Blog For Arizona

News Flash: McCain Plans to Abandon Israel!

by David Safier

Sorry for poaching on your territory, AZ Blue Meanie, but the English teacher in me couldn't let McCain's latest retracted gaff slip by without my notice.

McCain said basically (I'll include the exact quote later) that if we can end our need for mideast oil, we'll never have to send a soldier there again. Then he "clarified" the statement by saying he was referring to the Gulf War, not Iraq.

Reporters need to listen more carefully. Regardless of the war he was referring to, McCain said the only reason we would ever have a soldier fight in that region is to keep the oil spigots open.

So, Mr. McCain, if we're energy independent and Iran gets nuclear weapons, we won't send soldiers, right?

And, Mr. McCain, if any mideast nation attacks Israel, by land or using weapons of mass destruction, that's Israel's problem, because we're energy independent, right?

Read his exact words:

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

In the Old Testament, there is a story about Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage. In the 2008 campaign, McCain sold out Israel for a gallon of biodiesel.

I'm not over-parsing his words, just reading them carefully. If Obama had used McCain's words, they would be on an endless cable news loop, repeated over and over and over, analyzed and reanalyzed, condemned by everyone who wants to sink Obama's campaign. But McCain? No problem. He issued a clarification which explains exactly nothing, so everything's OK. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Black? White? From the Mouth of the Sunday Funnies . . .

by David Safier

Why is it that I find more insight in the newspaper comics, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report than I find on cable news or the op eds in the paper?

Today's insight comes from Berkeley Brethed's Opus,where the characters decide to have a meeting, "our first national conversation on race." Here is the salient panel.

From a cultural-linguistic standpoint, this is an extremely interesting and important question. Why is Obama considered black because one of his parents is black? For that matter, why are people with a discernible trace of African DNA considered black in this country, even if they have more European than African genetic material floating around in their cells?

The first answer that might come to mind is, "Well, you can see that their skin is darker, so it's natural you would say that person is black." But that answer is most probably wrong.

I used to teach a novel, Weep Not, Child, by a Kenyan writer, Ngugui wa Thiong'o. It was told from the standpoint of a young boy growing up during the late 1950s and early 1960s, before Kenya's independence from England. At the beginning of the book, the narrative has the disjointed, half-understood feeling of a child's perspective. At one point, he is talking about World War II:

"The Italian prisoners who built the long tarmac road had left a name for themselves because some went about with black women and the black women had white children."

If I were to see a photo of those "white children," I'm sure I would say they were black. Undoubtedly, many of them had darker skin than a good portion of our African American population. But to the child, and, I'm sure, to his fellow Kenyans, they were white children.

The concept of "black people" and "white people" is a social construct. Change the nature of the society, and the labels change.

We're beginning to talk about this becoming a "blended country," where the racial distinctions become increasingly blurred, and increasingly irrelevant. The growing number of children born to parents who we would say are from "different races" are part of the reason. But the very serious candidacy of Barack Obama, not to mention the prominence of people like Condi Rice and Colin Powell, are helping to change our cultural perspective on the importance of race as a distinguishing characteristic.

Now, why did I have to go to the Sunday Funnnies to find this insight? Why isn't this issue part of the roundtable discussions conducted by the Very Serious Men and Women on news shows?

In the comic, after the panel above, the others are stunned into silence. The lad at the podium slams down his gavel, screams, "Question tabled! Adjourned!" And they all go swimming. I think Breathed has answered my question.

The Day The Levees Broke: McCain's Birthday More Important to Bush

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Sen. John McCain visited the lower 9th ward of New Orleans this week, claiming that he would do a better job of handling natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina than George W. Bush.  Katrina response 'disgraceful,' McCain says | www.azstarnet.com ®  McCain declared that if the disaster had happened on his watch, he would have immediately landed at the nearest Air Force base, drawing a sharp contrast to President Bush's handling of the tragedy.

McCain's use of some hypothetical future natural disaster to try to get separation between himself and George Bush does not explain the actual failure of McCain and Bush to act during the disaster of Hurricane Katrina.  For an excellent time line of events, the good folks at Think Progress have done the homework for you.  http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline/

Jonathan Stein blogs at Mother Jones, "John McCain's Miserable Record on Hurricane Katrina" MotherJones.com | News. Mr. Stein reports that "McCain was on Face the Nation on August 28, 2005, as Katrina gathered in the Gulf Coast. He said nothing about it. One day later, when Katrina made landfall in Louisiana, McCain was on a tarmac at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, greeting President Bush with a cake in celebration of McCain's 69th birthday."

While floods ravaged New Orleans in August 2005, Bush and McCain celebrated McCain's birthday in Arizona. Susan Walsh / AP

Question for Sen. McCain: When George Bush came to celebrate your birthday with you at the very moment that New Orleans was being destroyed and people were suffering the terrifying death of drowning in their homes, did you advise Bush to do what you claim you will do?  Did you ever give Bush some of your mythical "straight talk" and tell him "what the hell's the matter with you boy! What are you doing here?  Get your dumb ass back on that plane and get to New Orleans.  A great American city is being destroyed, and the citizens of New Orleans need to know that their president and their government is coming to their rescue!"  Based upon the photo above, it doesn't appear that either one of them had New Orleans on their mind.

Mr. Stein continues: 

"Three days later, with the levees already breached and New Orleans filling with water, McCain's office released a three-sentence statement urging Americans to support the victims of the hurricane.

Though McCain issued a statement the next week calling on Congress to make sacrifices in order to fund recovery efforts, he was quoted in The New Leader on September 1 cautioning against over-spending in support of Katrina's victims. "We also have to be concerned about future generations of Americans," he said. "We're going to end up with the highest deficit, probably, in the history of this country."

[Mc]Cain voted against establishing a Congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local responses to Katrina in med-September 2005. He repeated that vote in 2006. He voted against allowing up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits to people affected by the hurricane, and in 2006 voted against appropriating $109 billion in supplemental emergency funding, including $28 billion for hurricane relief.

* * *

Shortly after the disaster in New Orleans, McCain did introduce a bill that sought to improve communications mechanisms for first-responders and authorities. The bill failed to go anywhere, and McCain later voted against other bills that had similar provisions.

McCain may talk sympathetically about New Orleans' recovery this week, but the record shows that when it mattered most, McCain failed to act."

And what did Sen. McCain come to tell the residents of the lower 9th ward who have been waiting for their city to be rebuilt for the better part of three years?  McCain told reporters he was not sure if he would rebuild the lower 9th ward as president.

"That is why we need to go back is to have a conversation about what to do - rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is,” he said.

"Whatever?"  Sounds as if McCain is McSame, willing to continue Bush's neglect of the citizens of New Orleans.

Clinton Went and Won Pennsylvania, and All I Got Was this Obama T Shirt

by David Safier

Your roving correspondent returns to Tucson, unbloodied and unbowed. Actually, I had a great time. It was almost perfect, give or take a few percentage points.

So now it's back to the education beat. Let's see, what's happened since I was gone? I hear:

• Russell Pearce wants a law that says all teachers must wear flag lapel pins, pledge allegiance to the Republican States of America, and check with him before they make any statements about the U.S., unless the statement is, "Looks like Pearce got it right again!"

• When the ELL funding bill came to Janet's desk, she said, "What bill? Do you see any bill? I don't see any bill."

• No Child Left Behind will be changed to say that, any public school that has drop outs will declare itself a failure and give all its money to private schools.

• Tom Horne plans to go all the way to the Supreme Court to push the idea that people who know how to say anything in Spanish other than "Cerveza" and "Donde esta el baño" will have to apologize publicly and commit an entire Berlitz English course to memory before a single dollar of state funds will be used to help them learn English.

I may not have all the details right. I have some catching up to do.

McCain gets a pass from Arizona news media

Posted by: AzBlueMeanie

While serious newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times continue to do in-depth investigative news reports into Sen. John McCain, our local yokel newspapers the Daily Star and Tucson Citizen continue to ignore these excellent investigative reports by not publishing even a news service abridged version, or referencing the articles in an editorial.  I strongly encourage them to do so.

Why the news blackout?  Are the local papers protecting their favorite son Saint John from public scrutiny?  Or protecting their advertising revenue bottom line by not upsetting McCain's campaign contributors who also happen to purchase substantial amounts of advertising in their newspapers?  They would not allow revenue to affect their professional journalistic judgment, now would they?

The Sunday Washington Post ran a front page lead story by Michael Leahy on the volcanic temper of Sen. McCain.  McCain: A Question of Temperament  Leahy provides the details of several confrontations McCain has had with fellow Senators, other politicians and even a campaign staff member over the years.

Here is a sampling of the report...

Clinton wins by 9.3% (Round to 9%)

by David Safier

If the numbers are there, they can be spun how you want them. The press is saying, "Hillary by 10%" because Clinton has 54.6% -- round up to 55% -- and Obama has 45.3% -- round down to 45%.

Fair enough.

But if we subtract her unrounded number from his, we get a 9.3% difference, which, since it's under 9.5, gets rounded down to 9%.

So, very legitimately, Clinton won Pennsylvania by 9%, or, if you prefer, a hair under 10%.

And, by the way, I'm not just playing with numbers. If it fit the media story, the headlines would be "Clinton a Hair Under 10%." But they like the horse race. It's good for ratings, and it's good for ad revenues. So "Clinton by 10%" it is.

But I say, it's Clinton by 9%, and I'm sticking to it. My hope was that Clinton would win by less than 10%, and that's what the numbers show.

You're off the hook, Mike. As I said, under 10, and I cover my own expenses, including taking Barack and Michelle out for dinner last night. I'm a gentleman, a man of my word.

Election Day in Philadelphia

by David Safier

A nervous morning in Philly, with poll numbers all over the place. My position is, if Clinton wins by less than 10, that's a win for Obama, since Clinton is fighting from way behind. If it's down around 6, she's in deep trouble. If she's in the 14-15 point win range, she gets to crow, and everyone will say she has the right to fight another day.

This morning we took a subway and knocked on doors in an area I would normally be wary of walking in. And as with the other days, we encountered nothing even approaching a problem, or even a genuinely negative response.

Since we've been here, we've knocked on doors in white, black and mixed low-rent neighborhoods. We've walked by people lounging on old couches on the sidewalk and hanging around outside corner markets. I would normally consider those danger signs and be sure to cross the street to put a little distance between me and potential trouble, but we got into discussions with people in those and other situations, and they were friendly, or they were combative in the "Oh, yeah, well, I'm for Hillary" kind of way.

This sounds trite, I know, but there is so much mutual misunderstanding and fear, on all sides of the racial and income spectrum, that is simply unwarranted. Some people are genuinely dangerous, but most people aren't. Granted, I wouldn't want to spend my Sunday lounging on couches on the sidewalks or hanging out in front of corner markets, but exchanging a few friendly words to indicate to each other that we're all human beings behind our differences -- damn, I wish there were a way we could manage that!

And while I'm digressing, an interesting thing about the Obama campaign is that it allows you to talk about race and other issues of ethnicity, and carry on meaningful discussions without feeling you're walking on eggshells. Yeah, I'm a Jewish white guy. Yeah, you're a black male or female. So let's see in what ways that information is significant and in what ways it's insignificant. I'll learn from what you say, and you'll learn from what I say. And we'll both develop a slightly more rounded view of the nation we live in.

Anyway, we returned to headquarters for lunch, then took some signs and walked over to Temple University for a little "visibility" -- just stand there and let people see Obama supporters, hoping some of them will think, "Oh, I almost forgot, I'd better go vote for Obama (or if I'm undecided, Obama is the last name I saw, so I think I'll vote for him)."

That was pretty boring. We returned to headquarters planning to walk another precinct, but instead we got roped into more visibility at the corner. This headquarters is at a very busy intersection (Girard and Broad, if you know Philly.) Starting at 3pm, I stood in the median and waved a sign as cars and trucks passed. I got a reasonably number of honks and waves, which I assumed were for my sign, not my good looks.

By 4pm, 15 Obama supporters were standing around the intersection with signs, and it turned into a honk-athon. It was amazing. Constant blasting of horns, like a parade. Honks from private cars and SUVs, cabs, working trucks, Post Office trucks, huge 18 wheelers with their long, deep base horns, street car drivers who opened their windows and rang their bells. It was an exhilarating madhouse. It felt like the whole world was for Obama. On that corner, it was probably 90% true.

Some polling places apparently had record turnouts -- more people by 10am than they usually have all day. One woman said she voted at 8am, and 65 people had voted before her. But other polling places reported only slightly better-than-average turnout. All this was before 5:30, when people get home from work, and the polls are open until 8.

So I'm back. I'm done for the night. Over these last few days, I've been a very small cog in a very big campaign machine. I'm pretty nervous, but I still have a bit of a buzz from that amazing honk-fest at the intersection.

I'll tell you what, Mike. If Hillary's win is in single digits, I'll absorb the cost of the trip and not turn in my expense receipts like I was planning to. And that includes the tab for Friday night after the Obama rally, when I took the whole CNN crew out for drinks. That Wolf Blitzer, let me tell you, he can really knock 'em back. He kept shouting, "Another round on Dave for the Best News Team in Television!" How could I refuse Wolf, especially after he's had a few? And by the way, he won't drink anything unless it has pineapple and a little parasol sticking out of the top.

If Hillary is in double digits, you're getting all my receipts, plus a bill for hours spent.

It's 6:30. The polls close at 8. Only time will tell.

Door Hangin' in Philadelphia

by David Safier

Another day at the storefront at Allegheny and Kennsington (Those are the cross streets, for anyone familiar with Philly). The place was packed in the morning, and when we returned at noon, we couldn't get in the door, for all the SEIU Union folks who came in to pick up door hangers and walk the city.

Door hangin' is more aerobic than knocking on doors. Power walk down the street, up the stairs, stick the hanger on the doorknob and resume power walking.

The neighborhood we walked in was just sad. Most of the brick buildings had barely serviceable doors, there were occasional gaps between them like missing teeth, and entire blocks were old, gray warehouses.

About thirty Democrats were listed at one address, which I assumed was an apartment building. Instead, it was the St. Francis Inn, a Catholic shelter that gives free meals. People who don't have a permanent address listed the Inn, I guess. We gave a few of the door hangers to the man in charge and moved on.

The energy in the Obama camp is high, though no one is projecting victory, or projecting much of anything. But incredible numbers of people are working like mad these last few days. I've seen no Clinton literature in the neighborhoods we've visited. Either they don't have the volunteers or, as word has it, her volunteers won't venture into "that sort of neighborhood." That may be Obama campaign spin, I don't know.

Tomorrow it's for all the marbles. I guess we go around and knock on doors reminding people to vote until they yell at us. Then we watch returns after 8pm, holding our collective breath.

By the way, did you know Philadelphia police use segways? It's the oddest thing. If they were faced with an unruly crowd, I imagine they'd have no need for mace, tasers or tear gas. Just ride into the crowd on segways. Everyone would be so amused, how could they cause trouble?

Sunday: Walking Philadelphia

by David Safier

Sunday morning we drove to the campaign headquarters we were sent to, a storefront that had just been opened Saturday morning to cover a lower/lower middle class neighborhood. Driving down the almost-empty streets in a strange city, where most of the stores were shuttered for Sunday with heavy metal grates (all local stores, indicating that national chains didn’t think this area worthy of setting up shop) was a bit unnerving, since we knew we would be canvassing in the area.

When we walked in the storefront, six volunteers and three organizers were setting up shop, and in a half hour, a dozen volunteers had shown up. All of us were from out of town – New York, Washington D.C., Maine, Georgia and us from Arizona, all in town to help on Obama’s campaign. One of the organizers was an American woman who lived in Switzerland and decided to return to work on the campaign. Apparently, the main downtown headquarters was swamped with volunteers, so they sent them out to the neighborhood hubs.

The first job of the morning was to stand outside churches at the end of the Sunday service and pass out a mimeographed “prayer message” from Obama. It was a general statement of faith, respectful and nondenominational. Our church was about a mile away. We walked down the semi-mean streets with their closed stores (I don’t know how “mean” the streets get in Philadelphia, but these qualified, at least in part) to a mid-sized Catholic church with a Hispanic service in the top of the church and a Vietnamese service in the bottom – reinforcing the notion that the most segregated time of the week is Sunday morning. The people who came out took the papers we handed out graciously and with smiles. They were in that receptive, post-service mood where they are open to something given to them politely. Many walked away reading the page. Unfortunately, we ran out of fliers before we ran out of congregants.

When we returned to the storefront, we were given a walking list, campaign fliers and instructions. We drove to a mainly white ethnic neighborhood, with some Hispanic and African American families as well – streets of narrow, three story brick houses joined to one another. We covered 100 homes in about three hours, a much easier feat than in Tucson, where the homes are spread apart.

This was typical Clinton country, but we were mainly treated decently. Some people who we spent time talking with admitted, after saying they were Clinton supporters, that they were a little undecided, and they were genuinely open to talking about the two candidates. My thought was, they will most likely vote for Clinton in the primary. But when Obama is the candidate (no time for uncertainty now), our talk will make it easier for them to make the transition.

And the Obama supporters were delighted to see us.

Some people said other Obama volunteers had been by Saturday ("She talked my ear off for half an hour!"). We're really blanketing the city. The Clinton campaign, which doesn’t have nearly as many on-the-ground volunteers, had driven past with a loudspeaker on a truck blasting a pro-Clinton message the day before.

We returned to the storefront to find another crop of volunteers, also out-of-towners, and hung around awhile putting “Your polling place is …” stickers on door hangers to be hung up Monday.

It’s always educational, and good for the soul, to walk in unfamiliar areas and talk with people you don’t usually talk with. Stereotypes fall and commonalities surface, for us and, I imagine, for those who we talk to.

It's Monday morning. Soon we'll go to the storefront, pick up door hangers and stroll down whatever neighborhood they pick for us. People will be at work, so we're past meet-and-greet time. It's crunch time now, to let them know we're serious about wanting their votes.

Newspaper and Advertising on the Philadelphia Campaign

by David Safier

It’s revealing to see how ads are written for different states. On television and in his fliers, Obama is featuring the hard working, middle American man and woman. A television ad has salt-of-the-earth types at gas stations complaining about gas prices. Toward the end of the ad, a few say, “That’s why I support Barack Obama. He’ll bring an end to …” The flier his campaign is dropping on doorsteps shows Obama looking at a man in a hard hat and protective goggles. The man is looking down, both determined and concerned about his future. The slogan is, “It’s time for Washington to start working for you.”

I haven’t seen any of Clinton’s campaign literature. Her strongest TV ad attacks Obama for saying she is close to lobbyists when, according to the ad, lobbyists head his campaign (or his fundraising?) in a number of states.

Both candidates, of course, also have the usual uplifting ad that is a pastiche of voice-overs and phrases from their campaign speeches.

I’m honest enough to admit that the coverage in Philly newspapers leans toward Obama (and here, I must admit, I’m contrasting myself to Clinton supporters who said the debate was balanced and informative). In one paper, the post-debate, front page banner headline read, “Viewers Upset with ABC Debate.” Another had a smaller front page headline, “ABC gets an earful after debate.” A third had an op ed, “ABC debate was trivial pursuit.”

My favorite, partisan that I am, was an op ed debunking the “elite” label placed on Obama:

“Clinton, who has racked up some $100 million by rubbing elbows with society’s upper crust, lifts her pursed lips from her crystal champagne flute long enough to call some brother from the South Side an elitist?

Are you kidding me?

McCain, who won his first election a couple of years after marrying into his wife Cindy’s vast fortune, said not one peep when his hero and fellow warmonger Dick Cheney grunted a dismissive “So?” in reaction to the overwhelming number of Americans against the Iraq war.

But Barack Obama, who turned down a whopping salary out of Harvard Law School to go back and work in Chicago’s poorest communities for peanuts is arrogant? Who comes up with this stuff?”

I imagine if I were in Pittsburg or some of the smaller areas in western Pennsylvania, I would see a different kind of coverage.

On the Ground in Philadelphia, Day 3

by David Safier

Here's a next-morning post about Friday.

• 11:30: Went to downtown headquarters and picked up a stack of fliers about the big Independence Mall rally along with a handful of posters. We walked the mean streets of Philadelphia's Center City (OK, it was 70 degrees and the streets were very friendly, but where's the drama in that?) passing out fliers and giving posters to people who asked for them. I felt like I was hawking half price drinks for the disco around the corner. (Did I say "hawking"? Did I say "disco"? Remind me, what decade is this?)
  
• 1:00: Ate lunch at a Vietnamese restaurant in Chinatown (What a wonderful country we live in!)
  
• 2:30: Arrived at Independence Mall, the grassy area between all the big Independence/Constitution/Liberty Bell stuff, walked past the security guards and asked how we could help. An organizer said, "Field the people walking in asking questions so we can get work done. Here are a bunch of orange tickets you can give them, then tell them to wait at 5th and Market." We said we didn't have tickets. She said, "Here are a couple of blue ones for you. They get you in first." Yeah!
  
• 2:45: Acting very official, I went up to people who looked lost. Most of them were overjoyed when I gave them tickets, though a few tried to talk me into blue tickets, which I didn't have. I felt like the guy in front of Studio 54 holding the rope, deciding who could get in. (Studio 54? Again with the last-century allusions!)
  
• 4:00: All the tickets are gone, and the blue ticket people are lining up to get it in at 5:30. We happen to be at the front of the line, so we stay there.
  
• 5:30: We're among the first 150 people in through the airport-quality security. They even confiscated our water bottles, and it's over 80 degrees. We end up in the third row of people standing behind the barricades next to the podium, about 15 feet away from where Obama will speak. Around 7:30, we think.
  
• 7:00: So many people have filled in behind us, we can't see the back. A volunteer coordinator pitches the crowd about the need for people to work the streets Saturday through Tuesday.
  
• 7:30: The singer from the Black Eyed Peas who did the "Yes We Can" video sang a drop-dead gorgeous number accompanied by an acoustic guitar, like in the video.
  
• 8:15: The crowd is hot, tired, and frustrated with waiting. Chants of O-ba-MA! O-ba-MA! spring up. We're in the third loop of the 45 minute mix tape, and between songs, people chant, "No More Music! No More Music!" To no avail. A few people mutter, "If he doesn't show up soon, I'm voting for Clinton." "No, you're not," another says. "I know, but where the hell is he?" By this time, one little girl has had an asthma attack, four people have grown faint from the heat and lack of water, and one older woman has to be taken away in a stretcher. And that's just around me.  The people around us are great, by the way. As tired as I am standing there waiting, at least I'm in good company.
  
• 8:45: Obama shows up. 15 feet away. His face in the harsh TV lights is sculptural, full of planes and angles. And his speech is marvelous, wrapping the theme of independence from the British (we're in Independence Mall, right?) around the idea of breaking away from the business-as-usual traditions of Washington. The crowd is with him 100 percent. Occasionally he has to say, "Wait a minute, wait a minute," to quiet us down so he can finish his thought. He gets in some forceful digs at Clinton, not personal attacks, but comments about her acting like Republican-lite in the campaign. Very effective.
  
• 9:15: Obama shakes hands, working the line in front of us. We start to get crushed in the people crowding forward. I understand how people can get trampled at rock concerts. But as we work our way out of the crowd, people gladly let us pass, hoping to get closer.
  
• 11:00: I watch the local news and learn that 35,000 people were at the rally, about double what the campaign set as its success number. The crowd stretched for two city blocks. I feel a weary satisfaction that I was part of it all.

On the Ground in Philadelphia, Day 2

by David Safier

Here's your at-the-scene correspondent, giving you the news from Philadelphia.

Last night I ate at a 5-star restaurant. Washed my scampi down with a $300 cabernet. God, it's great to be on the Blog for Arizona expense account! I'll give you the receipts when I get back, Mike. (Mike? Are you there, Mike?)

I spent a few hours at the downtown Obama headquarters, phoning and writing letters. Because it was mid-day and mid-week, we were calling the 60-80 year old set, because they were most likely to be home. That's Hillary country, and more people said they supported her than Barack. But a reasonably number were for Barack, and a surprising number were undecided. I expect the undecideds to go for Clinton when they hit the polls (though I may have convinced a few to lean toward Obama), but it's encouraging that so many are ready to vote for either candidate, because it means that if (I mean, when) Obama is the candidate, it won't be too hard for Clinton supporters to change sides.

The Philly papers played last night's debate pretty evenly. They didn't amplify the "gotcha" tone of the moderators, which is good, since the gotcha-over-substance quality of the questions was pretty vile. Maybe the media won't be all Weatherman, all the time.

The Weekly endorsed Obama, as did the tabloid-sized daily, the Philadelphia News. I don't know if the major paper, the Enquirer, has endorsed. (This is the cover of the Philadelphia Weekly).

Friday, 6pm, there will be a big Obama rally in the area around Independence Hall. They're hoping for a huge turnout, which is probable. The Philadelphia area belongs to Obama. Other parts of the state lean toward Clinton.

On another topic, two Philadelphia charter schools had their contracts taken away, for a variety of reasons having to do with student performance, fiscal reporting, etc. Another is being looked into for possible serious overcompensation of its CEO and his family. Those of you who have been around for awhile, when was the last time an Arizona charter school had its charter taken away? We have more charter schools than any state in the country -- we gave away charters like free popcorn -- and it's unlikely that all of them are spending their money wisely and educating their students well. Yet we don't hear about oversight, because there isn't any. (Part of the reason for the careful oversight here is, the Philly schools were deemed so bad, they were taken over by the state a few years ago. So it makes sense they'd be keeping careful track of how things are going.)

On the Ground in Philadelphia

by David Safier

I'm in Philly visiting family and working on the Obama campaign. Does any other Arizona blog have a correspondent right here where the action is? I don't think so! (Mike, you said you'd pay my expenses, right? Mike? Are you there, Mike?)

I took the photo at around 3:30 Philly Time in front of the Constitution Center where the debate will be happening tonight (I saw Jonathan Alter walk past -- identified him by his hairline more than his face.)

The Clinton and Obama camps were across the street from the center waving signs and chanting slogans. The Clinton campaign way out-organized the Obama folks on this front. They had hundreds of people in matching t-shirts carrying triple signs on long poles. We had about half as many people, most of us waving small lawn signs. Ah well, signage doesn't matter much, does it?

On last night's 11pm local news, the lead story was the campaigns. They asked whether the recent dust-up hurt Obama, and their conclusion was, the polls say no. He's about 6% behind Clinton, which is where things were a few days ago. The words "bitter," "guns" and "God" were not mentioned, which says to me the whole story is over, unless something else revives it.

The two local papers were equally low-keyed about the Obama statement that the Clinton and McCain camps tried to turn into the elite, anti-God, anti-gun statement of the millennium. The worst they could say was, maybe the story slowed Obama's momentum.

On the education front, the Philly Charter Schools are up to have their contracts renewed, and it looks like a few of them might be in trouble. Two might have the plug pulled due to poor performance. And in a completely separate incident, it looks like a family has been paying itself lavishly to run two charter schools, and they could be in deep trouble. This kind of thing couldn't happen in Arizona, of course. Nobody's watching. The state has put no money in the budget for monitoring or oversight of charter schools, so we really don't know much about what they're doing. Some are probably wonderful. Others are probably awful. But no one is minding the store.

Yes, I Realize This Means I Have a Crush On Obama

I got a personalized license plate for the campaign season. I guess I'm feeling pretty confident about who will be the Democratic nominee...

And, yes, even though I criticize her constantly on certain subjects, I do sport a Giffords bumper on my truck. Heck, I would even put a Mitchell bumper on there if someone thought to send me one. I'm awaiting the arrival of my Kirkpatrick, Titla, Shenker, and Thrasher bumpers (hint, hint, guys...)

Bittergate: What's the matter with Pennsylvania?

by AzBlueMeanie

The media generated controversy over Barack Obama's small town "bitter" comment began with a posting by Mahill Fowler, a blogger on the Huffington Post, and was quickly picked up by the corporate approved candidates for president, Clinton and McCain, and the echo chamber of the corporate right-wing noise machine in the mainstream media.

Transcript of Barack Obama Comments:

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laughter), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

Barack Obama was absolutely correct when you read the full context of his remarks.

Social scientists and political scientists have been documenting this in research and articles for decades.  Obama was simply making the same observations that Thomas Frank made in "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Republicans have for decades practiced the politics of class division by using "wedge issues" like "guns, God and gays," race and anti-immigrant hysteria to divide middle class Americans and set them against one another to convince enough of them to vote against their own economic self-interests by voting for Republicans on so-called "values" issues.

If only Obama has prefaced his comments first by a reference to "What's the matter with Kansas?"  Perhaps Obama was just tired.

What's the matter with Pennsylvania?

Certainly not the people who live and work there.

Both Clinton and McCain feverishly tried to spin Obama's comments into an insult against working class Americans.  Pennsylvanians were clearly not the object of his scorn.

Obama's scorn was for the privileged elite Washington politicians - Bush 41 and 43, the Clintons and McCain - who have made promises to the people of Pennsylvania for decades that they have failed to keep.  This has led to a pervasive sense of betrayal, anger and bitterness towards politicians where there is no evidence in people's daily lives that their circumstances have improved.

Republican "wedge issue" politics on so-called "values" issues has left them cynical and skeptical that any politician has their interests at heart.  Hope is not enough when you have been down for so long.  Pennsylvanians want specifics on what you are going to do to help them.  That is the central point Obama was making.

As a result of Republican economic policies, small town America has been systematically erased from the American landscape by the outsourcing of America's industrial base to cheap labor foreign countries and family farmers being forced off their family's land in favor of large corporate agribusinesses.

Small town America today is only a faint echo of its once idealistic past, if not crumbling in ruins as one of the many ghost towns that blight the American landscape. The manufacturing jobs that began disappearing during the Nixon administration only accelerated under the trickle down supply side economic policies of Reagan and continued on through Bill Clinton's New Democrats who fore swore the traditional values of the Democratic Party in favor of corporate globalism and outsourcing our manufacturing base in favor of the promise of a new information based economy.

Only Clinton's promise of a new economy benefited only a relatively small elite class of highly-educated individuals.  Job creation for average Americans was largely concentrated in the service sector, with low wages and few or no employee benefits.  Average Americans were left behind in the new economy.  Average Americans have seen their earning power stagnate if not decline, as measured in terms of 1973 real dollars (except for a few brief years during the late 1990S; those modest gains have since been erased).

During the past 40 years, and at a greatly accelerated pace during the past 14 years, Americans have witnessed the greatest transfer of wealth in American history from the working classes and entrepreneurial classes of the middle class to the global corporate giants and the hyper-wealthy elite investor class.

A new "Gilded Age" of wealth concentration among the top five percentile bracket, and an even greater concentration among the top 2 percentile bracket, has reached its zenith under the hyper-trickle down supply side economic polices of George W. Bush.

The devastating price Americans have paid for these Republican economic policies has been an America reduced to the greatest debtor nation in history, the American dollar now nearly worthless, and the infrastructure of the once greatest economic powerhouse the world has ever known is crumbling in ruin in the rust and the dust.

The global corporate giants and the hyper-wealthy elite investor class have squeezed everything they can squeeze out of the economy and left many Americans with nothing, not even hope and their abiding faith that the future will be better for their children, for the first time in memory.

Barack Obama is absolutely correct when he says that Americans are angry and "bitter."  If you are not angry you have not been paying attention.  A recent New York Times/CBS News poll  found that 81% of Americans believe the county is seriously on the wrong track.

Damn right Americans are bitter!  Voters have been turning out in record numbers during the Democratic primaries this year to express their outrage, like Howard Beale in the movie classic Network (1976):

Beale: [shouting] You've got to say, "I am a human being, goddammit!  My life has value!"  So I want you to get up now.  I want all of you to get up out of your chairs.  I want you to get up right now and go to the window.  Open it, and stick your head out and yell, I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

But like Arthur Jensen, the network executive in Network, the global corporations and the elite investor class do not want this populist message taking hold among the American public.  "You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Obama, and we won't have it."

So the global corporations and the elite investor class have unleashed their political attack dogs, Clinton and McCain, and the echo chamber of the corporate right-wing noise machine in the mainstream media to attack Obama.

Like Howard Beale, Barack Obama is now to be destroyed for daring to speak truth to power. Obama's comments will be spun into a fantastical tale of an elitist insult to good hard working "common folk" - the very Americans whom Republicans and their corporate masters don't give a damn about other than their votes at election time.

This is the Republican politics of class division in full view for all to see.  The truth that Obama spoke may yet be lost in the fiction spun by the echo chamber of the corporate right-wing noise machine in the mainstream media.

It is up to you readers to understand that you are being played by a powerful elite and to not be fooled by their spin.  It is up to you to lend your own voices to speak truth to power by yelling, "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

Emerson, Obama and Clinton

by David Safier

I'm taking another Sunday stroll through Meta-education Land (I'm planning to suggest Meta-Education Land as a new ride at Disneyland. The thrills! The Chills! The Erudition!). Today I'm taking a digression to one of my favorite essays of all time, Ralph Waldo Emerson's "The American Scholar."

I was reminded of the essay when someone on a cable news show mentioned the historical uniqueness of the Democratic presidential primary, where the two candidates left standing happen to be African American in one case and female in the other. The commenter said something to this effect: "We have to think of these two, not as an African American or a woman running for president, but presidential candidates who happen to be African American and female."

I thought these were wise words. Don't place Obama's and Clinton's racial and gender identities as their primary identifiers. Make them secondary descriptors. Say, "Oh, by the way, Barack Obama, the presidential candidate with the following qualifications and positions on the issues . . . is also black," not "Here is this black guy who thinks he can be president." The same for Clinton. Put her positions and qualifications first, and her gender as something you would mention in the same way you say McCain is from Arizona. It's relevant, but not critical to whether she is qualified to be president.

In "The American Scholar," Emerson talks about the fable that there is actually one "Man" (He uses the prefeminist term "Man" to describe humanity, as did everyone at the time, rather than "Person,"), and we are all portions of that one being -- fingers and toes, necks and stomachs, as it were. And he regrets that we refuse to acknowledge our Oneness but instead have become loose appendages severed from the whole:

Unfortunately, this original unit, this fountain of power, has been so distributed to multitudes, has been so minutely subdivided and peddled out, that it is spilled into drops, and cannot be gathered. The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters,--a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man.

In this world of "walking monsters," the Person/Man who indulges in the noble act of farming "sinks into the farmer, instead of Man on the farm." And so it goes with others who are consumed by their professions and ignore their Human-ness: "the attorney [becomes] a statute-book; the mechanic, a machine; the sailor, a rope of a ship."

Two People, two representatives of our greater Humanity, are running to be the Democratic candidate for president. Among the characteristics of these People, one happens to have some of his ancestry going back to Africa, and the other happens to be a female. The question we need to ask ourselves is, "Which of these two People is the best Democratic choice to become the next President of the United States?" Their genders and ancestry are part of the mix, just as the fact that McCain is white and male is relevant. To deny that would be ridiculous. But they should not be the primary considerations.

Are we ready to see these two candidates as People first, as Emerson suggests we should? It is a genuine, and troubling question that, once this election is over, will continue to be discussed for decades.

McCain Hasn't Examined 21st Century G.I. Bill

by David Safier

Democratic Senator Jim Webb and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel are cosponsoring a bill that would update the G.I. Bill so its educational benefits cover today's tuition and living expenses. More than 50 Senators have signed on, Democrats and Republicans. Both Obama and Clinton are among them.

But Arizona's own war hero John McCain? Not so much.

"I have not had the chance to examine it carefully," he said. "It seems to me that it is a good thing to do. But I haven't examined it with the care that it needs. But we obviously need to do something along those lines."

Hasn't examined it carefully. Hmm, now why does that sound familiar today, the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination?

Ah, I remember. McCain was one of a few Senators who voted against creating a Martin Luther King holiday in 1983, and continued his opposition for number of years. His explanation?

"I had not really been involved in the issue. I just had not had a lot of experience with the issue. That's all."

McCain was 47 at the time. It was 10 years after he returned from being a prisoner of war. But he says he hadn't thought much about King, which means he hadn't thought much about racial issues in the U.S. He may not be as dumb as Bush, but he shares the man's total lack of curiosity -- if he's telling the truth. Maybe the Straight Talkin' Maverick, who was a freshman Senator at the time, was worried that voting for the holiday would be unpopular back in his home state.

The real story about McCain hesitating to sign on to the new G.I. bill is, he's waiting to get a signal from the Bush administration. They seem to think the bill would make higher education look so good to G.I.s, they might decide to leave the military instead of reenlisting. We can't have our brave soldiers selfishly thinking of bettering themselves when they could be fighting and dying in Iraq, now can we?

Pat Buchanan's Racist Rantings

by David Safier

I'm wandering away from my usual education postings today. I've been waiting to see a recent Pat Buchanan column taken up by the media and hoping to see MSNBC demand an apology and suspend him for a few weeks. I've seen nothing, so the least I can do is say something myself.

A week ago, Buchanan wrote a column, Obama's cure: Same old con, about Obama's speech on the topic of race. Here are some highlights:

Buchanan said the speech was "the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running," blaming the whites when they're the cause of their own problems.

So Obama is a con artist (and maybe a con) and a black hustler shaking down innocent whites, looking for another handout.

"America has been the best country on Earth for black folks."

Black folks.

"It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known."

Brought here in slave ships. A word about the horrors of the middle passage would have been nice, Pat. Introduced to Christian salvation. That's the kind of attitude we need, a little more paternalistic "Take up the White Man's Burden" talk.

"No people anywhere have done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the black community into the mainstream."

I guess, according to Pat, those programs were specifically designed for the black community. No poor whites or Latinos or Asians should bother trying to get any of these government anti-poverty black Welfare Queen funds.

"We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?"

We do everything for them, and those ungrateful wretches don't even thank us.

A longer version of this op ed is on Buchanan's website, titled, A Brief for Whitey. It includes the line:

"Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American."

Pat Buchanan is treated as a serious man. He's a talking head on MSNBC. He sits next to Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews on election nights. And these racist rants are allowed to stand, without comment and without censure.

Don Imus was thrown off the air, rightly, for referring to the Rutger's women's basketball team as "nappy headed hos." MSNBC's David Schuster was made to apologize, then was suspended for saying Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped around" by the Clinton campaign. Fair enough. But Buchanan compares Obama to a con man and a black hustler, and we hear nothing.

In an exercise in futility, I've been emailing Keith Olbermann daily since this happened, trying to shame him into condemning Buchanan's racism on his show, Countdown. Last night, I heard Bill Maher talking about Buchanan's column on Real Time with Bill Maher, the first mention I've heard on television. By giving Buchanan a pass, the media is saying that using racial slurs and egregious misreadings of racial history against Obama is fine. Bring it on. The more racial slurs, the better.

First Post - In Defense of Liberty!

by John Adams

First of all, thanks to Mike Bryan and Blog for Arizona for the opportunity to contribute to this exciting, progressive community.  It's a privilege to share our thoughts on today's issues.

Since this is my first post, please allow a brief introduction.

I retired from Active Duty in the US Army in September 2007, as a Brigadier General, with over thirty years' service to our Constitution as a Military Intelligence officer, Army Aviator, and Foreign Area Officer.

With on the ground experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan (temporary duty in 2004), I also served in Africa (Operation Guardian Assistance, Rwanda, 1996), Europe (Operation Allied Force, the Balkans, 1999), and the Middle East (Operation Desert Storm, Saudi Arabia, 1991).

On 9/11, I was at the Pentagon, 100 yards from the crash site...and on that tragic day I participated in the rescue and recovery of the shattered bodies of our brothers and sisters-in-arms. As a committed servant of the Constitution of the United States of America, I am determined to combat the murderers who attacked us on 9/11.

But I am just as determined to combat the fear-mongering criminals in the Bush Administration who assault our Constitutional rights under the guise of protecting us—and who under false pretenses, send our brave troops to die in the unconscionable occupation of Iraq.

From first-hand experience, I know national security issues. I also know that the Bush Administration cynically exploits our fears to gain ever more control of our national security apparatus, benefit the richest among us economically, and eviscerate our constitutional liberties.

Although I have taken off my Army uniform, I am no less committed to fighting for our Constitution—and for real national security—than I was when on Active Duty.

However, as John F. Kennedy said in his acceptance speech for his nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1960, "We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light a candle that can guide us."

In that spirit, please allow me to address a brighter subject...the movement to elect Barack Obama as our next President. Barack has a life experience that demonstrates his capacity for hard work and commitment...and most important for someone who aspires to the Presidency, Barack is a brilliant, caring, perceptive, and courageous leader.

My own life experience convinces me that Barack Obama is the greatest leader we have seen in America for generations. He has the experience, the judgment, and the passion to inspire all Americans, to unite us, and to carry this country forward beyond ethnic and economic divisions.

As a delegate pledged to Barack Obama, I will fight to make him our nominee at our Democratic National Convention.  With the help of Americans united in the conviction that we must change the course of our country, and chart a new one that benefits all our people, we will elect a President of whom all Americans will be proud.

I am privileged to call Blog for Arizona my "home," including at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. I welcome your thoughts—and your counsel—as we march toward Denver and beyond.

No You Can't, Senator McCain...

Seems like some of the most powerful, truly meaningful, and creative ads are coming out of the radically open cultural foment on the internet, not the campaigns' own hired shops. The latest that has really impressed me is from the creative collective working at BarelyPolitical.com. It captures simply and forcefully the worst aspects of McCain's campaign:

Thanks to Obama-girl Lauren for bringing it to my attention.

Foster Upset Victory Something for Super-Delegate Giffords to Consider

With Gabby Giffords holding an uncommitted vote for our next Democratic Presidential nominee, it would be wise of her to consider what that nominee can bring to her own race for re-election.

Rookie scientist-citizen candidate Bill Foster's 53-47 upset victory in former Speaker Dennis Hastert's old district demonstrates that Obama, who endorsed and campaigned for Foster, has the ability to provide strong cross-partisan coattails and heavy favorable turn-out in a Republican district, even before his nomination. The 14th District historically has been very Republican, re-electing Hastert with 60 percent of the vote in 2006 and giving President Bush 55 percent of the vote in 2004.

Gabby faces a similar challenge as a freshman Member in a formerly Repubulican-held, and still Republican-plurality district. Whose endorsement would serve her re-election chances better? Who does she want cutting ads for her as the Presidential nominee? Who does she want stumping for her in her district?

Many viewed the Foster-Oberweis contest as a proxy fight of sorts between Obama (backing Foster) and McCain (backing Oberweis). Clearly Obama had the home-state advantage, but McCain had the numbers in the district.

Come November, with McCain certain to be the nominee, he'll have a home-state advantage in Arizona's CD 8 that Tim Bee is hoping to parlay into a victory in this plurality-Republican district.

Gabby would be best served by the backing of a nominee who has a proven ability to provide coat-tails in even in a much more Republican district—IL's 14th—than AZ's 8th. At this point, the only alternative to Sen. Obama for Gabby is a nominee who has long-entrenched negatives among Republicans, and who—at least in comparison to Sen. Obama—leaves Independents cold. And Independents will decide the Congressional race in CD 8.

Gabby would do well to ponder deeply the miracle that Bill Foster pulled off with Obama's help when she decides who should get her vote for Democratic nominee at the convention.

RenziGate Roundup 2/27

Governor Napolitano says Dick is depriving CD 1 voters of effective representation by not resigning • "Arizona Gov. Napolitano Urges Indicted Rep. Renzi to Resign"

The Tucson Citizen editorial staff agrees that Dick cannot effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances and should resign • "Indicted Renzi Should Resign"

Notable Quotes:

• Ann Kirkpatrick, former state legislator and Democratic candidate for the 1st District U.S. House seat, says, "We, the people of this district, have witnessed firsthand the declining leadership and representation Renzi has provided over the past year and we cannot have another eight months pass without our voice being heard in Congress. It is time for Rep. Renzi to do what is right and to do what is in the best interest of this great district - resign and resign immediately."
• House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio called the charges against Renzi "completely unacceptable for a member of Congress," and said Renzi should "seriously consider whether he can continue to effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances."
• "Can he do his job now? I don't think so," said Jan Smith, Yavapai County Republican Party chair. "There's no way under the circumstances that anyone could concentrate on their job."
• One of the candidates running for Renzi's seat, Democrat Howard Shanker also said the congressman should leave office. "It is unfortunate that we can hold so little faith or trust in our elected representatives."
• Congressional Scholar and Historian at the American Enterprise Institute, Norman Ornstein says Dick's indictment "... is an equaling compelling indictment against a Congressional ethics process that once again proves its utter impotence." He goes on to urged Congress to reexaimne the idea of an independent ethics body (Note that Ornstein is too sanguine about Congresscritters' willingness to entertain such reforms, even now, as the bill was just pulled from the floor because it failed to get enough support):

  "All of this is prelude to the critical choice facing the House this week. At long last (and I mean long--some of us have been working for nearly 30 years to create a meaningful reform here) the House is going to take up a plan to create an independent office for preliminary ethics investigations...

  "The panel would consist of six members jointly appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader, with staggered four-year terms (a limit of two for any members.) It has reasonable standards and thresholds for the group to consider potential ethical violations, with reports sent to the ethics committee laying out the facts of the group's investigation alongside the relevant rules and/or laws. There are reasonable time limits for the ethics committee to act on the report--and importantly, provisions that would eventually require release of the independent panel's report to the public if the ethics committee simply sat on the report."

Public interest groups such as Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the the Project on Government Oversight are following Dick's case closely.

Local press homing in on scandal as the Yavapai County Daily Courier, the Kingman Daily Miner cover the story.

My View:
The Hill is hedged in its headline, pointing out some possible weak points in the indictment. "The indictment does not detail when or if Renzi crafted that bill and a review of Renzi’s bills in 2005 and 2006 shows that no such measure was introduced."  The article opines, "The Renzi case on allegations of quid pro quo legislative maneuvers is more nuanced than Ney’s and Cunningham’s cases where gifts and money were linked to congressional activities such as statements that were put in the Congressional Record and earmarks."

This is a sharp observation by The Hill, but very likely all the evidence the feds have has not been alleged or alluded in the indictment alone. There is likely a ton more evidence against Dick; especially very credible witness evidence, not to mention the likely testimony Dick's co-conspirators will cough up in exchange for a deal.

However, the absence of an introduced bill would be a major problem in proving at least some of the first 27 counts of the indictment. If The Hill's observation turned out to be true, it could be problematic for the prosecution. However, The Hill's concern is not an issue at all for Dick's earlier embezzlement of $400K to fund his 2002 campaign alleged in counts 28 - 35, which has nothing to do with his legislative actions.

I don't think The Hill did nearly enough diligence to conclude that the 'smoking bill' doesn't exist just because Renzi doesn't seem to have filed it; this sort of legislation gets lodged in omnibus bills all the time, and I'm sure Dick did his level best to keep his prints off it.

Although Dick's lawyers are currently only making implausible generic and blanket denials, Dick will eventually have to get much more specific and credible in order to justify his staying in office. This could be a huge problem for his defense.

It is never a good idea to lock yourself into a theory of defense before you know what evidence the prosecution has got and is likely to be able to present at trial. This is why high-profile cases are such a bear to defend: the public wants answers more compelling than merely telling them that the charges are baseless: the public isn't stupid.

They know that 35 count indictments don't get cooked up whole and that there is always some factual basis for such charges, even if the authorities may have misinterpreted events and acts that are perfectly legal - especially when the charges are against a man as powerful and well-connected as Dick, who has the power to defend himself vigorously and to do damage to careers and government departments should there have been any impropriety in bringing the indictment.

The voters will want to hear Dick's explanation of what looks quite damning, indeed. If he and his lawyers can't start to produce a narrative explaining why the charges are mistaken without tying Dick's hands in his eventual defense in court, forget about his staying in office, the issue becomes solely keeping him out of jail. When it comes right down to it, if I were more concerned about the rest of my client's life than preserving his job, and the GOP's electoral chances in CD 1, I would be pushing Dick to resign in order to avoid the need to go on the record with more specific denials and explanations that could possibly compromise his defense later.

Politico points out the GOP would be seriously disadvantaged in their efforts to hold CD 1 by an early Dick departure. They would fare much better, though they are likely still in deep trouble, if the seat were up for grabs in November, instead. They cite the large funding advantage held by both the DCCC over the RNCC, and between the parties' candidates on the ground.

Interestingly, Politico also compared Sydney Hay to Randy Graf - poison to her national fund-raising potential. Personally, because of Hays' ties to charter and home-school advocates, I think a better political parallel would be to Gov. Mike Huckabee, who home-schoolers did yeoman's work for in making his Presidential bid viable.

The Raw Story echoes Washinton Post reporter Ben Pershing's comments on RenziGate that indicate the formation of a conventional wisdom that the GOP is considerably better off running in a November election, rather than a quick special election, because of McCain's presence at the top of the ticket:

"If Renzi hangs around the rest of the year, he may generate some more bad publicity, but the race to replace him in Arizona's 1st District should at least be manageable for the GOP in November, especially with home state Sen. John McCain at the top of the ballot."

I've entertained this thought myself a for a while, but I'm increasing dubious about McCain's coattails in light recent polling by Bruce Merrill indicating a narrowing margin for McCain in Arizona, and the finding that most Arizonans don't expect McCain to actually win the Presidency, even if they plan to vote for him.

With softening support, a surging Democratic ticket, and pessimism even among Republican voters about McCain's chances, he may not have the coattails in this state that so many, including myself, have expected.

Dick's stench being dragged around Arizona for an extended period of time could even pox McClean's image as he battles his own allegations of campaign finance shenanigans.

McCain is rightly viewed as the real leader and paterfamilias of the Arizona Republican party, now that he's practically the GOP's nominee. It says something to voters that McCain sits on his hands and says nothing about Dick's troubles and his refusal to step down.

Considering the robocall McCain left CD 1 voters, it may be hard for his to put day-light between himself and Renzi at all:

"This is Senator John McCain. I'm calling to urge you to support my friend, Representative Rick Renzi for Congress. Rick has represented the first district of Arizona with tenacity, honesty and integrity beyond reproach. I work with Rick every day and can report to you his total dedication to the people of Arizona and the United States. Please join me in supporting rural Arizona's workhorse Congressman on November 7."

 

The longer Dick and John are easily associated in the public's mind by the nature of the their ethical troubles and their party affiliation, and the longer McCain tacitly condones Dick's behavior by not overtly condemning him and calling for his resignation, the more McClean's own shine may tarnish.

In the end, Renzi may wind up doing much more damage to McCain than any benefit the GOP may get from a November election rather than a special election to replace Arizona's own Tricky Dick.

McCain, Bee and Mayes: There They Go Again

Many of you will have seen coverage of McCain's use of federal matching funds to secure a loan for his campaign prior to his win in New Hampshire. He promised the originating bank that if he didn't come within 10% of winning, he would re-enter the federal finance system, giving them a secured interest in those funds as collateral for the million-dollar loan. The FEC says that McCain's use of those funds to secure other financing binds him to the program, and that he must obey the restrictions that come with that money.

McCain's response to the FEC was basically, "Meh. Try and make me." The DNC is filing a complaint with the FEC, and you can help. Here's what Chairman Howard Dean had to say:

"There was a lot of talk last week about John McCain's blatant hypocrisy on ethics and integrity in Washington.

Here we go again.

McCain is now breaking the law by ignoring the campaign spending restrictions for the Republican primary that came when he asked for federal matching funds -- funds he used as collateral on a loan that helped keep his campaign going.

But now that the lobbyist and special interest money has started pouring into his campaign, he's trying to back out of the promise he made just a few months ago. They're feeding so much cash into his bank account, this "reformer" wants nothing to do with federal campaign finance laws anymore.

That's why today, we're filing a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission demanding that John McCain be held to the campaign finance laws. Trying to back out shows a total lack of integrity and honesty -- he made a deal with the American people to to abide by the law, and in return, he was guaranteed taxpayer money that he used to back a loan."

            

Good luck with that, Howard.

I'm beginning to see a pattern of disrespect for campaign finance laws among Republican candidates. I know, I know. I must be slow on the uptake, or have a very trusting nature not to have seen it before this.

I complained about Tim Bee's Schrödinger's campaign (in September, and October, and finally in January when he got around to announcing - conveniently within a year of the end of his term, so he didn't have to resign under Arizona law) and asked the Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard to look into the matter, to no avail.

Now McCain has his own novel theory of how to skirt the law to get his piece of cake on loan and and eat it, too.

These Republicans are eroding respect for campaign finance laws by finding any ambiguity or unanticipated maneuver and using such blind spots to their own political advantage. And the lesson seems to be sinking in.

Now Kris Mayes, the ACC member who is 'exploring' a bid to replace Dick Renzi when he finally perp walks, seems to be heading down the same Schrödinger's campaign trail that Tim Bee blazed. Certainly, the Arizona Democratic Party suspects so. But you can justifiably ignore what one party says about the other... can't you?

She is going all out in organizing, putting in place her team, fund-raising, and pressing the flesh, yet still claims she is just exploring a bid. You can practically hear the words, "...just like Tim" hovering over her campaign. With Renzi heading for the dock, I can't fault her strategic choice to ensure that any Republican is viable in that district following Renzi's criminal enterprises before giving up the plum appointment that her old boss, Governor Janet Napolitano, secured for her - but I can, and will, question her fidelity to Arizona's constitution and election laws.

Ultimately she's going to have to say 'in' or 'out' and it needs to be soon. If she hits the next FEC reporting period and forms a Tim-Bee-style qualified candidate committee (i.e. "I am forming a candidate's committee, but I'm really just exploring. And I'll be obeying the FEC rules that only candidates have to follow, but I'm not yet a candidate. Really. I'm not.") and reports her finances for that candidate committee, as only a candidate (but not a water-testing citizen) is obligated to do - again, like Tim did - but she still hasn't resigned her ACC seat, then she's making campaign finance chicanery official Republican policy, if it's not already.

And who can fault her, really? She's only following the example of our esteemed Arizona Senate President, Tim Bee, and now the distinguished presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, Senator John McCain. Surely one can safely emulate the behavior of such eminent men, who are entrusted with enormous legal power and discretion, and who set the tone and norms of political life in Arizona and beyond?

When those who make the laws are themselves lawless, what hope is there for our Republic, or for the rule of law on which our democracy rests?

Big Dick Renzi is Undone

I won't even pretend to hide my delight at the news of Dick Renzi's long-anticipated indictment. There was a strong appearance of political interference by the White House to stave off Renzi's just deserts by firing Arizona USA Paul Charlton during the pendancy of his investigation of Renzi's dealings, so it is much to the credit of Diane Humetewa, the new Arizona USA, that she persevered and put this prosecution at the top of her agenda despite the obvious interest of the Bush Administration in making this matter go away.

Of course, that interest has become much more costly now that Bush's fingers were burned in the Attorney-gate scandal, and the benefit of continuing to support Renzi's criminal lifestyle had diminished markedly once the GOP was no longer fighting to maintain a majority in the House. These factors undoubtedly combined to give Humetewa the breathing room needed to do her job without undue political pressure. The very fact that such political considerations can even be contemplated to have been a factor in the prosecution of public corruption are just one more of the many damning indictments of this Administration and the ethics of the modern GOP.

“Among the allegations contained in the indictment, Congressman Renzi misused his public office by forcing a land sale that would financially benefit himself and a business associate, and in so doing, he betrayed the trust of the citizens of Arizona,” stated U.S. Attorney Diane J. Humetewa. Here's Humetewa's press conference presenting the indictment:

Offsite video

Learn more about the indictment and what it means for the McCain campaign after the click...

The Clinton Implosion

With 10 straight defeats, frequently by landslides, Hillary Clinton is now behind Barack Obama in overall delegate count, even when the announced PLEO delegates are taken into account.

As of Hawaii, Obama's pledged count is 1178 to Clinton's 1024. Add their announced PLEOs and Obama still maintains the lead 1351 to 1262. This means that in order to pull ahead before the convention Clinton will need to attract more PLEOs than Obama, while in fact she's bleeding PLEO support as she's pummeled by the electorate. She will also need to win almost 60% of the remaining pledged delegates, meaning that she will need to win many of the remaining primary contests by large margins, not the squeakers she's generally managed.

With Obama polling nationally at 52% to Clinton's 38%, the scenario for a Clinton win seems increasingly unlikely. However, Clinton does retain one major, insurmountable advantage over Obama:

Oh, and there is this ad, slated for air in OH, and possibly TX and PA, sponsored by a 527 touted widely as Hillary's own 'Swift-Boat' campaign against Obama. I gotta say though, if this is the hardest ball she can throw, she needs to go back to the mush ball league:

What's a Super-Delegate To Do?

UPDATE: It's been brought to my attention by an old DNC hand, whose expertise I will gladly defer to, that my terminology in this article tends to be misleading. A Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegate also refers to a species of state-wide pledged delegate that only certain officials are qualified to become - but they are still pledged delegates, not "super-delegates". Actual "super-delegates" are unpledged delegates, who are drawn from a subset of party leaders and elected officials (the particular species of those critters that are unpledged, or "super," delegates are accurately listed below). Thus, there are unpledged PLEOs ("super-delegates") and pledged PLEOs (pledged delegates that must be a qualified office-holder, which is a way to reserve the political plum of attending and voting at the convention for the real players). Though I made the distinction that I meant unpledged PLEOs when I used the unqualified term 'PLEO', the fact that there are two species of PLEO could be misleading. I know that all this is slightly confusing, but merely add the word 'unpledged' to the acronym 'PLEO' wherever it occurs, and the article should be entirely accurate. I regret the confusion, and I put the blame squarely were it belongs - on every else but me and my helpful expert :)

It seems apparent that the Democratic nominee for President will be determined not by primary voters and caucus-goers, but by those mysterious super-delegates. What are they, how much influence do they have, and how should they decide for whom they should cast their votes?

Officially, the 795 super-delegates (about 20% of the total number of delegates) are 'unpledged party leader and elected official delegates', often referred to as PLEO delegates.

The Democratic PLEO delegates consist of:

• Current members of the Democratic National Committee
  
• Current Democratic members of the House of Representatives
• Current Democratic members of the United States Senate
• Current Democratic governors
• Former Democratic presidents & vps
• Former Democratic leaders of the United States Senate
• Former Democratic Speakers of the House
• Former Democratic House Minority Leaders
• Former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee

Arizona's PLEO delegates are:

• DNC Members
  • Donald Bivens
  • Janice C. Brunson
  • Donna Branch Gilby
  • Joe Rios
  • Carolyn Warner
• U.S. House of Representatives
  • Gabrielle Giffords
  • Raul Grijalva
  • Harry E. Mitchell
  • Ed Pastor
• Governor Janet Napolitano

The PLEOs were created in 1982 in order to give the party more internal control of the nomination process following the reforms of the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1968, under which rules McGovern was able to run his 1972 insurgent, anti-war, populist campaign that captured the nomination, but lost miserably to Nixon.

One of the concerns of the DNC in creating superdelegates was to prevent the nomination process from being captured from a narrow faction of party activists. There was concern about low turn-out in the primaries and especially the caucuses in the years between 1968 and 1980, often trending as low as 10-20% of eligible party members. That, combined with with the bad losses suffered in 1972 and 1980, and the under-representation at the Conventions of elected officials, led the party to pull back from a purely democratic approach to nominating.

There is a fundamental tension in the existence of PLEOs; they were created to perform a fundamentally undemocratic function - to moderate populist sentiment. Yet to have legitimacy, they have had to function merely as an extension of the primary system. Were they to change the outcome of the primary process by handing the nomination to the candidate who was behind in the pledged delegate count, most would view that as undemocratic and illegitimate. Yet they were created free of any constraint in how they voted at the convention precisely to bring to bear their superior experience and knowledge to the nomination process. They are supposed to do what they think is best for the party, but if the majority of them see the world differently than primary voters, there would be a great deal of dissatisfaction with their act