Category Archives: Current Events

Jay Leno on how American car manufacturers can compete with imports.

Are you confused about this whole mess with Michigan and Florida delegates for the Democratic Convention? If so, never fear. Mori Dinauer explains it all.

Joe Conason on one of John McCain's main economic advisors, Phil Gramm. There are things I don't like about the Democratic party and things I don't like about the Republican party, and most of the latter are embodied in Phil Gramm. It's this idea that government exists to make sure the rich get richer, particularly at the expense of the poor and middle-class. When people say "I'll support the Republicans when they start acting like Republicans," they're basically saying, "…when they stop being run by people like Phil Gramm."

There are a lot of articles and editorials out about the Scott McClellan book and an interesting one is the piece by Peggy Noonan. Since my copy hasn't arrived yet, I don't know that I agree with her characterization of its contents…but I think I agree with her on the general topic of McClellan's motives and propriety.

Former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan is getting hammered by a lot of people for his new book. But perhaps the cruelest bit of hammering (and certainly the funniest) comes from Michael Kinsley.

My pal Aaron Barnhart, who's the TV critic for the Kansas City Star, writes about Keith Olbermann — who Olbermann's attacking and who's attacking Olbermann.

For myself: I generally like Olbermann and think it's great that he's covering so many stories that the mainstream media is ignoring or allowing the shortest of shrift. There are two things I don't like about Olbermann's show. One is how pre-programmed most of his interviews seem, with Keith feeding his guests questions that have obviously been worked out in advance to elicit predetermined responses. The other is that I think he goes over the top hammering on some issues…even issues where I tend to agree with him. I'd like to see Hillary Clinton drop out of the race and throw her whole-hearted support to Obama but I don't think she should be ordered out of it, like she broke a rule and Olbermann's the ump who gets to disqualify her and send her to the showers.

Olbermann is very successful. His ratings are strong with the key demographics and trending stronger. I think what upsets a lot of right-wingers about him is not that he's expressing a viewpoint — he's only one guy doing this in a sea of Conservative talk radio and cable news broadcasters — but that he may be augaring the coming trend. Mr. Limbaugh was the one who showed the world how to make money off right-wing anger…so we got a lot more of it. Mr. Olbermann may soon be spawning imitations and "me too" enterprises. As the money goes, so go the TV, radio and publishing industries.

The foreign policy failures of the Bush administration are largely the failure of the "neocon" movement. In fact, the neocons have been consistently wrong about everything they urged this administration to do. Fred Kaplan says that John McCain's foreign policy would be to stay that course and even return to some of the neocon ideas that Bush abandoned because they weren't working.

Hillary Clinton has a piece in the Daily News today entitled, "Why I Continue To Run." I don't really buy the innocent explanation of that comment that seemed to be hinting, "I'm staying in the race in case Obama gets assassinated" but I don't think she's out of her mind to think that she stands a better chance of beating John McCain than the Senator from Illinois does. There are some polls that suggest otherwise but there are plenty that support that claim.

The point I think she misses is that there does not seem to be any likely scenario in which she could wrest the nomination from Obama without fracturing the Democratic party and creating enormous ill will…and not just among African-Americans. Polls that show her winning states Obama might not win do not take that into account. They just presume she wins the nomination fair and square and with no charges of having stolen that nomination from its rightful recipient. I can't imagine how that could occur at this stage of the game.

I should also add that even if she would be a stronger candidate than Obama, I think he'll still do well…and there's a lot that can happen between now and November (including the selection of running mates, as well as the debates) that could raise or lower the "electability" of either. The fact that she might be the slightly stronger candidate now is not that significant.

This whole matter is very uncomfortable for me because I was always a tremendous fan of Hillary Clinton and would like to be again. I thought — and still think — that she's one of the smartest and most unjustly-attacked public figures of our time. But as a candidate for the presidency lately, she hasn't seemed all that wise, and I don't think it's just a matter of Obama winning the nomination. I think she's done an awful lot to lose it.

Frank Rich returns (sorta) to his past as a theater critic in order to discuss what the current New York revival of South Pacific means today.

Rosa Brooks complains that a majority of Americans seem to trust John McCain on handling the Iraq War, even though he's been consistently wrong on that topic and is pledging to prolong a war that most people want ended. Could this possibly have to do with the fact that (a) he's a charming guy in front of an audience, (b) he's a war hero and (c) so far, he's been running more or less unopposed, at least by Democrats?

Obviously, (c) is going to change and that may do a lot to change (a). McCain does not do well when there are contrary opinions in the room. And I also think that a certain section of the population will never get past the notion that if you want a safe America, you vote for the guy who talks toughest, has the military record and is probably Republican. That number will get whittled away as we get closer to the day of voting. Right now, those folks have the luxury of continuing to like McCain. At some point though, they're going to have to ask themselves if they really want to renew the Iraq War for another four years.

Can John McCain win in November? I don't think so. But if has a chance, it's going to involve doing what Ramesh Ponnuru says he'll have to do.

George Packer authored a long essay on the current state of Conservatism in America and I found it most interesting, even if I didn't agree with every one of his leaps. If nothing else, read the last few paragraphs which essentially say that John McCain cannot win if he runs as a Republican or even a Conservative. He can only win if he can convince people that John McCain the human being would be a better leader.

J. Peter Scoblic has a good overview of this "appeasement" nonsense. There are times when I want my leaders to be tough but I'd also kinda like them to be smart.

Ezra Klein writes about how politicians are too often the victims of quick sound bites that emphasize their gaffes and characterize them by their worst moments. I think that's all true and unfortunate…but I also think that's unlikely to change. We don't believe in fighting fair in this country any longer. If the guy you don't want to see win says something that can be misquoted or yanked outta context and misrepresented, you do, even if you know it's a bit of a cheat. You may rationalize this by saying "Well, his side does it to us," and you'd probably be right to some extent. You can also justify the cheat by suggesting it represents what's really going on in your opponent's mind and soul, even if the specific example is a bit unfair. But how often do you see someone who wants Candidate X to lose come forth and say that Candidate X is being wrongly criticized for something?

If Hillary Clinton had voted against the War in Iraq — or even said she shouldn't have — she'd be the next President of the United States.