Party Unity My Ass, My Ass

I will be taking a little break from politicswatching to do my World Civ homework, but before I do, I'd just like to join the chorus of voices commenting on the supposed rift between Hillary supporters and Barack Obama.

The media has this little narrative by the throat: Many Hillary supporters are disappointed, disillusioned, unhappy with Obama, and perhaps unwilling to vote for him. And the McCainiacs are gleefully encouraging this superficial assessment of Democratic disunity (perhaps to draw attention away from their own problems along that line?), hoping it will flare into real disunity, presumably.

Now, if you had looked at the backgrounds of the broadcasting booths for the various 24-hour news channels, you would have seen lots of these self-proclaimed "PUMAs", which stands, as the title of this post indicates, for "Party Unity, My Ass." This unfortunate acronym has led to far, far too many horrible little abbreviations and such based on things that large cats have, like paws and claws and the like.

The thing is, the PUMAs at the convention were rare cats (aagh! I've succumbed to bad-humor-silliness!). The ones around the broadcast booths were practically the only ones, by all accounts. The PUMAs, of course, are no fools, mediawise. They know that if you make a lot of noise in front of a camera, you will look a lot bigger than you actually are. This sort of tactic is something frequently used by pufferfish, politicians, and (you guessed it!) cats. In all cases, it is deceptive, nothing but a load of hot air.

There's a story going around about when the PUMAs tried to organize a little get-together at a five-star hotel in DC. They sent out a cheery-sounding note that basically said "send in the money and we will give you a ticket to this big gathering of like-minded annoyances." They needed 250 PUMAs to be able to hold it at the five-star hotel. It turned out that they were only able to get 60 to fork over the dough, and had to shift it to a Holiday Inn (definitely not five stars) near Dulles.

It should be well known by now that the media, in general, are usually fairly easy to lead by the nose. Show them what appears to be the reality, and they will probably decide that it must be true. Leak rumors of your VP pick, and they will practically vet him/her for you. Loudly shout about sexism, and the good folks at CNN, MSNBC, Fox Noise, etc. will echo it back to you. Unlike some people, I don't fault them (much) for that. They're human, they screw up.

At any rate, here is my final thought, before I read the stuff for World Civ and go to a pool party, and later, a convention watch party. I once read a story told by a man who had gone to Afghanistan. He told about meeting some Afghani adolescents and young men while he was there. He started discussing things with them, and asked how life was. They complained about all of the problems of the Taliban, all of the onerous burdens placed on their lives by the fundamentalists. Then he asked if they would support an American invasion. Instantly the young men were staunch defenders of the Taliban, saying they would fight the Americans to the death, etc. I think most Hillary supporters are a bit like that- I won't say "all bitch, no action," which was my first impulse, but just a little sore over having lost like they did. Understandable, really. But come November, I doubt most Hillary supporters will mark the box for McCain.

For a more succinct expression of what I just took a very long time to say, click here. The top and bottom ones are what I'm talking about.

The DC v. Heller Disappointment

The Supreme Court released its ruling in the "guns case," which is to say, DC v. Heller, today. And frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in their decision.

From what I have read so far (not much, as the combined opinions are 157 pages long), the majority's reasoning was, well, interesting. One might even say, creative. In the sense that Enron's fraud was "creative" accounting. Additionally, Scalia's opinion left several questions open. For instance, what standard does one apply to gun laws to judge whether they are in compliance with Heller? Scalia rejected the use of the rational basis test, but he did not say what standard would be proper. Next, does this ruling incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local governments? Again, hard to tell, and this will probably require more court cases, more wasted taxpayer dollars, and an even more clogged court system. Thanks a million, Antonin!

I'm going to read the opinion within the next few days (I can't give you a specific date) and monitor the blogs, and get back on this. For now, check out RCP's posting of the candidates' reactions. I particularly agree with Senator Obama's response.

Appeasment, My Rear End

Senator McCain, President Bush, all of you people who are accusing Barack Obama of being an appeaser, in the model of Neville Chamberlain.

I have two words.

Winston Churchill.

Yes, the famous British Prime Minister who led Britain for most of World War II. The man who said "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Certainly he was no "appeaser." And yet these are words that are on record as having left his mouth- at the White House, no less! Could it be that it's not necessary to go to war to deal with a problem?

Moreover, could it possibly be that we might engage Iran and Syria in negotiations that could lead to something? Of course, we won't do unconditional meetings! I don't recall Senator Obama actually saying that he would meet with those countries without conditions.

If you're not convinced, I'll leave you with a final quote, one that maybe Senator McCain will be able understand, since he fought in the Vietnam War. It's from General William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is hell."

Hey! What's That Over There?

Yes, that is a picture of a Barack Obama pin. I am formally endorsing Senator Obama at this time. I expect my prestigious endorsement will gain him at least one more superdelegate, maybe two or three .

The facts are that I did vote for Sen. Obama in Georgia's primary, and at this point, despite what Hillary says, Sen. Obama has a commanding lead in delegates. Sen. Clinton has much further to go if she wants to beat Barack.

Change we can believe in!

How Fares McCain?

Not as poorly as some had hoped or feared, in fact.

According to RealClearPolitics, his "RCP Average" in head-to-head polls against both Clinton and Obama (see here) is above both potential Democratic nominees' averages by 1% and 1.4%, respectively.

But before you McCain supporters start popping the corks on the champagne, consider this. The chart showing the fluctuations of the Averages shows that McCain has come off of a period in which both Hillary and Obama were beating him, and especially Obama. 1% and 1.4% are very slim leads, and the election is by no means decided.

Does Experience Actually Matter for a President?

All right, everyone knows about the arguments that Hillary has been making since Day One against Barack Obama. I am referring, of course, to the "I have experience" argument (even though HRC's real world experience is debatable). The notion that an experienced President is necessarily a better one, and, conversely, that an inexperienced President is necessarily a worse one, is not borne out by the records of certain past presidents. Woodrow Wilson had never held a national level position. He had been governor of New Jersey for 2-3 years before he ran for Prez. We can see, of course, how his relative inexperience on a national scale hurt him when it came to conducting World War I. There are several other examples of strong Presidents who were relatively inexperienced, and highly credentialed Presidents who apparently did not gain much from their years of experience. The President who guided us through what was probably our greatest domestic crisis ever had served four terms in the Illinois House of Representatives and one term in the U.S. House of Representatives before his election to the presidency on the eve of the Civil War. I refer, of course, to Abraham Lincoln. Oddly enough, both his successor, Andrew Johnson, and his predecessor, James Buchanan, had years and years of experience in government. Buchanan failed to do anything worthwhile to prevent the Civil War, and Johnson messed up Reconstruction and got impeached to boot.

What I would like to see in the race is more focus on the candidates' past judgment, and how they think they would handle an MRC (Major Regional Contingency) or even, potentially, something larger than that. If 9/11 happened again, who would respond the best and fastest? That's what the voters should ask Hillary, Obama, and McCain (and Paul and Gravel, I suppose, if anyone cares about them anymore).

A Very Well Done Video

A video that just came out for Sen. Obama, apparently done totally independently of his campaign. Take a look: