Advice for President Obama

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The Progressive Democrats have their share of voters, but they will never have enough votes to win. Whenever they don't come across as weak and politically-correct, they come across as self-righteous and totalitarian. And frankly, they love the idea of a World Government more than they love their own country.

The Conservative Republicans have their share of voters, but they will never have enough votes to win. Whenever they're not whiny and obnoxious, they come across as hypocritical and totalitarian. And frankly, they are more concerned with the security of Israel than they are of their own country.

Piracy, the Next Big Scare

I really don't have much more to say about it than the title. I think piracy will be the pretext , as unemployment increases, for a possible draft and invasion of Somalia.

I haven't actually read any story, only headlines, of the siege, hostage-taking, and rescue this weekend of a ship captain, I've only seen the headlines. But I know that more and more "Somailia pirate" stories are in the news.

The only magazine-length article I've read about piracy was in either The Atlantic or New Yorker some years ago, and the emphasis then was piracy in the Malaysian area.

I have no idea if piracy off Somalia is actually more serious in southeast Asian waters, or if some pretext is needed for more military intervention, this time to provide "stability" in East Africa, from Somalia to Sudan. And our President is black, so it won't be racist and critics can't raise the colonialism/imperialism charge, see?

44

What are we to call the new President?

Frankly, I love it that his name is Barack Hussein Obama. How could you top that? Yassir bin Shamir? Ehud Saddam Khadafi?

It's unfortunate that some on the Paranoid Right evoke the name to suggest something sinister. Frankly, it works because it's ironic.

But what's his nickname? What should we call him, like we called previous Presidents Ike or Ronnie or Bubba or Dubya?

I don't surf as much as I used to, so I don't know if something's already caught on. It depends on his actions in the early days. Closing down Guantanamo is a good start.

But if his Presidency really starts to stink, we have the perfect nickname: B.O.

If he does next to nothing but still makes soccer moms feel good about themselves and America, there's one I've seen from the Right: Oprahma

And then there's Barry. "Barry" sounds like a kind, decent, honorable fellow. In many ways, Obama comports himself like a Barry. On the other hand, relatively few "alpha male" types are called Barry, and people know this, deep down. Thus, to call him Barry will be to suggest that he's not up to the job. The last Barry who ran for President didn't do too well.

(By the way: no President has been a Robert/Bob, Dave/David, Edward/Ed, or Frederick/Fred. But we have had a Rutherford, a Chester, a Grover, a Woodrow, and a Warren. Not to mention a Harry and a Gerry, so a Barry just follows in their footsteps.)

"BHO" doesn't have much of a ring to it like JFK or FDR, at least not yet. To me, it sounds stupid and awkward.

The Big O would have been perfect, but it has been taken by basketball great Oscar Robertson.

I'm tempted just to call him "H," following the footsteps of W.

Or perhaps "44." It will just put Obama as just another in a line of people who, even when "effective" did more harm than good.

To call him "44" would be to suggest that he's just another President we have to endure. It will be up to him to prove to us he's better than that.

The Litmus Test

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I made the mistake of having some "hope" in Bush that he would lead the country in new, better directions - particularly in his stated goal of a "humble foreign policy." While I disagreed with him on several issues and didn't vote for him, I more or less trusted his judgment at the start. That didn't work out so well.

And recently it occurred to me why it was a mistake. It wasn't because he was wrong on so many issues - I could live with that. But he was wrong on one particular issue.

And all but maybe a handful in Congress are also wrong. That is why they can't be trusted to do the "right thing."

It is why Obama can't be trusted either. Because he's wrong on this one issue, you can never be sure he has the best interest of the people at heart.

Another Hopeful Sign From The '08 Presidential Election

I don't know how Democrats think the way they do.

• They whine about corporations, and then insist that the federal government bail out those same corporations.
• They complain about environmental destruction, but then when the GDP goes south, they insist on "stimulus" packages because they can't conceive of economic growth apart from mindless consumer spending - which encourages the very environmental destruction they decry.
• Their "muscular liberalism" in foreign policy is not meaningfully different from neoconservatism.
• The one and only "freedom of choice" they believe in is a woman's right to have an abortion.
  
• They talk as if Bush is the worst President ever, and then cave to his demands, from warrantless spying to giving him a $700 billion blank check.

In comparison, one might actually see some logic among Republican voters. They want the government to have absolute power in protecting them from the "bad guys," but if they see nothing inherently wrong with a particular activity, they would rather be left alone. Republicans hate people different from themselves and would like to see most of them jailed or killed. Nothing good comes from the Republican agenda, but at least you know where they're coming from. And to some degree, they do want government out of their lives. Democrats, however, believe that whatever isn't prohibited ought to be subsidized. They rage against the "injustice" perpetrated not by people, but by systems, but have no constructive solution in mind aside from empowering the very same systems they're unhappy with. Their complaints with society are not as simple-minded as Republican complaints, but they are equally immature.

As a result, elections between these two ugly alternatives often boil down to issues other than policy.

By the end of the Presidential primary season, two things were clear:

1. John McCain was a more likable media presence than Hillary Clinton.
2. Barack Obama was a more likable media presence than John McCain.

It is apparent the Democratic Party agreed. McCain, for all his faults, would probably have beaten Hillary Clinton, who came across as a priggish schoolmarm, a left-wing Church Lady, while McCain, though a complete fanatic and/or dunderhead on policy and detestable in his personal life, at least knew how to handle the media.

But Barack Obama knew how to handle the media, and the public, better than McCain.

(I've come across some information as to how Obama did it, but I haven't actually read it yet and therefore won't share the link with you. At first glance, however, this information confirms my suspicions, and I'll give you a hint: enter Milton Erickson in your preferred search engine.)

But whether he did it by natural talent or training, Obama proved the necessity of likability and good manners in today's politics, and that's a positive sign. The dirtier McCain's campaign got, the better Obama's numbers improved. And there's a trend behind this.

Yes, 2004 may have been an exception. Bush II was riding the coattails of 9/11 and a frightened public. Kerry had voted for the worst of Bush's agenda, including the Iraq War, and couldn't convincingly propose better alternatives.

In 2000, however, the Bush campaign had better manners, if only because of Al Gore's appalling sighs in the first debate.

And in 1996 and 92, the Clinton campaign had better manners that Dole and Bush I, if for no other reason than that Dole and Bush I called out Clinton on his "character."

To call somebody else out on their poor personal behavior is the epitome of bad manners. Demagogic and illogical attack ads on matters of policy is one thing, finger-wagging about "character" is quite another.

And the fact is, Obama had tons more to finger-wag about McCain's record and personal indiscretions than vice-versa, but he refrained from doing so.

He also kicked McCain's ass in the election.

Obama's subsequent decisions and appointments leave a lot to be desired. He may very well be as bad as the worst of the self-aggrandizing, freedom-hating presidents. But, in addition to his opposition to the Iraq War and the willingness of the American people to vote for a "person of color," I'm glad Obama was elected if for no other reason that it showed the American people are disgusted with smear campaigns.

Obama generally showed good manners throughout the election season. That is what I hope will be duplicated in all future elections.

Obama election brings relief, concern

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

• Did he vote for warrantless spying on American citizens to avoid a "soft on terror" smear, or because he wants to use and abuse this power as President?

• Did he kow-tow to the Israel lobby and threaten Iran to make himself look "tough" for election purposes, or because he really wants to continue needless American intervention in the region?
• Did he support the Bailout of Wall Street because he's clueless and un-interested in economic issues, or because he really is in the pocket of the bankers?

Why I'm Voting for Bob Barr

There is no good reason to vote for Obama or McCain.

And not voting at all will tell "Them" you're happy with whatever happens, even if your intention is to send a message telling Them you don't recognize the legitimacy of the elections at all. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. I choose to do what I think is the most constructive thing with my vote.

Although Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and McKinney seem to be in agreement about the Four Points and the Big Bailout, each candidate represents a different "message" being sent to the Democrats or Republicans.

For instance, a vote for the Green Party's McKinney isn't telling the Republicans to repent over the Patriot Act, it is rather a message to Democrats to shape-up on corporate America and the environment. Nobody will say that McKinney "cost McCain the election," only that she drew votes away from Obama. And if Obama wins, which he probably will, those votes will be meaningless.

Whereas, the media will at least be aware that Bob Barr defected from the Republican to the Libertarian Party on the issue of civil liberties. They will also interpret a vote for Barr as a vote taken away from McCain.

A vote for Nader will be interpreted as a vote stolen from Obama, primarily because of the Bailout and civil liberties.

A vote for Chuck Baldwin will be interpreted as a vote stolen from McCain, primarily because of immigration and abortion.

Any other candidate on the ballot, or any write-in candidate, will be considered even more fringe and will not be mentioned at all.

For me, Nader is tempting, for reasons Justin Raimondo outlined. My state, like Raimondo's, seems strongly Democrat this year. A vote for Nader would be a protest vote against Obama especially on these issues of war, civil liberties, and the Bailout. Then again, it may, like McKinney, be viewed as sending a message to Obama from the "far left" to over-regulate and over-tax the economy. That's not a message I want to send.

Likewise, Baldwin is tempting. He's good on war, the Federal Reserve, and several other things. At the same time, it seems he goes overboard on immigration. I believe that labor-for-wages, and all other economic exchanges, should be unregulated and employers should not be forced to serve as tax agents or immigration officers. If immigration is a problem, it should be addressed at our boarders, coasts, and airports, and employers shouldn't be blamed for failures of the federal government. Also, while I disagree with Roe v. Wade and believe it served more to enhance the power of the federal government rather than individual liberty, I still believe abortion to be a matter between the mother, the abortionist, their respective consciences, and God rather than a matter of police investigation and criminal prosecution.

A lot of people have piled on the Bob Barr campaign and Bob Barr the person. But I will vote for him:

• I look at Barr's issues and, although some things could be elaborated on more fully, unlike the other campaigns I find nothing disagreeable.
• I endorsed Barr from the beginning, and even if the campaign so far hasn't lived up to hopes, this still seems to be the best tactical and principled use of my vote.
  
• A vote for Barr would contribute to McCain's landslide defeat without voting for Obama, bringing on the reformation or demise of the Republican Party. We should maximize non-Obama, anti-McCain vote totals from the "right" to force Washington to pay attention to issues of concern to the small-government movement.
  
• A vote for Barr would help increase the possibility that no President is elected with a minority of the popular vote. Better the President starts off in a weakened position; it's good for liberty.
  
• If by some miracle Barr was actually elected, he would actually have the experience and network infrastructure to actually form an Administration, something I wouldn't expect from other third-party nominees.
  
• He's way, way better than Obama or McCain.
• Although not voting may be an option, it still seems weird and hypocritical for one to write so much on the elections and not spend any time actually voting.
  

Script For McCain Ad

Longtime readers of this blog know I despise John McCain and do not want him to become President. But here's an idea for a McCain ad, that illustrates a point. A rough draft:

Plain background, John McCain speaking to the camera: In 2000, George W. Bush won the Presidency because he ran a better campaign than Al Gore. Whether or not Bush actually won that election legitimately, the sad fact is that if Gore wasn't such a pompous ass it shouldn't have even been close.

In 2004, George W. Bush was re-elected, despite having one of the worst records of a first-term President ever. And that's because, again, he and his operatives ran a better campaign than did John Kerry, whose biggest downfall was being John Kerry. Even if you believe Ohio and the Electoral College was stolen for Bush, no one disputes that Bush won the popular vote in yet another election in which he should have been trounced.

Don't you wish, in retrospect, that Gore had defeated Bush? Or that Kerry had defeated Bush?

Don't we all?

What does that say about these campaigns?

Barack Obama has run a better campaign than me. He's ahead in the polls. He comes across as more likable than me, which is why I was hoping Hillary would be nominated - I'm more likable than she is.

But remember that Bush was more likable than Gore, who had a wealth more knowledge and experience. And Bush, despite showing signs of dementia, still came across as more likable than Kerry.

So let's concede that Obama is a better campaigner and more likable than me. What does that say? I'm still more experienced, and I think I'm pretty smart and knowledgeable.

Indeed, our entire country is screwed up because victory goes to the people with the more attractive personalities and more effective campaign ads, not to the people with experience and competence.

So vote for me, John McCain. I may be a horrible campaigner, but I would make a great President.

Show McCain photo, with generic deep-voice male voiceover Vote John McCain, because since Obama seems to be better, he's probably worse.

McCain voiceover: I'm John McCain and I think this message sucked and will backfire, which is all the more reason to vote for me.

My point? Election campaigns rarely have to do with electing the right person, and more to do with fooling enough people. I'm suggesting this commercial for McCain because it would at least get to this truth.

Resolving Abortion the Constitutional Way

Paul Gottfried thinks that abortion is as significant an issue as riverboat gambling to Obama and McCain. They talk about it when they have to to please some core constituencies, but deep down they couldn't care less.

Abortion does seem to be a trivial issue, especially to Republicans. They had four years (02-06) with majorities in both houses and a Republican in the White House to do something about it, but they did not.

Specifically, they could have passed Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act which would have stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases involving state laws against abortion. (I'd have linked directly to the bill, but the Library of Congress's legislative site is down today.) But in the Republican 109th Congress, the bill had a total of five co-sponsors. Reintroduced in the Democratic 110th Congress, it has just four co-sponsors.

Some may wonder, isn't this unconstitutional? Doesn't it violate the "separation of powers" doctrine? Actually, it affirms the principle. Article III, section 2 of the Constitution states:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

It says nothing about cases "in law and equity, arising under the State law." And because the Constitution says nothing about abortion, it is a matter left to the people of the States. Furthermore, Article I, section 8 authorized Congress to establish federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and if Congress as the power to establish or not establish a federal court, it also has the power to determine or not determine its jurisdiction. Indeed, this bill vindicates the Separation of Powers doctrine by limiting the federal court's ability to "legislate from bench."

Question for those supporting John McCain only because of the abortion question: Why didn't McCain sponsor this in the Senate? And why haven't 200 Republicans sponsored this bill, instead of a mere five?

If pro-life organizations want to actually accomplish something rather than just live off donations, they should focus on passing this bill:

• Insist on a straight answer from each Presidential candidate on the bill.
  
• Ask each House and Senate candidate if they will sponsor it, and publicize their answers.
  

This bill would have the added benefit of divorcing the abortion question from judicial politics. Nominees would be more closely evaluated on their views of, for instance, civil liberties and property rights.

However one may feel about the legality of abortion, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided as a matter of Constitutional law. Instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to reverse itself, Congress should reverse the decision. The fact that Republicans haven't even tried suggests that Gottfried is right: they don't really care.

The Clinton Cult

Of all the disconnects I have with the American people, I think perhaps the biggest is with Hillary Clinton supporters, particularly those who are still angry that she lost the Democratic nomination and are considering voting for John McCain.

Indeed, this segment of the electorate may be the most dangerous in the nation, and perhaps most responsible for America's troubles.

• They neglect the fact that Hillary's Iraq War Vote was a crime against the Constitution and humanity, and prefer to believe the war was botched in execution,but not wrong in principle.
• They believe that the cure for economic problems is more regulation.
• They believe bigger bureaucracies will solve our health and education woes.
• They are moralistic, "eat your peas" scolds, who are more likely than Republicans to actually succeed in regulating the Internet and video game content precisely because they don't have the "Religious Right" tag on them. Indeed, other than being "pro-choice" on abortion, there is not any other life choice they think would be better decided by government.
  

I am at least partially sympathetic to most other ideologies, because they express valid concerns, even if they come up with the wrong answers. Hillaryism, however, is nothing but belief in omnipotent government for its own sake.

I don't know what Hillary Clinton will say tonight; it will probably be a forceful argument for Obama. But I wouldn't be surprised if she and Bill continue to secretly undermine the party and split the Democrats, giving McCain this election and setting up Hillary for a shot in 2012. And I'm afraid enough of her cult followers will swing to McCain for this very reason.

Corsi Should Have Gone After McCain

Jerome Corsi says he endorses Chuck Baldwin for President. He has a funny way of expressing it.

By writing the #1 bestseller"Obama Nation," designed to tell us how horrible Barack Obama really is, Corsi is more likely to scare disenchanted conservatives who dislike McCain and may have voted for a third-party candidate like Baldwin, to vote for McCain anyway.

Corsi himself doesn't seem to be terribly credible, and this book is apparently a clumsy hatchet job. But if he's going to play this game, he should do a similar book on McCain. There is plenty of material to work with.

Bad McCain Ad

McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time, but then criticizes Obama for voting Democrat 97% of the time.

The first time I saw the ad, I thought it odd, because if McCain is supposed to be so great because he disagrees with fellow Republicans some of the time, isn't a Democrat who disagrees with Republicans almost all of the time even better?

Obama Gives the Green Light

Initially, I was appalled that Hillary Clinton had to apologize in any way for her RFK remark. Then I check out Carol Moore's blog, and she predicts that if Obama is elected, he'll be taken out by Mossad, and that Hillary's statement was a "leak" of the plan (or a threat?). Oh, and they'll probably frame Muslims or Arabs.

(That would be the ultimate I Told You So: "See? See? Obama was soft on terror, and then killed by terrorists! It just goes to show you can't negotiate with these thugs . . .")

So what does Obama do once he wraps up the nomination? He kisses up to the Israel Lobby, and says, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

There are ways to interpret this:

a) Obama doesn't want war with Iran, but understands that the beginning of negotiations means a tough, firm starting position. This is the weakness of non-interventionist candidates. While I support non-interventionism, it's a tough sell to suddenly break-off ties with long-time allies like Israel. Not that Obama is a non-interventionist, but hopefully, he's a realist who neither wants to concede to Iran nor go to war. This is the most optimistic interpretation.
b) Obama doesn't want war with Iran, but is soliciting support from pro-Israel voters. This, of course, is the ethical equivalent of running as a segregationist with the intention of becoming a moderate reformer once in office. Even if the false promise would be terrible, it's still a false promise. It's lying.
c) Like Carol Moore is suggesting, Obama really does have a gun pointed at his head, and he knows it. He's doing what he can to avert a terrible fate.

Most likely, however . . .

d) Obama really would nuke Iran and essentially gave the green light for Bush to start the war.

No matter the reasons, Obama's AIPAC speech removed any remaining temptation to vote for him. As I wrote last week, Obama sounds better than McCain, but for all we know he could be much worse. I'm sticking with Bob Barr.

Vote For What You Want

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In 2000, Bush was better on Gore on the most important issue, war, but as President he switched positions and became the world's biggest threat to peace. Presidential candidates break promises, and there is very little we can do about it.

I,like many others, would wish we could rewind and see how a Gore Presidency would turn out. But the fact is, the Clinton-Gore position of murdering innocent foreign peoples "for their own good" was intolerable. True, Gore would probably have been better than Bush, but the 2000 campaign didn't demonstrate it.

Barack Obama is presumably smarter and more knowledgeable than McCain - at least he comes across that way. And, as Bush did in 2000, he's taking the relatively more moderate and humane view toward foreign affairs than his rival.

But what does that prove?

Outsiders vs. Insiders

Who's an "insider" and "outsider" is all relative, but

• In 2008, Obama is a relative "outsider," having served less than four years in Congress - and really just two years before launching his Presidential bid - and can plead "not guilty" for most of the disastrous policies of Bush's first term - which Clinton voted for. Aside from Mark Gravel, there was no other real outsider in the race - the closest was Bill Richardson, but he was very much a Washington insider in the 1990's.
  
• On the GOP side, McCain is an insider, and quickly defeated outsiders Romney and Huckabee.
• In 2004, Washington insider John Kerry beat the outsider Howard Dean for the Democratic nomination, but lost to a terrible incumbent.
  

Let's look at the record:

2004: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
2000: Outsider vs. incumbent VP. Winner: Outsider
1996: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1992: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1988: Outsider vs. incumbent VP. Winner: Incumbent
1984: Insider (recent VP) vs. Incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1980: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1976: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1972: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1968: "Outsider" (former VP eight years removed from DC) vs. incumbent VP. Winner, Outsider

Before that: incumbents won every race back to 1932, except 1960 (insider beating incumbent VP) and 1952 (outsider vs. outsider).

In modern politics, incumbents have advantages. Even so, outsiders have won every race except one (1988) in which they've competed, whereas "insider" challenges to incumbents have lost all four times.

Apparently, when an insider challenges an incumbent, the impression the public gets is "either way, more of the same." Whereas "outsiders," usually stand for "changing the way Washington works" and do very well.

Why do people want "change" so much? Perhaps because the federal government hasn't accomplished one good thing for the American people in 35 years at least.

In any case, 2008 will be interesting because no incumbent will be running. It will be Outsider vs. Insider. As we've seen, the Outsider has the advantage.

Especially because he has not one, but two Ivy League degrees.

Hating Hillary

There are bigots and sexists. And then there are those who try not to be bigoted or sexist, but do dislike some people of various groups, particularly groups spokespersons who in their words and deeds reflect poorly on the group they're trying to defend and advance. Then the old racist or sexist slurs may rise to the surface, not against average members of a particular group, but against its supposed "leaders."

What if Alan Dershowitz was a serious candidate for President?

He'd be a target of more vicious attacks than Joe Lieberman ever received. Some of it would approach anti-Semitism, and some of it would cross the line. Dershowitz is Jewish, and he's in your face about it. Lieberaman is Jewish, but he's not in your face.

What if Al Sharpton was a serious candidate for President?

He'd similarly be a target of more vicious attacks than what Barack Obama has received. Some of it would approach racism, and some of it would cross the line. Sharpton is black, and he's in your face. Obama is black but he's not in your face.

Vicious and obnoxious people are more likely to be treated viciously, in politics and everywhere else in life. Al Gore was smeared for being a prissy aristocrat and prick; George Bush may also be a prissy aristocrat and prick, but he didn't seem like it on the campaign trail in 2000. That makes a lot of difference.

And so Hillary Clinton has been the target of sexist attacks, but these attacks that wouldn't be as nasty toward, say, Elizabeth Dole if she had been a contender.

Some minority and female figures rise above identity-group politics, whereas others base their whole career on it - that is, are "in your face" about it and provoke, in many people, the very backlash that causes their defeats. Hillary Clinton had nothing to offer the Democratic Party but a big name, an obnoxious personality, a vote to invade Iraq, and the fact that she's a woman. According to a certain kind of logic, this makes her gender "fair game" in a way it isn't for several other public figures.

And no, Hillary's qualities would not be praised if they came from a man. She's actually very similar in style - such as condescending tones and hectoring, finger-wagging moralism - to Al Gore. Gore won the nomination in 2000 because he was the incumbent VP, and lost the general election because Bush seemed more likable (at least back then). All kinds of personalities may be able to win a Senate seat, but few play well nationally.

I agree with Marie Cocco that sexist smears have no more place in politics than other bigoted smears. But this does not mean that attacking Clinton in crude terms is the same as a hatred for women. No more than making fat jokes about a certain person indicates that one hates fat people.

How Obama Can Win My Vote

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Energy. Rail against corporate welfare and favoritism - and begin by ending corn ethanol subsidies. And then call for greater energy independence by legalizing industrial hemp, which is a far more efficient ethanol producer than corn and has many other practical uses as well, which could increase supply and drive prices down for numerous products. As Senator from Illinois, Obama supports ethanol subsidies, but if he wants to be a genuine statesman, he must put an end to this evil policy that favors big agribusiness, hurts the environment, and raises the price of food on the world's poor.

Ticket to the Ticket

Here are the universities that Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of the last nine elections attended. The Democrat is on the left, the Republican on the right. If I counted correctly, these 36 slots were filled by 23 different individuals.

2004: Yale, Boston College(law) v. Yale, Harvard(MBA)
vp: NC St., North Carolina v. Wyoming
2000: Harvard v. Yale, Harvard(MBA)
vp: Yale v. Wyoming
1996: Georgetown, Yale (law) v. Kansas
vp: Harvard vs. Occidental
1992: Georgetown, Yale (law) v. Yale
vp: Harvard vs. DePauw, Indiana (law)
1988: Swarthmore, Harvard (law) v. Yale
vp: Texas v DePauw, Indiana (law)
1984: Minnesota v. Eureka
vp: Fordham (law) v. Yale
1980: Naval Academy v. Eureka
VP: Minnesota v. Yale
1976: Naval Academy v. Michigan, Yale (law)
vp: Minnesota v. Kansas
1972: Northwestern (graduate) v. Duke (law)
vp: Yale vs. Johns Hopkins

Harvard is on a five-election streak (thanks to GW Bush's MBA); Yale has a nine-election streak. Before this, the trends are distorted a bit. For instance, Duke Law is represented in five elections, because Nixon was on the national ticket five times - twice for Veep, thrice for Prez. Other than that, however there is greater diversity in colleges (Goldwater and Truman didn't even degrees) until we go back to Harvard's FDR.

Anyway, John McCain attended the Naval Academy.
Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale Law.
Barack Obama attended Columbia and Harvard Law.

The Ivy League, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, and Columbia (there are others, but are not represented), are represented in every election, except 1964, going back to 1928. 1924 also appears empty of Ivy Leaguers, but they were represented in every election down to 1900.

Clinton seems to have the advantage of the Yale streak, but Obama has the Harvard streak plus another Ivy League school to his credit. To be safe, McCain will probably get a Yalie as a running mate. Then again, he is a white man, and, while I haven't looked it up, I'm pretty sure white men have quite a lengthy streak in Presidential elections.

Obama Was Right to Stay

I suppose some people are upset about Barack Obama attending a church with a racially hostile preacher because, if a white Presidential candidate attended the church of a segregationist pastor, his career would be over.

I'm guessing that Obama initially chose Trinity Church in part because the networking opportunities would be good for his political career on Chicago's South Side. Should he have left the first time he heard extreme words or hyperbolic rhetoric? Or the hundredth time?

Why should it matter?

Leaving the church would have damaged friendships and created other problems for Obama - personal, and career-wise. White people leave churches in a huff all the time, but I don't think this is so in the black community. And even if one doesn't agree with anything said in the sermons, there are other aspects of church life that can retain a person's loyalty.

And besides, is racial resentment the only form of "hate" that is so un-PC that it deserves separation and public condemnation? What about when preachers announce their support of the war in the pulpit? Or some tax-and-redistribute scheme? Or some law against vice that will throw non-violent people in prison and ruin their lives? Any word from a pulpit that would empower the State is in fact a call for violence and coercion - which are grounded on hate, not love.

Imagine, in 2020, a white Democratic Presidential candidate was found to have attended an ultra-conservative evangelical church. Should he be asked to renounce his longtime pastor because the candidate differed with the pastor on the war? Why would this be different? It seems to me that to support the war is worse than anything Jeremiah Wright says or believes.

Unless your own conscience forces you to withdraw from one church after another because of differences with the pastor, then don't judge Obama. But leaving a church leads to broken friendships, disrupts a child's Sunday School education, and a whole lot of other hassles. It usually isn't worth it.

Great Day For America

It's a great day for America because Giuliani is out of the Presidential race. Unfortunately, so is John Edwards; I don't have anything nice to say about him but I was hoping he'd stick around in case Obama or Hillary would self-destruct. He could have been a spoiler and made things interesting.

If McCain is the Republican nominee, apparently the immigration issue isn't as important as we thought. McCain's been the biggest supporter of Bush's policies in Congress.

A Clinton-McCain election would cement George W. Bush's legacy, because it means both parties had nominated their most warmongering candidates. It makes one almost want an Obama-Romney race. At least there would be new blood, and while no one has anything nice to say about Romney, at least he's not a complete idiot in the mold of Bush and McCain. Besides, it might be nice to actually have a successful businessman in the race, instead of a failed one like Bush.

My main hope is that Ron Paul's run will lead to a larger movement for smaller government, leading to growth of organizations such as Downsize DC. But I might be biased.