, especially countries like Spain and Greece. Yet I remember Morocco and Spain nearly shooting at each other in 2002 in a dispute over an uninhabited rock in the Mediterranean, and Greece goes ballistic every time Turkey customarily overflies Aegean airspace. Israel alone is not supposed to respond to rocket barrages; our conclusions can only be that the world deems it an illegitimate state worthy of destruction, and will allow its enemies to keep trying until they succeed (Why else would a British television station invite Ahmadinejad to answer the Queen’s Christmas address—a thug who promised the destruction of Israel, is seeking the means to do it, and whose terrorists recently kidnapped British sailors?)

Meanwhile we await “Gaza, Gaza”—the anguished documentary movie as hundreds of filmakers have no doubt already descended to offer us by spring a must see movie on every American university campus.

Post-mortem...

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

-- Abraham Lincoln, Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.





Conservatives will be studying this election for years and maybe decades, and there will be opinions anew each day. But my coming from the Heartland of America, my experience working in the American Jewish community, and with Israelis, and with some of the most patriotic Americans anywhere, has taught me some great ideals and some great vocabulary.

The Jews have a great word. "Tachles" pronounced "TACH-less."It even sounds like something a Moultrie County farmer would say, and it's meaning is even more so. It means "root" or "meat" and in common parlance today it means "the bottom line." And the tachles about the Republican defeat in 2008 is that in 12 years of Republican rule, the Party managed to jettison virtually every conservative principle that brought them to power in the first place, and deeply offend the core values of the American voters - both R and D - that believed in what Reagan had established.

The groupthink of the Republican leadership, the refusal to address corruption in the ranks, the abandonment of small government, and the complete refusal to reign in government spending, dovetailed into the ideological meltdown we see today.

To a majority of Americans, the Republican brand is now defined by grumpy old white men, protecting elected pedophiles, attacking gays for wanting certified monogamy, launching wars of dubious credibility and mission, and spending money literally faster than it can be printed. Note this fact alone: the national debt will grow by $1.4 trillion in 2008. That's 1400 billion dollars of new debt in one year. There were a lot a reasons for this, and many we can lay at the feet of Dems in Congress, but understand, President Obama would have to be quite socialist indeed to ever surpass such a figure.


So? "This town needs an enema!" as the Joker famously declared. Well, so did the Republican Party, and it got one. I will long remain an ardent admirer of John McCain, and while I became less and less enthusiastic for a President Palin (at this time), her treatment by the media was little short of fevered malicious hate. In truth, she was not ready for that job and would not have been prepared on day one to accept the Presidency if the 72-year-old McCain had passed away. Bu nothing excuses the media for their unhinged bile.

The lesson is first - quality does matter. We need prepared, vetted candidates that are not thrown on to the national stage 70 days out. We had quality Republicans, even female Republicans like Kay Bailey Hutchison that simply would have been better picks for VP. But this first learned lesson is because of the second important lesson:

Republicans, and conservatives of all creeds, need to know, now and forever, we will never, ever get a fair hearing by the press. Just forget it ever happening. Conservative ideas and principles are going to be caricatured and belittled and treated like quaint relics of a by-gone primitive America 95% of the time. You will be attacked. Your opponent will get editorial love letters. This is not because the entire media machine is anti-Republican, (though some of it certainly is) - it is because 95 reporters out of 100 BELIEVE that liberalism is right and good, and good for the country. When a reporter reacts with disbelief that someone could actually believe that small government is good, or base their life decisions on a relationship with Christ, or live according to a three-thousand year old tradition, or honestly believe that abortion is murder, well that is because they literally can't believe it. Religion and conservative traditional thought is on par with worshiping Zeus or Apollo to most graduates of journalism school these days. Conservatives need to remember that every time they step up to give an interview or give a quote - you are talking to someone who doesn't understand you, thinks you are delusional, and likely wants make you look bad, because probably because that is what their editor has asked them to do - "for the good of the country."

Now, why are journalists tilted so hard to the left? Do you ever wonder why someone becomes a journalist? Why they want to be a reporter? Going out and covering the actions of, well, other people?


As a recovering journalist, I will tell you that people who become journalists are almost without exception lazy, pretentious, self-impressed, busy-bodies who have never held real jobs. They are the tattletales of Jr. High and the schemers of High School, and excelled at digging up dirt and and exposing the embarrassments of others, usually to make themselves feel better or look better. The grow-up and want to continue being scheming tattletales and suddenly discover that they can actually get paid to do it. The roughly 5% of journalists who do not fall into this category and are actually out doing to protect the people, etc.? Well, they are exactly that: 5% of all journalists.

Journalist are professional social observers. They observe and write about it. To be paid to do this someone has to want to read what you write or want to promote what you write. Reporters are most often sent to cover stories of calamity and death and destruction. They immediately identify with the victims and write that story with little thought to cause and effect. Why? Because they have a four inch column to fill in a paper and that is what can be crammed in. Reporters do this for years before they get a break and can really go out and do their own investigations. Years of covering victims. Writing the victim's account is all they know and soon all they identify with, and the liberal movement and its philosophy serves this narrative quite well.

Terrorists? Victims of US imperialism. Iraqi insurgents? Victims of US invasion. New Orleans' stubborn citizens? Victims of Bush incompetence. Patriotic soldiers? Victims of Bush's war. Palestinian terrorists? Victims of Israeli aggression. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Journalists are today elitist, scheming, know-it-all, attention-craving tattletales because that is what they have been their entire lives. They do not have the courage or the conviction to do what actual courageous people do. They don't have the humility and decency to do what humble and decent Americans do everyday. They are, quite simply, failed human beings. Persons incapable of doing the things other people do and must therefore write about it instead, to get attention, to make themselves feel more important than those they interview, and to hide their overall inability to contribute to society in any meaningful way. They deserve no respect whatsoever.

Now, the problem. All presidents get a press honeymoon of some indefinite length. If you are Republican, it’s about a week. If you are a Democrat it’s about a month. If you are Barak Obama, The One, the New Abraham Lincoln Despite Having No Achievements? Well, folks, we are about to see the most obscene and obsequious pandering worshipful press honeymoon in American history and it could last four years. Every normal thing done by President Obama will be again touted as the First Whatever Ever by a black President and everything he says and does will be hung on with baited breath by a sycophantic press the likes of which has not been seen since Louis XIV.

Any invitation to the White House or the President’s schedule will be so highly sought and treasured that reporters will do and say anything to stay on that list. Obama’s approval ratings will be viewed and reported through the racist lens. If they are high? - he’s The One and transcending race, if they are low? - he’s The One and heartland hicks hate black people.


It's all well and good for conservatives and all Republicans to feel good about America on Inauguration Day, 2009. The GOP can’t get sucked into the old GOP minority model of opposition for the sake of opposition. It is historic and important and says a great deal of good things about America. But make no mistake, if you have paid any attention to the actual policies that a President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, Chairmen Rangel and Schumer and the rest of the liberal phalanx have been advocating over the past two years, we should all realize that on many major issues our country faces this liberal government is preparing to lead our nation in a hard left turn that will in the words of President-elect Obama, “fundamentally transform” America. The Obama State Media will be right there to help.

For conservatives, we can expect to have a barrage of really bad ideas coming down the pike in 2009. We will see the Employee Free Choice Act, that denies employees free choice. We will see the Fairness Doctrine, designed to eliminate and censor dissenting voices in public life. We will see a Freedom of Choice Act legislatively enshrining the right of a mother to murder her child. We will see a massive permanent and unchecked nationalization of health care that will need intense scrutiny. We will see strong efforts on estate tax increases and sales tax increases across the boards. We will see radical and extreme amnesty proposals put forth under the rubric of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" that will include driver's licenses for illegals and an increasing disregard of border control. We will see capital gains increases, stifling growth on Wall Street. We will see cuts in Defense spending and massive reprogramming of funds for liberal pet projects and pork. We will see a new influx of liberal activist judicial appointments across the federal bench, and we will see their activism rewarded. We will see racial and ethnic preferences forwarded in hiring laws and college campuses. We will see income tax increases to close the massive gap in spending. We will again see bans on oil drilling. We will see international law begin to trump US law, in issues like the global poverty tax and Kyoto treaty.

This is all important, but without question the most dangerous issue confronting American today is that the new Administration will attempt reason and discourse with an irrational and committed enemy. A nuclear Iran, creating a terrified Israel, will lead us to the brink like few things in history, and allow new an imperial Russia, and ferment an imploding Pakistan.

For much of the 111th Congress, the breakdown may allow little more than principled opposition. But this vital. We are now the most important minority in the history of the Republic. Dissent is imperative. Republicans have been colossally incompetent in communicating our ideas, our principles and our well-reasoned positions. We have silent when we should have been outraged; we have been petulant and whiny when we needed to be thoughtful and explain. This election was well-deserved.

We will watch the Obama Presidency with interest, and perhaps even borrow some of his hope. It is not in our interests for him to fail in all his efforts. We will watch and welcome opportunities for genuine betterment of the country. But neither is it in our interests for President Obama to succeed in all of his efforts. We will fight every attempt to encumber our children with more entitlements. We will resist the effort to codify the redistribution of wealth. We will fight every attempt to radicalize the courts. We will stand against every attempt to weaken our military, or compromise with our enemies. We will call censorship by it's name and demand the facts of history stand for themselves. We will fight for all that is right and good in American life, and we will not apologize for thinking it so.

The Palin Paradox

Obama gets it. Do his supporters?

There are two very strong philosophies competing in the pro-Obama movement. The best is the philosophy that retains hope and love of country and has come to the very valid viewpoint that Bush has squandered so much of what made American a light and an inspiration. This philosophy attacks the policies of Bush and the Republican Congress, and is what makes Obama appeal to average Americans, and many heartland conservatives. These are true FDR Dems. They are not afraid of government or even big government, but they are extremely tired of ineffective government and deeply offended by corruption. These last two points are why they went to the Dems in ‘06. Not because Dems were proven better, but because Republicans had betrayed their trust eight different ways. Senator Obama has convincingly and effectively addressed many of their concerns and articulated their complaint. He validates their narrative. One may act as if this validation is superficial until we note that Americans responded by looking past a short career to nominate him for President of the United States, and did so over a strong woman candidate from a powerful state.

The second philosophy present in the pro-Obama camp is the liberalist ideologues, a dominant orthodoxy among the American media and the intellectual elite. Viewed as fairly as possible, this group includes all those who honestly believe that liberalism properly understood is coherent political plan for American growth and greater equality for all its citizens, and it also includes to those who are dumbfounded and insulted that conservatives have any role in politics at all. For much of this camp conservatives are dangerous extremists lost in the 1950’s. The truly dark heart of the liberalist camp is, in actual fact, not very fond of America or the American system. Where conservatives see something flawed but worth preserving, liberalists see something broken and worth tearing down to begin anew.

Sarah Palin is, nationally, an unknown quantity. She will pass or fail the test she has chosen to take. McCain staked his political future and his one shot at the Presidency on her ability to win over his party and a plurality of Americans in sixty days. Complaints or critiques about vetting are foremost breathtakingly arrogant. The Pundit Principle is in full bloom these days, somewhat the reverse of the observer effect of Heidelberg's uncertainty principle “that which you observe you also change” the Pundit Principle is “that which we didn’t know about must not have occurred” and often takes self-righteousness to new levels. The bottom line is simply this: McCain and his campaign decided to stake their continued existence on this choice. We all get to watch and see if this faith was misplaced.

But the Palin paradox remains: She is a woman. She is a very accomplished, attractive mother of five. She is courageous and stridently feminine. She is in truth exactly what feminists have long been saying they wanted their daughters to be. The only thing she’s not is pro-choice, and so the liberalist recent knee-jerk move is: she must be destroyed. And boy o’ boy have they read this wrong.

The philosophy of camp two still doesn’t understand how fragile the support of camp one is. Senator Obama clearly does understand the vulnerability, and his campaign has been pitch perfect on this from word one. But from the rage and invective from liberalist bloggers to the piling on by the NYTimes to the latest in-kind contribution from MSNBC, all of these desperate efforts to paint Palin out of the gate as “something-other-than-inspiring and accomplished” (and certainly NOT a real feminist) is far from helping Obama, likely to utterly undo all the hard work of the Obama camp to actually articulate a message of post-partisan politics. Put bluntly: Every single story attacking Palin or her daughter helps McCain. Every. Single. One.

What NOW and other feminist organizations all know but do not admit is that there are a great many strong, independent women out there who are actually quite conflicted about abortion rights and don’t see it as a clear-cut issue for feminism. There are a lot of feminists who made the choice of life and are quite overjoyed by it, and there are many women who chose to have an abortion and were shocked by the trauma. Sarah Palin’s mere presence on the ticket will not pull these women to vote for her. But seeing her attacked every day for supporting her daughter’s choice to have a kid at 17 and get married, seeing her attacked for being a working mother with her kids at the office, seeing her attacked as inexperienced when she is the elected leader of a state and managing a $11.5 billion economy at the age of 44 – these are the things that will drive women to pull that lever for Palin.

Senator Obama has built an impressive campaign of hope and what I am willing to concede is rooted in a sincere desire to restore a lot of disenchanted Americans’ faith in their country. I am also willing to place Senator Obama in the first camp – those liberals who do retain a love of country and want to believe in it. The second camp of his supporters is simply not that interested in simple validation, they want vindication, and are perfectly willing to destroy anyone who might stand in the way of their triumph. We will now watch and see if this fevered irrationality will be allowed to torpedo the most inspiring Democratic campaign in decades, and propel John McCain and Sarah Palin to the White House.

The Republican Candidates

Super Tuesday approaches. And both nominees will likely be decided that day by a large margin. On the Republican side the race has narrowed quickly over the past few weeks and it seems highly likely that Senator John McCain will emerge as the Republican candidate in the general.

Senator McCain has benefitted tremendously from Mitt Romney's inability to win primaries. McCain won the waiting game, and the Republican base, given enough time to consider their options came back to an appreciation of what McCain really is, a decorated wa hero and an able, courageous statesman of real worth. Too old, perhaps. But Americans are living longer than ever, and having his spry mother of 95 around has been a tremendous foil to show his potential longevity.


McCain has real ideas, and real convictions. He's often arrogant, often seemingly bothered that he can't give orders to the American public, but also often very good at cutting to the heart of a problem and convincingly describing how he would approach it. He has come off as crafty, without seeming shifty. Savvy, without being a wonk. And his ease and poise with all things military is, for this writer, a true breath of very important fresh air.

We are at war. We like to forget it. The NYTimes would wish we would, especially now that we are winning it. McCain has exactly the same level of contempt for the leftist press that average patriotic Americans have, and the same level of admiration for the military that they have. He is very, very proud of his country and wants to preserve, protect and defend it, and he is able to make us think he is fully capable of doing just that.


Governor Mitt Romney is a brilliant man, and a objectively effective administrator. He would make a very effective President. He would also nearly guarantee a Democratic administration if he ended up as the Republican nominee. Romney has not inspired the party. He has not told his story in an inspiring way. He's an able technocrat and a dispassionate professional. But he hasn't impressed people. And he has not been able to surmount his Mormonism.


The Church of the Latter Day Saints, (LDS) for all its good works and obviously very good-hearted members remains the Scientology of the Christian world. The puff pieces that news agencies do on a candidate, to show their lifestyle and home life actually work against Romney. Mormonism is very much like Scientology in that the more you know about it, the less rational -- and less Christian -- it appears. If the genre had existed at the time, we might even argue that Mormonism and Scientology also share an origin in science fiction. If Joseph Smith was around today, he might have just forgone the create-a-religion route and just concentrated on getting a screenplay to Spielberg or Lucas. He and L. Ron would have certainly had a lot to talk about.


Romney's problem is not that there is anything wrong with Mormons - they are without a doubt the nicest people you are likely to meet. The problem is that Mormons convert the dead ancestors of a convert, that their theological narrative involves stories of Jesus coming to America, and perhaps most electorally relevant: the Mormon church didn't allow black clergy until 1978.


Yes. That is right. 1978. Fourteen years after the Civil Rights act of 1964. Black skin was traditionally held by LDS to be the Mark of Cain and an indication of spiritual impurity. And lest we think this eventual change was the result of some grand apotheosis of conscience, the change was made because Brigham Young University was losing too many sports competitions and decided they would have to admit black players to compete. If they had black players, they were going to have to admit black ministers. The whole sordid tale is the story of a racism so entrenched as to boggle the mind. A Romney v. Obama 08 election is a death-knell for the Republican campaign. Romney v. Clinton is not an automatic loss, because the R base would turn out to beat Hillary. But it's a long shot at best. Such a race would put a spotlight on Mormonism in all its ludicrosity for six months, and LDS is most certainly NOT ready for its close-up.

However, a President John McCain would be wise indeed to make one of his first cabinet appointments that of Mitt Romney to Secretary of Treasury. He is a brilliant organizational and financial mind and knows the business community. He could probably rewrite the tax code into a single sheet of paper, and become so beloved for this no one would give a quart of milk if he had strange underwear.


Governor Mike Huckabee is still hanging on, at this stage effectively running for Vice-President. He's near broke, but everyone is, and he's running 2nd and 3rd most places. But he's still very popular across the Republican base, and is very likeable. Even more likeable than McCain, to be honest.

He remains a potential liability, however on a national ticket and in a national election with a press predisposed to see believing Christians as nutcases, and Huckabee occasionally giving them exactly the quote they need to paint him as an unreasonable, irrational, demogogue.

With Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter now out of the race, and Ron Paul outed as a racist, it's really down to a three man race. New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani so astonishingly misread the primary campaign we might find a few of his close campaign strategists floating in the East River come April. He's still a possible Veep, but I imagine McCain going to his right to get Brownback (who endorsed him) before taking a chance on Rudy. Brownback is a youngish, solid Midwest conservative who will step not one toe out of McCain's agenda and upstage him, like a Huckabee might.

One thing though, if you wanted a full-throated attack dog as a VP, someone who would puree the Dem VP candiate in a debate and give you a boost in a large swing state, Rudy would be tough to beat. He'd also be a very good get for Homeland Security, and now he might take it.

The thing that McCain's 95 year old mother doesn't fix: McCain VP choice is very very important. With his age he is effectively asking R's and independents to vote for two presidents: McCain and the person who takes over when he dies in office. That is always what is at stake, of course. But it's a lot more readily accessed reality to McCain's potential voters.

Barring unforseen shake-ups. It's looking like a McCain/Brownback ticket. Or something very similar.

Oscars Out

I'm somewhat amazed to say that I haven't seen any of the nominated films for Best Picture. And a little more amazed to say that none of them really interest me at all. I don't like dark brooding things. It always is just a dark depressing tale with death and gore and no good guys. This is all Hollywood for 'important' and 'artistically brave' etc etc ad nauseum.





Full list.



I'm easy. I want adventure, mystery, some clever humor, a cool guy I can root for, and a smart, smokin,' honey-of-a-babe that I can imagine actually talking to me in a coffee shop or something. It's all quiet simple really. I like National Treasure movies. Cool, fun, slick adventure films that take us on a ride, and Diane Kruger in something perilously v-necked. This is as brave as art need be for me.

Heath Ledger

Sad story. I wasn't a big fan but he really seemed to just drive off a cliff. With the Amy Winehouse stuff, and of course the everyday trainwreck of Spears/Lohan et al., I do wonder if the rewards of celebrity are worth the costs.

The Duke still holds up.....pilgrim

Denzel Washington has topped the list of America's favorite movie stars for the second consecutive year. The American Gangster star beat Tom Hanks to the No. 1 spot on the annual Harris Poll, and Johnny Depp jumped up four positions from last year's survey to steal the No. 3 position. Julia Roberts was the highest ranking female at four, while late film legend John Wayne--the only actor to rank in the poll's top 10 every year since its inception in 1994--was placed at No. 6. The top 10 are as follows: 1. Denzel Washington2. Tom Hanks3. Johnny Depp4. Julia Roberts5. Will Smith 6. John Wayne7.(tie) Matt Damon & Sean Connery 9. Sandra Bullock 10. Bruce Willis

Obama and Hillary

"There-on-TV
D-i-s-s-i-n-g"


Yeah. I think we can effectively rule out that Hillary/Obama ticket. One, he didn't get the memo. The one about inevitabilty and woman-before-black and all that. And now there is this 'authenticity' issue? What's the world coming to!?

It's of course way too early. Lots of time left for gaffes of all sorts and meltdowns of any frontrunner. But with the rising bitterness between the Dems and how ugly it could get, we might just be chosing who gets to lose to McCain/Brownback.

"Entering the Lists"

I will be re-igniting this blog over the next few weeks. I have put it off and put if off, namely because this sort of thing can become self-indulgent obsession rather quickly. And did, in previous incarnations. It becomes about web counts and page rates and all sorts of nonsense. Instead of what it ought to be, which is simply a entering of the lists of another voice, another claim, or another viewpoint. And because I miss it.

If it is a waste of time - and it may very well be - it is at least a more constructive one than playing a video game or watching old West Wing episodes, which is what I often find myself turning to when I can't sleep. Why not turn to this instead? It's also good practice for me to keep writing and using words and doing so in a public way that I can be held accountable for, etc. and not let it degenerate into just carping.

"Entering the lists" is a late 18th century colloquial, a reference to entering a tournament or some such. During the post-Revolutionary battles over Washington's neutrality proclamation, and Alexander Hamilton had been savaging the anti-Federalists in broadsheets week after week, Jefferson pleaded with Madison to wade into the verbal melee to defend the floundering Republicans.

"For God's sake my dear Sir, take up your pen. There is none else who will enter the lists with him."

It was true. Hamilton was as his most brilliant, passionate best when it came to defending his General Washington, and even more so on a score - American neutrality regarding France and England - that he saw as vital to the fledgling republic's survival past national infancy.

Today 'Entering the lists' has never been easier, and that of course means that it has never been easier for it to be a self-indulgent, ego-based, self-absorbed, self congratulatory mental elucution safari. But it needn't be so debased. It can also be 21st century Thomas Paine or, that is to say, a regular citizen entering the lists. It can be one more tournament entry into today's close-quarters intellectual melee. It can be a product. It can be a good.

And it's got to be a step up from Seasons 5-6.

Pretty Amazing -- Great Story

90% of Journalist who give money to politicians - give to Dems. But bias? Nah.