Code Pink vs. The Marines

See Here

Might This Have Something To Do With Why Obama Doesn't Say the Pledge???

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

"In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism. "

"Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."

Obama has been a member of this church for twenty years. He was married there. His kids were baptized there. He even credits the minister for giving him the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

Whats that you say? Obama's church affiliation should matter? I don't know. I'd be a little concerned with a President who spent 20 years under the tutelage of somebody who continually preached against America....

Culled From the Forums in Aintitcool.com

Regarding South Park's start of their new season tonight on Comedy Central:

"I'll be watching tonight. Last season was the best they've had since season 7 or so. They finally stopped preaching on political hot topics and returned to the characters, where South Park's charm truly lies. Now if they'll just drop the lame man-bear-pig crap."

- Some Anonymous Poster

I Hope I Never Have to Do This

NYT Headline: "Maker's Mark Throws in Towel; Blames Youthful Romance; K.O.T.R. Marshall Forces"

Maker's Mark has thrown in the towel.

Interestingly, I believe that H-Town Jenny battles on vigorously, but alas, she is made of stronger mettle.

The Knights of the Republic will continue to battle on as well.

I believe the first chink in Maker's Mark's armor became evident when I phased him hardcore with the glacial ice-cap trend video a few weeks ago.

There he was, eating his usual breakfast of free-range, carbon-neutral eggs, "Obama-Bites" cereal (caramel nuggats in a vanilla and chocolatey swirl), and fruit-enfused latte, peering over his fresh copy of the New York Times towards his laptop (appropriately, an Apple) to see Johnny Walker Red's pithy, mercilous missive.

With a shuddering spasm his mind could not fathom the images and words that assuaulted him.

Screaming hysterically he bolted out of the house, pell-mell, arms and legs akimbo, and ran down the street, sheding clothing (and his last fragments of lucidity), in his wake.

He was found hours later, behind a Quick-E-Mart, naked and covered in moss and filth, sucking his thumb, repeatedly mumbling, "....the man....the bear....the pig.....the man...the bear....the pig....."

Of Bush and Filters

Is George Bush a liar? Although this is not my primary complaint about his administration, yeah, I think he probably is. I am under the impression that his administration lies mostly after the fact, by reframing issues and pretending they haven’t said things that they previously said in order to make their really upsetting actions seem a little less upsetting. A lot of times they let their press secretaries do it for them, like when they let Scott McClellan repeatedly insist that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby weren’t involved in the Valerie Plame leak.

Then there are the lies that are designed to create a favorable political environment in which they can achieve their strategic objectives. A study by two nonprofit journalism groups determined that seven top officials including Bush, Cheney, and Rice made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the 2 years after 9/11. Now, I haven’t investigated this for myself, and it’s possible that was politically motivated. So let’s just give them half, for argument’s sake. That’s still a lot. For example: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Now, I know that some Fox folk believe that he really did have them and they were somehow hidden or removed, and others like to mention that people from other countries thought Iraq had WMD too, but this brings us back to a really important issue raised by Jim Beam: the filter.I would like to say a lot more about the filter,and I will, but maybe not here. Normally I get paid to write this much.

Finally, about the lying: there are a lot more examples similar to this, especially via the press secretaries. Here are a few more that you can check out and see if you think they are valid. It is my impression that he has changed his tune repeatedly about what our objectives in Iraq were supposed to have been, after the WMD thing fell through. But that may just be my filter. I will readily admit that have one too, especially in recent years. My filter was not allowed to function properly during my long years in the PCA, as I was consistently reminded of how my brethren in the church viewed people who hold my political opinions. There were other democrats among us, including at least one in church leadership, but we were so rare as to be notable. Now that I am an Episcopalian there is a lot more cultural, social and political diversity. Which is such a relief.

I have to help take the Pre K class to a stage presentation of GO DOG GO, one of my favorite children's books ever, so I have to go dog go myself now. Bye.

The Knights of the Republic are victorious

I'm sure no one believes me anymore, nor should they, based on my previous assertions, but I really need to get out of this blog. It's become a huge time-waster for me and not all that fun. Maybe it started to be lame when my dad, and then Jenny, and then Chad, and even Jim Beam, all started to disappear, or fade away; maybe it was the man-bear-pigs; maybe it was my own fault for starting fights. Maybe it was waking up and having to look at George Bush's face and Walker's preposterous challenge.

In any case, this relationship reminds me of some of the girlfriends I've had in the past: lots and lots of time and emotional energy spent on a relationship that is actually quite stressful and aggravating. This blog used to be cute and fun and exciting, but now I just feel like a jerk all the time. Takes me right back to my emotional state during my college years. And most people will tell you, oh gentle readers, that while I can sometimes act like a real jerk, that is not my defining quality.

I have just handed Walker the admin privileges and revoked my own. Carry on Walker! Fight the fight! You and your Knights of The Republic now rule the roost. I'm sure I'll keep posting, because every doomed dating relationship has it's fitful, last gasp hook-ups, but I think Texelection and I need to move on.

You can have your vial of blood back.

Simple Question: Is George W. Bush a Liar?

If you say he is, back it up.

Sheesh!

Don't you guys have jobs? I can't keep up with all this. Later, though, when I get a second, I will have something to post that the conservatives will love. Start waiting on pins and needles now!

Global Warming is a myth, and my cigs are homeopathic

I have listened to and read the handful of "scientific studies" the global warming deniers keep trotting out. In all fairness, they should go to this California Attorney General website for some serious denier myth-busting. Read the whole thing and try to be open-minded.

McCain believes in UFOs too, I'm sure!

Check out this video of John McCain, the latest "left-wing global warming zealot." I think the guy off-camera that McCain is talking to must be Walker.

I heard him say the same thing in Houston, in person, and it only increased my respect for him. He's not afraid to speak the truth, even when a majority in his party is koo-koo crazy against him.

Spitzer, King David, etc.

I am a bit concerned about previous posts regarding politicians policies vs. their personal lives, i.e, that a candidates politics should trump matters of personal morality.

Shouldn't we expect more from our leaders? Especially, the president of the United States?

Why can't we expect them to be faithful to their wives and families? Why can't we expect them to no perjure themselves under oath and to obey the rule of law?

Would any of us feel comfortable putting are children under the care of a philandering criminal school teacher? "Yes, Mrs. Reynolds may sleep around flagrantly and probably does a bit of coke on the side but, hey, no one can teach trigonometry like she can!"

Our leaders should be the very best. I am nor expecting to elect the Pope or even a religious leader. I just want general executive competence and integrity.

As it relates to Ben Stein: No Intelligence Allowed

This dovetails into my fascination around the whole politicization of science over the past 20 years or so

(see Global Warming - please see my previous Man-Bear-Pig posts).

For many on the left, science is religion.

Also for many on the left, politics is a religion.

Combine the two and you have a combustible mix.

What is funny is that there remain huge, unanswered questions on both of these fronts.

More Proof that Ben Stein is a Great American and Barack Obama is a Master Panderer

Do yourself a favor and check out Ben Stein's recent editorial.

Exxon-Mobil Needs a Hug

Some quotes to pique your interest...

"As usual, Senator Obama gave a fine oration, with thunderous applause from the audience as his reward. But then I was beguiled by a series of gifts he was going to give the American people (of course, with their own money): universal health care, antipoverty programs, large grants to college students in return for community service (a darned good idea) and other goodies....

Mr. Obama is clearly an intelligent man. So it may not be too early to start a small process of education about Exxon Mobil and other oil companies and why attacking them is not smart...

Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company."

Thoughts on Hillary as David or Yoko

I agree that personal life and holiness cannot be the lone criteria for judging rulers.
But if we look at the OT, I'm not sure one can deduce that "how their rule affects the poor and powerless" is the real measuring stick. I'll admit that my knowledge of the OT is shamefully weak, but it strikes me that most of the evil kings who led God's people into ruin usually kicked things off with idolatry of other gods closely followed by various forms of immorality. That behavior then usually led to bad decisions (like starting wars with other folks) and then God's judgment.

But let's put that aside and return to the idea that a good leader can be personally very flawed. David is our chief example. Though he was loved and favored by God, his wicked actions had very great consequences: he had to put down a rebellion led by his son Absolom. And all that happened AFTER David repented.

There are some corollaries between Billary and David. Bill's great episode of wickedness (taking advantage of a young intern and then lying under oath about it) was followed by judgment: 8 years of George Bush. But unlike David, Bill and Hillary NEVER REPENTED. He never had his ashes and sackcloth moment, and she never stopped blaming it all on the great right-wing conspiracy.



Ok, that was response part 1. Now I want to address Hillary's supposed credentials. I am somewhat flabbergasted at how Bill Clinton's success is always imbued on Hillary. I can't take credit for this quip, but here is a great comment from the blogosphere:

Counting Hillary's years a first lady as executive experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.

On what basis can we assume Hillary will be fiscally responsible and make sound decisions? Hillary has only had three executive responsibilities in her career.
One: health care under Bill. We all know how that went.
Two: managing the white house. She blew through her $400K budget with record speed, accepted extravagantly shady gifts to decorate the place, and famously rented out the Lincoln bedroom. She also fired the chief butler for talking on the phone with his old friend Barbara Bush. Classy!
Three, and this is the biggest: her campaign to become president. It has been well documented that her campaign has been fraught with wasteful spending, infighting, indecision and many, many mistakes. She started with a 30 point lead, national name recognition, the ultimate weapon (Bill), and yet somehow she has managed to lose 29 states.

In contrast, Barack Obama has run a lean, mean, internet savvy campaign. He has stumbled recently with the NAFTA thing, but that's about it. Otherwise it has been almost mistake free. He has raised more many, done a better job organizing, and has had the superior 50 state strategy.

And now Barack is asking the next question: what exactly is her foreign policy experience, besides voting for a failed war? She claims to have brought peace to Ireland, which is about true as Gore inventing the internet.

If Hillary is David, is Monica Goliath?

Allison F's hubby throws his hat in the ring:

My thinking on politics is focused on policy, not personalities. Scripture judges rulers not principally on their personal lives, but on how their rule affects the poor and powerless.

If I were to select among the current three likely candidates based on their personal life, the one candidate I could not support would be the one who abandoned his wife and children, thus failing a fundamental scriptural qualification for leadership.

Admittedly, the Clinton years were full of painful personal drama, but they also produced budget surpluses, a productive economy, low interest rates, welfare reform, smaller government, and successful foreign policy (e.g. stabilizing the Mexican and Asian financial meltdowns plus a successful military intervention in Kosovo). (Editor's note: Reagan spoke about it, Clinton did it.)

I'd also like to add: when you think about it, there were some OT heros who had sexual scandal, foremost being David who was also a murderer, go figure. Obviously, it sickens me when men literally screw up because it reeks of egomania.

That Obama doesn't have that issue, and I'll accept Mark's view of why this is true, is a good thing. But I am more concerned about his willingness to be fiscally responsible as the economy tanks and whether he really gasps foreign affairs, next problem up: Columbia.

Client #9 from outer space.

In tribute to the busted governor from New York, aka "Client #9", I post this picture of Vampira, from Ed Wood's Plane 9 from Outer Space, because what he did makes about as much sense as an Ed Wood movie plot. Let's see, you are the governor of the most powerful state in the nation, you have a beautiful wife of 20 years and 3 kids, you used to be the DA and you personally busted up 2 prostitute rings, you are a rising star in American politics....let's see what should you add to your resume....how about 3 thousand dollar an hour John! Yes! That's it!

Sorry for making everything about Barack, but this is why I support the guy. Sure, he may have some minor skeletons in his closet, but after writing a book and admitting he's done some pot and "a little blow," I think he's already aired his dirty laundry.

I've met his wife personally, so I feel pretty confident that he doesn't cheat on her. She would snap his neck and then stand over his lifeless body while doing head wags and finger snaps. Barack Obama wants to be president, and he wants to live.

Hillary, on the other hand, is well, Hillary. I've said enough on this blog about her character.

John McCain is a hero, but he as had a few scandals (Keating 5 anyone?). And the way he kicked his wheelchair-bound wife to the curb for a hot young Cindy McCain... that's not so great, though I am willing to overlook it because he was tortured for 5 years while serving me and my country.

But it's just so refreshing to feel, in my gut, that I pretty much know what I get with Barack Obama. He's not perfect. He's flawed, and he is the first to admit it. But he's not a total freak. He's just a normal guy who really wants to be president.

Thanks Allison. (Let's do dinner soon!)

I appreciate Allison's response. I think it is very honest, and there is not much there that I can actually disagree with.

I have no truck with anyone who prefers Clinton's policies over Obama's. I think there is little daylight between them, kind of like getting to choose between a Mercedes or a BMW, after you've been driving a crapped out Dodge Neon for the last eight years.

She is right to call me out on hating Hillary in a very un-obama-like fashion. I should follow Obama's example. This is why Obama should be president, not me. If I were president, Walker would be in a prison tower and forced to watch an endlessly repeating loop of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

I also agree that facing Hillary is the ultimate field test. I've been telling Jenny that totally changing the dynamics of American politics is no easy matter; It's almost an epic quest of old, wherein the hero has to face a number of tests. If he cannot slay the little dragon, he will never be able to slay the BIG dragon, which in this case is the nut-bag base of the conservative movement. John McCain is formidable, but it is his allies that will really come at Obama without mercy or morality. (I snapped this picture today in a parking lot in Southampton, of all places. The rear window of the truck said MILITIA over an American flag. Notice how the "t" is a cross, nice touch, eh?)

The rest of Allison's argument boils down to this: Barack Obama just doesn't have what it takes to win, against Hillary or against republicans. He is all hope and no hammer. To paraphrase Allison, you can't win unless you can win it in a knife fight.

I don't know. I still cling to hope. I still believe that we can have a country in which the high ground wins. I believe we can have something different from an eternal red/blue state, McCoy-Hatfield war. The Clintons thrive in that war. They pull everyone down on to their knees in the mud, unsheath the knives, and wait until their enemies lose just a little bit more blood than they do. That's how you win a 51 percent majority. Triangulation, maneuvering, right-wing conspiracies, finger-wagging, but aaahhhh, the power. The power is the prize, and once you have that, the psychodrama is justified.

No, she won't ever be Obama. She'll be whatever it takes to win. And maybe Allison's right. He's not tough enough. Perhaps we won't see an Obama in the white house, at least not in my lifetime. Maybe that's what the real world is like, and I just need to get used to it. But for now, I'll stay naive, I'll stay a hope-monger.

Obama will see the Matrix before this is all over. He is.... The One.

Allison F's Pro- Clinton Response

I have spent the day pondering my “assignment” from Maker's Mark.

My first thought was simply to reiterate that Steve and I like policy and the policies we most agreed with were hers. And people I know who are peers (socio- economically) that voted for Hillary like policy too. And to the extent that Obama’s campaign was getting caught up in its own message of inspiration I felt at greater unease with it.

Now, Steve suggested that we state what outcomes we are seeking in the next Presidency and how Clinton’s policies line up with that. At this point we are especially concerned about the economy.

But that approach, even if we had time for it (which we don’t) would be to take the high road, and as we used to say in grad school, [bracket] the considerations most on Mark’s mind which are more personal and political than policy-oriented.

But I will make one nod in this direction and refer you to the American Prospect cover story on whether to choose a “talented manager” or “visionary” to answer the question of what she has to offer.

Another thought about the assignment is to say, if you want to hate Hillary, I/we can’t stop you. However, you are, in the words of Donald Trump, FIRED, from being an official spokesperson for the Obama campaign for failing to practice his New Politics. You can join Ms. Power outside the camp.

It is not a question of how can I overlook Clinton’s skeletons, but how are you going to do it.

By the way, I am sure you read The Houston Press cover story, Obama and Me. So even folks with short political cv’s have skeletons. [Walker, if you missed this article, look for it online.]

Here is the important irony to consider: facing Hillary is the ultimate field test of Obama’s ideals. Some are advising that he go negative, asking about tax returns etc. I have already posted that that is the wrong way to go negative (i.e. he needs to go negative using the high ground: I’m the better leader because… her record is…)

But why take my word for it. Here is what David Brooks has to say on the topic:

"Unless they (the Obama people) consciously reject conventional politics, the accusations will build on each other. The BlackBerries will buzz. The passions will rise. The Obama forces will see hints of Clinton corruption all around, and they’ll accuse and accuse again. The war will begin to take control, and once you’re halfway through you can’t suddenly surrender because it’s become too rough.

And the Clinton people will draw them every step of the way. Clinton can’t compete on personality, but a knife fight is her only real hope of victory. She has nothing to lose because she never promised to purify America. Her campaign doesn’t depend on the enthusiasm of upper-middle-class goo-goos. On Thursday, a Clinton aide likened Obama to Ken Starr just to badger them on.

As the trench warfare stretches on through the spring, the excitement of Obama-mania will seem like a distant, childish mirage. People will wonder if Obama ever believed any of that stuff himself. And even if he goes on to win the nomination, he won’t represent anything new. He’ll just be a one-term senator running for president.

In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him."

But his conclusion is even more significant:

"Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.

If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway."

Which brings us back to the Ethel’s of the world who do vote for Hillary and back to the politics of the situation, which includes the fact that real rank and file voters have made this a close race but the outcome is going to be decided by the party leadership. The first order of business is to resolve the MI/FL mess. While I am perfectly happy to exclude MI, I blame Howard Dean bumbling for creating FL situation in the first place. I believe it is only fair that FL get to re-vote or have their delegate status renegotiated.

Question two: How can Clinton win this without destroying the Democratic Party? By “this” I assume you mean the primary. Well, first of all, I am not entirely sure she will win. Being up for a knife fight, notwithstanding. But I am pretty sure that if she offers to be a VP and Obama turns her down, he’ll look like a bit of a shmuck. And I am pretty sure that if she agrees to pony up her half of the money for a FL re-vote and he doesn’t, that won’t look so good either. Let me ask you something, would you be asking this question about a really tough competitor who wasn’t Clinton? Do tough primaries DESTROY a political party? That’s an overstatement. (Although the Party Leadership could possibly destroy it – see above.) Could her nomination alienate some voters? Sure. But , hey, I was completely alienated when the Party choose John Kerry to run last time.

Question three seems to me to be asking: ”If she does win how will she be Barack Obama?” She won’t be.

Good night and Good Luck.

Alison Fairfield

Absolutely Must Read Article

Here it is.

"The fact is that, for all their caveats that this drop in temperatures can be explained by the cooling effect of La Niña, the official orthodoxy that "more CO2 means more warming" is facing its most serious challenge yet."

No jokes about bears, pigs, and men.

Just hard facts and surprisingly conclusions.

McCain Theme Song: I Am What I Am

Don't Stop When I say When

I like to go the metaphorical route. MCCAIN's Theme Song: Foo Fighter's "Everlong." Dave Grohl is John McCain, and he is saving his true love, the Iraq War, from two rockabilly characters with an axe. They are of course Hillary and Barack.

Weird? Yes. But so is this whole political psychodrama. And when you see Dave Grohl open up a can of whup-ass with his giant hand, you'll feel it.

Oh, and there's a giant red phone with a flashing light.

Foo Fighters

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Obama Theme Song: CONQUEST by the White Stripes

Dudes, I am SOOOOOOOOOO good!!



The Lyrics:

Conquest

He was out to make a conquest
Didn't care what harm was done
Just as long as he won
the prize

Conquest
She was just another conquest
Didn't care whose heart was broke
Love to him was a joke
'til he looked into her eyes

And then in the strange way things happen
The roles were reversed from that day
The hunted became the huntress
The hunter became the prey

Conquest
Now you know who made the conquest
She, with all her female guile

Led him helpless down the aisle
She had finally made a conquest

ahh ahh ahh ahhhhh (x4)
oooh oooooohh oohhhh

And then in the strange way things happen
The roles were reversed from that day
The hunted became the huntress
The hunter became the prey

Conquest
Now you know who made the conquest
She, with all her female guile
Led him helpless down the aisle
She had finally made a conquest

ahhhhh

Conquest

Texelection Fun Times: Pick a Candidates Theme Song!!

Alright, readers. Here's a new feature on Texelection. You must pick the IDEAL theme song of one of the candidates, preferably one accompanied by a sweet video.

The theme song must somehow capture the very essence of who the candidate is.

Extra points of obscurity and jagged wit.

I will go first: "Short Skirt/Long Jacket" by Cake for Hillary Clinton.

Saturday Morning Roundup - and call-out to Allison F.

Please go read Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal for an elegant summary of where Obama and Clinton stand.

She ends with a fantastic quote from Christopher Hitchens, who depressingly predicts a Clinton victory: "there's something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power . . . people who don't want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end."

Jeepers. How can good, kind, educated liberals vote for Hillary the zombie-queen?

I understand why the brainless part of the democratic base votes for the Hill-bot. I am not confused about why a 65 year old woman named Ethel living in a Scranton blue-collar neighborhood would vote for Hillary. Ethel has probably never been too fond of black people, let alone young black men. Ethel doesn't watch or read much news. Ethel remembers the 90s fondly, when her son, who works in a unionized machine shop, saw his earnings and savings peak. Ethel has worked hard all her life, and she believes Clinton has too, and therefore she deserves to be president. Obama is just a smart, cool lawyer guy, who talks real good. Ethel has no idea what the Harvard Law review is, she doesn't care, and she just doesn't trust him.

But Ethel is the antithesis of Allison F., who is smart, engaged, highly educated. Someone who should know the score.

Noonan cites an Obama supporter, who, on The Root, a really smart new web mag for African Americans, calls it like everyone sees it:

"This is a dirty campaign and since Senator Barack Obama won't say it, I will. The media has not been unfair to Senator Clinton, they have been extremely soft. There are elephants in the room that need to be addressed. Can anyone say Whitewater? How about impeachment? Let's not forget Osama bin Laden. You can bet Republicans will be talking about these issues. So why aren't Democrats? Clinton's central arguments in the campaign are basically a mirage, and they are dangerous ones both for the party and the country."

So Allison F., I hereby invite you to guest-post. E-mail me the answers to the following questions and I will post them on this blog:

1. How do you overlook a lifetime of Clinton scandals?
2. How can Clinton win this without destroying the democratic party?
3. Even if she does win, how can Clinton ever get a mandate from the American people? How will she ever get republicans, African-Americans (not likely to forgive the Clintons any time soon) or the youth vote? How will she make things up to all the little states and red states she has derided for going to Barack?

We have to know Allison. How can smart democrats sit in the back of the Clinton bus, and watch her drive it right off the cliff? Is it all a grand homage to Thelma and Louise? I have to know.

Money shot of the great feminist suicide-pact.

From the Simpsons spoof:
"This cross-country flight from the law would be hell if we didn't stick together."

Good Ad: "Man In the Arena"

John McCain has this new web video that stresses his preparedness on national security. It also emphasizes his service to the country and that he feels he owes America much more than she owes him and that he doesn't run for office out of a sense of entitlement.

God Bless Texas

I thank you for complimenting me on my pre-cog abilities Walker. But since you called me Sargent (sic) spanky-butt, when I've told you repeatedly to address me as "Honey and Salsa," I must now correct you on your fortune telling skills.

In your famous post predicting the outcomes of March 4th, you were right about everything but one crucial contest: the great state of Texas. On Tuesday and Wednesday I was depressed because I thought we had failed Obama. We lost the primary by 3 points (not 6, as Walker predicted.) But that was only half the battle. The caucus results are in and we now know that Barack Obama actually WON Texas, by about 5 delegates. We still have the upper hand on the monster.

How Prescient Maker's Mark is......

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp

Just a few days ago, Maker's Mark, aka, Sargent First Class Spanky Butt, posted a tribute to Gary Gygax, the founder of the classic fantasy adventure game Dungeons & Dragons. In his post, Maker's Mark asked readers to vote for what classic D&D "monster" Hillary Clinton most resembled.

Now, a few days later a senior Obama campaign worker has apologized and resigned for calling Senator Clinton a "monster".

Maybe this woman is a regular reader of TexasElection?

This blog is changing history.

The Fascism of Activist Courts Continues to Destroy School Choice

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

Whack! May I have another!

Davegator has not posted in many a moon. I guess the kiddies are just too much for him. I hereby sentence him to 40 lashes with a rubber hose:

Republicans just love discipline! (See: darwinian, winner-take-all delegate count rules...)

For Realz, I hereby remove his posting privileges! This leaves us with an imbalance in the force. But Chad and Jenny post so infrequently, that I think they are worth one Jim Beam combined. But if conservative posters would like to nominate someone, feel free. I think a woman would be cool. Don't be so angry white male, y'all! So typical of you republicans! 

We, on the other hand, have one woman (Jenny), one black man from the hard-scrabble streets of Westbury (Chad), and me. I'm originally from Guam.

I gots my mind on money and my money on my mind...

I'd really like everyone to check out this cool article at the NY Times. Education is a topic near and dear to my heart.

A young entrepreneur is starting a charter school in New York with a simple concept. A no-frills, low overhead school that pays teachers well. Like $125,000 dollars of well. In order to afford those salaries, the school has almost no administration - just one principal who actually makes 30K LESS than the teachers. The school has almost no extracurricular activities. Just Latin and music. Teachers are expecting to work year round and take care of discipline, counseling and many other responsibilities they normally punt.

The minimum qualifications are high. Teachers must score in the 90th percentile on the GMAT in math or English.

I taught high school for 3 years, and would still be teaching if I could have been making even 75K a year. But for the 40K I was earning, I really had to ask myself: is it worth it? I scored in the 99th percentile on the verbal GMAT. I was certified in two subjects. I had two master's degrees. My students, in my first year of teaching English, scored about 5 percent higher than the average in my department on the TAKS test (with teachers who had taught English for decades.) I had excellent evaluations, every year. And yet I was making as much as the worst new teacher in the school. The most I would ever make after 30 years of teaching is 65K.

I finally decided it just wasn't worth the headaches and stress. I can make that same salary on one real estate project in 4 months. I love to teach and would be happy to get back into it, but I'm no saint. It's difficult work and doing it well requires knowledge and skill. And someone who does it well at a high level deserves professional pay.

I hope this idea takes off. It may just get me back into teaching. Or I may choose rapping. Check out this video of 50 Cent throwing money into a weird moat full of fans:

Jim Beam has always been destined to be a professor....

...notice the elbow patches on the suede jacket....

Get rid of the handles, Dude.

You can do it Jim Beam! Lose that weight!
You can go from being this:


To this:

Remember, when you slim down, you'll be just like a little bottle of Jim Beam from the hotel mini-bar: fun, friendly, and loved by all the ladies. That's right! I know my wife never said no to a mini-bottle, and likewise your wife won't say no to you! Petite, neat, and oh so sweet!

Unlike our fat friend Johnny Walker, who bailed out on our Weight-loss accountability group here in Houston.

Let Me Look Upon You with My Own Eyes.....

I am now totally obsessed with Return of The Jedi as a metaphor for the election. To my wife's dismay, I may start rewriting the entire script to fit the political saga to end all sagas. Let me know if you want to help.

Luke - Barack
Clinton - Vader
Bill Clinton - The Emperor
Deval Patrick - Han Solo
Patti Solis Doyle - Jabba The Hut
Michelle - Princess Leia ( a little weird, but what can you do?)
Boba Fett - John McCain

I could go on and on, I'm such a politics AND Star Wars dork.

The most compelling theme here is Hillary as Darth:

Like Vader, I believe Hillary was corrupted by the great Emperor of American 20th century politics, Bill Clinton. She was once a sweet, smart girl from the midwest, who hitched her wagon to a powerful and cunning man, one who showed her how to compartmentalize herself all the way to greatness. She learned the ways of the Dark Side from him: crush your enemies and those who betray you, fight for power and never let go, no matter what the cost to your allies. Lie when you have to, and if you get caught, redirect the blame to others. Evade. Belittle. Never forget you are entitled. Ends justify the means. And if the end is a Clinton in power, then all means are justified.

But the question that Return of The Jedi begs is this: is there still good in Hillary? Deep down, under all those compromises she has made to Bill, all those crushed former friends, all those lies and scandals she has been responsible for or has lived through, deep down underneath all that, is there still that rosy-cheeked, earnest young liberal who worked hand in hand with Bill in Texas 40 years ago?

Barack: Search your feelings, Hillary, you can't do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate.
Darth Clinton: It is too late for me, Barack. Emperor Bill will show you the true nature of the Force. He is your master now.
Barack: Then my right honorable friend, the Senator from The State of New York, is truly dead.

While you ponder this deep mystery, I leave you with this:

Anyone who is paying attention

will know that Mark and I get some of our best material, be it directly or indirectly, from blogger Andrew Sullivan, former conservative, former Iraq war supporter, current Obamamaniac. I parted ways with Mark and Andrew when they supported the war, and I read him less then. But since he drank the Obama kool aid I read him every day. This post of his explains why, even though I am okay with most of their politics, I do not believe the Clintons are good for America.

I started this election season telling people that animosity toward Hillary was Updexacerbated by sexism--that she gets a lot more grief for pulling the same dirty tricks that most politicians engage in. I still believe that. If she weren't the wife of a former president, one who was impeached no less, I might overlook it. If I didn't have a better option ready at hand, I might overlook it. But she is and I do.

I think the Fairfield plan for an Obama/Clinton ticket is really interesting and it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes. I know that in the last couple of days she has hinted at a ticket with her at the top, which is clever because it would rid some of the guilt they would have for abandoning the popular candidate who has more delegates. But it wouldn't answer the questions about the Clintons that plague so many in this country.

Alison F and I both saw people at our (very different) polling places wearing both an Obama and a Clinton button. Is there a strong constituency out there that wants both of these two in 08? Rain Man, I mean Johnny Walker, can you help us out with the political math here? Putting our personal feelings aside for a minute, would this be genius for the Democrats, or is Obama smarter to try to eke out a slim delegate victory and put all this Clinton business behind us once and for all? I am guessing it's the latter but a little voice is telling me not to be so sure.

UPDATE: For Limbaugh's sophisticated-as-always take on the question, go here.

Good Words From Al Gore....

Repeated Sightings Seen Across the Globe!!!!!.

Man + Bear + Pig = This!

This is super, super ?!

Only Now Do You Understand The Power of The Dark Side.....

Clinton: You cannot hide forever, Barack.
Barack: I will not join you on a dream ticket.
Clinton: Give yourself to the Dark Side. It is the only way you can save your party. Yes, your thoughts betray you. Your feelings for the party are strong. Especially for... the youth vote...... Yes, the youngsters who are full of hope......Your feelings have now betrayed them, too. Howard Dean was wise to hide them from me. Now his failure is complete. If you will not turn to the Dark Side... then perhaps ...they.... will...
Barack: [igniting light saber, screams] NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Don't Grumble, Give a Whistle!

Thanks Walker, but this video is what I really needed. And you know, it's not so bad. Bush can't run again. Obama might be president OR vice-president. The best republican got nominated. And Clinton could end up winning it all, but I'll have done everything I could to prevent it. And who knows? Her sweet-lovin' Hamburgler husband left me a lot wealthier after 8 years. Maybe she will too! Alway look on the bright side of life!

For Maker's Mark and H-Town Jenny, Who Are Enduring a Most Difficult Day......

The Greatest Post in Texelection History

From Walker's Monday post:

"I am going to go on record and say that the BIG NEWS STORY of tomorrow might
will be: "Clinton Surges to Wins in Three of Four Primaries".

She will win Ohio by +8, Texas by +6 (mostly on the backs of Hispanic Democrats),
and Rhode Island by +8.

Obama will win Little Stalingrad handily but it will matter little in the noise of the evening.
Clinton will add a few delegates to her column but not enough to seriously close the gap to Obama because of the strange Democratic party primary rules.

Clinton's next talking point will become, "Hey, look at me. I won New York, California, Texas, and Ohio. I also won in Michigan and Florida (although they supposdely won't be seated). I should be the nomimee. I can win big states!"

Look for a protracted primary campaign after tomorrow. Tuesday, March 3rd will settle nothing. "

I could totally be a Rovian hatchet-man operative. It's in my DNA. What stops me is what stopped me in early 1995, just after the Republican Revolution, when I went to DC to investigate working for a newly elected Republican congressman: the crushing banality of it all......

I just can't take it seriously. It's so loney tunes. Jenny, never go into politics. Promise me this. It's so nasty and vile....even among so-called friends in the party (see Obama and Clinton). You almost need to take a shower after rubbing elbows with politicians. Ewwwwww!!!!

This is a tough day for me

Well, crossover Republicans, it looks like you might have had a decisive impact in a very tight race. Congratulations.

Those of us Democrats who were let out to play in the sun for awhile now have to go back into our hidey holes and contemplate the nature of the coalition that still may beat us out for the nomination. What is coming in the next few months is not going to be pretty.

Ok I lied

This blog is like crack. I just had to post ONE more time. This is a in memoriam post. I just discovered that Gary Gygax died. For those of you who aren't old-school role-player dorks, he is one of the founding fathers of D&D, and all the fantasy gaming that has followed. If you play World of Warcraft you owe him a debt of gratitude.

In tribute to him, I offer the following poll: match up Hillary Clinton with one of the D&D monsters from the classic Monster Manual. Some feminist at a university will probably interpret this as a classic sexist attack. Maybe it is. Click on the picture for a nice close-up. Pictures are in order of poll items. Chaos Beast got my vote.

Bye Bye Bunny

I have been very hard on the Republicans for being soulless, craven, hypocritical sheep, completely lacking in integrity. But I will give them this much. They are smart enough to nominate John McCain, who is a great candidate, a true fiscal conservative, a hero, and someone who is far superior to the right-wing base that so casually tries to piss on him every chance they get. Give credit where credit is due.

The Democrats, like the bunny depicted above, are once again flirting with political suicide. First Gore, then Kerry, and now Clinton, the mutant zombie who cannot be killed, for she is sustained by eating the brains of old ladies, latinos, and cross-over republicans. But she will lose to John McCain, who after 5 years of torture in a Vietnamese prison, is not afraid of zombies.

That's the best and most probable outcome, should she beat Barack (still a long-shot.) But I also fear that she is indeed unkillable, and she will end up somehow feasting on McCain's intestines. Because you know, the hero usually dies in zombie movies.

And Walker and all his other cross-over buddies can proudly say, I voted for our zombie president, Hillary Clinton.

PS: I'll see you guys this weekend. I have let a lot of work to do and I am way behind. I don't know how Johnny Walker is able to goof off this much at the Build-A-Bear workshop, where he is assistant manager. Chad, post something.

Obama and the National Anthem

This morning, I received another version of the email anecdote by Rick Mathes about a Christian confronting a Muslim at a seminar on diversification. Whether the anecdote is true, is debatable, as www.snopes.com points out here. The email is silly, but that wasn't what bothered me (I have received it several times previously and am immune to its gross oversimplifications). Instead, what bothered me this time is the way the email has been recast. A note was attached to the beginning of the email that said

"With cordial thanks to Wayne Eidson for this enlightening piece. When we see Barrak Obama standing casually as our National Anthem is played...while everyone else is reverently holding their hand over their heart....it is very clear where his loyalties lie. What a tragically dangerous time this election is for the United States!"

Yep, these emailers are connecting a story about Islam ordering all Muslims to kill all nonbelievers to Barack Obama not putting his hand over his heart for the national anthem.

I am dismayed.

The Real Drama of the Evening: Popeye Takes the Republican Nomination

The prize won, Senator Popeye (R-Arizona) can now fade into media oblivion as Senators Clinton and Obama launch Phase 3 of their Battle Royale.

Expect Senator Popeye to mill about Washington, raising money, lining up support within the party, maybe even showing up every once in awhile to cast votes and attend committee meetings, you know, actually be a senator?

Expect Senators Clinton and Obama to slug it out over the next six weeks or so until the Pennsylvania primary in April.

The question is: with Clinton showing that going negative works, what does Obama do? Stay above the fray, appealing to the nobler sentiments, or does he return the fire?

The risk of the former is that he continues to get pummeled, gradually getting weaker. The risk of the later is that later is that he starts to look (and reek) of just another typical win-at-all-costs politician. He would essentially lose his unique appeal.

That's a tough call. It will be interesting to see what happens....

(BTW, when I was watching Obama's speech in San Antonio last night one of his lines really hit me. Something to the effect of: "Let's put books in the hands of our children instead of a video game." Good line.)

So When Will Hillary File the Lawsuit to Have Michigan and Florida Seated?

Well...Hillary won Ohio and Texas (the popular vote anyway.) What happens when the election is over and Obama has slightly more delegates than Hillary? Do you think she'll move to seat Florida and Michigan? Also, I heard Karl Rove as a pundit suggest that Florida and Michigan may have another primary that counts....interesting food for thought.

If you throw in Michigan and Florida Hillary wins.

Our Stables Are Stout.....Bring on the Lefties.....

In the "right" corner, ladies and gentleman....

....we have, starting at the top, "Jim Beam", aka, "Orange Joelius", then "DaveGator", aka, "The Shadow", then "Johnny Walker Red" (seated) with his brother "Oso Famoso" during younger days growing up on the mean streets of Brunswick, Maine......then lastly, but not leastly, everyone's favorite Irish-Catholic Hooligan with a Barbed Rosary, "Oso Famoso"....

This are all stalwart Knights of the Republic....prepare to be SERVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Twas Beauty Killed The Beast.

There is some serious gutter fighting going on in the comments sections. I will try to stop, because it is really upsetting my wife. But it's hard. I feel like King Kong in the Peter Jackson film, and I am fighting the two Dollahan T-Rex brothers at once.


We all know how it ends: with the dinosaurs ripped to shreds, but it is exhausting, and my little Naomi Watts wishes for me to stop.

Welcome, Jim Beam!

I am so stoked to welcome to the blog the demented and fragmented genius that is "Jim Beam"!!!! His first post was brilliant....unlike anything out there within the "world wide intertube".

His second post was even better.

I chose the image to the "right" to designate "Mr. Beam". I chose the Black label because I know a family name of his is "Black".

Republicans for Clinton!

Republicans for Clinton!

This is bound to endlessly peeve off Mark Johnson…..

Today, history has been made….

The Brothers DollaFlop actually did the one thing they never thought they would do in their lifetimes….

They decided to "slum it"….under the cover of darkness…..holding a newspaper over our heads to avoid flashing paparazzi flash bulbs…we snuck into the surprisingly dingy Democratic primary precinct offices within our neighborhoods….and grimacing mightily after downing a huge tumbler of vodka pulled the lever for a freakin' Clinton!

We should get medals for our valor.

We are true heroes of the Republic.

Standing on line I was able to see others just like me….resplendent creatures of virtue and honor….with ripped and chiseled physiques and noble visages….stalwarts of the "cause"….a veritable throng of conservative ninjas doing our part….

Tonight Texas will deliver strong for Team Clinton.

They will have us to thank……..

A Curse Upon You!

I am not super surprised that Oso Famoso and his brood are all voting for Hillary. I think it's cynical, dishonest, and bad for the country to pull those kind of stunts. I am disappointed in Walker that he would violate the spirit and intent of the voting process. I have said my peace. My wife, of course, has said it better than I could in the comment section to my Limbaugh post.

But now I will invoke the following curse - worse than the eternal zombie curse of Pirates of The Carribean, worse than being digested in the pit of Sarlacc for a thousand years, worse than anything written in the Necronomicon (that one's for Chad)

MAY YOU RECEIVE DEMOCRATIC FUNDRAISING MAILERS UNTIL YOU DIE!!!

And you will. Once you are automatically registered as a democrat by voting in the primary, you will get the worst kind of mail from Planned Parenthood, Pelosi, Howard Dean, phone calls interrupting your dinner, etc. You will be dead to the republican party, and Democratic special interest groups will have their hooks in you for years to come. Serves you right.

Red Herring? I think not. Just more of my devastating polemics.

Walker and Oso have suddenly become rather thin-skinned! I think my time away from the Texelection has made them soft. Sorry guys, when I come to fight, I bring a brick!

Fortunately, I have Jenny and Chad on hand to be the grown-ups. Chad's comments explain and clarify my position with his classic style and grace, please go read.

My problem with the Catholic church is the same problem I have with any church that tries to moralize, in the public sphere, when it has not earned real moral authority.

For instance, I think the Catholic church has great moral authority when it come to the Iraq war. They have consistently and courageously argued against pre-emptive war for centuries. I wish I had listened 7 years ago. When it comes to regulating sexuality or defining marriage, it has zero standing, because of how they have covered up and enabled 5 decades of gay, pedophile priests, not to mention thousands of bogus annulments and high divorce rates. Catholics are of course still allowed (in fact encouraged) by moi, to look to the church for teachings on any and every moral issue or doctrine. They have placed themselves under the church's authority, and it is good and right to do so.

And no one looks to Fundamentalist protestants for leadership when it comes to issues of racism, poverty, violence, xenophobia, etc. So believe me, there is enough hypocrisy to pass around. In some of these areas Catholics have great integrity.

But when it comes to public advocacy or legislation re: sexuality (hello, Catholic League?) why should anyone outside the church even listen to what they have to say? And I say the same for Focus on the Family and the rest of the fundamentalist movement. Focus on yourselves, you hypocrites. Otherwise all of your moralizing is just pissing in the wind. Comes right back at you.

Matthew 7:5

PS: I would like to go on record and freely admit that I have no moral authority, nor have I ever laid claim to any. The tone and temper of my posts on this blog are enough to deny me any sort of moral standing or leadership position in a church for all time, and in all places. These are the sacrifices one must make to blog......LETS GET IT ON!!!!!!

PPS: Make sure you read my mind-blowing Limbaugh post below.

For those of you wondering what Chad looks like......

Oso Famoso objects to my calling out the Catholic church for fighting homosexuality, while shielding the NAMBLAmaniacs within their midst:

"The Church is dogmatically, harmonized with God's law. For this reason the Church upholds the sanctity of marriage as a sacrament. ....

Unfortunately, as was the case in Paul's (and before) time, there are wolves among the sheep.

I was asked how I would define marriage...I don't see how throwing out a red-herring about clergy abuse is related to marriage. "


It's not a red herring at all. The very fact that Oso can't connect the dots on this issue is a testament to why Christian conservatives in general, and catholics in particular, are on the losing side of a culture war.

When a church is devoting so many resources towards fighting a battle they are losing, how can they win the larger war? Less than 2 percent of the country is gay. The percentage of the priesthood that has been accused of child abuse is larger than that, for heaven's sakes! and its not just catholic priests - how about Foley, how about Haggard, what about Larry Craig?

The church, and for that matter the Christian right, should focus first and foremost, on the integrity and holiness of its own leadership. Then it should focus on the integrity and holiness of heterosexual marriage and morality of the members within its own body. Only THEN, when its own house is in order, should it spend one second worrying about what a small minority of people in this country are doing in their bedrooms, or whether or not they can join in whatever legal arrangement they want. And yet the right is talking about going to the trouble to amend the constitution! I quote Timothy:

"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

Is there any wonder why non-Christians think we are hypocrites? Christian right-wingers are not exactly known for having very many of those qualities listed above. Proud (Rush), greedy (it's my tax money!), war-like (Bomb Iran!), quarrelsome (O'Reilly, Coulter, etc,etc,etc,), covetous (Jack Abramoff....). And we certainly don't rule our own house well, with 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce. And before you object, yes I know these people I'm mentioning are not necessarily Christians. But Christians have been co-opted by them! They are part and parcel of the same movement. You are who you sleep with, so to speak.

As Christians we need to get our own house in order. Show the world that we can actually be what we are called to be, before we start using the state to set an agenda we don't even live up to ourselves. That is the very essence of Christian humility.

Bush aide resigns over plagiarized columns

Twenty-seven of them.

The Gay Marriage Issue

I'm not posting today to say something profound but rather to ask people's opinions on the gay marriage issue. I'm honestly trying to figure out the sides here because it is something that has confused me.

There are four primary options here:

1. Allow gay couples to marry and give them all of the rights and privileges of married couples.


2. Allow gay couples to form civil unions and give them all of the rights and privileges of married couples.


3. Deny gay couples the right to marry and deny them all of the rights and privileges of married couples.


4. Deny gay couples the right to marry but give them some rights of married couples.

What I'm wondering about are the arguments against option 1. Obama says that he prefers not to call it marriage but that he is willing to allow them option 2. Is it just about the term "marriage," then? What is the argument against calling it "marriage?" Do people against using the term think that the institution of marriage will lose its meaning? Will my marriage not mean anything because a gay couple is allowed to marry?

James Dobson says, echoing a familiar slippery slope argument, "If marriage means everything, it means absolutely nothing. It will mean nothing to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. The current decline of the institution of marriage will be accelerated. Increasing numbers of couples will elect to simply 'live together'."

I'm not sure that I follow the logic there. Allowing gay couples to marry will mean that more heterosexual couples will "simply 'live together'"?

What about "civil unions" with all of the rights and privileges of married couples? Does that option work?

The primary argument I see against allowing gays to have the same rights as married couples is that it legitimizes homosexuality in the eyes of the government. It says that the "perversion," to use the passage from Romans 1 is actually okay.

Is that a useful way to test whether something is lawful?

Please let me know what the arguments are, for I can't find too much intelligent stuff out there. For me, it's an issue that I don't really care about (for I am not gay), and I have often wondered why so many people are against it. I know I have made an implied argument here, but I really am wondering what the reasoned arguments are.

Ask Tough Questions? Yes they Can!

It's started. Senator Obama is starting to get fair media coverage. I am starting to see chinks in the armor.....

From the Washinton Post:

SAN ANTONIO It took many months and the mockery of "Saturday Night Live" to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a menacing growl.

The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.

Reporters from the Associated Press and Reuters went after him for his false denial that a campaign aide had held a secret meeting with Canadian officials over Obama's trade policy. A trio of Chicago reporters pummeled him with questions about the corruption trial this week of a friend and supporter. The New York Post piled on with a question about him losing the Jewish vote.

Obama responded with the classic phrases of a politician in trouble. "That was the information that I had at the time. . . . Those charges are completely unrelated to me. . . . I have said that that was a mistake. . . . The fact pattern remains unchanged."

When those failed, Obama tried another approach. "We're running late," the candidate said, and then he disappeared behind a curtain.

Before he beat his hasty retreat, however, Obama found time to assign blame for the tough questions suddenly coming his way. "The Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a 'kitchen sink' strategy," he protested. "There are, what, three or four things a day?"
Spoken like a man who had just been hit on the head with a heavy piece of porcelain.
Obama may be the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but to a large extent Hillary Clinton is setting the terms of the debate in the final days before Tuesday's crucial primaries. If Clinton doesn't win both states, even her closest advisers have said she'll face pressure to pull out of the race -- and yet, for the first time in months, she seems to have put Obama on the defensive.

First came her ringing-phone ad last week: "It's 3 a.m., and your children are safely asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?" Then the Clinton campaign trumpeted the acknowledgment that a top Obama aide had discussed NAFTA with a Canadian official -- contradicting adamant denials by Obama and his underlings. Add to that the opening of the trial in Chicago for Obama pal Tony Rezko, and Obama had lost any hope of controlling the theme of the day.
Even the much-mocked Clinton assertion that she offers "solutions" instead of Obama's "speeches" appears to have spooked him into a change in tactics. The candidate has largely disarmed himself of the mass rallies that have been the high points of his campaign in favor of small and sober town hall forums.

And so, Obama found himself in San Antonio on Monday, presenting a small group of veterans with a collection of small-bore policies that sounded downright Clintonian. "I led a bipartisan effort to improve outpatient facilities. . . . I passed legislation to get family members health care while they're caring for injured troops. . . . I've introduced legislation to make sure each service member receives electronic copies of their medical and service records upon discharge."
The modest proposals were met with modest applause.

For 40 slow minutes, Obama delivered his policy prescriptions and answered questions from the veterans. "I want the budgets to come in on time!" he told one questioner. He pledged to another his support for SR 1838, a new VA facility in the Rio Grande Valley. He told a third questioner about his plan for a $4,000 tuition credit. And the great orator found himself proclaiming that "it makes sense to have transferability."

Whatever. Reporters, at tables in the back of the room, answered e-mails and read newspapers. Obama, by making no news in his speech, had left them plenty of time to plot their ambush -- executed minutes later to the obvious surprise of the candidate.

"I don't have any preliminary statement," Obama said as he began his news conference, encouraging reporters to "just dive in." That was a mistake.

Tom Raum of the Associated Press led off with a question about whether an Obama aide had told Canadians not to take seriously the candidate's public rhetoric critical of the NAFTA trade agreement. "Let me, let me, let me, let me just be absolutely clear what happened," Obama answered, explaining that the meeting was a "courtesy" and involved no "winks and nods."
Then an agitator -- columnist Carol Marin with the Chicago Sun-Times -- broke in. Marin, a visitor to the Obama entourage who accused the regulars of being too "quiet," accused the candidate of concealing details about fundraisers Rezko had for him and a real estate transaction between the two.

"I don't think it's fair to suggest somehow that we've been trying to hide the ball on this," Obama answered. But this only provoked a noisy back-and-forth between Marin, Sun-Times colleague Lynn Sweet and Michael Flannery from Chicago's CBS affiliate. "How many fundraisers? . . . Who was there? . . . Disclosure of the closing documents?"

Obama, while repeating his formulation that it was "a boneheaded move" to do business with Rezko, tried to shut down the requests for more information. "These requests, I think, could just go on forever," he said. "At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what's pertinent."

Reporters, however, had a different idea of what was pertinent, and the questions about Rezko, NAFTA and other unpleasant subjects continued to come. An aide called out "last question," and Obama made his move for the exit -- only for reporters to shout after him in protest. "C'mon, guys," he pleaded. "I just answered, like, eight questions."

The questioning, however, has only just begun.