It will be important for Democrats to not get over-confident in the next two years. Although the electoral college numbers show a wide margin, the popular vote is within a few percent. This was not a landslide. More to the point, although Obama was a very strong candidate, other factors basically handed this victory to the Democrats.

First, the meltdown of the financial system made people much more receptive to the message of 'change.' Back on Labor Day, electoral projections had McCain ahead, and Palin was looking like a brilliant strategic choice. If things had been just a little different, this election would have been as close or closer than 2004 or 2000.

Secondly, as they fell behind, the Republican party became a 'circular firing squad' and a campaign that was unwilling or unable to provide a clear, consistent, positive message. It should go down in history as one of the most inept campaigns. The irony is that McCain's strategy of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"--hiring the same people and using the same negative tactics that took him out of the 2000 race--backfired so completely. Even members of the media--even people from FOX News!--were speaking out against the lies and smears.

Finally, the GOP shot itself in the feet so many times over the past few years that they were hobbled from the outset. The litany of scandals is long. Senators Stevens, Craig, Delay embarrassed, convicted, or driven out. The House page scandal. The many missteps and oversteps of the Bush administration just in the final term that resulting in the lowest approval rating in modern history.

So this was not a mandate for progressive policies, though it is a clear opportunity to enact them. However, in 2009 we can't afford to make the same mistake as in 1993, when Democrats took control of both branches and tried to ram down a huge health care initiative. We'll have to start small and go slowly. It's worth remembering that in 1992 as well, it was an external factor (Ross Perot's splitting of the conservative vote) that allowed for Democratic gains. Basically, what it comes down to is that the Democratic party still has a long way to go before they are consistently as strong as the GOP over a few decades.

Here's what the Democrat's did right and different this time around.

• Had a charismatic and articulate candidate
• Responded quickly and vigorously to lies and smears
• Advocated centrist policies that were good for the middle class and small business
• Effectively used the Net to organize and raise funds
• Had a "50 state" strategy to build a larger base
• Picked an exceptional VP candidate

The 'blue wave' was not a tsunami, but it is refreshing after so many years of American ideals being tarnished, and let's hope that it can be sustained.

Well, I just can't help myself... I'm sitting here watching CNN and checking the live #election2008 live twitstream, hoping that projections hold and the red tide is flushed out of the system. The free 'I voted' Starbucks coffee will come in handy if it is a long night. Why don't we simplify and turn Starbucks into polling places?

Across from the University of Arizona, a group of students rallied on a busy street corner, holding up hand-made signs for Obama. At another corner, a giant billboard-sized McCain/Palin sign had a giant red circle-slash painted over it. Nearby, a Prop 102 (Arizona's equivalent of California's Prop 8--another attempt to insert bigotry into the state constitution) sign had a swastika drawn over it. The polling places looked busy this evening.

Locally, I am hoping to see that Gabrielle Giffords defeats Tim B(igot) and retains her House seat in congressional district 8, that Andrea Delessandro wins here in legislative district 30, and that Prop 102 is stopped.

In desperation, McCain is now using the same robo-call people who smeared him eight years ago in North Carolina with racist lies, giving Bush a critical win. Last week, Keith Olbermann gave an impassioned (even for him) 'special comment', calling on McCain to stop the hate-fueling demagoguery. A clip is embedded below. This was quite a moment in television history, with a prime news anchor calling on a presidential candidate to suspend his campaign only weeks before the election.

I'm glad I watched... I felt Obama's debate performance was clearly superior over McCain's. Obama's answers were clear, reasoned and (I felt) convincing. His demeanor was calm and collected. McCain by contrast, repeated many of the same old endlessly debunked attacks and his answers on the issues were not convincing. His several attempts at humor fell flat or were just bizarre. He brought up Protectionism as if anyone in the audience remembered or understood. His repeated old-timey cliché metaphor that we need a 'calm hand at the Tiller' was also strange. I think that one might have last been used in the dust bowl days. His age really showed. All in all, I felt that Obama scored a dominating win in this debate and the "Town Hall" style format did not in fact serve McCain well.

Mary also noticed something revealing at the end. While Barack and Michelle stayed around for a long time, shaking hands, posing for photos, etc, Cindy McCain kept her distance from the audience, and she and her husband got out of there in a hurry.

Thankfully, the word "maverick" was never used.

More: Another couple of telling moments were when McCain showed his peevish side, asking Tom Brokaw and the audience if Obama had answered the question, implying that he had not. One was "did he say what his fine would be?" <smirk> <smirk> But I thought that Obama had in fact answered those questions (in that case, that there wouldn't be a fine).

Also shocking was McCain's sudden proposal to have the federal government directly buy bad mortgages and re-negotiate them, later followed by a seemingly casual admission that Social Security could not ultimately be saved.

If you scored this one like a prize fight, I think McCain wins a split decision. He kept Obama on the defensive with constant mis-characterizations and other deceptive "tactics" (the foray into what is a tactic vs. what is a strategy was a weird, pointless tangent). Though Obama defended himself well, he delivered only glancing blows to McCain. The dueling dead-soldier bracelet match-up was pretty silly, I can just see them coming out next time festooned in bracelets, ribbons, and other memorabilia.

McCain was surprisingly lucid (must have been one of his good days), drawing on history and personal experience abroad, sounding stronger on foreign policy. Obama's counter that McCain's poor judgment in leading us into Iraq and away from Afghanistan was good, though delivered without requisite rhetorical punch.

But this was just round 1; I think Obama will be better served by the domestic topics, relating more of his own personal experiences, having more focused attacks, and putting McCain back on the defensive.

I noticed that McCain had a couple of grammatical slip-ups, though I'm sure nobody cares. And, BTW, why does he pronounce Washington "Warshington"? I didn't think that was an East-coast thing, and it's certainly not an Arizona thing.

McCain certainly dedicated himself to cutting government spending, while Obama seemed to claim it as an ideal, the specifics he mentioned would increase spending. Still, given the history of Republicans who pay lip service to fiscal conservatism, but making massive increases in federal spending when in office, we should be highly skeptical.

I was pleased that they both supported reviving the nuclear power industry as a component of alternative and green energies, though again, McCain seemed more committed to making it happen.

Obama's biggest points of the night came early on, during the economic discussion, skillfully laying out his tax plan and disparaging McCain's. And why, given all the flux, couldn't they have switched the topic to the economy?

Now, clearly, McCain's "suspension" of his campaign is a cynical and desperate ploy. But it's also an extremely odd thing to happen in a presidential race. Why not put Palin in charge of the campaign while he heads off to Washington? Oh right... if she can't step in to lead the campaign, obviously she couldn't step in as president.

It's one step short of using a crisis to suspend the election itself. Would the G.O.P. stoop so low to keep their hold on power?

Arsenals Of Folly by Richard Rhodes is the third in his nuclear trilogy, preceded by The Making Of The Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun: The Making Of The Hydrogen Bomb. Folly skips ahead to the 1980's and the height of the Cold War, the Reagan-Gorbachev summits, and subsequent disarmament treaties.

This is really an exceptional book, very well documented, with a lot of insight on this period of history. I found several things surprising. In order of decreasing shock value:

• Reagan was evidently a sincere believer in Armageddon theology, and that he himself was fated to play a significant, Biblical role in end times. This was perhaps the root of his stubborn attachment to SDI (Star Wars): the idea that it would be part of this prophetic scheme, providing the means to survive an apocalypse. I personally find it quite frightening that the leader of the free world for eight years was so disconnected from rationality. Bush Jr. may be of the same persuasion, though perhaps without the ego to place himself in such a direct role, and certainly without the mental capacity to really think it through. And now again, with Palin, we have another who could imagine herself in that role (not to mention McCain's new found willingness to appease evangelicals).
• Neoconservatives, including many who are responsible for our current misadventures, actively worked to scuttle negotiations with Russia. And they were successful in a number of cases. In a strategy that exactly presaged Iraq, "Team B" interpreted intelligence data with a worst-case bias, in order to fit their pre-conceived politics. Another stratagem was Richard Perle's "zero solution", designed to sound fair but be unacceptable to the Soviets, whereupon they could use this seeming intransigence to reduce the level of support for serious talks. Other "poison pills" weakened our commitment to existing treaties (ABM) or ones in progress (SALT II). Another underhanded, even treasonous, tactic was to leak certain internal memos prior to summits, basically creating P.R. obstacles for the non-hardliner faction to overcome.
• Reagan, perhaps because of a post-assassination-attempt deathbed conversion, became personally committed to the idea of eliminating all nuclear weapons. This newfound role was dramatically out of step with the hawks in his own cabinet. However, his continued attachment to SDI, skillfully manipulated by the neo-cons, led to an impasse at Reykjavik.
• The "triumphalist" view of the Cold War, that far-sighted U.S. war planners intended all along to drive the Soviet Union into economic collapse through the vehicle of astronomical weapons spending, is incorrect. Key players of the period deny it.

From the news-that-sounds-like-Monty-Python department comes a Bush administration idea to undermine birth control services, a crucial part of public health measures. It would define birth control as a form of abortion. There can be no doubt that this comes from the right-wing social conservative ideologues hired at all levels by the Bushites, showcasing their deep irrationality.

I'm pretty disappointed over Congress giving Bush & Co. a free pass on warrantless wiretapping; it's an end-run around the Bill of Rights. Obama voted for it and (in the House) so did our (AZ District 30) representative, Gabrielle Giffords. [Side note: how freaking great is it to be able to get RSS feeds on your rep's?!!]

Not that I really need to, but starting now every email I send will be signed with a digital certificate. That gives everyone I write to the option to encrypt our communication. Modern email clients and browsers such as Mozilla Firefox & Thunderbird make this really easy.

Two certificate providers make this really easy (and free). InstantSSL makes it quite simple, while Thawte gives a few more options. I've had a little trouble with Thawte in that there service never sends the verification email to some of my addresses, with no error message. So I went with the former.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Uh, yeah, it's pretty clear that was exactly their choice. I don't get where Justice Stevens is coming from on this one... left field? The D.C. gun ban was pretty blatantly unconstitutional. While I'm personally no big fan of guns, I appreciate that there is at least some recourse should it become necessary to form a new Union.

Do more guns equal less crime? Well, as a friend of mine said with devilish humor, now we shall see, as D.C. is about to "run the experiment." (Oh, snap!) I believe that the relation between gun ownership and safety is very subjective, not only dependent on what type of environment you live in, but on what type of person you are. But below are some compelling statistics showing a fairly linear trend between increased gun ownership and increased deaths due to firearms. There is some spread; for instance the Swiss do have a slightly higher percent of gun ownership and much lower percent of gun-related deaths (than the U.S.), but over the 18 countries plotted, the trend is unmistakable. This is from a report called "The Global Gun Epidemic". I don't know over what time period the stats were collected.

So, nevertheless, while I personally could not imagine feeling safer having guns around (in the circles I currently travel in), I don't want to take away that right from anyone else, and am pleased to see a reasonable ruling on the issue from the Supreme Court.

Not terribly interesting, but I was curious since the presidential contenders are both U.S. Senators, what will happen to their senate seats if they win. If Obama wins, the Illinois gover-nator will fill the vacancy with a Democrat. Here in Arizona, the governor is also a Democrat, but if McCain wins, the state constitution requires her to fill the vacancy with a Republicrat (since McCain is a Republicrat).

Clinton has a couple of years left in her Senate term. The governor of New York is still a Democrat, after the recent scandal. Under New York law, a Democrat could be appointed, if she was the veep nominee, and the Obama-Clinton ticket won. Interestingly, there has been speculation about appointing Bill to her seat, if she needed to vacate it. I wonder if that would keep him busy enough to avoid interfering with an Obama administration. Nah... I still don't see her on the ticket anyway.

So, ultimately, whatever happens, the balance of the Senate will not be effected by the outcome of the presidential election. Shucks.

That's neo-con pack dog Bill Kristol saying, "if it's a contest of speeches, Obama's gonna win." Hey, guess what, it is a contest of speeches!

Well, I thought it would never happen in America, but I guess I was wrong.

Under an executive order expected to be announced today, [Washington D.C.] police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest....

Welcome to D.C. township. Because having to prove your residency to get in and out to work or find a job would do wonders for their economy....

Now that the primaries are finally over, I feel it's time for another political brain-dump.

First, to paraphrase: someone set us up Obama. All her base are belong to us!

Next, does anyone else feel that Hillary is basically trying to extort a place on the ticket? Here's four words why that will never happen: "Give. Me. A. Break." Yes, that's right, Bill Clinton's looming presence short-circuits any chance of that happen. On an ironic side note, her decision ten years ago to "stand by her man" was politically shrewd, given public perception (right or wrong), but ultimately may be the limiting factor to her further political advancement.

One of the most amazing facts about this race has been the amount of money spent: somewhere short of 100 million dollars by both Barack and Hillary. The Clintons dumped in eleven million of their own money. So in sheer economic terms, it sort of makes sense that she would work to get the best return on those dollars by continuing the race and building up political capital in state after state.

And hence her continued emphasis on the "popular vote", which she claims to have won (depending on how Michigan, Florida and caucus states are counted). This was certainly an argument meant to sway superdelegates looking forward to the fall, because otherwise it makes no sense in a contest that is decided entirely by delegate count. Why repeat it now that she's lost? Ultimately, I think it's evidence that the Clintons are driven by an absolute lust for power, and are willing to risk fracturing the Party in their continued quest for it.

The most disturbing development to my mind, is the non-trivial fraction of Hillary supporters who claim that they will never support Obama [according to one figure I heard, something like 20%]. Why? WTF? It makes no sense to me. I've very happy that Obama has won the nomination, but if it were Hillary instead, I cannot imagine not supporting her. The differences in their policy positions and their experience are just not that great. What is the reason that so many of her supporters are fixated on her, so far beyond mere preference? Like the Clintons themselves, do they assume that the mantle is theirs to take, and how dare anyone challenge that right?

I'd love to see Gen. Wesley Clark instead, as Barack Obama's running mate.

Finally, one constant criticism of Obama has been that he's a great orator, but short on actual ideas. A dig around his campaign website will disprove that notion. But consider if being a great orator is actually a useful metric in determining who would be a good president? Historically that seems to have been the case, and of course there's the anti-pattern: President Bush can barely string together two words even with a teleprompter and directions from his puppet masters, and he's the worst president in history. Besides, as chief executive, the president is not the source of new ideas and legislation, but is the implementor of them. Obama's speeches have shown his inspirational vision, clear judgement and keen insight. All of which will be indispendible in restoring America's prominence, after the the years of unfettered Republican dominance frakked it up so far beyond what even we said it would.

Merlin German was a marine who survived for three years with horrific injuries after an IED attack in Iraq, becoming an inspirational figure for his continued bravery through more 100 surgeries. The so-called "Miracle Man" died in April after yet another reconstructive surgical operation.

My fondest wish this Memorial Day is that his face haunts Bush & Cheney for the rest of their days, that the terrible spectre of thousands and thousands of dead and wounded soldiers weighs heavily on their hollow hearts and empty minds. It's the least of what they deserve. What we and our soldiers deserve is a president who doesn't rely on prayer, pollsters, pundits or propaganda when putting lives at risk.

It was a big nite for the big O[bama]!

This is priceless.

Over the weekend, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) challenged Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to a "Lincoln-Douglas" style debate. Fox News, however... showed a picture of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass...

[Original Source]

Bush's War is a two-part episode of Frontline (PBS) that examines Bush's colossal frak-up in Iraq. Part 1 aired last week, while Part 2 airs on Tuesday (though both can be watched online).

A lot of this has been covered before, but Bush's War ties it all together. Part 1 covered the lead-up to the war. It made me realize that I just haven't figured out why the neo-conservatives wanted to go into Iraq in the first place. I mean, I knew that the talk of WMD's and such was B.S. when Colin Powell went before the U.N. with zero hard evidence. It was a PR campaign at best. So what was the motive?

Was it for self-enrichment though the contracts to Halliburton, etc, that they knew would be created? Plausible, but I'm not convinced. After all, the seemed to legitimately believe that it would be a cakewalk.

Was it "blood for oil?" A far-sighted hedge for the coming era when oil demand starts to exceed supply? Doubtful; they just don't seem that concerned about the long-term.

Was it revenge for the (supposed) assassination plot on Bush 1? Doubtful, it's hard to see how anyone besides the Bushes would be driven by such a personal motive.

Was it to "finish the job" begun with the Gulf War? Perhaps, But the situation didn't seem to call for any real urgency, all the actual verifiable evidence we had showed Saddamm to be quiescent. What was so urgent that they couldn't finish the job at hand (in Afghanistan)?

Was it for the high-minded ideal of establishing democracy in Iraq? It's laughably absurd: they could care less about democracy in America, much less the Middle East.

Was it a vehicle to further their goal of consolidating power in the executive branch? That is certainly believable, but they had already achieved that to a large degree. Further, they did make a show of gathering support from Congress and our allies.

It seems that, ultimately, Iraq was simply war for war's sake; to take advantage of the situation after 9-11 to kick off any war that they could "sell" to the public and the world. They did it because they could. But, although deeply disturbing, it still does not provide a logical reason. I can only conclude that to them, there is glory and prestige even in unnecessary war.

And that means that these right-wingers will always be working to push us into war. We can't let them slip one by us again....

Here in Tucson it is absolutely amazing how many Ron Paul signs appear everywhere you go. Many of them are home-made. You literally cannot go a mile without seeing a Ron Paul sign. This is a big, spread-out city, and I've happened to drive around a lot of it in the past week; down to the southeast corner of the city limits, out to the northwest side, and on a number of routes through midtown. Pro-Ron Paul signs have appeared very frequently everywhere I look. So obviously there is a passionate and well-organized campaign here in Tucson, and I can't help but think that the same may be true throughout Arizona.

This is, after all, the home of Goldwater, back when conservatives actually were conservative, the mantle of true conservatism that Ron Paul is now the only Republican still holding on to: small government, no income tax, anti-interventionism, upholding the Constitution, and so on.

This phenomenon may be building in other states. People here in the West have a different attitude than the rest of the country, it seems to me. We're less likely to go for the most powerful candidate and more likely to go for the scrappy underdog. My dream is that he builds a lot of momentum, but continues to be rejected by the Republican establishment, forms an independent party, and splits the conservative vote like Ross Perot in '92.

Actually, having a viable third (and fourth) party would be about the best thing that could happen in this country. The bipartisan breakdown doesn't fit. There are anti-authoritarian counterparts to both Democrats and Republicans: the Progressives (Green Party) and Libertarians. For whatever reason, they never seem to gain any traction; democracy has suffered as a result. With multiple parties, politicians might have to actually work to build a consensus, instead of repeatedly bludgeoning the other party to gain a slight advantage. Fluctuations in strength would be more common, requiring politicians to be more in touch with their constituents if they want to retain power.

And, let's face it, were someone like Paul to become president, it might be the best thing for America. All the wasted, bloated excess of the government could be cut way: take the War on Drugs for instance (please).