Webb says he doesn't want veep spot

So, looks like we can check Webb off our list of probables. I guess he feels like he can do more good as a Virginia Senator than as VP. He's probably right, and considering he's just a first-term Senator and only 62, he's got plenty of good fighting years in him.

Also, check out this neat graphic laying out the most probable veep candidates for both Obama and McCain--neither has officially released any list of potential picks to the public.

O, and I'm in Jerusalem and doing well.

Adios Mexico

Well, I guess this is it. After living in this beautifully diverse and complex country for 11 months and six days, I'm now on my way back home. My bus leaves at 5am from here to Mexico City, where I'll wait in the airport until 1pm when I board my plane. I'll land in DC, spend the night there, and then the following morning begin the 14-hour air born journey to Jerusalem! So with no further ado, I say bye to Mexico and hopefully move on to the next, even more exciting adventure that awaits me.

Anyway, even though I'm leaving behind the land in which this blog was born, I promise that it will continue in Jerusalem and beyond. I mean, consider the name, "Beyond walls"--whether I'm in Mexico, Palestine or DC, there are walls of division destined to be torn down, and until they are, our work isn't done. Que la lucha siga para siempre--VAMOS!

Why Obama can afford "a pragmatic shift to the center"

As if the Senate's upcoming vote on the updated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wasn't already enough, the Supreme Court's rulings this past week concerning the reach of the death penalty and the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment gave Obama ample opportunity to bask in his reputation as the country's most liberal senator. He instead did just the opposite and veered dangerously close to the "vital center," territory charted by Bill Clinton in the early 90s. In both Supreme Court decisions, he unenthusiastically embraced the positions upheld by the court's fragile five person (really four, but recently, the "moderate" Kennedy has sided with them more often than not) conservative block. He has given a similarly tepid endorsement of Steny Hoyer's FISA "compromise" that Harry Reid hopes to have the Senate vote on before it breaks for the July 4th Holiday recess.

No doubt, I join any true progressive in taking a sec out of our busy schedules to briefly glare at our respective 9X5 Obama posters with looks of disdain. And, any Republican swift boater must be giddy with excitement considering how much prime flip-flop material Obama's recent statements have provided them. However, somewhat surprisingly, neither camp seems eager to publicly, at least for now, question Obama's merits as a political reformer. Perhaps it's because in this last week he has positioned himself as exactly that: a pragmatist, unobstructed by any long held ideological doctrine, who's willing to appease the political opposition when it comes at little realistic expense to those causes he feels most passionately about.

I've always viewed Obama's pledge to engage in post-partisan politics as something fundamentally different than what Bill tried to do in his first term as president. Bill's 'moderatism' was founded on a give and take policy of matching every liberal reform with a conservative one, leaving lawmakers on both sides of the aisle more or less content. But, without providing the political framework in which the two camps felt comfortable enough to occasionally join forces and achieve bold acts of compromise, the debate became more polarized than ever before. Considering the failures of Bill's project, Obama seems to understand that it's the manner, and not just the content, of the debate that must be "moderate" for any real cross-aisle exchange to take place.

As opposed to Bill's, Obama's post-partisan efforts will be based on the notion that after being subjected to eight years of failed policies that have left only a few Americans better off, America is gradually shifting to the left. He recognizes that the average American cares increasingly less about hot button 'moral' issues long exploited by the Christian right--abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research...etc.--as they're faced with more pressing concerns of a weakening dollar, rising gas prices and an imperfect public school system. Despite efforts by the extreme right and the mainstream media to convince us otherwise, all in all, the daily concerns you or I might have are shared by the majority of Americans. All we need is a healthy and open political climate in which we can sit down and realize our similarities and--without being sidetracked by fiery rhetoric and baseless ideology--begin to pragmatically work out our differences.

Having said all that, I think the positions he's taken this past week clash with this unique approach that he himself began. I'm not looking for a moderate president willing to forfeit a progressive issue in return for the Republicans' promise to sporadically do the same. We have real problems right now that I don't think can be fixed by half-assed solutions reached purely in the interest of bi-partisan unity. However, I do think Obama's tactical maneuvering over the past week reminds us of the reality that there is no more concrete declaration of a president's promises than legislation and on occasion, we have to make concessions. Ethically, I think the ones he's made recently represent a betrayal, but politically--aka in the interest of being elected--they're brilliant.

Firstly, all three issues--warrantless wiretapping, the proper use of the death penalty and gun control--feed into the greater debate over the role government should play in remedying society's ills. Especially in the case of the second two, these largely symbolic victories leave the party's conservative base convinced that it's winning this bigger, more elusive debate over big government. Conversely, losing in these two ideological showdowns represent barely any realistic setback for the Democratic party. Despite the fact that its more progressive base only reluctantly accepts the necessity of capital punishment and strongly supports strict gun control laws, technically, the Democratic establishment's take on these two issues isn't all that different from that of their Republican counterparts. In short, everyone wins. Separately, regardless of how much of a waste you might find the House's redrafting of the FISA bill, it enjoys large support from the moderate bases of both parties and Obama would have been slammed if he didn't join his colleagues in backing what's considered a rare display of compromise.

To tell you the truth, I strongly believe (and hope) that Obama's current efforts to tone down his 'liberal' reputation will pan out to be more comparable to Roosevelt's softening of his image in his 1932 campaign,--which, as we all know, gave way to a presidency that saw an unprecedented expansion of state-backed social welfare programs--than to Bill's cowardly and divisive pandering to the right. However, regardless of whatever good intentions I think Obama probably has, he can't expect to rely on the enthusiastic support of his progressive base for much longer if he keeps up this week-long trend of voting with the majority just because it's safe.

Muslims defend Obama as they wait for him to reciprocate

We both agree that it's not a very nice thing to say, but Obama, Sara and I totally told you so. Yesterday, the NYTimes wrote a great piece on what we had briefly mentioned before about Obama's struggle to reassure mainstream America that he's not a closet Muslim terrorist, while simultaneously remaining faithful to his rhetorical promises of delivering change to all Americans.

The Muslim vote might very will be, as the article suggests, a potential game changer in several swing states. But, its electoral impact still isn't great, especially compared to that of other minority groups, i.e, blacks and Latinos. This is why how Obama subsequently chooses to "resolve" the issue of Muslims feeling slighted is so indicative of his character as a leader: his decision will be driven more by founding principle than by an attempt to pander in return for votes. In dealing with this relatively inconsequential constituency whose vote he can all but count on, Obama can act boldly,--another "race"esque speech on his commitment to protecting the civil liberties of all would probably do the trick--proving once again that his message of hope knows no boundaries. Or, he can sit idly, as the whispers of those 10% of Americans who still think he's a Muslim trick him into thinking that only by shelving his principles does he have a shot at winning in November. Don't be duped Obama. If you're as candid in addressing this issue as you've proven to be with race, you'll be fine. But act now; with only a few months left to pitch to the American people exactly how you plan to preside over a country in serious need of healing, you have little time to waste.

The strained relationship between Muslims and Mr. Obama reflects one of the central challenges facing the senator: how to maintain a broad electoral appeal without alienating any of the numerous constituencies he needs to win in November.

After the episode in Detroit last week, Mr. Obama telephoned the two Muslim women to apologize. “I take deepest offense to and will continue to fight against discrimination against people of any religious group or background,” he said in a statement.

Such gestures have fallen short in the eyes of many Muslim leaders, who say the Detroit incident and others illustrate a disconnect between Mr. Obama’s message of unity and his campaign strategy.

“The community feels betrayed,” said Safiya Ghori, the government relations director in the Washington office of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

Even some of Mr. Obama’s strongest Muslim supporters say they are uncomfortable with the forceful denials he has made in response to rumors that he is secretly a Muslim. (Ten percent of registered voters believe the rumor, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center.)

In an interview with “60 Minutes,” Mr. Obama said the rumors were offensive to American Muslims because they played into “fearmongering.” But on a new section of his Web site, he classifies the claim that he is Muslim as a “smear.”

“A lot of us are waiting for him to say that there’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, by the way,” Mr. Ellison said.

Plus, polls show your lead, both nationally and in key swing states, to only be growing. Obviously, we like the guy we've come to know so well in the last 17 months. A guy, I can assure you, who acts on principle and not political motivation, regardless of what personal ambition of his might be at stake.

The infamous pound felt around the world

So in case you missed it, right before Michelle left the stage as Obama took the podium to deliver his acceptance speech on June 3, the couple pounded fists. That's what happened. Unfortunately, the professional press and bloggers around the world can't agree on that simple fact: they pounded fists. Instead, what's come out from these past few weeks of international coverage on the pound and what exactly it could have meant, is a whole rainbow of colorful--but often offensive--renditions of the long agreed-upon term.

Just so we're all clear on exactly what we mean by "pound," below I've included both a definition and an example of the word being used in a sentence--courtesy of Scratch DJ's contribution on UrbanDictionary.com.

1. pound

Several definitions:
1.Unit of weight
2.Money in England
3.To hit fists with your home dawgs
4.To have sex
5.To punch or beat someone up

Here's a little story:

One day, Bill wanted to pound his girlfriend, but she was a hoe and wanted 50 pounds to do it. Bill went to the hood and met Henry and pounded fists with him. His fist, may I add weighed about one pound. Bill asked Henry to lend him 50 pounds so he could pound his girlfriend or Bill would pound Henry and send him to the hospital. Henry gave Bill the 50 pounds.

Anyway, now on to the "colorful renditions":

*From Fox news anchor ED Hill, via the popular media-gossip blog, the Gawker: A "terrorist-fist-jab"

*From Cal Thomas, the main writer for the conservative blog Human Events: A "Hezbollah-style fist jabbing"

*From the blog Townhall: A little over a week ago, the fists of Barack Obama and his wife collided in a celebratory gesture and received much media coverage.

*The overwhelming winner is "fist bump." While goofy sounding as hell, it's technically correct, so I'll leave it be.

Also, to give props where props may be due, several in the professional press have also referred to it as a fist-dap. I know, this sounds mad goofy too, but this is actually how the "pound" was originally referred to when it was first made popular amongst African American soldiers during Vietnam. It's thought to have originally been an acronym for "Dignity and Pride."

We learn something every day don't we?

Bush and McCain finally find time to visit flooded Midwest

So did Obama, only he did it five days before the other two. No doubt, it doesn't hurt one's political rep to be seen with your sleeves rolled up, shoveling sand into sand bags. But still, physically helping out with levee fortification days before the river was expected to crest, in addition to calling on supporters to come from around the nation to lend a hand, is way different from quickly strolling through an area devastated days earlier. One sounds like the act of a president we want, while the other is what we've come to expect from a president (and his prototype) who's term we're counting down by the day--215; seriously, I looked it up.

Small party candidate profile-1st edition

Surfing around Wikipedia yesterday I found a list of nearly a dozen small parties--a majority of which I had no idea still existed in the US--officially fielding candidates in the 2008 presidential election. I only had to scroll by the "Prohibition Party's" candidate's box once to realize that this was too good of a blog post opportunity to pass up. So, with no further adieu, I present to you the first candidate of many to be subjected to this election cycle's edition of "small party candidate profiles": Gene Amondson of the Prohibition Party.



While you might expect this political movement to have undergone a serious revamping in its message since it was first founded over a century ago, this isn't the case. Sure that with a little internet browsing I would find some recently generated party plank besides that of being opposed to alcohol, I culled several of both the candidate's and the party's public websites to no avail. As unbelievable as it might sound, after more than 70 years since it subjected our country to 13 years of dry-dom, the prohibition movement's message hasn't changed an iota: alcohol is without question the primary cause of our nation's moral and cultural demise.

While its platform has remained unchanged throughout, in the months leading up to the 2004 elections the party endured a dramatic leadership shakeup. The chaos began when party elders decided to finally stand up to the longstanding party fat cat Earl Dodge, who had run as the party's main candidate in every presidential election since 1976. Deciding it was time for a change, the party officially nominated the woodcarver/minister/Billy Sunday impersonator Gene Amondson, an Alaskan native, as their 2004 candidate. But Dodgey was having none of this so, knowing he had to think fast, he held an impromptu national party convention in which he was unanimously nominated as the party's candidate--only problem: said convention was held in his living room and attended by eight of his strongest supporters, all who happened to be family members. But after Amondson received more votes in the Colorado (the only state where the party managed to get on the ballot) general election, Dodge's fate was sealed and Amondson de facto emerged as the new face of the revitalized party.

This time around he's running as the party's sole candidate and in addition to Colorado, hopes to be placed on the Louisiana ballot. He'll be the first to admit his chances are slim to none, but no worries, his political ambitions have never gotten in the way of his other hobbies, most notably: making pies. Keep on keeping on Gene.

sVeep-stakes!

I know all the hype over the VP selection process always seems silly when in the end, few times does the pick actually change the dynamic of the race in any significant way--two exceptions to this rule could be Bill's pickup of Gore in '92 and then Gore's choosing of Lieberman in 2000; both times the VP pick injected new life, however temporary, into the initially sluggish campaigns. But hey, it's always fun to speculate. To get the conversation started, I'll list every person--along with an argument both in favor and in opposition to their being chosen--who's name I've heard mentioned as a possible running mate over the last couple months. Whether you come up with as comprehensive of a list, I'd like to hear who your pick would be. You can choose your ideal candidate or one that you actually think has a chance, but in this contest arbitrated by yours truly, only the person that correctly predicts the VP will be crowned the winner. Said winner (granted it could be a couple months before we know) not only gets their comment posted and read by millions, but will be granted full posting rights for an entire day--free of executive censorship! If this doesn't compel you to contribute to the discussion, I don't know what will.

My favorites:

1. Chuck Hagel--Nebraska Senator

The only of the bunch, he is a Republican. And regardless of how bipartisan he may be, he risks isolating Obama's incredibly organized left base. Also, do we really wanna make it any easier for a Republican, however moderate, to take Obama's place in eight years? O, and he's super rich after spending the early part of his career starting up a cell phone manufacturing company.

Once again, he's a Republican and would prove that Obama's serious about all his 'post-partisan' speak. Also, since the Dem takeover of Congress last year, he has sided with them on almost every piece of legislation concerning the war in Iraq. Just last month he again broke ranks with the Republicans in backing the Jim Webb-sponsored GI Bill that McCain vehemently opposes. And, having served under Reagan as the head of the Veterans' Administration and currently closing out his second term as Senator, he has plenty of 'experience.' O, and considering that only two vice presidents in US history have then been elected president (Van Buren and more recently, the first Bush), giving him the VP spot doesn't promise him a promotion--fair enough, if Obama's whacked, the dude's in regardless.

2. Jim Webb--Virginia Senator

OK, so even though I really like the guy the truth is, as Sarah won't let me forget, he's on occasion said and written some pretty sexist crap--this a) would obviously get leaked and be played over and over, like Louis Armstrong's trumpet, by the McCain's smear team and b) if he is actually a woman hater (I'm not necessarily convinced), we don't really want him in the big House. Also, this would no doubt alienate Hillary's female following. O, and according to Bruce, the guy's a little looney from all his time fighting on the front lines. I'm skeptical--some might call this bias.

The guy's a fighter. He's got plenty of military experience to flaunt, he served under Reagan--yea, that's right, he's a born again Democrat--and could make taking Virginia a real possibility (it's gone Republican since '68). Obviously, he'd also help big time in extending Obama's appeal to white working class men. And, while many consider this to be his downfall, I think his being a freshman Senator only strengthens Obama's argument against doing Washington politics as usual. Anyway, I like the guy a lot. He seems sincere as hell--he's vowed to wear an old pair of army boots until his son, along with every other US combat soldier, returns home--and you gotta commend him for taking Washington by storm with his fiery Jacksonian populism (I don't really know what that means but I always hear people saying it).

3. Joe Biden--Deleware Senator

Fact is, he's from Deleware. Really, I think it's his only drawback.



We all know the guy. He's straight talking and every chance he gets, he cuts the shit. He has a great record on both civil rights and foreign relations. And, as his relentless referencing of his "Tri-federal" Iraq plan during the Primary proved, as VP he could help thwart right-wing efforts to sketch the Democratic ticket as ignorant on foreign policy. He'd be real cool.


Other pretty cool possibles:

1. Janet Napolitano--Governor of Arizona

Since Arizona is McCain's home state, any boost Napolitano might bring to the ticket still probably wouldn't be enough to help Obama win the state. Also, despite rumors of her being gay--no doubt, these would be flying around the net at warp speed if she's nominated--she has not only declared that she is straight, she is an outspoken supporter of legislation that would ban gay marriage in Arizona (the negative part is her stance on gay marriage, not her being straight :).

She's widely recognized for rescuing Arizona's economy--after having sat in the governor's seat for only a couple years she managed to turn a $1 billion deficit into a $300 million surplus. Last year she was ranked as one of the top five governors in the US. Anyway, she's real capable, and...she's a woman, which could help Obama reclaim some of those disillusioned Hillary supporters angry with how Obama and the media mistreated their lady.

2. Kathleen Sebelius--Governor of Kansas

Nothing obvious. She might be a little dull. Also, as is true with Napolitano and will be with any of the other female picks that I mention, I personally don't think snagging women will actually be too tough even without a female VP; I think time will heal the wounds that are still pretty fresh for Hillary backers (I know this kinda goes against what I was just saying above, but I think both can be true).

Like Napolitano, she's highly respected, moderate (could help with the Indi vote) and was on John Kerry's shortlist for VP back in 2004. And, coupled with Obama having family ties to the state, she could possibly help put Kansas, a firmly Republican state, into play in the General.

3. Wesley Clark--Retired Army General, raised in Alabama

With almost 20 years on Obama, he doesn't gel with the whole 'new and fresh' feel of Obama's campaign. He's also from the deep South and so probably couldn't be counted on to put any new states in to play.

I actually think he'd be a pretty cool pick. Firstly, he was, as opposed to the rest, a staunch Hillary supporter throughout the primary and could help draw some of her camp more firmly into Obama's. Also, with more than 30 years of military experience, both in combat and peace making, he'd certainly make it tougher for McCain to call the Democratic ticket inexperienced on national security. He'd also help with the working class male demographic. There hasn't been formal chatter about him being on Obama's VP radar, but I think it could be interesting.

4. Claire McCaskill--Missouri Senator

Once again, history shows that the Democratic nominee can all but bet on the woman's vote, so having one as his VP might not be necessary to secure their vote. Also, she's a first term Senator and would play real nicely into the Repubs' narrative of experience vs. youthful ignorance. In reality, I don't think she'd be chosen, but she's a beast nonetheless.

She's pretty awesome. She ran on a strong anti-war and pro-labor platform and certainly in the first two years of her term, she hasn't disappointed. She'd also bring Missouri into play.


'Would be sweet, but not really gonna happen' picks

1. Al Gore--Former VP from Tennessee

First of all, I definitely don't think he'd do it, but after his official endorsement of Obama last night the rumors have started flying so I thought I'd humor the idea. Obvious drawbacks: despite being a rad environmentalist, he's a drag to listen to and is a walking SNL skit waiting to happen, and, fact is, Tennessee is not going to vote Democrat.

He's got a huge fan base, one that I actually think transcends party lines. People love the guy. More than anything, I think this time around he'd embrace his green blood and could really be a great candidate. I just doubt for VP though.

2. John Edwards--former Senator from North Carolina


Let's be real. Dude didn't even carry his hometown as Kerry's VP. Also, he, like McCaskill, would just add insult to injury with the whole young and inexperienced thing. Besides, he joins Gore in seeming sincerely not interested in taking the job.

He'd definitely help secure the working class male vote, an always elusive demographic for Dem candidates. We all know enough about him, he's filthy rich but apparently cares a lot about poor people. I guess, in a weird kinda way, I can admire that.

OK, so obviously I'm missing some pretty big ones, most notably: Bill Richardson (Governor of New Mexico); Chris Dodd (Conn. Senator); and of course, Hillary. Of these options (aka the "f.c.b." or, the "former candidate bunch") I only think Richardson has a shot, namely because of his extensive foreign policy experience and his ability to help guarantee Obama the Latino vote. However, I've heard the dude is considered a pretty big sketcher back in New Mexico, and maybe even more troubling, I can't stand listening to him talk. He straight up doesn't make sense. And, while I have no objections to Dodd, I'd passionately advise Obama to steer well clear of Hillary. There's no reason to think she wouldn't drag Obama's campaign down just like she did her own. Besides, Obama's motto is "no drama," which means, sorry Hillary supporters, the Clintons gotta go.

Another MIA is Evan Bayh, who actually seems to have a pretty good chance, but I know nothing about him so chose to not include him. I actually just stumbled upon this, the most up to date and comprehensive list of Democratic VP possibilities that I've seen. Definitely check it out. Go there to read more about Bayh and others.

Another, less sexy discussion, but one that will certainly pick up speed in the upcoming months, is that of cabinet positions. No doubt, several of the potential VP picks that I've mentioned above will dominate the discussion. For now though, tell me who you think Obama will choose as VP and why. Remember what's at stake here.