Suspicious Minds.

Barack Obama is black. Barack Obama is also a liberal Democrat.

If you ask conservatives why they don't like Obama, they'll probably point to characteristic no. 2. But liberal commentators can see through this charade.

Those conservative hicks don't care about "the constitution," "limited government," or some stuff that Thomas Jefferson wrote. When they say "socialist," they really mean "scary black person."

The proof? Why, it's all around us --
The nutty conspiracy theories.
The heated rhetoric.
The sheer disrespect they show for The Office of The President. (*gasp!*)

Political differences could never stir up this kind of deep-seated hatred. It's a bonafide Presidential lynching -- angry whites rising up to destroy an uppity colored man.

After all, remember how nice conservatives were to Bill Clinton -- a white, moderate Democrat from Arkansas?

I sure don't.

You want conspiracy theories? Forget that whole birther deal -- fringe conservatives accused Clinton of being personally responsible for several murders. And when Clinton proposed his health care plan, it was opposed (and eventually defeated) with just as much fervor by conservatives in Congress. Talk-radio, the fount from which so much of this racial animosity is supposedly flowing, rose to prominence as the center of opposition to the Clinton administration.

Maybe some of Obama's critics are racists. And maybe some of Obama's supporters are racists. To be quite honest, I'm not sure what goes on deep inside the minds of everyone in America. But the fact that a group of people loudly -- even rudely -- opposes someone with different political views can be understood without pathetically playing the race card.

Sadly, even when it comes to something as universally tragic as the 9/11 attacks, some liberals just can't resist making everything about race. Kate Clinton (of no relation to Bill), a writer for the Huffington Post, had this to say about the Republican reaction Barack Obama:

"Republicans treat President Obama as if he were a substitute and they are just waiting for the real deal to come back in the room. That would be a white Republican male. Their desperate efforts to delegitimize an elected president (not to be confused with their efforts to legitimate a selected president) remind me of their panicked response to the terror attacks on September eleventh, eight years ago. For many of them, it was their first experience being attacked. Unlike women, poor people, and people of color who know being attacked as a pre-existing condition, the white guys freaked. Their world order was rocked. They panicked, put the country in lockdown and retaliated against the wrong country."

Yes, you read that correctly: September 11th was only frightening for white males. And those dumb ol' white men only attacked Iraq 'cause they were so scared. Seriously.

But moving on from that breath-taking piece of ignorant nonsense, Clinton's first point was partially valid. Republicans probably do consider Obama as a place-holder until they can get someone from their own party in office. Just as Democrats thought of Bush as some idiot they had to put up with until the coming of their messiah. In the political system, you're always looking towards the next election cycle -- and hoping to win. That's life.

It has nothing to do with race. Sure, Republicans would love to replace Obama with a white male Republican. They'd also love to replace him with a white female Republican. Or a black male Republican. Or an black female Republican.

Throughout his political career, Obama has called on conservatives and liberals to stop questioning each other's motives. And while Obama hasn't always lived up to this standard, it's a good bit of advice.

It's easy to believe that someone who disagrees with you is motivated by some dark force in the recesses of their soul. But in the end, all you get is a debate poisoned by imaginary issues.

A Family Affair.

When Mark Sanford vanished, it was a big story. When he reappeared, and confessed to an affair with a woman in Argentina, it became a once-in-a-lifetime feast of scandal and intrigue.

And it didn't take long for pundits to pull out the hypocrisy card.

You see, Mark Sanford's south-of-the-border infidelity was only a minor sin, on par with downloading the second season of ALF on Bittorent. And we've all been there, right? Yes, the real crime was that Sanford had the gall to promote "family values" while he indulged in private iniquity. Sanford was a hypocrite.

Senator John Ensign, another conservative Republican, had just admitted to an affair of his own a week earlier. Another hypocrite.

So, people started to connect the dots:

Sanford.
Ensign.
Vitter.
Craig.
Foley.

The already-triumphant left became jubulient. They finally had a dossier of evidence that discredited those religious-right loonies once and for all.

It was so simple: anyone who really cared about family values would have no choice but to migrate to the Democratic Party, led by shiny dad-in-chief Obama.

But wait -- what about all those Democratic sex scandals?

Like John Edwards, who fathered an illegitimate child while his wife was stricken with cancer?
Like Elliot Spitzer, who hired a prostitute?
And didn't his successor, David Patterson, have... marital problems.... of his own?
What about big-city mayors like Kwame Kilpatrick, Gavin Newsom, and Antonio Villaraigosa?
Or President Bill Clinton?

Gosh. It sure looks like this whole infidelity thing doesn't really respect party lines. But what about the hypocrisy thing? Democrats may cheat, but are they hypocrites?

To a certain extent, yes.

Politicians of all stripes try to paint themselves as model family men. It isn't a Republican thing. And generally, Republicans are no more judgmental than Democrats. It's worth noting that Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, was the first divorced President.

Sure, Republicans have a habit of attacking Democrats for their personal failings, but Democrats are all too happy to return the favor. Whenever a tawdry scandal is exposed, you can bet that people will exploit it for political gain.

And Republicans may tend to take conservative positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but frankly, neither of those issues have much to do with cheating on your spouse. Opponents of gay marriage may talk about the "sanctity" of marriage, and traditional values, but supporters of gay marriage appear to believe that marriage is pretty darn important as well, and I haven't heard of any Democrats (unless Woody Allen counts) who openly support infidelity.

But even if conservatives alone bore the stain of hypocrisy, would it matter?

Not really.

When someone fails to live up to the standards they preach, they discredit themselves -- not their standards. If Officer Bob tells a classroom full of kiddies to stay off drugs, and then goes home and overdoses on painkillers, it doesn't become okay to become a pill-popping fiend. And when a socially-conservative politician has a fling with a South American vixen, it doesn't mean that marriage is a sham. It means he is.

Thank goodness. If we tossed out ideals every time we failed to live up to them, we wouldn't have much left to believe in.

The idea that Republicans are losing their "values voter" cred is just as absurd. Socially conservative voters support Republicans because they agree with their policies. Voters in South Carolina may give Sanford the boot, but it's unlikely that they'll replace him with a liberal Democrat.

In the end, cheaters like Sanford, Ensign or Clinton are just people who did something bad. Sometimes their careers die, and sometimes they don't. Their actions don't -- and shouldn't -- herald the death of a party or an ideology. Anyone who pretends that adultery (or hypocrisy) is a Republican problem or a Democratic problem is willfully ignorant.

It turns out that there are humans in both parties. Who knew?

Drive-By Democrats.

As my last post demonstrated, I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh.

Or at least, not of his style.

But to be fair and balanced, I'll say this: the Democratic Party's bizarre Limbaugh-fixation is petty and cowardly.

Rush Limbaugh isn't an elected official. He isn't the leader of the Republican Party, even though many Republicans happen to agree with him. When Limbaugh says something offensive, Republicans aren't obligated to denounce him.

Setting up a controversial talk-show host as a punching bag is diversionary politics at its worst. As Karl Rove inappropriately put it: "In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg."

And the DNC's latest anti-Limbaugh stunt is simply idiotic:

(From CNN)

National Democrats plan to unveil a new theme Thursday in their ongoing campaign to portray conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh as the true leader of the Republican Party.

The slogan, "Americans didn't vote for a Rush to failure," will be splashed across a billboard in Limbaugh's hometown of West Palm Beach, Florida, and printed on T-shirts, a Democratic National Committee official told CNN.

Limbaugh has said several times that he hopes President Barack Obama fails, a sentiment that has put elected Republicans in a tight spot during the nation's economic crisis.

The official said more than 80,000 slogans were submitted as part of a contest on the DNC's Web site, and more than 50,000 people helped narrow the list to the top five.

Ha! Taste the wrath of our mediocre puns!

Great Scott!

Today at noon, Democratic Senate candidate Scott Kleeb held a town-hall meeting on the UNL campus. I'm usually in class until 12:30, but in honor of Halloween, my Spanish professor graciously decided to let class out early -- leaving me free to bask in the glory that is Scott Kleeb.

"Young" and "energetic" are the two adjectives people seem to use the most when they describe Mr. Kleeb. Unfortunately, those qualities didn't seem to rub off on today's gathering. For an on-campus event, there was a startling shortage of students -- an ill omen for a man banking his entire campaign on his charismatic freshness. Not that you can blame the students for being uninvolved; they undoubtedly had more important matters to attend to. After all, it does take a lot of time and effort to prepare for a night of holiday debauchery.

Still, even in the absence of youth, the spirit of the season was visibly present in the room. One middle-aged woman in the small audience was decked out in full witch regalia -- fitting attire for Halloween, but perhaps not the best thing to wear if you want to win over a crowd's sympathy with tales of healthcare woe.

How did the candidate himself measure up?

Imagine skimming the vague rhetorical cream from the top of Obama's political philosophy, and attempting to mold it into a living, breathing human being. The result would probably end up looking something like Scott Kleeb. At times, his constant stream of numbing clichés was a bit hard to stomach.

I'm still trying to brush all the little particles of hope and change off of my jacket.

Kleeb informed the crowd that "we can do it, but we can only do it together", and that change was on its way because "people have faith in themselves and are checking in." As proof of this unstoppable tidal wave of hope, Kleeb repeatedly referred to the fact that 350 people had signed his pick-up truck. We, the gathered faithful, were also invited to make our mark on the hope-mobile.

He was really into the truck thing.

But what makes Scott Kleeb so different from politicians in the past? The candidate was happy to lay out at least one key difference. In the past, Senators have been given free, tax-payer funded healthcare. Scott Kleeb would also receive this generous healthcare plan -- but with a catch: he plans to pay for it after he gets it for free! As Kleeb explained, families across the state have to write a check every month to pay their healthcare bill. To share in the struggles of these salt-of-the-earth folks, Kleeb will write a check every month as well, even though he doesn't have to. 

Verily, a sacrifice that would make Gandhi weep. 

Although most of his pitch was copied directly from Obama's playbook, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, Kleeb also borrowed some key lines from John McCain. When I asked him about what he would do to help fix social security, Kleeb rattled off McCain's familiar anecdote about Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan getting together to fix social security in the '80s, and the need for a similar getting-together today.

"I don't want to sound too harsh," I mildly retorted, "but isn't saying that you're going to solve the problem by getting together and solving the problem kind of a cop-out?"

In a slightly annoyed voice, Kleeb assured me that it wasn't a cop-out.

Deciding to take a different approach, I refined my query: "When you get together to solve the problem, what do you think the solution will look like?"

As it turns out, the solution has something to do with balancing the budget. And hey, we all like balanced budgets, don't we?

---

It is very likely that Scott Kleeb is an intelligent, thoughtful person. But in his slapdash attempt to hitch a ride on Obama's wave of change, Kleeb comes across as a crude caricature of charisma -- a smile with a haircut. 

If Nebraskans decide to send him back to his beloved ranch on election day, I won't shed too many tears. 

Black (Political) Gold!

The merits of offshore oil drilling are heavily disputed. Plenty of smart people have pointed out that the economic benefits of offshore drilling would be non-existent in the short term, and hardly noticeable in the long term. On the non-economic front, environmentalists are jittery about the possibility of oil spills soiling the feathers of baby ducks and other photogenic animals. If that weren't enough, both environmentalists and smart people have argued that our ultimate goal should be to phase out fossil fuels completely -- making any move to expand our supply of oil counterproductive.

Logically speaking, some of those arguments may be partially valid.
Politically speaking, none of them matter.

Right or wrong, the public wants offshore drilling. Democrats in Washington would do well to take notice -- if they want to keep their jobs.

Here are the raw numbers (taken from Rasmussen Reports):

64% of Americans support offshore oil drilling
67% recognize that Republicans support offshore drilling.
77% say that the issue will affect how they vote for congress.
61% want congress to return to Washington to lift the ban.

With such widespread support for offshore drilling, Democrats who oppose it are playing right into a classic liberal stereotype: the elitist, condescending professor, arrogantly lecturing the poor, ignorant people about what they ought to believe.

Clearly, this is a cause for great feasting and celebration in the land of the GOP.

After years of setbacks, Republicans have finally found a populist issue that they can successfully hammer the Democrats with. Some have even attributed John McCain's surprising buoyancy in the polls to his outspoken support for offshore drilling.

Responding to these gale-force winds of public opinion, Barack Obama has already signaled his willingness to compromise on the issue. Nancy Pelosi and Harry "oil makes us sick" Reid should consider following suite.

A flip-flop? Maybe.

But at least it's a change that 64% of Americans can believe in.

Hillary's Back! (kinda)

What Happened.

Last night, John McCain finally racked up enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination.

Neither of the Democratic candidates had such luck.

It was, of course, a fantastic night for Senator Hillary Clinton, who defied all expectations to win Texas and Ohio. But unfortunately for Hillary, the numbers are still against her.

After all the dust had settled, Hillary's victories in Ohio and Texas still left her over a hundred delegates short of overcoming Obama's commanding lead.

Hillary needed to win Ohio and Texas by huge margins in order to close the gap; ultimately, her margins just weren't big enough. Hillary's ten-point victory in Ohio was respectable enough, if not quite as impressive as the near 20-point victories Obama had earned in February, but her slim three-point lead in Texas was too weak to dent Obama's presidential prospects.

Now, both campaigns will be forced to dig in for a grueling, prolonged struggle that will come to a head in the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary.

Which candidate will benefit from this brutal, political trench-warfare?

Barack H. Obama.

As last night's final delegate tallies clearly showed, the lead Obama gained in February is going to be hard to beat. All Obama has to do from here on out is make sure most of the upcoming races are close, and his roughly 100 delegate lead will cushion him to a narrow victory. If Obama wins a fair amount of the upcoming contests, with decent margins, it will all be icing on his cake of electoral hope.

That is, unless the superdelegates decide to shake things up. Even if Obama retains his pledged-delegate lead at the end of all the primary contests, he still won't have the 2,025 delegates needed to completely secure the nomination. While most people expect the majority of superdelegates to side with the candidate who wins the overall popular vote, anything could potentially happen, especially if Obama's pledged-delegate lead becomes razor-thin.

However, the superdelegate factor could presumably work in Obama's favor. Party insiders tend to consider electability the paramount quality when selecting presidential candidates, and Obama is the only Democratic candidate who consistently beats John McCain in national polls. Hillary will need to improve her national standing against John McCain if she wants the superdelegates to throw their support behind her at the convention.

Why it Happened. (Probably)

Early this morning, The Politico's headline flaunted the conventional interpretation of last night's results:

"Clinton's Lesson: Attacking Obama Works".

Hillary Clinton's increasingly intense attacks on Obama may have had some impact on the election results, but let's be honest here: some of her attacks were pretty lame. Unless the residents of Ohio and Texas have a collective IQ of 42, I highly doubt that Hillary's laughable, oft-mocked "red phone" ad, and similar attacks, really tapped into the psyche of the voters in Tuesday's primaries.

Maybe they were simply sick of being told who was supposed to win.

It's a pattern that seems to be showing up frequently in the current Democratic presidential campaign; whenever a candidate is proclaimed inevitable by the media, a voter backlash occurs. We saw it in Iowa. We saw it in New Hampshire. Now we're seeing it again.

Being the underdog is often politically advantageous; in this case, it was. Obama's coronation was perceived as premature, and combined with his youth and alleged-inexperience, his aura of inevitable could have been interpreted as arrogance. Hillary may not always be the most likeable candidate, but her fall from grace helped win the sympathy of voters.

The media, with its typically soft coverage of Obama, and their endless stream of negative stories about Hillary, didn't help matters. Complaints of biased media coverage often make candidates look like pathetic, whiny losers. But in Hillary's case, her not-so-subtle claims of media bias actually resonated with voters, mainly because there was a great deal of truth to them. A surprise flurry of harsh questions directed towards Obama at a press conference on the eve of the primaries was unable to atone for the widely perceived slanting of election coverage.

In the end, the message was clear: voters will decide who gets the nomination, and the contest is far from over.