Shows What I Know

Although nobody has officially called the race, it would appear that Hillary Clinton's caucus losing streak continues: with 78% of precincts reporting, Obama leads 59%-40%, or in real terms, 4,000 votes to 2,756 votes. As CNN's cool graphic shows, the majority of the counties have reported (with 2 exactly tied and fully reported); only five remain. Most of these are sparsely populated, with Sheridan being the most populous at 26,560 (thanks Wikipedia!). It would appear that Obama did well in the populous parts of the state (a relative term, I admit), while Clinton carried more rural areas. Still, she could pull it out. This is more about momentum than about delegates, so a loss isn't too crushing for her.

Still nothing from IL-14.

Three Events Today

Three events worth taking note of today:

1) Special election in the 14th CD of Illinois to replace retiring Representative Dennis Hastert. This isn't an especially juicy prize, as whoever wins will have to run again in November's general election. However, in a normally safe Republican district the Democrat is running almost even. Special elections such as this one are often considered bellwethers for the coming general - Paul Hackett's August '05 near-miss in the bright red Ohio 2nd presaged the Democratic gains in 2006. To that end, the NRCC has dumped almost 20% of their cash on hand into the race. Part of the GOP's issue here is their candidate - no one really likes Jim Oberweis, and if he wasn't a self-funder the party bosses likely would not have coalesced behind him like they did. Some of his attacks on his opponent have also been questionable in their accuracy. Democrat Bill Foster's also helped by the fact that Illinois is Obama country, and Obama's endorsed Foster; to me, at least, an Oberweis win may be another sign that Obama is losing some of his aura. Coverage from CQ (and CQ) and The Fix are worth reading. If the GOP's using its 72-hour GOTV program, I think Oberweis pulls out a narrow win.

2) The Wyoming Democratic Caucus. Wyoming Republicans caucused months ago - 2 days after Iowa to be exact. Democrats are only now getting around to it, but it's a lot more significant than the GOP contest which Romney won. There are eighteen delegates at stake, and for the life of me, I haven't found any polling on the race. Neither Kerry nor Gore cracked 30% in the state, but Republican Representative (the only one) Barbara Cubin's victory in 2006 was a relative squeaker. I think the outcome is a result of who shows up; fundamentally, I think it's a Clinton state: 89% white, a median income just under $38,000 (less than that of Ohio). But I also have to wonder about immigration to the state from elsewhere, specifically wealthy, liberal voters flocking to places like Jackson Hole. Obviously, they'll be Obama voters and thus could make things interesting. If Clinton wins, expect her to make a lot of noise about it - she hasn't won a primary in a long time. She also needs a win to slow Obama down a bit more; Tuesday's Mississippi primary is demographically Obama country. Coverage from the WaPo and the NYT is worth taking a look at, the latter piece describes essentially record turnout.

3) Duke-UNC: Go to Hell Carolina, Go to Hell! It's at Cameron Indoor, but Duke's been inconsistent of late (though they looked pretty good in their road win over UVA on Wednesday) and UNC's been looking pretty good. The Heels should also have their starting point guard back, though no word on whether he'll start or whether he's 100%. All that being said, Duke won in the Dean Dome by 11, raining 3 pointers. Assuming Demarcus Nelson doesn't get into foul trouble, and that the shooters aren't laying eggs all day long, it should be interesting. It's sort of a mismatch game as Carolina (really, Tyler Hansbrough) dominates the front court while Duke dominates the back court with legitimate marksmen in Paulus, Scheyer, Singler, and occasionally King; both teams have productive benches, and Scheyer has been known to have game-changing performances. Both teams also have that extra motivation. For Duke, it's a home game in the biggest rivalry in college hoops (if not college sports), and the last time senior captain Demarcus Nelson will step foot on Coach K Court. For Carolina, they're looking to protect their #1 ranking, as well as perhaps distract their fans from the tragic death of student body president Eve Carson. For both teams, the ACC regular season title is on the line. Duke's got their 6th man in the Cameron Crazies, so I'll (not entirely neutrally) give the Blue Devils the edge in this one - but expect it to be a classic.

A Passing Worth Noting and Mourning

I may not hate the Packers, however, I most certainly, utterly, despise UNC. But this morning I, along with the vast majority (if not the entirety) of the Duke community, are putting the hatred aside: yesterday morning, UNC student government president Eve Carson was shot and killed in a random and senseless act of violence.

I've got a handful of friends at UNC; Eve was not among them and in reading what's been written about her in the latest twenty-four hours, I'm indubitably the poorer for that. On ESPN this morning, they quoted UNC President (and former Clinton Chief of Staff) Erskine Bowles as saying she had more potential than anyone he had ever met. High praise, indeed. The Daily Tarheel's memorial wall is worth reading. The remarks by UNC-CH's chancellor are worth watching (I won't embed the video). But most of all, say a prayer for her friends and family who are left with a great, gaping hole in their lives.

The bitter, tragic irony of her death is that it came just two days before the second Duke-UNC game, this one within the walls of one of the greatest sports venues in the world. By all accounts, Eve was a rabid Tarheel fan and was no doubt was looking forward to the game. It had promised to be a titanic match-up, what with UNC point guard Ty Lawson expecting to play after being sidelined with an ankle injury in Duke's 11 point win in the Dean Dome. The regular-season ACC title is on the line, and UNC's the #1 team in the country. Don't think for a moment that this game will not be intense, probably a classic given how much there is on the line for both teams and the new motivation for Carolina.

But I think the focus for many people in the two communities separated by just eight miles will be elsewhere, on Eve. Although I'm glad it's going to be played in Cameron, in front of the Crazies, part of me wishes it was in the Dean Dome instead, so that UNC students had something to take their mind off of this tragedy if only for a few brief hours. She'll be remembered at the game with a moment of silence. I won't be surprised if Coach K, who wore a Wake Forest-colored tie in memory of the late Skip Prosser when Duke played Wake recently, has some subtle personal tribute of his own. GTHC, and RIP Eve Carson.

Brett Favre's Retirement Press Conference

I'm a Bears fan. As such I'm supposed to hate the Packers, Brett Favre, the Lambeau Leap, and cheeseheads. I do hate cheeseheads, but I've never been able to bring myself to hate Brett Favre. #4 has always been a class act, a fantastic competitor, a guy who put a great face on the sport even while others - the entire Cincinatti Bengals organization comes to mind - besmirched its reputation. Yes, he kicked us around the NFC North, but then again we deserved to be kicked around.

His leadership of the team this year was amazing; after nearly retiring last season, with a receiving corps composed of nobodies, they went 13-3. (Two of those losses, I must note, were to a Bears squad that otherwise did nothing of note.) He took them to the NFC Championship game, which everyone expected they'd win, but they lost to a destiny-driven Giants team.

What all of this means is that I'm truly sad to see him hang up his cleats. All his best qualities were on display in his retirement press conference.

On to the Aaron Rodgers era.

Live-Blogging Rezko

The Tribune's doing it here; sadly it doesn't seem to have an associated RSS feed.

Oh and did Rezko pay to play for an Iraqi contract? It's not just his political ties that are so interesting, it's these foreign ties...which raises the question of the origin of that money he loaned to Barack Obama.

Obama, Tony Rezko and More!

Although the majority of Americans won't notice them right away, clouds are beginning to gather behind Barack Obama. The line of attack, or at least of questioning since day 1 has been simple: how in God (aka Mike Ditka)'s name did Obama rise so fast in Chicago's political machine? He got some lucky breaks in South Side politics, yes, including throwing his political mentor (and state senate predecessor) under the bus.* But any Chicagoan for whom Obamamania didn't require psychiatric evaluation has and had doubts. The media's starting to get on the trail, both in the city itself and nationally - and while it's only the Journal right now, events in coming weeks means that it'll be hard for the others to follow suit.

John Fund wrote a worthwhile piece for yesterday's Opinion Journal asking that question, especially with regard to indicted Chicago fixer Tony Rezko. But it's deeper than just Rezko - who will soon stand trial - and the story of Obama's dream house, which has actually received some play in the media. It also ties in one of Rezko's close partners, a secretive Iraqi-born billionaire property developer, who may or may not have had dealings with Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War. Rezko himself, Fund notes, "traveled 26 times to the Middle East between 2002 and 2006, mostly to his native Syria and other countries that lack extradition treaties with the U.S."

Barring hard evidence of wrongdoing - or at least sufficiently damning circumstantial evidence, it's hard to push this line of questioning too far without giving the Obama campaign a prime pushback opportunity; they'll just claim it's the old "Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim" story in a new burqua.

John Kass is one of the Tribune's most undervalued columnists, nationally speaking. But I have a feeling that if there turns out to be any juice in the Rezko trial, he'll quickly become pretty famous. He isn't so much conservative as he is contrarian - an old-school political muckraker raking the muck around an old-school political machine.

His latest column asks one of the big questions to non-Chicagoans: why isn't the McCain campaign more outwardly jubilant about the pending trial? The reason: it's Chicago and everyone pays to play - and Rezko could easily take down Republicans as well as Democrats (potentially including Governor Rod Blagojevich, an Obama ally). One of those Republicans may be Bob Kjellander, an RNC committeeman.

Thus the McCain campaign's unwillingness to pop the champagne too soon becomes evident: if a big elephant goes down too, that may be the part that dominates the media headlines (especially if Obama doesn't take any serious hits); worse, that Republican might have donated to McCain.

But there are other reasons for McCain & Co. to back off. Letting the trial run its course, and claim its victims, will generate its own media maelstrom. They may have to give it a gentle nudge once in a while, but odds are this one will generate headlines. Further, as Charlie Cook noted yesterday, they're understaffed and underfunded; a trial that may or may not blow Obama up isn't their primary worry at the moment.

*I realized that I made reference to this without it being a well-known phenomenon. I wasn't aware, either, till the Politico buried it on p.2 of that story about Obama's ties to unrepentant members of the Weather Underground; I'll go ahead and quote it in full: "The exact date [of a meeting between Obama and the terrorists] is not known, but it was in the second half of 1995, before Palmer’s [his predecessor and mentor] decision — late in her losing congressional primary against Jesse Jackson Jr. — to jump back into the special election for her state Senate seat. (Her decision produced a rift between her and Obama, who was able to get her thrown off the ballot on technical grounds.)" That's change you can believe in!

A Sad Blogosphere Development

[I'd meant to mention this days ago...] Ed Morrissey has long been one of the best conservative bloggers out there, providing fantastic analysis and insights as the Captain of Captain's Quarters.

He's now packed up his bags and is blogging over at HotAir. I don't particularly like the HotAir layout, but the move unites him with Allahpundit - thus making a pretty dynamic duo. I've removed CQ from my blogroll and added HotAir.

Speaking of Social Networking

Two things I touched on in my last post were the increasing prevalence of Internet-ready phones and the power of social networking sites such as Facebook.

I'm not the only one talking about that - Apple's got a new iPhone ad that only talks about Facebook on your iPhone.

Besides being the typical brilliant, effective, stylish Apple ad (I swear they have the best ads in the world right now), it's a pitch to a younger crowd than may already be toting the thing (which I'm in love with). But it's also targeted at a certain demographic of this younger crowd - as I'd noted last year, Facebook is used largely by a younger, preppier, more affluent crowd than MySpace. Which is to say I don't expect to see an iPhone MySpace ad anytime in thenear future.

The Internet and Politics

Say what you will about Obama, he's inarguably running the most tech-savvy campaign this cycle. Both he and McCain have slick, visually appealing websites, which is the least you'd expect from a pair of presidential contenders.

But McCain is still a few years behind the cutting-edge applications of the Internet in the political realm (surprising for a guy who made the most of the Internet in his insurgent campaign back in 2000). He's got everything you would want, including omnipresent donation links, if you're older than thirty or so. But his ability to get news to you is limited, and he boasts only a video archive that is on the same menu as print-news stories. His campaign blog isn't bad, but his RSS feeds are sorely under-subscribed. The site also lacks links to his presence on Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, and other social networking sites, as well as widgets for blogs or websites (something I emailed the campaign about). There's a noticeable absence of action links on every page - nothing about calling other voters or volunteering; it's focused more on winning your vote than getting you to sway others. It's a website for an older generation, and cedes the e-edge and the initiative among youth voters to Obama.

Obama's website, by contrast, is absolutely masterful. His blog is more picture- and video-intensive than McCain's. Whereas Mac's is largely devoted recently to refuting the Times story, and hasn't been updated since 2/25, Obama's has been updated five times today and addresses several different topics. He's got the volunteer and phone links on every page, as well as the donate links. He has a separate tab for states, so you can find what's going on in your hometown and get involved. And the coolest? Under the media tab, he's got a whole package of mobile options. The ability to download Barack ring tones just creeps me out, but the ability to get policy updates texted to your cell phone is the new frontier of tech-savvy campaigning. It's actually fast becoming redundant as the proliferation of Internet-ready cellphones means that email is always accessible, but it's still fascinating. It's not just updates, however, which some other candidates (such as Steve Sauerberg) boast, it's the fact that you can receive updates on specific policies. It's self-selected micro-targeting via an always-connected medium. Oh and of course there are links to Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn and every other social network you can think of (and some I've never heard of), as well as widgets.

I'd never vote for Barack, but Republicans looking to be competitive in the new realm of political competition need to look at Obama's site. It recognizes the power of the Internet and breaks further away from the traditional media to media that focus on the individual consumer and on how they want to get their information. In a word, it's effective.

The Christening of the USS New York

Down in Louisiana today, the Navy christened the USS New York. Named as a memorial to those who died on 9/11, the ship carries on its bow a shield made of steel recovered from the World Trade Center.

In previous eras, a ship named after a state would have been a battleship; according to Wikipedia this is the sixth USS New York. The first was a gondola built in 1776; the fifth was a veteran of both World Wars. This latest USS New York, however is a San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock - essentially a means of getting Marines to the battlefield. Memorializing the dead of 9/11, including those of the NYFD and NYPD, and carrying hundreds of Marines seems somehow fitting to me.

Shilling for Another Dem

So it was one thing when I was pushing Lawrence Lessig's potential Congressional bid (he's decided against running) because it was the California 12, bright blue Bay Area. Sadly we get another party hack in Congress instead.


Now I'm pushing a Democrat running in a district where he has virtually no chance. Why? Same reason as Lessig: credentials (and another reason). Mike Lumpkin is running in the California 52, a San Diego-area district that Bush won handily in both 2004 and 2000, and that current representative Duncan Hunter (perhaps better known as a presidential candidate?) has won without serious challenge for years. But it's also a district where 16% of the population are miitary veterans, and that's something Lumpkin is. Not just a veteran, however, an eight-tour veteran Navy SEAL with a master's degree in National Security and an emphasis on Low Intensity Conflict (otherwise known as counterinsurgency warfare). Sounds like a worthwhile addition to the House.

On the issues, he's a Democrat. He supports bringing the troops home (from both Iraq and Afghanistan?), but does not elaborate. Obviously this gives me pause. However, I'm also willing to let him explain himself - his issues section as a whole is still sketchy thus as a whole, I'm willing to give him time (again, not likely to win). In this he doesn't seem to differ from other Democratic candidates in the district, so his biography gives him the interest-factor edge.

There's another reason I find this campaign intriguing: the likely Republican nominee is none other than Duncan Hunter's son Duncan S. Hunter. For all my conservative, small-r tendencies, I'm no fan of hereditary politics. I'm not supporting Lumpkin, just throwing out there the fact that maybe we need to give hereditary candidates a better run for their money (ask Dan Lipinski about that one) - and maybe this just shows my Chicago roots.

I suppose I should also make mention of how I found out about the Lumpkin candidacy. To be brief, I was chasing down a rumor that a fellow named Eric Greitens was running. He isn't (at present), but he has endorsed Lumpkin. Again, Greitens is a fellow I cannot have less than the utmost respect for: he's a Navy SEAL as well, a Duke alum (bonus points), a White House Fellow (nothing like the White House Intern program, I promise) and a Truman Scholar as well as a Rhodes Scholar. In short, his resume is superhuman. If Greitens runs in the future, I'll be sure to make note of it.

Questions That Should Be Asked

A great NY Times piece today offers a slate of questions that should be asked tonight. I doubt any of them has been in the last 26 minutes or will be in the remaining 1:04.

My favorites:

1. Responding to a questionnaire from The Boston Globe on presidential power, you both criticized President Bush’s use of signing statements, with which he has asserted a constitutional right to bypass more than 1,000 sections of bills that he has signed into law. You both also said you would continue using signing statements, though in a less aggressive way.

But the American Bar Association has called for an end to this practice, and Senator John McCain says he will never issue a signing statement. Why are they wrong?

2. Both of you have said the Constitution does not allow a president to detain a citizen without charges as an enemy combatant. But President Bush won court rulings upholding the indefinite detention of two Americans as enemy combatants. Were the courts wrong? Does a president have the authority to interpret the Constitution differently from the judiciary? Would you ever use the court-approved authority to hold a citizen indefinitely as an enemy combatant?

3. Both of you have said that President Bush cannot attack Iran without first obtaining Congressional authorization for the use of military force. But two Democratic presidents, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, ordered American forces into extended armed conflicts without Congressional authorization. Did the Korean and Kosovo wars violate the Constitution? Would an attack on Iran be legally different, and if so, how?

2. Samantha Power, one of Senator Obama’s chief foreign policy advisers, strongly criticized the United States in her book “A Problem From Hell” for failing to intervene in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and for the three-year delay in intervening in the Bosnian war, until the 1995 Srebrenica massacre.

Saddam Hussein also committed genocide by killing thousands of Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons in the late 1980s and massacring thousands of Shiite marsh dwellers in southern Iraq after the first gulf war. How could we have left Mr. Hussein in power? How can Senator Obama say that removing a genocidal killer was a “dumb” war?

Renzi Gets Worse

So he's not just indicted. He's indicted on 36 counts of corruption, including conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, extortion and insurance fraud; two others were charged along with him. One hopes that on top of everything else, we're not running against a "culture of corruption" too this November.

Oh Goody

Rick Renzi indicted. The Congressman from the AZ01 has been ethically challenged for a while - but now it's all out there. Thinking off the top of my head, he'll probably pull out and be replaced on the ballot by a state senator or other local worthy. The seat's not especially safe, only an R+2 (Bush won with 54% in 04 and 51% in 00). Although Renzi won easily in 2004, in 2006, with the ethical questions and the overall Democratic environment, he won with just 52% of the vote. We'll see...

UPDATE: Oops - I'd forgotten that Renzi announced last August that he wouldn't seek reelection. Still, a Republican in the district will have to run tainted by the association.

"Fair and Balanced"

CNN distributed a series of talking points to its anchors in the wake of Fidel Castro's "resignation" - talking points that bring a whole new meaning to fair and balanced (a slogan liberals love to hate) and once again reveal the media's inescapable bias. They're just too good, I'll post them in their entirety.

From: Flexner, Allison
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:46 AM
To: *CNN Superdesk (TBS)
Cc: Neill, Morgan; Darlington, Shasta
Subject: Castro guidance

Some points on Castro – for adding to our anchor reads/reporting:

* Please say in our reporting that Castro stepped down in a letter he wrote to Granma (the communist party daily), as opposed to in a letter attributed to Fidel Castro. We have no reason to doubt he wrote his resignation letter, he has penned numerous articles over the past year and a half.

* Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba – namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration. in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech.

* Also the Cuban government blames a lot of Cuba’s economic problems on the US embargo, and while that has caused some difficulties, (far less so than the collapse of the Soviet Union) the bulk of Cuba’s economic problems are due to Cuba’s failed economic polices. Some analysts would say the US embargo was a benefit to Castro politically – something to blame problems on, by what the Cubans call “the imperialist,” meddling in their affairs.

* While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftist in Latin America, for standing up to the United States.

Any questions, please call the international desk.

Allison

I'm really kind of surprised that the US isn't denounced as being a nation of baby-killers for the embargo. Anyone else think that the sentence about "being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech" was a later addition to the whole piece? Finally, I would suggest that he's probably also seen as a revolutionary hero at CNN.

More Lessig

So he's still not officially running, but he's now got a campaign website of sorts. It's got most of what you'd find on a real site, but he's still not officially in. I'm not certain this is a statement of intent - perhaps he's trying to gauge support still?


He also sat down for an interview with Ars Technica, touching on his campaign and what he'd like to do in Congress. It's worth reading in its (relatively brief) entirety, but I'll pull some key excerpts here. First off, it's worth noting that Lessig is currently focused (academically speaking) on the corrupting influence of money in politics; to that end:

One simple means of reducing the political power of campaign cash, Lessig says, "could be done tomorrow." He wants to ban legislative earmarks, those juicy morsels of targeted federal funding legislators direct toward pet projects and political supporters. Lessig also hopes to encourage more robust public financing of campaigns, noting the salutary effect such policies appear to be having in states like Maine and Arizona. Most immediately—and perhaps most radically—Lessig says he will swear off contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, and he hopes to bring grassroots pressure to bear on other candidates to follow suit.

"This is about building a parallel to Creative Commons in Congress," Lessig explains, referencing the popular legal license he created to help authors and artists make their work available for free distribution and modification. Just as creators under a Creative Commons license cede some control over their works in order to promote a robust open-source culture, Lessig's political vision entails "people in power, legislators, voluntarily waiving that power in order to build a better system."

No more earmarks? Good. Public funding? Less certain how I feel about this. It might make for more reasonable campaigns, however - and perhaps shorter campaigns (which in turn would allow voters to pay more attention). The no PAC money is nice - and in a true blue district like the CA-12 may appeal to voters (pure speculation, that).

On policy, he is (as I noted yesterday) a full-blown progressive. However, and I imagine in opposition to his primary opponent, he's a "free-trade, pro-market liberal." As I've said, we could do worse. So what's he planning on doing in Congress?

"Silicon Valley needs a representative who can speak for the interests of the Internet, of making it flourish," he says. "As we're leading into this moment when the owners of telecommunications platforms are trying to leverage their ownership into control of the Internet, yammering about the need to turn it into the old Bell System, we need someone in Washington who's going to be able to stare them down."

But while Lessig wryly notes that the RIAA and MPAA "won't be excited to have an opponent of extremist copyright legislation in Congress," he also stresses that a congressional run would not be some kind of crusading extension of his work on "free culture." For Lessig, the central policy question will be, "Who ultimately controls innovation on the Internet? That's the net neutrality fight; that's the open spectrum fight."

As I've said, I've got mixed feelings about net neutrality. But as I've also said, we could do worse - Lessig is an intellectual and a thoughtful one at that. Given the district, he's orders of magnitude better than a Republican has any reason to hope for.

I'll credit the unparalleled Glenn Reynolds for bringing this to my attention; on Instapundit, he notes "one certainly can't object to the prospect of more serious thinkers, and fewer professional politicians, in Congress." I wholeheartedly agree.

Bush in Africa

El Presidente's doing his thing in Africa - perhaps because he's more popular over there than he is at home - and has been warmly received everywhere. He's also received plaudits from Bob Geldorf, the other Irish rocker who's taken an interest in the continent's plight. Geldorf said, a comment sure to raise liberal hackles, that Bush has done more for African than any other president so far. But let's be honest and look at US-African history since 1945:

• Pressuring Europeans to end their colonial presence was a mixed bag. Some were obviously suffering - Belgian colonies, for example (not to say that things improved after they left) - but many of the British colonies have gone downhill since independence. Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria come to mind - but don't take my word for it, look at demographic indicators.
  
• During the Cold War, we largely let Africa go to pot in our struggle with the Communists. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't have subverted the continent to our national interest - we should have, and anyways they would be worse off under Communism, but in terms of helping Africa it wasn't our brightest hour.
• After the Cold War, Bush Sr. wasn't all that concerned. The continent was sort of in stasis - political and economic turmoil, of course, but I don't believe that we'd begun to understand the true extent of the AIDS crisis.
• Clinton: Rwanda. Need we say more?
• Bush II: AIDS programs, consistent engagement with the continent - more than previous presidents. Some might fault him, saying we haven't done enough to end the bloodshed in Darfur, for example; there's some merit in this, but those same folks are the ones who castigate us for going into Iraq without UN authorization - and there's no way in hell we'd get a UN resolution authorizing US troops into Darfur.

So Geldorf's statement isn't a stretch - indeed it's probably the truth. I've got my own personal quibbles with his policies - the emphasis on abstinence rather than contraception in the fight against AIDS for example - but I don't dispute Geldorf's point. Anyways, this whole post was largely an excuse to embed this video. It isn't MC Rove, but try not to laugh too hard.

The NYT's McCain Hit Job

The story of the morning in the political world is, without a doubt, the New York Times' hit job on John McCain. It's the most absurd coalition of rumor and innuendo, shameful journalism even by the standards of the Times.

McCain's denied the allegations, with his campaign saying he's going to war with the paper over the allegations. The Times has their own version of the back-and-forth, including a statement from their editor which makes reference to "facts;" he fails to note that they are few and far between in this particular piece.

Meanwhile, John Weaver, one of the figures at the center of the Times' concocted drama, has issued a statement explaining his role - and it contradicts what NYT says. He's McCain to the end, it would appear. TNR has a must-read metacommentary on the story - the story behind the story, the debates within the Times as to whether or not to publish, etc. It's a hit piece, but apparently not everyone was comfortable with that. Others were apparently dismayed by the timing; the story had originally begun circulating (according to Drudge at least) back in December, but was pulled; some wonder if the Times was holding its fire to help its favorite Republican.

And last but not least, the law of unintended consequences kicks in: the Right is rallying behind McCain. This whole story - especially if it starts to backfire on the Times - also helps McCain in drawing attention away from Obama/Clinton, which had been largely dominating headlines and news coverage. Unifying the party, giving McCain the spotlight with its BS - I never thought I'd say it, but thank you Grey Lady!

CQ has a worthwhile post that's part summary, part analysis, but is definitely worth the time (as is everything that Ed writes).

Lessig for Congress?

One of the more interesting books I've read for a class recently was Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. It's a book about creativity and copyrights, and despite sound like something only a wonk could love, Lessig succeeds in making it accessible, even pleasant, for the lay reader. As such, I strongly recommend it. Besides being an author, Lessig's also a professor out at Stanford Law and a blogger. Busy man. He may also be looking for a new day job.

Lessig lives in (or at least near) California's 12th Congressional District, until recently represented by the late (and sorely missed) Tom Lantos. I didn't always agree with Lantos - indeed the man often drove me up the wall - but I respected him (as Congress's only Holocaust survivor, he deserved at least that much) and found myself agreeing with him more than I might have thought likely. Now there's a Draft Lessig movement afoot, looking to him to replace Lantos. The 12th is a district in which the primary is essentially the ball game - no Republican has gotten more than 43% since 1982 - and more recently most have been held south of 30. Looking at the map such poor performance shouldn't come as much of a surprise - we're talking deep Bay Area here.

I imagine that we can do much worse than Lessig (more on this later). In recent years, Congress's track-record on matters of intellectual property has continually been somewhere between ludicrous and unconstitutional; debate has been minimal at best (the infamous Mickey Mouse Act, properly the Copyright Terms Extension Act, passed by voice vote leaving no record of those few who stood in opposition). Lessig would certainly change all of that, sparking a serious debate on an important and neglected area of policy. Of course it's not all peaches and creme - he's a vociferous Obama supporter and has also stood up for Net Neutrality (on which I remain neutral). But as I said, I imagine we can do much worse.

What's also interesting is the nature of his still-unofficial campaign: it started with a "Draft Lessig for Congress" Facebook group. The movement has gone from there to draftlessig.org website and has gone so far as to have established an Actblue page for the candidate (through which he's already garnered $24,240). Lessig officially remains coy; on his blog, he's said he'll decide soon whether or not to run. Making this whole thing more intriguing is the fact that, in his words, "A bunch of people have asked (and some in the strongest way possible) that I not run because somehow, as a progressive (the pc word for "liberal"), it is wrong to challenge another established progressive."

"Another established progressive" refers to Jackie Speier, who presumably was the establishment candidate to replace Lantos (who had already planned on retiring). Speier looks like Pelosi - which is reason enough to support Lessig over her. She also sounds like Pelosi - cut and run on Iraq, "bring the troops home to fix the economy," yadda yadda yadda (though interestingly, her positions on the Environment and Health Care are "Coming soon...").

If they're both progressives, I presume Lessig feels much the same way on the issues. Given the choice between the two, I have to say that Lessig is the lesser of two evils - in fact he'd be a fine addition to Congress (remember, we're not getting anything that smells like a Republican elected out here). Check out his blog and some of the other links; I encourage you to read Free Culture. This special election may be one worth watching.

Opening the Ballot in North Carolina

I could hardly believe my eyes this morning as I perused The Chronicle, Duke's daily which bills itself as "The Tower of Campus Thought and Action" or some such drivel. Buried inside was some real reporting, regarding efforts by North Carolina's Libertarian and Green Parties to liberalize state ballot laws, currently among the nation's strictest. The present requirement to collect 70,000 votes in order to qualify obviously discriminates against such small parties, which usually spend the majority of their respective budgets in the process. Now, however, the Greens and Libertarians have laid their ideological differences aside in an attempt to overturn the law.

First, I was flabbergasted by such reporting in the Chronicle; more often than not, I feel that the thing should come in two ply on a roll because that's about the limit of its value. Second, and this isn't always the case, I like the idea. It's not out of any ideological willingness to see third (and fourth) parties compete in the general - it's bad enough having Ron Paul in the debates without having Cynthia McKinney in there. Rather, it's because of the Libertarian Party's gubernatorial candidate Mike Munger.

Munger, the Political Science Department Chair here at Duke, has a well-deserved and legendary reputation. He's also inarguably brilliant. He almost certainly wouldn't win election - he's too smart for that (a sad testament to our political system) - but I'd love nothing than to see him get into the gubernatorial debates. This isn't to say the others are dunces, indeed by Tarheel State standards, they're not a bad lot (Wake Forest grads, one graduate degree from LSE). But Mungowitz is a) brilliant and b) absolutely without regard for political convention. Thus the debates would quickly become must-see TV (and I might not be joking had the writers strike recently ended). Oh and Munger's an enormously amusing blogger. Check him out.

I won't cry if he and his greenie counterpart don't make the ballot - but I do think North Carolina politics will be the worse for it.