Category Archives: Current Events

Fred Kaplan on Bush's strategy for dealing with the Middle East and high oil prices. Basically, says Fred, it's to articulate a vision of how things could be without any plan or action to make them happen.

The November election in California just got more interesting. That the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, is likely to carry the state was not in doubt…but now it looks like there's also going to be an initiative to ban same-sex marriage. As you probably heard, the State Supreme Court today ruled that under the state constitution, forbidding it is unconstitutional so opposers of such will probably whip up a ballot item to put things back the way they want it.

Will it pass? I dunno. My guess is that since public sentiment is only moving in one direction on this matter, it would not pass if it was put to voters ten or even five years from now. It might pass this year. My expectation is that Conservative forces in the state will bang the drum to get the vote out for it, not because they think they can ban it forever or even for a long time…but because they want to get a certain kind of voter to the polls. That would be the kind of voter who'd be more likely to also vote for Republicans in Congressional and local races. Those voters might otherwise be staying home if, as seems likely, McCain has no chance of carrying California.

So we're in for a messy election with a lot of emotion and yelling and people who'll tell us we're all going to Hades because of the way we live. The ban might pass, probably narrowly if it does, in which case it would delay Gay Marriage a few more years. But all it will do is delay the inevitable for a few more years.

Kevin Phillips explains why the economy is worse that the current statistics indicate. This, he says, is because each presidential adminstration makes subtle adjustments in how those stats are tabulated in order to make things look better than they are.

I get a lot of political e-mails from all quarters, all mindsets. I think I've received more e-mails from Ralph Nader supporters than there are Ralph Nader supporters.

For some reason, most of the recent messages that say I shouldn't vote for John McCain are emphasizing his age and trying to get me to grasp how old 71 really is.

People, I get it. I know how old he is and I know how old 71 is. I don't need a factual comparison to the life span of the Galapagos Tortoise to understand the concept. No one does. Most of us have at some point in our lives encountered a human being who is in their seventies. I've even, you may find this hard to believe, met people in their eighties.

(Sarcasm aside: The oldest person I ever met was the great Broadway director, George Abbott. He was 102 at the time, confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak for more than a few minutes without gulping oxygen. I'd still vote for him for President before I'd vote for a lot of much younger individuals who may be on my ballot.)

In any case, no one needs to be reminded of McCain's age, nor do we have to hear suggestions that he may not live through the debates. Personally, I have plenty of other, more pressing reasons to not vote for the guy. There was a time when I might have, depending on who the Democrats nominated, but that was a different John McCain. That was the one who called guys like Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" and occasionally bucked the G.O.P. line on issues where his vote mattered. I have yet another reason today, having just read McCain's proposals for dealing with Climate Change. They pretty much come down to "Let's do something so we can say we're doing something but let's make sure it never costs any business a nickel."

My point is that I know the guy's 71 and I can look at him on TV and decide if that's too old. I'm also capable of figuring out that Barack Obama is black, that Hillary Clinton is a woman and that Bob Barr is going to get as many electoral votes as I am. Thank you.

I also still owe Bob Elisberg a lunch but that's not the reason I'm going to link to his latest column. But before you click over there, try to guess who it's about. It's called "The Stupidest Man in America."

I'm not sure Barack Obama has won the nomination so much as Hillary Clinton has lost it. Reportedly, prominent folks in her campaign are dickering to write books about it, which is being taken as a sign that they know it's over. I may even buy one of those books as I have a certain curiosity to know how such savvy politicos as the Clintons managed to take an inevitable win and turn it into a "bad loser" loss.

A lot of folks seem to think she's staying in because she wants to be offered the vice-president slot. I don't know if she does and I don't know if Obama would be nuts to offer it. It might be a "unity ticket" but it also might be two strong forces uniting to keep working against one another. My guess is we won't find out.

Joe Conason on the kind of thing that has tipped a lot of us from having Hillary Clinton as our first choice to lead this great nation of ours.

I have a lot of questions here from folks about whether I think Hillary Clinton has to drop out of the race, if she's harming the party by staying in, etc. I was going to write a piece on that but then I read this blog post by Scott Lemieux and it said everything I was going to say, only better.

Like you, I keep getting mail — the paper kind and the "e" kind — asking me to donate to various folks running for the presidency. I've received the most from John McCain's campaign even though the chances of me giving him money are about the same as the chances of him giving me a soothing full body massage. As for Clinton and Obama…I don't know if I'll be giving any Democrat money but if I do, it won't be until they start spending it on defeating a Republican.

I missed this article by Michael Kinsley a few weeks ago but it's still well worth reading…perhaps more so in light of Hillary Clinton's recent comments about not trusting economists.

Fred Kaplan does the math and comes to the inescapable conclusion: In order to send any more troops into Afghanistan, the U.S. will have to start taking them out of Iraq.

A number of blogs are quoting writer Henrik Hertzberg's summary of John McCain's strategy for dealing with Iraq…

McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal — that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay.

Given McCain's recent speeches, I don't think that's an inaccurate representation of the man's position. If it isn't, McCain needs to say something more substantial.

Timothy Noah explains why Hillary Clinton has just about zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Which, of course, raises the question: If it's that clear to him, why isn't it that clear to the Clintons? And if it is, why is she still in the race?

Michael Kinsley on writers and editors.

Fred Kaplan on a choice which (sadly) a lot of our military leaders face: They can be bold visionaries…or they can get promoted.