it takes chutzpa to question Obama’s commitment to Israel

Or, in lieu of chutzpa, an RNC-financed 15 minutes of fame will do.

Perhaps you’ve heard of this guy, he’s a plumber—OK, an unlicensed, non-union plumber—I think his name is Joe? Anyway, even though he’s a member of the Natural Law Party, and as low as a low-info voter can go, the McCain campaign has wrapped its arthritic arms around him. Yesterday was day one of the Joe the dumber plumber bus tour, and JtP decided to use the opportunity to say that an Obama presidency would mean “death to Israel.” It was so inane and so nakedly hatemongering that even Shepard Smith of FOX News had to speak up:




Smith's indignation deserves praise—it’s nice to see a FOX-er realize that he’s still got to live in the America that the McCain-Palin team is trying to rip apart.

But why just let Shep Smith speak for Israel? We’ve got actual Israelis (and in such a nicely made little film, too):




And, if the Israelis won’t do, how about Barack Obama:

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security...I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran.... Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we - as friends of Israel - must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it.

Need a little more, Joe? How about this (from the Obama-Biden campaign website):

Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. They support this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

“Never” is a pretty strong word, there, hey Joe? (It’s probably a stronger word than I would use if I were running for president, but I’m not, so Joe shouldn’t worry his bald little head. . . .) I will personally add that Obama’s stated goals of opening a serious diplomatic channel with Iran and encouraging a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would do more to ensure the security of Israel than pretty much anything the Bush Administration has done in the last eight years. . . which means it would do more than anything proposed by John McCain.


(cross-posted on The Seminal)

jeepers, veepers

Well, bygollygosh, Sarah—is it OK if I call you Sarah?—ya’ didn’t stare blankly into the camera like a moose in headlights, or make sick allover that pretty jacket yer wearin’, so I guess you can be vice president now fershure.

. . .

And let me use this opportunity to add a line I forgot to work into my other post:

Joe Biden: the attack dog you’d actually want as a pet.

I’ve already got a shoebox in the back of my closet with your name on it

Almost just in time for the debate:

Earlier this year, Topps issued a 12-card insert in its 2008 Topps Baseball product called “Campaign 2008” featuring Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden and nine other presidential hopefuls.

On Oct. 1, Topps announced that it has added an additional subject to the set: Republican VP hopeful Sarah Palin.

Palin will have 2 cards: Pictured as you see her today and pictured on a “rookie card” as an Alaskan Beauty Queen.

Topps says the Palin cards will be available the second week of October. . . about three weeks before most of us will resolve to forget about Sarah Palin forever.

I don’t think these will quite get up to, say, Nolan Ryan rookie card value, but, what with her flash-in-the-pan celebrity, maybe it will be a fun addition to your collection. In fact, that gives me an idea for tonight’s debate. . .

If anybody reading this can get the attention of Joe Biden, please forward him this guaranteed, sure fire, can’t miss zinger:

I knew Nolan Ryan, I saw Nolan Ryan play, and Sarah, you’re no Nolan Ryan.

(h/t LZ)

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

Clinton and Biden: topline thoughts

I’ll admit it, I sold President Clinton a little short today.

When asked about my thoughts (biases, really) going in to the Wednesday night speech, I wrote this:

The Dem Party of Bill Clinton circa 1992,3,4,5,6 is not the Dem Party of BHO 2008. The Big Dawg may not love that, may even be bitter (imo) that he is not being given more credit (earned or not) for what he "accomplished" in the 90s, but both Clintons know that what is best for them is what's best for the Democratic Party this cycle--and that is the election of Obama-Biden this November.

Bill might not give the best speech of his career, but he will embrace BHO in word and spirit--at least for public consumption.

But Bill Clinton exceeded my expectations by a goodly amount. First, Clinton wholly embraced the Obama candidacy, with lots of full-throated “I support Barack Obama,” “Barack Obama is the man for this job,” and “Barack Obama is ready to be the president of the United States.”

Clinton neglected—wisely—to say that Obama would be ready on “day one.”

My favorite lines from the Big Dawg’s speech (transcribed from scratch-pad notes):

Barack Obama knows the world will be more impressed with the power of our example than the examples of our power.

and

America can do better, and Barack Obama will do better.

Joe Biden met my expectations, but maybe just barely.

I have often thought of Biden as an informed speaker, but not so much a great orator (I don’t think I am alone here). Tonight’s speech basically confirmed that belief. It had the “red meat” that every anchor and pundit told us that this speech must contain, but it didn’t soar rhetorically. It was a little long, and peppered with those much too over-used call and repetition lines, which have mostly failed (as they did here) ever since Al Gore trotted out “It’s time for him to go” back in 1992.

Joe Biden’s best moment—and, again, I am sure I am not alone here—was his “Freudian slip,” accidentally calling John McCain “George.”

Biden—along with so many at this convention—stressed that John McCain just represents a continuation of the failed Bush Administration. Polls show that this argument tracks very well with voters. In this case, I am happy that the Dems are poll-driven.

Iowa caucus random wrap-up

For people who appreciate the finer points, here are a couple of additional decimal places:

Obama: 37.58%
Edwards: 29.75%
Clinton: 29.47%
Richardson: 2.11%
Biden: .93%
Uncommitted: .14%
Dodd: 0.02

That rounds out to Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, and Clinton 29%. Or, if you care about the delegate count (which you should, even though the establishment media won’t), Obama 16, Edwards 15, and Clinton 14. . . I think (it’s complicated).

Dodd and Biden have withdrawn from the race; Richardson vows to fight on.

I’ll admit that I am not filled with unbridled joy by the “Obama wins” headlines, but I can’t help but feel great about the overwhelming turnout of Democratic voters—212,000, up from 125,000 four years ago. And 22% of those caucus goers were under 30, which outperforms their demographic representation by a few percentage points, and establishment expectations by leaps and bounds. Congratulations all around—now y’all better show up for the November general!

More numbers: All three of the top Democrats garnered more votes than Republican winner Mike Huckabee.

Of course, how does the New York Times cover the events of Thursday night? The headlines evolve as the morning wears on, but they continue to echo the same theme: “Obama takes Iowa. . . Clinton falters.” Times writers have apparently been freed from their roughly one-week-long requirement to cover the “strident populism” of John Edwards.

Indeed, most of what I have read and heard this morning seem, dare I say, pathetically over-eager to relieve the reporters and their outlets of the “burden” of having to cover a three-way race. After all, there are only two fighters in a boxing ring or two teams in a professional sporting match; three is just so complicated!

Indeed, it might come as a shock to the establishment media, but this is the beginning and not the end of the primary election cycle, so today’s assessments are more post-partum than post-mortem. Still, I like what Ezra Klein has to say:

The talking heads on MSNBC just spent a few minutes puzzling over John Edwards' concession speech. "It had no concession," they fretted. It didn't talk at all about the horserace, or the vote totals. Instead, Edwards spoke of the downtrodden, the uninsured, the insecure, the exploited, the oppressed, the wronged, the scared, the hungry, the homeless, and the poor. It was a fitting speech. It was not about the candidate or the race, but about the ideas, and the individuals they are supposed to help. In that way, it was Edwards' candidacy distilled to its core: A search for justice, a cry for equality, a demand for empowerment.

Barack Obama won tonight, but, in a sense, John Edwards' campaign also triumphed. The progressivism of the race, the focus on ideas, the courage of the Democrats -- all were products of his early example. He began the campaign by talking about poverty, announced his candidacy in the mud of New Orleans, set the agenda with the first universal health care bill, and closed Iowa speaking of the uninsured. This is Barack Obama's victory, and it's richly deserved. But Edwards, running as a full-throated populist, set the agenda and finished second, ahead of the Clinton juggernaut. He said his role was to speak for the voiceless. He now barrels towards New Hampshire with ever more volume. And while his shot at the nomination is long at best, his candidacy, even if it fails, will have been far more successful than most.

Time Magazine also sees some life left in the Edwards campaign.

BBC Radio is leading with two stories this morning: The Iowa Caucuses and Britney Spears. (I kid you not.)

Oh, and, lookie here, NPR’s Morning Edition uses Chris Lehane as their Democratic analyst opposite Republican Mike Murphy—without disclosing that Lehane is an advisor to Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and, if you have any doubt about his affinities, just listen to him spin).

As for personal spin: I was correct in predicting Clinton’s third place finish, and was also right on the money with McCain’s 13%. If I had anything else to trumpet, you know I’d be trumpeting—read that as you must.

More on Mr. 13%: It looks like Senator John “asshole” McCain has earned himself a revised nickname: The Hundred Years’ Asshole.

And, finally, I watched all of the speeches, victory and otherwise, on CSPAN, and was amused by what various candidates chose as their walk-off music. For instance, Edwards went with Bruce Springsteen ("The Rising"), and Obama went with Stevie Wonder ("Signed, Sealed, Delivered"), but was that John Philip Sousa’s "Liberty Bell March" that I heard as Mike Huckabee stepped from the stage? You say you’re not familiar with the "Liberty Bell March?" I bet you are.


(cross-posted on The Seminal)