The public outcry over $4 a gallon gas (and rising) has spurned somewhat of a college industry among the press in the woes and perils of high energy costs. The latest news is that unsigned bands will have to cancel national tours due to the high fuel costs. Heartbreaking, I know.

Actually, despite my sarcasm my second dream job was rock star. I found out I couldn’t throw 90 mph, so that ended my first, and then I found out that most rock stars spend years living on cheap beer and sand, which ended my second. So I support small bands and wish them the best. (I still think of you, Julie!! Hope Portland’s better than BFE, IL.)

And raised energy prices are nothing to disregard so lightly. After all, Hillary Clinton “heard from some folks” that things are getting rough. So both candidates are starting to showcase their plans for relief. For example, they both support closing loopholes which allow oil company speculations to drive prices up. Some are saying Obama is merely following McCain’s lead on this (thanks, liber.rhetoricae), but it’s good that both candidates agree.

However, McCain has taken the extra step to try and end the 26-year moratorium on drilling off the U.S. coastlines, a plan that is even having a hard time convincing many coastline Republicans.

I think many people along the coastlines are having a “not in my backyard” type reaction. We get that a lot in central Illinois when companies want to start building wind turbines. But in this case I have to agree wholeheartedly with those who oppose it. It’s just not a smart, responsible way to deal with the fuel costs.

First, the Senate has already turned down such a measure, by a 56-42 vote. This is a plan championed by Bush, which means (fair or not) it’s not going to get a lot of air play in a Democrat-controlled Congress before January. So far from offering immediate help, it won’t even be approved for at least seven more months.

Further, though both Obama and McCain agree that at least part of the gas price problem is a lack of oil supply, even Bush admits that it will take years, as long as a full decade, for drilling to start pumping more oil into the U.S. economy, and hence years before any sort of relief at the pump.

When you couple this long time line with the increase in demand that will continue due to higher oil consumption from large countries such as China and Brazil, this is a plan that will bear no fruit for the average American consumer.

McCain has voted against such a measure before, and as little as three weeks ago stated that such actions “would take years to develop, [and] would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels.” This change of heart seems to be little more than the same political posturing used to champion the ill-advised gas tax cut.

(To his credit, he continues to express opposition to drilling in ANWR.)

The truth is, the time and resources spent drilling for oil in our coastline could be much better spent developing ways to alleviate our dependency upon oil, which is going to be the only way we can ultimately provide permanent relief from high gas prices. Ten years is along time to wait for help at the gas pump, but it’s also a long time to incorporate solar power, or find new ways to reclaim all the lost energy involved in driving a car, or establish a hydrogen infrastructure to power fuel cell or liquid hydrogen vehicles, or increase electric engines which run on American made energy using coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or nuclear energy, or even something really cool that we haven’t even thought up of yet.

Working to expand the energy matrix, and not just our oil supply, also has an added benefit – it provides relief not just from the gas station but the electric company. Focusing our solutions on providing more oil does us no favors when the price of energy required to power our homes is also increasing. I must admit, McCain seems legitimately interested in helping expand our nation’s ability to provide cheap, clean, renewable energy. But framing the energy debate on the price of gasoline only limits the nation’s sense of expediency in accomplishing this goal by suggesting the problem is not the status quo, but rather our capabilities in sustaining it.

Many people are complaining that Obama’s opposition to this drilling is merely representative of a larger “can’t do” ideology of the Democrat party, if not liberal thought as a whole. Obama has an extensive policy of things we can do to help provide cheaper energy – at the pump and at the home. In fact, focusing our attention on increasing the oil supply is actually much more of a “can’t do” policy – we can’t increase fuel efficiency to levels already demanded in much of the world, can’t increase it in a financially viable manner, can’t create automobiles or technologies which rid us of our dependency on oil to begin with.

We can, we must, and it’s time that we do. For Julie’s sake.

The big news over the last couple of days is Obama opting out of public funding for the Presidential Election. (Not Michelle Obama’s dress. I can’t believe this stuff gets on the air.) McCain has claimed this is evidence that Obama “is just another typical politician,” which is ironic because he’s the first to opt out of public funding since the system was established in 1972. By definition, that makes him atypical.

In fact, the biggest reason why Obama has opted out of the public funding is due to his unique ability to raise large sums of money from small donors. Truth is, there is absolutely nothing “typical” about this decision.

Of course, that is merely a point of irony, and not what McCain was referring to at all when he stated this is just an example of political expediency. Obama had famously stated that he would accept public funding if the Republican candidate and he could work out a reasonable system for doing so. But since he no longer needs to do so, McCain argues, he is going against his word and taking the path which will allow him the most money to spend come September and October.

Still, the decision to opt out of funding has few objective detractors in and of itself. And if the system is as broken as Obama believes it is, this decision may provide him with the perfect opportunity to scrap it and begin anew. Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough presents the perfect illustration of the real issue the press has with Obama: opting out was the right decision, but he’s using the wrong explanation to justify it. Earlier this morning, he said the appropriate explanation would be to just say that due to the millions of small donors online, things have changed to a degree he just couldn’t have imagined a year ago. Dan Rather agreed, saying the reason why he did not do so is because politics at the top is like “dancing like you’re barefoot on August asphalt.”

You have to love Dan Rather.

Finally, Wednesday Quinnipiac University released an interesting poll which showed Obama ahead of McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The margin was all below ten points so, while they were all above the margin of error, the data’s not entirely useful this far from the election. However, it has to be comforting for Obama.

But the interesting data was not the leads in these three states, but the impact that Clinton has, or more to the point has not had, on the general election. In these three points, Obama leads McCain among women . . . by ten to twenty-three points. What’s more, when asked if Obama should put Hillary Clinton on the ticket, Democrats in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania say yes by margins of 57-33, 58-31, and 60-31 percent, respectively. However, independents in these two states oppose the idea by wide margins: 46-37, 47-31, and 49-36 percent, respectively. And the biggest Republican support she gets for the Veep nod in any state is 20%, in Pennsylvania.

So it would be safe to say the fact that Obama is not Hillary Clinton is not going to cause McCain to carry those states. But perhaps more importantly, it would actually be a detriment to him to put Hillary on the ticket.

If Obama carries all three states, it’s going to be virtually impossible for McCain to win. Quinnipiac seems to be generous to Obama in Florida. Realclearpolitics.com has an average polling line of +5% for McCain. And I’ll be honest; I don’t see Obama winning Florida. I didn’t think Kerry could win it, and I don’t think Clinton could have won it. It would certainly make things easier if Obama can grab it somehow, but I’m more than willing to concede it to McCain. However, the average line for Obama in Ohio is +5.3%, while in Pennsylvania it’s 7.3%. Ohio has 20 electoral votes, and Bush won that in 2004. If Kerry had carried Ohio he would have won. So hanging on to these two states means he doesn’t have to win Florida.

But looking deeper into realclearpolitics.com’s website reveals something even more interesting, and exciting for the Obama fan. It may not come down to Ohio after all. They list the battleground states for 2008 as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Virginia, Missouri, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Of these states, the only ones McCain currently have a polling lead in are Michigan and Florida. Obama and McCain are tied in New Mexico and Nevada, though several others are virtual ties (leads of less than 2%). This includes Michigan, New Hampshire, Virginia, Missouri, and Colorado.

So let’s say that the map stays the same from 2004 to 2008 with the exception of these states and Iowa, which very narrowly went to Bush but Obama is currently leading. And let’s give Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada to McCain, let him keep Michigan, and throw Colorado and Virginia to him for good measure. Under this scenario, Obama would win the election by accruing 273 electoral votes.

And if the leads all hold up and McCain takes New Mexico and Nevada? Then Obama

wins easily, 295 – 243. With ten electoral votes up for grabs in those two states, Obama could win over 300 electoral votes.

In fact, if he wins any two out of the seven “tied” states he would win the election. More interesting, though, is if he wins only Michigan he could lose all the others and still get to 270. Of course, this is all predicated upon him winning Ohio and Pennsylvania. So the big trifecta for Obama is Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Win those three, and it’s in the bag. Win two of those, and it would be virtually impossible for McCain to win. McCain has to win two of those three in order to have a legitimate chance of winning the election (though at that point it’s unlikely he would lose).

With that in mind, I would not be willing to say at this time that any single state is going to determine the election. However, if it’s close, and certainly if McCain wins, I predict it will all come down to Michigan.

You heard it here first.

I tried to resist the temptation, but I feel as though I must say a few words about the immortal Tim Russert. I know there are thousands, if not millions, of tributes to this wonderful man, so I won’t try to offer some deep insight into who he was or what he meant to America. That should be obvious by now, if it wasn’t before (and I can’t understand why it wouldn’t have been.) To be honest, I’m not sure I can offer anything at all. But three days later I’m still in shock. I tried to write about baseball, but all that came out was Russert. So here’s what he meant to me.

Like many twenty-somethings who closely follow the Beltway, I first became intimately familiar with him on November 7, 2000. The first time I was able to vote.

I had no idea I was watching history. Someday the bitterness of the election that still lives in much of the U.S. population will have long passed and 2000 will serve as little more than a curious end game to a complicated election process. But it will be studied, and Gore’s name will live with Tiden’s and Cleveland’s in the blank spaces of history exams for decades to come.

But to those who watched the events unfold live, the disputes and recounts and court battles will not have lived on that Tuesday night. Those all happened in the days and weeks following. And grouped in those following days and weeks will be the events that actually did occur that night – the press stating Gore was President before recanting, then later calling the Presidency for Bush before recanting yet again. Or waiting for a Gore concession speech that never arrived. Or Bush telling reporters that he will win Florida and “you can write that down,” immediately followed by speculation on what Thanksgiving night at the Bush’s would be like if his prediction ended up hollow.

Because looking back on November 7, the big event wasn’t the election. It was Tim Russert.

If this story is to be told to our children, Russert will probably play the supporting actor to the dry erase board. But to me it wasn’t Russert’s board. At eighteen, I had thought that it was a decidedly low-tech and amateurish way to get information across. But combined with that smile Russert always accompanied with his fanatic doodlings, it seemed like we were watching a nerdy school boy playing news with a home camera. He would get so excited every time he’d come up with a new electoral count scenario, grinning from ear to ear and showing Brokaw look at what I’ve done!! It was bizarre, but it was also enduring.

If you look at how cable news shows handle the election-night results now, it’s all about who has the fanciest and flashiest dry erase board. But at the end of the day, that’s all they really are. Just different versions of Russert’s board. He seems to have really changed the way TV handles elections in a fundamental way that night. One of his many contributions – probably not the most important, but potentially the most memorable.

At the time, however, I was put off by this child-like figure, invading what I felt was the most important event of my lifetime with such a naïve narrative. But that was really what people loved about Russert, wasn’t it? His childish naivety. Of course, he was probably the least naïve person in all of television. From everybody’s accounts, he certainly seemed to be the smartest. But he never seemed like he was a professional newsman. He always seemed like a little kid standing on the courthouse steps, begging his heroes to “Say it ain’t so.” He was innocence exposing the culpable. And he always won, so he always made us feel as though innocence had won, too. And because of that, he gave me hope.

And now what is the news going to do? Outside of Chuck Todd, I can’t think of a single person who is even remotely capable of matching his unique mix of insight, intelligence, and boyish charm. So I hope Todd can do a good interview.

It was touching that MSNBC spent all weekend devoted to him, but I doubt it was much of a good tribute to Russert. With the exception of a block of Sunday afternoon, it was a loop of about three or four hours of Russert tribute material all weekend. Tim Russert was always about “hard news.” He resisted the temptations to blur entertainment with news, as most of our modern television press has done. He didn’t like the horse race aspect of politics and was always trying to sway the conversation to ideas and policies. And though it was fitting for MSNBC to devote the whole weekend to him, I thought it was a little disrespectful to him to just loop through the same material over and over and over again. I don’t think that’s what he would have wanted. He would have wanted there to be real news going all weekend. The best tribute (I can think of) to Tim Russert would have been to replay a wide swath of interviews and Meet the Press shows relevant to today’s topics all weekend. This tribute would have simultaneously showcased his abilities and his work while also providing real news and commentary. Most importantly, it would have escaped the “infotainment” which modern news organizations try to pass off as public import – the very trap Russert was so successful in avoiding (if not downright ignoring), but which ended up being the vein of his tribute.

I cannot help but feel that his passing is an omen for the four and a half months to come. We need Tim Russert more than ever. We need calm candor, but television news cannot seem to provide that. We need reason, but we are marketed fear. We need honest questions and long answers, but will be given partisan bullet points and thirty second responses.

We’ll have walls of TVs and touch screens and flying pie charts. And all I’ll really want is one damn dry erase board.

Yahoo reports that “EcoGeeks get all the girls.” And from Clinton to Kennedy, Condit to Livingston, Tobias to Foley, (and who can forget Larry Craig?) there’s no doubt that nobody does sex quite like Washington. Which is probably why they are finally starting to take environmental issues seriously, with three major pieces of eco-legislation on the agenda.

The first two bills approaching Congress deal with the issuance of tax credits and federal subsidies designed to encourage production and distribution of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. These two bills are H.R. 6049: Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008; and H.R. 5351: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. H.R. 6049 would extend current tax breaks on companies producing renewable energy sources through 2009, while H.R. 5351 evidently creates them. Both of these have passed the House of Representatives. H.R. 5351 was added to the new housing bill, H.R. 3221, as an amendment by the Senate, and this bill was passed by both the House and the Senate. The two chambers’ differences have yet to be resolved, but the primary difference between the bill passed by the House and the amendment added to the housing bill in the Senate is whether $18 billion in tax breaks aimed at oil companies would be eliminated to pay for the tax relief for renewable energy.

The Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008 is a $54 billion package which extends current tax breaks for wind energy until the end of 2009, solar energy through the end of 2014, and biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, and other technologies through the end of 2011. These tax breaks are essential to secure our energy independence and ensure a sustainable ecology for the long-term health of humanity. It also has a significant economic impact; elimination of these tax breaks could cause a $20 billion cut in energy research and development, costing over 116,000 American jobs. These jobs are not only important now, but are a precursor for permanent infrastructure employment opportunities, improving the standard of living within the United States by simultaneously strengthening our economy and lowering the cost of living.

As with most pro-environment policies, this bill will not only increase the “green” on the land, but also the green in your pocket.

This is an extremely important bill to pass Congress for a variety of reasons. As time is allowed to drag before we take alternative forms of energy seriously, we will only weaken our power and influence in the world while raising energy costs at home. I urge you to contact your Senator to ask him to pass this legislation. You may find your Senator’s contact information here. There are many people in Congress who may be tempted to vote against this bill for strictly political reasons. It is important to remember that this time of the political calendar is one which a constituent has the most power. Congressmen do not want to upset the people who they are asking to vote them back into office, and many feel it is too close to Election Day for people to forget it.

If you wish, you may also sign the We Campaign’s online petition. Normally I do not sign such petitions, as they are usually about meaningless. However, the We Campaign is made up of a wide range of political activists – they are responsible for the commercials with Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson – so it does hold more weight then most other websites with similar petitions. However, I feel obligated to warn you that signing the petition will put you on the We Campaign’s mailing list. This is not like being on a typical campaign’s mailing list where you get three emails every day with “important” information you don’t care about. I am a member and I can assure you that the emails are few. It is a good way to stay abreast with current environmental issues, if that sort of thing sounds appeasing. So I do recommend signing the petition and receiving their emails and don’t want to scare anybody away from it, but I also want to be upfront and let you know there’s no way of signing it without signing up for the list. (Of course, you could always sign it and then send them an email requesting to be removed from the list . . . )

The third bill approaching Congress is the long-awaited debate on providing federal standards to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. This is in the form of S. 2191: America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, announced by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and John Warner (R-Virginia). This bill is getting a lot of heat (no pun intended) from both sides of the issue because one side thinks it’s too expensive and the other thinks it doesn’t go far enough.

The crux of the bill is to cap greenhouse emissions at 2005 levels, and then start reducing gasses by 2% annually begining in 2012, creating a 20% reduction by 2020 and 70% reduction by 2050. This sounds very good. I like this. Could do better and I would prefer faster cuts, but I understand that industry has a legitimate gripe about cutting things too fast and some compromise is necessary.

The bill would also provide “transition assistance” to help deal with raising costs as a result of the expenses necessary to accomplish these cuts. This assistance would come in two forms: $350 billion to aide lower- and middle-income consumers and $500 billion to help offset the costs for companies and industries of modernizing their facilities to comply with the legislation.

This bill would also, by definition, increase the use of renewable and emission-friendly energy sources such as solar, wind, and nuclear.

However, the brunt of these cuts would come in the form of a cap-and-trade policy designed to encourage industry and private power plants to decrease their emissions. I have written about the positives of cap-and-trade before, so I won’t dive into too much detail about their relative merits. Suffice to say, these policies can be enacted and enforced responsibly and be very effective, though they can just as easily be meaningless, particularly if not enforced. If operated according to plan, this cap-and-trade system could move $5 trillion into federal coffers to help accomplish the reduction goals. This will undoubtedly raise many eyebrows amongst the “small government” crowd; even the New York Times is calling it “one of the biggest programs of redistribution of American wealth in history.” There are people who will claim this is just another reason to take the power away from the individual and place it in the hands of “big brother,” and any corrective actions should and must be conducted solely by and within the marketplace.

The truth is that if the market place was inclined to act responsibly to fix the global warming issue then it would have been done a long, long time ago. Some might argue that the market would prefer to act in a way which would be more environmentally friendly, but are unable to do so due to the financial burdens. Fine. But then the government needs to act to allow the market to become more environmentally friendly.

Either way, the health of our environment, the conditions which we leave our only habitat to our children, and the long-term economic and military stability of our nation are far too important to sacrifice in some theoretical discussion with Adam Smith. Our country’s greatest environmental accomplishments happened in the 1970’s, when the Environmental Protection Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, Community Right-to-Know Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) were all passed . . . and we had a Republican President in office. This is not and should not be a partisan issue. This is an issue which demands respect from all sides, as well as compromise. It’s far too important to be lost in the idealistic bickering of extremist thought; whether the arguments rendered be of market corrections or humanity’s ability to influence global climate change.

To that end, while it may appear difficult to impossible for this bill to pass, there are several indicators that such a bill will be passed in the near future. First, despite heavy complaints from some industry, many in the market actually want the federal government to pass greenhouse emission legislation. This is not so much a result of some moral prerogative as much as one of financial necessity. Many in industry fear that if the federal government does not pass emission standards quickly, state governments will become more likely to do so. This sets up several dilemmas. First, it is more efficient for a company to deal with a single standard then to adjust business practices for the differing standards in place in several states. Secondly, there is a fear that states will enact more stringent legislation than the federal government would be willing to, causing an increase cost burden on the industry. Third, states are not likely to provide such large relief plans to the industries affected by the legislation. And fourth (though probably not finally), many in industry are concerned that a state will place unduly high air quality standards and then penalize a company for operating a facility in a neighboring state for pollutants crossing state lines, setting up long and expensive legal battles.

I’m sure that many who control industry would prefer such a law for the law’s sake. However, absent that I really don’t care what the motivations for support of such a law are – the bill will have the same effect regardless of whether it’s approved for economic or altruistic purposes.

Another reason to be hopeful of such a bill forthcoming shortly is the policy of both Presidential candidates. Obama and McCain have both stated they will place an emphasis on creating some environmental controls to decrease global warming and increase energy independence in their next terms. Further, both have expressed an approval of cap-and-trade policy to accomplish reduction in greenhouse gasses. While neither seem as reliable on the subject as, say, Al Gore, they both seem much more sincere about their efforts than George Bush (or John Kerry for that matter). And as “green-living” becomes more and more popular and visible, and as more people understand the economic, as well as the environmental, benefits of more eco-conscious policies and lifestyles, the public push for such legislation will only increase.

It would be great if this bill passed Congress without amendments diluting its ability to positively affect the environment, as well as our economy. If not, hopefully Congress will use the debate to formulate a bill which will pass without rendering it useless in our fight against climate change.

Former Press Secretary to George Bush Scott McClellan has written a new book, due out in June, titled What Happened:  Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.  Scott McClellan was deputy press secretary for George W. Bush when he was governor of Texas, and served as his traveling press secretary during Bush’s 2000 Presidential campaign before taking over as White House Press Secretary after Ari Fletcher left in 2003, so you could say he is a “loyal Bushie.”

It is not kind.

According to the Washington Post, “Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes,” and “able to convince himself of his own spin.”

The New York Times sums it up by stating “President Bush ‘convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,’ and has engaged in ’self-deception’ to justify his political ends.

The White House said McClellan is “obviously disgruntled,” although they didn’t actually take the time to deny the claims in the book were factual.  (hmmmm . . . )

He criticizes much of the Bush Administration, from Hurricane Katrina (the Bush administration “spent most of the first week in a state of denial” and “allowed our institutional response to go on autopilot.”) to the ousting of CIA agent Valerie Plame for political purposes (”I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the President himself.”)

But based upon news sources, much of the book seems to be centered on the lies and misinformation the Bush administration used to lead us into an unjustifiable war in Iraq.  He accuses the administration of staging a “political propaganda campaign” designed for “manipulating sources of public opinion” to “downplay the major reason for going to war.”

Ultimately, even McClellan himself admits the Iraq War was a “fateful misstep” and a “serious strategic blunder.”  Although he doesn’t lay blame squarely on Bush’s shoulders.  He also (justifiably) criticizes the media for going along with the story too easily, claiming they “become complicit enablers of [Washington's] polarizing effects . . . If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq . . . The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

“Over that summer of 2002,” he writes, “top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the President’s advantage.”

The effect was the White House “almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.”  They “allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie . . . What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

“[Bush] and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war.  The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise.”

Well no shit.

On Friday, May 30, The Great Geno will be on “The Blog Bunker” on Sirius Radio Indie Talk 110, between 4:00pm and 5:00pm Central Time.

If you get the opportunity, please check me out. I would love to hear any feedback.

Late last night (technically early this morning) I wrote that McCain doesn’t even know who runs Iran. The point I was trying to make was that he (and Bush, for that matter) are trying to scare Americans into a Cold War-type fear of Iran using their eccentric (and crazy) President, Mahmoud Ahmanidejad. Of course, Ahmanidejad doesn’t actually run the country; he doesn’t even have control over the country’s nuclear or foreign policy. Iran’s Supreme Leader, currently Ayatolla Ali Khamenei, is named by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the highest ranking official, and dictates the country’s policies in these two areas. To be honest, I didn’t actually think McCain was unaware that President Ahmanidejad held a mostly ceremonial post, but was using a high-visibility official most Americans thoroughly despise as a way to garner support for his viewpoint. Pretty bad, that one would lie about such things in order to slant public opinion. And since he made the claim, I thought the tongue in cheek comment of “how can we expect McCain to appropriately deal with the leadership of Iran when he doesn’t even know whom the leadership is?” was legitimate.

Well, it turns out that I was wrong. Not that it was a low blow, but that McCain apparently doesn’t know who Iran’s real leader is. In fact, when confronted with this information, he not only admitted he was unaware that Ahmanidejad was not the de facto leader of the country, but even denied that Ayatolla Khamenei held that post.

Now, lest you think John McCain might be better informed on such matters than I, you don’t have to take my word for it. The CIA lists the “Chief of State” as Khamenei. According to, you know, our own government, evidently he is appointed to a life term by the “Assembly of Experts,” has control over the appointment of “more sensitive ministries” in the Cabinet, and appoints many of the members of the Executive Branches’ three oversight committee. Oh, and he also determines the country’s foreign and military policy (did I mention that?)

Time Magazine’s Joe Klein, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (so what would he know, anyway?), broached the subject to McCain because it turns out, in contrast to the Senator’s statements, Barack Obama didn’t actually ever say he was going to engage in formal discussions with Ahmanidejad. McCain objected to this correction, at which time Klein promptly informed him that he had said meeting with the leaders of the country may be appropriate, but not necessarily Ahmanidejad himself. McCain laughed, and alerted us to the (incorrect) fact that Ahmanidejad is the leader. And when Klein said that he “might be mistaken,” McCain’s response was “he’s the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country’s policy . . .”

Of course, the President of the United States very seldomly goes to the United Nations to declare our policies. Currently, the person who does that job is Zalmay Mamozy Khalizad. So by McCain’s logic, Mr. Khalizad, and not George W. Bush, is the leader of the United States. (Boy, if the people who don’t like Obama because they think he’s Muslim ever find out about that . . .)

But the fact that he speaks in front of the U.N. was not the only evidence McCain brought out to support his position. He reinforce the accuracy of his claim by stating “I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know.” So evidently countries half way around the world determine who their leader is based upon public opinion in the United States. Now, six out of ten 18-24 year olds in the United States can’t even find Iraq on the map, so these countries may want to think twice before picking their leaders based upon what Joe Sixpack in Biloxi thinks.

Of course, 68% of Americans think that the war in Iraq was a bad idea, and the same margin thinks we should either withdraw all or some of our troops in Iraq, so I’m guessing a McCain speech detailing a shift in policy regarding the war will be forthcoming very shortly.

Senators are weighing in on the feud between Obama and McCain. Take these two partisan comments, one by a Republican Senator and one by a former Democrat Senator, and try to guess which one made which.

First: “I’m very upset with John with some of the things he’s been saying. And I can’t get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he’s been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things.”

Second: “There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as President, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.”

I’ll give you a hint – you’re wrong. The first statement was made by the Senator of Nebraska Chuck Hagel, a Republican. The second was made by the Senator from Connecticut and former Democrat Vice President candidate Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, in case you forgot, was the one who clued McCain in that Iran wasn’t providing weapons to al Qaeda because, to put it bluntly, Iran hates them. (Also, his claim that Obama has “a blanket policy of meeting personally as President” is incorrect. He stated that the Obama White House would meet with leaders, not necessarily Obama personally. I’m quite certain that’s not even logistically possible.) The good news for Democrats is Lieberman might end up being on the McCain ticket.

Finally, an interesting story came across the wire today that two superdelegates were bribed into endorsing Clinton with a one million dollar contribution to their organization, Young Democrats. They declined the, um, “offer.” Man, she can’t even buy votes these days.

John McCain thinks that Iran has the power to be every bit as threatening to the United States as the Soviet Union in its prime. If I was Russian, I’d be pretty insulted.

At the time, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were competing for supremacy in mid-Europe, the Mideast, Central America, and Southeast Asia. Iran and the U.S. are fighting for supremacy in a couple of areas in Iraq. The Soviet Union had a nuclear arsenal larger than every other country on earth combined, including the United States. Iran doesn’t even have a nuclear power plant, let alone a nuclear weapon. The U.S.S.R. had the world’s second largest economy; Iran doesn’t have the second largest economy in its region. The United States was fearful of Soviet weapons in space. Iranian space travel requires the use of heavy psychedelics.

But where McCain’s statements turn from moronic to Iranic (get it?) is that he made them to illustrate the fact that negotiations with Iran should not be on the table, that the U.S. needs to take a hard line with the country and not engage in discussions which “would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically.” I tried to find some quote in which McCain explains how a country which is so powerless they need open negotiations with the U.S. in order to “confer international legitimacy” poses such a great threat to us.

More to the point, McCain seems to forget that when confronted with a foe as dangerous at the Soviet Union, intense discussions were necessary for thirty years in order to prevent war between the two states. If Iran poses such a great danger, shouldn’t similar policy be enacted to confront it? And wouldn’t the policy of “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” be a little, um, crazy?

The truth is, McCain doesn’t really seem well prepared to deal with Iran at all. Forgetting for a moment that he seems to forget what side they fall on in the whole “shiite vs. sunni” thing, the primary focus of his fear-mongering against Iran seems to be the dangerous and unstable leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Funny thing about that is the President of Iran is largely a symbolic position, with no power over the country’s military capacities and no authority over its foreign affairs. That honor goes to Ayatollah Alie Khamanei. How can we expect McCain to appropriately deal with the leadership of Iran when he doesn’t even know whom the leadership is?

And in another showing of complete international idiocy, he chided Obama for claiming that dialog should be initiated between the U.S. and Cuba; on Cuba Day no less! He claims: “These steps would send the worst possible signal to Cuba’s dictators — there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms.” Instead, he says his Presidency will ensure that Cuba releases all political prisoners; legalizes all political parties, labor unions, and media; and holds internationally monitored elections. All very good ideas. Of course, since we’re not going to have dialog with the Cuban government, evidently he’s going to wish these reforms into existence. The United States policy in Cuba has not worked for fifty years; Fidel Castro was the world’s longest leader until he finally had to give up his position . . . to his brother. If the United States truly wants reform, we’re going to have to engage in open discussions with the leadership of Cuba. Otherwise all we’re doing is enabling the continuation of the dictatorship which McCain so despises.

By the way, one interesting little note about how much McCain values labor unions in Cuba. On the same day, the exact same day, he insulted Obama by claiming he was merely “a tool of organized labor.” So labor unions in Cuba good, labor unions in the U.S. bad. I’m sorry, but I’m missing the connection.

Obama is a big jerk, a “tool of organized labor,” if you will, because he has the audacity of being against free trade with such wonderful countries as Colombia. Evidently Colombia is a “beacon of hope” in the region and deserves the free trade agreement because they have illustrated such wonderful worker and human rights activities as the murder of thousands of union leaders, illegal child labor, arbitrary arrest and detainee mistreatment and torture, and, of course, the largest provider of narcotics to the United States. But, in showing his fanatical devotion to American labor unions, Obama seems to think that American jobs are more important. Tsk, tsk.

I learned some fun delegate math!!:

Right now the number of pledged and superdelegates required to win the Democractic nomination stands at 1026. If that number holds, Obama could actually have that wrapped up on June 3 with solid showings in the two remaining states and Puerto Rico. Probably not, but it will certainly be close enough that Clinton could concede that night. However, the Clinton camp argues the magic number should be 2209, which would include Michigan and Florida. That number doesn’t quite hold up, though, because if Michigan delegates were to be awarded based solely upon election results, some 58 delegates would be in limbo as they would be awarded to an “uncommitted” candidate. So the total would really be 2151. But Florida and Michigan won’t be awarded in full; Clinton’s own campaign manager (Terry McAuliffe) says the “rule is fifty percent” while Howard Dean and members of the DNC have made it very clear that Michigan and Florida need to be punished in some way. The specifics will be hashed out on May 31, when the DNC Rules Committee meets. Probably the most likely scenario is that Michigan and Florida are halved, and if the full amount of superdelegates are awarded (which should be in Clinton’s favor) the magic number will be 2131. If delegates are halved, I would expect the pledged delegate counts to be 35-29 in favor of Clinton in Michigan, and 62-31 in favor of Clinton in Florida (estimations are made using Slate’s handy-dandy delegate calculator). Obama will probably end up with about 1700 pledged delegates from the other states and providences, giving him 1760 total. Clinton will have about 1545, giving her a total of 1642. He already has 305 superdelegates to her 281 (per NBC’s count, which is the most pro-Clinton of the major news companies), meaning Obama will need to pick up 66 more superdelegates while Clinton would have to pick up 208. In other words, under the best conditions, Clinton would have to pick up over three times the amount of superdelegates Obama has to pick up to win the nomination. Just over 75%

Considering most of the remaining undeclared superdelegates in the Congress have said the winner should be the candidate with the most pledged delegates, and Obama will win the pledged delegate count under any scenario, it is certainly not unreasonable to see the total amount Obama would need to clinch the election less than two or three dozen within the next week after May 31. This could push the margin of victory required for Clnton to take over the nomination well over 85% going into June. And keep in mind that’s with things more or less working out for Clinton.

As it stands right now, there are 314 total delegates (counting both pledged and superdelegates) yet to be allotted. Obama needs 72, or a mere 23%. Clinton needs Florida and Michigan not to win, but to merely survive.

More fun with math: With Clinton’s big win in Kentucky and Obama’s large but not-so-big win in Oregon, two things have become clear in regards to the popular vote. It will be virtually impossible for Clinton to win the popular vote without counting Michigan, where Obama is not on the ballot, and virtually impossible for Obama to win it counting the Wolverine State. Of course, this is ignoring the caucus states. Still, an interesting little tidbit, albeit meaningless (is Michigan going to sway the superdelegates, who are more likely to decide upon the nuances and intricacies of the party rules than a candidate’s notion of fairness? Obviously not.)

A few news stories that I find interesting but not necessarily worth a full blog:

First, according to Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, the fight over seating the Michigan and Florida delegates has actually led superdelegates to support Obama. Mostly his piece is about how Clinton could use the issue to help define her role in the convention, or even the party as a whole, in a post-Hillary ticket. But he does say the effect will be limited because, at the end of the day, the people who make the decisions in the DNC don’t really feel sorry for Michigan and Florida, and view Clinton’s stance on it as somewhat hypocritical, given that she agreed the votes shouldn’t count last fall and her chair (Terry McAuliffe) held a similarly hard line against Michigan when he was running the DNC. It’s been so distasteful for some, that Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network said it was “instrumental” in securing many of Obama’s superdelegate support.

Now, the New Democrat Network is a combination of a (527) group and a PAC, and that’s always dangerous. But Simon Rosenberg was a finalist for the DNC chair in 2004 before ceding the position and putting his support behind Dean, so he obviously has some high-powered information. It’s not surprising that the superdelegates didn’t put much weight on the role of Michigan and Florida when casting their decisions. One thing that has always confused me is Clinton keeps making public arguments out of the nuances of the nominating process, when her only hope now lies in the superdelegates. She can try to sway her supporters into believing that caucuses aren’t democratic or that Florida and Michigan Democrats did nothing wrong and shouldn’t be punished, or that we should only count the votes in a certain, convoluted way, but she’s had the delegate count lost for quite some time now and her campaign has admitted for the last couple of months that she would need strong superdelegate support to win the nomination. The problem is, these superdelegates are party insiders; they know how the system works, are (assumedly) very well informed of its developments, and have gotten their prestigious jobs from this process. It’s absurd to think they’ll bite into the propaganda just because the Clinton’s ask them to.

But to hear that it not only didn’t sway support to Clinton, but actually led to support for Obama, did take me aback. Evidently, they were just as insulted by the rhetoric as I have been.

In related news, Democrat Rules Committee Member, former chairman, and Clinton supporter Donald Fowler said that Obama could pretty much let Hillary have her way, within reason, without “threatening his postion.” In other words, a very powerful Clinton superdelegate admitted that Obama’s more or less got this locked up and Florida and Michigan cannot make a meaningful impact. “If he thinks he’s threatened, he won’t do it, and I don’t blame him. But unless something unusual happens between now and then, he will be in good shape.” Not only is the writing on the wall, but Peter Parker took its picture, printed it in the Daily Bugle, and it’s now on page 537 of your son’s high school history book.

To her credit, Clinton has done her part and laid off the rhetoric lately, apparently abandoning her “kitchen sink” strategy for one which, while ultimately ineffective (of course, so was the kitchen sink), should help make her case without damaging Obama for the general election. Yesterday she went so far as to express regret for saying that he won’t be able to win over “hard working Americans, white Americans.” In an interview with ABC News, she was told that Congressman Charles Rengel from New York called the remark “the dumbest thing you could have possibly said.” Clinton’s response? “Well, he’s probably right.”

Her only real argument for staying in the election seems to be that she’s “not a quitter,” and it would be wrong to leave before every state votes. This was pretty much Mike Huckabee’s argument before McCain won the nomination. As long as she continues to be more Huckabee than, let’s say, Hillary Clinton, this thing should end pretty smoothly.

Though Clinton supporters will have another “Obama’s sexist” log to throw on the fire. Evidently, Obama had to call a reporter and leave a voice mail (he’s been leaving a lot of voice mail recently) to say he’s sorry for calling her “sweetie.” This is really a non-story; I don’t know how many times a black woman has called me “honey.” I find it rather endearing. But since some of these Clinton supporters (in my belief, a very small but much too vocal minority) seem to want to find sexism in every thing about this nomination, I’m sure it will come up. Be forewarned. I guess I can’t seem to blame them too much. A person they thought was entitled to win the nomination lost, and of course that can’t be the candidate’s fault. Human nature. How can the Patriots lose the Super Bowl? Obviously they weren’t outplayed; the officials must have screwed up the timing, or something.

Finally, I would like to say something about fantasy baseball. I love fantasy sports. I’ve been in two leagues; I was the champion in my football league debut and took home the (digital) third place trophy in my baseball debut. And now I’m tearing up, absolutely shredding, my second baseball season. How good am I? Jake Peavy, one of my starting pitchers, was hit hard by the Cubs, giving up four runs in only four innings of work. Then Kerry Wood, one of my closers, gave up a run and let four people reach base in his only inning of work, which wasn’t even a save situation. And yet my lead against my poor opponent increased from 6-5 to 9-2. Last week I won 12-0 in the league’s only shutout of the year, and over the last two weeks my record was 22-2.

That, my friends, is a powerhouse.

Last night I was watching a losing campaign and starting to get a bit depressed (of course, I’m referring to the Cubbies), and I thought to myself; I wonder if Obama asked any superdelegates to hold off on publicly supporting them until tomorrow, to offset the expectedly large loss in West Virginia?

It seems like I was correct.

Before the sun came up today, Obama’s camp announced the support of two superdelegates, Rep. Peter Visclosky of Indiana and Democrats Abroad chair Christine Schon Marques. Later in the day, pro-choice group NARAL gave him their endorsement (I’m going to vote for Obama anyway).

And just about an hour ago it was announced that a very (un)important person endorsed him: John Edwards.

Let me tell you, John Edwards looked good standing next to Barack Obama. He looked like a VP standing next to his Commander-in-Chief. I’m not sure picking Edwards is the best move for a variety of reasons (mostly because he didn’t do much for Kerry), but I do thoroughly like him, and wouldn’t complain at all about seeing him in the White House come next January.

We’ll see what his endorsement does. He has seventeen to twenty delegates (depending on the source), which means his endorsement could potentially be a bigger prize than Hillary’s “big” (meaningless) win in West Virginia. More importantly, it could start a flood of superdelegates to Obama’s side.

Personally, I doubt that this will clinch the nomination. For example, I don’t think older women and “working-class” whites (I hate that term; I’m a college grad who makes more than $50,000, and I work harder now than when I was a poor, “uneducated” HR rep) won’t start flooding to him. But what people forget is that Clinton is winning this segment; not McCain. Just like the party rallied around McCain after he got the nomination, the Democrats will rally around Obama. The only reason there’s even a doubt is because Clinton is exploited it for political gain (though she’s said time and time and time again Obama will beat McCain). Nor do I think the flood will actually occur (not that it’s needed; there will continue to be a steady stream for the next three weeks, but he will have the necessary votes shortly after June 3, if not before). However, I do think it will sway a few delegates over and I find it hard to believe any of Edward’s delegates will come out for Clinton. Most importantly, it should push the endorsement of several unions to Obama’s corner, which will be big in the primary, if not in the general election (I have doubted a union’s ability to bring their members to an individual ticket for quite some time).

I would say it should show some people who’s biggest strength seems to be denial that this thing really is over for Clinton. It seems like Clinton is staying around until June 3, at which point she will quickly drop out. It’s her own comments, as well as interviews with her staff, that lead me to this conclusion. This way she gets to take the high ground and say she made sure “every vote counts.” (Well, not every vote. Caucus states don’t count.) She will also get to claim the high ground when Florida and Michigan get some of their delegates seated (even Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe admits that “the rule is 50 percent.”). Of course, by that time it won’t matter.

I’ve gotten used to the fact that Obama has won the nomination, but this is pretty sweet. The only thing that would be better is if Gore endorses, and I would be surprised if that happens before the convention regardless of the outcome of the primary. Excuse me if I crow for a little while.

Now it’s the Cubs turn . . .

A little point of irony. I just heard on MSNBC that George W. Bush gave up golf for lent. No, just joking. But he did give up golf for the Iraq War. He said that “playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.” I wonder where he could have possibly gotten that idea?? Hmmm . . .

I guess he does listen to his father, after all.