Daily Scold: So wrong, yet so Wright

Alright, alright, the Wright/right pun has been used to death already by the pun-dits (no pun intended), but it would've been remiss of The Scold or any other self-respecting media outlet not to join in the fun.

So the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has finally broken his wall of silence, embarking on what the mainstream media has called a "revenge tour" against his critics and even, it seems, against his most presidential congregant: Barack Obama.

Well, in true Scold fashion, here's what we've got to say, with no chaser: Jeremiah Wright is officially a douchebag who believes he is representative of black churches everywhere. Not only that, Wright would have you believe he's signed a NATO-style charter with every other black church in America: an attack against him is an attack against the black church.

Obama's response came swiftly, as he pretty much tossed Wright under the bus in a press conference Tuesday. But of course, the damage is done.

Pastorgate had been sitting on the back burner, too easily countered by charges of racism for Hillary to touch, too early for the Republicans to really start using it. But Wright himself provided the best evidence that he does indeed harbor extremist views, thanks to his own remarks at the National Press Club.

This, by the way, is probably one of the few times The National Scold is likely to echo sentiments by right-wing "media" outlets like The Weekly Standard and The National Review, all of which screamed that Wright has proven himself truly extremist. Already, the "journalists" at these hardcore conservative mouthpieces, which peddle opinions with a flag-covered iron fist, are falling over themselves to tar Obama with the Wright brush in yet another selective exercise of guilt by association.

They're never around to practice this type of logical fallacy when the conservative cause is screwing up (say, anytime in the last eight years). Somehow, outlets like The Weekly Standard seem to forget all about association when it comes to neocons with apocalyptic failure, Cheney with Darth Vader, Bush with Gonzo the Retarded Clown, and Bill Kristol with Hyper H. Hypocrite. Well, maybe the last one is understandable.

That concludes my left-wing rant. Back to the Wright (pun!) topic.

You've heard it by now; Wright refused to denounce the statements he made in the sermon clips circulating the web, standing by them and pulling out an incredibly audacious defense.

I like to call it the "NATO defense," for it's pretty much all about Wright placing himself under the nuclear umbrella of "the black church." Wright said that the attacks on his comments and views were not so much an attack on him personally; rather, they were attacks against the black church.

He also singled out the "corporate-controlled media" for attacking him, while consistently refusing to apologize. He's likely to elicit far more sympathy from blacks than whites, which serves to divide by race. He did land some zingers that rang with some truth; for example he lampooned critics who questioned his patriotism, noting that he's a Vietnam vet and former Marine whose goddaughter's unit just arrived in Iraq.

But when it came to the all-important test of discussing his greatest hits (his sermons in which he said America deserved 9/11 and the U.S. government created AIDS to kill minorities), he failed. Wright chose to rely on the tried-and-true "I am not a crook" defense, or in more recent memory, the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" defense.

Just like in the case of Nixon and Watergate, and Bill Clinton and Blowjobgate, Wright would have you believe Pastorgate is about his enemies attacking him rather than he himself doing anything wrong or outrageous.

What more can you say? Obama didn't vet Wright when he decided to run for president; nobody spends their life preparing to run for president, except maybe Hillary Clinton, who ironically isn't at all likely to be president.

Read more!

Analysis: Persian paranoia

There's something about Iran that makes it virtually impossible for American leaders to speak with a lick of sense. The United States' history with Iran must play a part; the hostage crisis started our relationship with the new regime on a bad note. Furthermore, they are meddling in Iraq, indirectly endangering our soldiers. And to be fair, the Iranian government is undoubtedly repressive and hostile to the West.

Still, American politicians are spectacularly boneheaded when it comes to Iran. The Bush administration rejected Iranian offers of support during the initial phases of the Afghan War, and rejected a solid deal offered by the Iranians that would have ended this nuclear standoff years ago. Today, the administration still refuses to deal directly with Iran in their failed policy of not meeting with anyone they do not like.

Bush's would-be replacements are little better. McCain promised to "bomb, bomb, Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann" if it continued working on nuclear weapons. Clinton would have us make a remarkable pledge to defend Israel, reminding everyone the she would likely "obliterate" Iran if it attacked the Jewish state. Obama, while not insane in his comments, has held fast to the establishment line on Iran. Has anyone stopped to ask: is Iran all that dangerous? Is it at all likely that Iran would attack Israel?

This is not to say a nuclear Iran is not a threat. It may be inevitable that Iran will eventually develop nuclear weapons, but that does not mean the West should let it happen. Foolish lefties have criticized President Bush for not taking possible military action off the table when speaking of Iran. This is silly; we cannot deter anyone without some form of deterrence. Ultimately, a limited strike, aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program, would be the appropriate course of action if negotiations fail and Iran is on the brink of nuclear capability.

The catch is that negotiations can only fail if they are actually attempted. This is the problem with the McCain/Bush strategy. They hope bluster will force Iran to cave in and then the US will come to the table. Few leaders, however, think it wise to bargain after giving up their bargaining chip. Bush and McCain's model makes armed conflict much more likely.

So does the super-heated rhetoric of the neo-cons and Hillary Clinton. Charles Krauthammer calls for a "Holocaust Declaration," where the United States would formally announce that a nuclear attack on Israel would be treated as a nuclear attack on the United States. This, naturally, would require a full-scale nuclear retaliation on Iran.

Krauthammer may develop a newfound respect for Hillary Clinton, because she has made that very pledge. In the last debate, she promised "massive retaliation" against Iran for an attack on Israel. She later tried to make that statement sound more ambiguous, but it does not wash. "Massive retaliation" is code language in international relations vernacular; Clinton was promising a nuclear attack.

As Pat Buchanan asked: When did Israel join NATO? While it is understood the United States will defend Israel if needed, Clinton's promise goes far beyond that. She would commit the United States to a very specific plan of action that partially places our armed forces dependent on the actions of Israel. Clinton just stated this as if it were a self-evident policy; Krauthammer at least acknowledged this would constitute a new doctrine.

More importantly; it is time to acknowledge that Israel can muster its own nuclear deterrent. Israel has the bomb and everyone knows it. Iran already knows they would be "obliterated" if they nuked Israel. The mullahs may be gaga for Allah, but they have no desire to see the sun over Tehran blotted out by a mushroom cloud. The United Stated need not generate more hostility by promising to do what Israel can do itself.

But there is nothing in it for Iran to attack Israel anyway. This threat is overblown, and policymakers should recognize this. While Iran gets cred throughout the Muslim world with its idle threats, actually following through would not be profitable. Aside from being nailed in a counterstrike, there is no Jew-only nuke. Even if Iran bombed only Tel-Aviv, they would still kill or injure hundreds of thousand of Palestinians.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is without question a saber-rattler and a poor representative of his people. He is not quite as thirsty for Jewish blood as he is made out to be, however. Granted, Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier, and that alone is detestable. Still, he did not, in fact, promise to wipe Israel from the map. The language barrier comes into play here. A better translation of his words would be that he wants Israel to fade from the pages of history, more akin to Nikita Khrushchev's claim that "we will bury you." This did not mean that the Soviet Union would destroy Western capitalism, but that Soviet Communism would outlive it. While Ahmadinejad was surely being provocative, he was not advocating an actionable genocidal policy.

Iran will come ever closer to having a nuclear weapon in a few years. This is a sobering prospect, though in truth, a nuclear North Korea and Pakistan are more dangerous than the prospect of Iran with the bomb. That being said, West still needs to get serious about stopping Iran. Nuclear proliferation is our biggest security issue in the post-Cold War era. To his credit, John Kerry spoke seriously on this issue and all the current candidates need to do the same.

The current president has done little to stem the tide of nuclear proliferation. Instead of taking his father's lead in foreign relations, George W. Bush allows ideology to dominate diplomacy. This has most often manifested itself as refusal to negotiate; the Bush team is desperate to look tough. Troublesome nations end up feeling they must raise the ante to scare the Americans into talking. Kim Jong-il became nuclear under Bush's watch in part because of his unwillingness to engage. This is the same tactic being used with Iran.

McCain will not provide a change from this failed strategy. Clinton may be posturing for the election, but may feel compelled to still act tough in the highly unlikely event she makes it to the White House. Obama shows some promise in foreign policy but has so far articulated no new ideas on Iran. Let us hope whoever becomes president next January will have learned to be a statesmen between now and then.

Read more!

Daily Scold: Baltimore's own Frank Conaway

Baltimore does not have the greatest reputation among American cities. Certainly, it has a crime problem, with murder rates that stagger residents and visitors. Television programs like The Wire do not paint the greatest portrait of Charm City. The Daily Show once described Baltimore as "the city that combines the industrial decay of the North with the casual racism of the South." Ouch. If that was not enough, Jenna Bush will soon be moving to Federal Hill!

Still, the city is dear to us here at The National Scold. The city is not far from our headquarters, and we care both about the city and its many bars. Baltimore does not need any more problems, and the possibility that Baltimore technically does not have a mayor concerns us. It is all the fault of one man: Frank M. Conaway.

The story goes back to November 2006, when then-mayor Martin O'Malley was elected governor of Maryland. Upon leaving City Hall, City Council president Sheila Dixon succeeded O'Malley. The next mayoral election was then held in 2007.

In the primary, Dixon was challenged by Frank M. Conaway Sr., the city court clerk. Dixon won the primary which, in overwhelmingly Democratic Baltimore, made election in the general inevitable.

Dixon asked Governor O'Malley to swear her in. Problem is, the court clerk traditionally does the swearing in. Conaway responded to the snub by refusing to issue Dixon a Citation of Incumbency. In true Baltimore fashion, officials said "screw it" and held the ceremony anyway.

The catch is that that citation is needed for some things. The Bureau of Treasury Management has been unable to get a bond for the city without them; Conaway has refused to sign the documents the Bureau has sent him. Since Dixon cannot prove she is mayor, there can be no loans issued to Baltimore.

Conaway's childishness is holding up a $4.5 million bond needed for a city landfill. The court clerk is refusing to do his job, which is not only impeding city business, it is also ignoring the voters of Baltimore City. His party chose Dixon, not him to be the nominee. The whole city then chose Dixon to be mayor.

Conaway claims he will end his temper tantrum if he is allowed to swear in Dixon. City lawyers evidently do not see any reason the court clerk must swear in mayors, so his legal argument is called in to question. If Conaway is not so sure Dixon is the rightful mayor, he need only think back to November 6, 2007. On that day, the Democratic nominee -- who was not him, but Dixon -- trounced the Republican candidate. There is no question as to Dixon's victory in either the primary or general.

Holding a personal grudge against someone who rightfully beat you in an election is one thing. To let it interfere with city business is quite another. Conaway may have one day had another shot at City Hall. Now, he would have better shot at grade school class president. At least then he would share the maturity of his constituents.

Read more!

Reaction: Hillary's fight goes on. And on.

Hillary Clinton is a fighter. Just look at that gleam in her eye. Buoyed by her 10-point victory in Pennsylvania last night, a beaming Clinton gave a victory speech in Philadelphia in which every word oozed smugness mixed with scrappy pride.

But her real victory has little to do with the vaunted "double-digit" margin by which she won the Keystone state: it's all about her successful efforts to burst his bubble of positivity and hope, a strategy based on provoking Obama to go negative, then screaming bloody murder when he finally took the bait.

Her triumphant afterglow won't last long, however, for there can longer be any doubt that this primary is doing only harm to the Democrats' White House ambitions, The Scold believes.

It may not be well-known, but Obama isn't really a softie. In the mean streets of Chicago, he learned to carry a knife to a fistfight and a gun to a knifefight. Plus he and his advisers, like David "the Axe" Axelrod, are eager to show they're not wimps who'll get Swiftboated out of action a la Kerry 2004.

But taking the gloves off grinds against Obama's core themes, change, hope, cuddling, teddy bears, etc. And it makes him look much more like a conventional politician. That's more than enough to convince skeptical blue-collar whites (who were on the fence anyway) that Obama's nothing special. And they'd much rather trust Clinton with a knife in a knifefight. In any case, the magic of Obama doesn't seem likely to last. Come November, it may only be a misty vapor.

If you're a Democratic elder who wants a White House victory, you're probably pissed at Clinton for being such a bitch and doing the Republican's work for them, just so she can be the nominee. But the brutal truth is that if Clinton takes what she's doing to Obama and doubles down, you'll have no choice but to take her, if Obama becomes too bloodied and vulnerable.

Of course, that's the nightmare scenario. Things aren't quite that dire for Obama yet. As many pundits and the Obama campaign are rushing to point out, Clinton's Pennsylvania win has virtually zero effect on the underlying dynamics of the race.

"Clearly, everyone underestimated how much Pennsylvania Democrats want to lose in November," said Jeremy Spalt, Scold political correspondent. "A 10-point win is decisive -- not quite a blowout -- but will certainly hearten Clinton's followers. The simple truth, however, is that she cannot catch up to Obama in the delegate count and she is only hurting her party's chances in November. Hillary may be a fighter, but math fights a lot harder."

In an amusingly ironic twist, The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton, runs an editorial this morning entitled "The Low Road to Victory," in which the editorial board accuses her of being responsible for most of the negativity in the primary so far.

Spalt cites Clinton's last-minute "fear-mongering" ad, which featured a montage of world crises, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the 1970s oil shocks to clips of Osama bin Laden, as one reason undecided voters broke her way this week. There is also her promise of massive nuclear retaliation against Iran should Iran nuke Israel (she used the word "obliterate"), which Spalt believes may have sent patriotic juices sluicing through the veins of many a Pennsylvanian deerhunter.

To quote the Times, while this increasingly "mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled" race continues to fuel Scold stories, we admit it's probably reporters, rather than voters, who are more excited about every dirty twist en route to the endgame.

Read more!

Primary Predictions: Pennsylvania

It's been a long eight weeks since Ohio and Texas rallied Hillary Clinton's campaign and sent the primary train chugging ever deep into spring, but here we are yet again: a primary contest pundits call "critical," this time in Pennsylvania, the Keystone state.

Our own political correspondents at The National Scold are ready to lay their predictions on the line, yet again, though this time around, the guessing seems focused on how much will Clinton win by. Obama himself is equating a close loss with a win, while Clinton's camp insists Obama must beat her for Pennsylvania to mean anything but a Hillary blowout despite a tremendous Obama effort.

· Grant: CLINTON by 6 points.

· Gustavo: CLINTON by 2-3 points.

· Jeremy: CLINTON by 6 points.

· Horace: CLINTON by 10 points.

For details on our horse picks, read onward.

· Grant: Demographically, Pennsylvania is a state made to order for the Clinton campaign. It's rural, blue-collar, mostly white, blah blah you know the rest. So many expected Obama to sort of downplay the state and focus on North Carolina and Indiana, the next two contests. Instead, he launched an ad blitz (outspending Clinton 5-to-1 by most estimates) a charm offensive, complete with a laughable bowling outing and a more successful trip to a sports bar, where Obama knocked out some wings, downed a Yuengling, and talked March Madness. These efforts narrowed Clinton's massive 19-point lead down into single digits, but Obama's momentum stalled after he shot himself in the left testicle with his Bittergate comments. The polls show Obama stopped gaining on Clinton when she was around 5 points ahead, and latest tracking polls show she's back to 6 or 7 points ahead. So it's an easy call.

· Gustavo: About 8% of Pennsylvania voters are undecided right now, and Clinton has seen significant drops in national polling among Democratic voters -- Obama's up by 19 points according to a Newsweek poll. Add that to the fact that she hurts herself everytime she attacks Obama, she's far behind in fundraising and in debt while Obama's drowning in greenbacks, and the fact that Bittergate and the "debate-from-hell" hasn't dented Obama in the polls, and you've got a powerful inevitability argument. If you're an undecided voter who wants a Democrat in office, that's pretty strong incentive to break for Obama.

· Jeremy: It's rather surprising that Obama has caught up as much as he has. Just two weeks ago I would have predicted an Ohio-like win for Clinton in the 11-14 range. Though Obama has taken a bloody nose in the past month, Clinton's negativity, Bosnia and the (accurate) perception she is just delaying the inevitable has made her numbers drop faster. Most polls have her up between 3 and 9 points, about half her lead throughout March. If Obama gets it under 5 points, the other shoe may finally drop. If Clinton gets over 10, Denver may wind up beyond Thunderdome.

· Horace: Gustavo's right, 8% of Pennsylvania voters are undecided, but that's no reason for Obama supporters to rejoice. Late undecideds typically break for Clinton, and the majority of the undecideds are whites in rural parts of the state. That's a recipe for a Clinton surge in points, if you ask me.

Read more!

Analysis: Dem defeat a self-fulfilling prophecy

Jesus, Shiva, Diablo and Zeus probably all want a Democrat to take the White House this year. After all, 2008 has been tailor-made for the party.

The economy is sagging, gas prices are at painfully historic highs, and the five-year anniversary of an unpopular war with mostly Republican cheerleaders has just passed. Billions of dollars have disappeared in the sands of Iraq, along with thousands of young American soldiers. American prestige is on the fade the world over. Yet somehow McCain's chances are looking better with every passing day; the Clinton-Obama war of attrition has given him time to unite Republicans while he can stay above the fray for free, looking attractive to independents sick of the Democratic mudslinging.

If McCain wins, it would be the third consecutive time a Republican has snatched the presidency away when all odds favored the Democrats. Gore losing Florida by a paper-thin margin, with clear signs that a recount would've changed the outcome. John Kerry. Enough said. But a Democratic defeat now looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Here's how it's happening: two strong, "historic" (ugh, it's been said so many times) candidates excite the Democratic electorate, but with both being strong, the race becomes very close. This is made significantly worse by the Democratic party's policy of splitting delegates proportionally in every state, so a close win for one candidate gets him or her only slightly more delegates than the "loser."

Next, Clinton attacks too much, while Obama tries not to attack at all, which results in bad news for both. Clinton becomes increasingly disliked by Democratic voters, while Obama is painted as being too soft. Over a six-month period, both these flaws persist and evolve (Clinton is ruthless, a hypocrite, dishonest, Obama is vulnerable, has too much unknown baggage, etc.) and become magnified.

As the race tightens and the primaries go on and on and ON, Obama's star begins to fade, as he can't keep up his "above-the-fray" act forever. He's forced to hit back, and while he still counterattacks rather than instigates, he starts looking more and more like a conventional politician.

Of course, Clinton does herself no favors by being the attack dog; the Democratic party elders become alarmed by her aggressive tactics, fearing she will split the electorate down the middle for the general election. These fears are solidifying, becoming more than party paranoia. Just look at recent polls, which show that growing numbers of Clinton and Obama supporters would rather vote for McCain if their candidate loses.

So this is the point we're at now. You can see the trendline that's forming, and you can also see where it will lead. Clinton will lose to Obama, but not before stripping away much of the aura that made him seem like a unifying, transformative figure. There's a fundamental debate in here somewhere about the nature of democracy, about Clinton's basic right to campaign as hard as she can, versus the Democratic party's desire to have the strongest possible candidate, as soon as possible. But that debate is fodder for another Scold story.

Who's to blame? Again, this touches on the fundamental debate of a candidate's right versus a party's political imperative. But no Scold reporter will ever pass up an opportunity to point fingers and assign blame. It's free, entertaining, and ranked in order of who's most responsible.

1. The Democratic party/Democratic National Committee
These fools may represent much of the American public on issues such as health care and the war in Iraq and global warming, but they continue to lose elections when it counts most. In their obsession with fair play, they've created an absurdly democratic PRIMARY process that has done nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. Ironically, the very rules that make their primary process so democratic have now put this year's race in the hands of the superdelegates, who have the potential to be an extremely undemocratic mechanism. The sheer, villainously stupid buffoonery on display from the DNC blows one's mind and saps one's muscles of the desire to move, particularly to move to one's polling station and vote Democrat. The superdelegates themselves should have long ago ended this absurdity, if they wanted to WIN, but, as stated above, they're losers. Literally.

2. Hillary Clinton
The moral justification for her push-on-till-oblivion strategy is open to debate, but my opinion is that it's not justified. If she really cared about her positions on the issues, she would want Obama (who mirrors her on most issues) to become president, not McCain. Yet Clinton is sabotaging Obama's chances for the fall, sapping his strength and rubbing salt into every gaffe, all to maximize her increasingly unlikely chance to be the nominee. Take her out of the equation, and all problems vanish. To be sure, Clinton has every legal and procedural right to do what she has done so far, and that's probably what makes a good politician -- going as far as you can to win without tacitly breaking the rules. Of course Obama would argue this is the "same old Washington politics," but he knows his concept of "change" won't mean much if he loses the race by refusing to fight dirty.

3. Barack Obama
He's screwed up too many times. Somehow his campaign didn't see Pastorgate coming, and even gave Jeremiah Wright a campaign position as "spiritual adviser." Then of course, Obama's Bittergate comments at a "private" donor party. Sigh. That's the problem when you try to run on positive themes. It's a strategy that limits your ability to strike back when attacked, lest you appear to be a hypocrite. He's also had great trouble dodging damage-by-association attacks for his relationships with the good Rev. Wright and (however tenuous) with Bill Ayers, of the radical '60s terror group Weather Underground fame. Somewhere in this enormous mess is Obama's original campaign message of unity, hope, and change. He needs to make a speech, do a rain dance for votes or Photoshop a Hillary-with-lesbian-Muslim-aide poster. Or something. This last week has left his campaign sputtering and stalled.

Meanwhile, the Republicans and their enablers in the media are screaming with laughter, toasting themselves and praying for the Democratic fireball to keep on burning.

Read more!

Analysis: Democrats, "Bittergate," and guns

The Democrats have got to be cringing every single time Obama and Hillary open their mouths. I mean seriously, whether it's Bosnia or the now famous Obama declaration, the Democrats cannot seem to keep their verbiage straight.

Obviously, tensions run high in elections, so there's no shortage of hyperbole that is embraced by both Democrats and Republicans.

However, the point I really want to make is about the Second Amendment and its strained relationship with the Democratic party. So we'll compare and contrast both Sens. Clinton and Obama regarding guns. This will be more than a little fun...

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a short entry in which I submit that Barack Obama posits himself as post-partisan even though partisanship, despite what you hear in the media, is the engine of democracy. Well, I have to admit that after careful review, I realized that the major theme of this election is perception over policy. The American people perceive Senator Obama to be post-partisan, therefore he is. Logical issues aside with this thought, the more you look into Obama's voting record and his statements, the more you begin to see a clear drift to the left on almost every single issue.

On the issue of guns, Barack Obama made the unfortunate remarks in San Francisco saying that rural Americans (to paraphrase) "cling to God, guns and anti-illegal immigrant sentiment due to the despair they feel." The first aspect that should make a lot of Democrats cringe is the fact that Obama made this statement about rural voters in the epicenter of perceived liberal cultural elitism (sometimes perception can be a bitch). More importantly, it was pure foolishness for Obama to veer from his public persona as a genial non-partisan who will bring about the end of racial disunity. Had he kept on that course, the nomination would be his to take from his rather unsavory opponent.

But what is Senator Obama's position on the Second Amendment? Arguably, the Senator believes that the Second Amendment is limited. I take this from two sources. According to the politco, Obama has "long backed gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month." But has also seemed to have endorsed the view that hunters and sportsman have the right to carry and there should be some limited ability of individuals to possess firearms. However, in his response to Hillary Clinton's attacks on his remarks in San Francisco, he mentioned his "strong support for the second amendment" but mentioned only hunters and sportsman without mentioning the individual right. Moreover, he is perceived and I believe rightly to be in favor of stringent gun control.

Barack Obama may be disingenuous about his stance on the Second Amendment. However, this does not hold a candle to the two-faced stance of his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton. Being the opportunist she is, she immediately portrayed herself as a second amendment defender. Spare us, Mrs. Clinton. As has been reported in the Wall Street Journal, First Lady Clinton was an advocate of gun control in the 1990s. Moreover, Obama scored a zinger when he said: "She's packing a six-shooter. Come on. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blind." Clinton's move was pure politics and was extraordinary in its willingness to pander.

In closing, I want to make it clear what the Second Amendment was intended to do exactly. At the risk of sounding like a Ron Paul zealot (which I assuredly am not), I want to quote the Amendment itself and what the founders had to say about it. I think that you will find it to be a clear refutation of both Democratic candidates for President.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Read more!

Analysis: Judge candidates by their campaigns

Hillary Clinton hasn't stopped saying that Barack Obama lacks the experience to be president, while she's got it in spades. Obama's counterpunch is that he has better judgement. But judgement doesn't grow in a vacuum, or after a few years in the Illinois state senate.

So we at The Scold believe this stalemate can be broken by another, more meaningful metric: how well each candidate has run a presidential campaign.

Oh yeah. Ouch. I can already hear the Clinton supporters rising up in arms. It sounds like a lot of cats unsheathing their claws, and I welcome feline-ists (and feminists) to flame me for this approach. After all, we biased, Barack-loving bloggers have picked a dreadful moment in Clinton's campaign to compare the two. But can there be a better or more measurable standard?

After all, the way a candidate runs a campaign is a good indication of the way he or she would run the White House -- the pundits (including Karl Rove himself) say so, anyway.

Clinton has repeatedly stressed her "proven record" of being a "doer, not just a talker." Her campaign touts her experience and background, emphasizing that her skills as detail-oriented, well-prepared, iron-willed leader who gets things done. So if we examine her campaign, we ought to find evidence of a well-run political machine, an effective council of advisers, a well-managed budget, and a disciplined team that can run a good ground game in primary states while responding efficiently to problems that arise.

Well, shoot. Here's what we got instead:

· Dissension in the ranks. 'Tis no secret that within the Clinton campaign's coterie of advisers, all was rarely well. It's hard to know exactly what the true story is, but varying news reports suggest that the recently ousted Mark Penn was constantly at loggerheads with veteran adviser Harold Ickes over "the message." When things didn't go well, Penn blamed Ickes and Patty Solis Doyle (since replaced by Maggie Williams). So Penn disliked Ickes and everyone disliked Penn. Hillary Clinton was hardly the steady hand that led this team of geniuses -- she typically refused to step in, and often supported Penn, which made the civil war go on and on.

· Flipping, flopping, and mood swings. Hillary has veered wildly between Iron Lady with finger ever-ready on the button, to tearful politician who's in it for the people, to her old standby, "I was born to be president and suffered Lewinsky Gate for it, now crown me already." Meanwhile, her approach to Obama has been to ignore him (the "she's inevitable, he's just in the way argument," which ironically now appears to Obama's gameplan), to desperately throw the kitchen sink at him, and then to praise him and offer conciliatory comments, then finally to "Shame on you Barack Obama!" You could probably argue this is a result of the internal struggle between Penn and Ickes to shape Clinton's campaign theme and message, compounded by their mutual lack of preparation for the Obamenon that swept across the country. But it still makes her look silly compared to Obama's continuous, unchanging call for change, selling it on hope, great speeches and one terrific campaign logo.

· Money, or the lack of it. This one should be pretty obvious to anyone who's been awake during this primary. Obama has consistently outscored every soul this year in terms of fundraising, and it's been a steady, multi-millions-every-week effort driven largely by the Internet and lots and lots and lots of individual contributers who are still far from reaching their federal contribution limit of $2,300 per candidate during the primary. If you want to follow the boring but indisputable trail of news sources on this one, you can start here. Oh, and let's not forget that the Clinton campaign owes one Hillary Clinton $5 million -- she lent her own money to her campaign after a particularly bad month in the red. Funny story: Clinton's campaign has been so tardy paying bills, local businesses are staying away from doing, well, business with it.

· A ground game, or the lack of it. Obama's in-state organizers have constantly been beating Clinton's teams, setting up field offices first, rounding up more volunteers, and generally outhustling Clinton's volunteers at every turn. This is probably related to Clinton's funding problems, though she wasn't hurting for money in Iowa, where Obama's victory was largely attributed to his better organization.

While I find it amusing Karl Rove agrees with Howell Raines, former New York Times managing editor, that Clinton has run a dreadful campaign, it's E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post who says it best: "Her campaign seemed to have only two speeds: overconfidence and panic."

FINAL SCOLD SCORE: 66/100 (D+)

I promised fairness, or at least The Scold's unique (but accurate!) version of it, so let's give Obama's campaign a shake. The hopemonger's signature move is to hold a massive rally full of screaming fans whom he regales with flowery speeches; he sells his life story via two autobiographical books and a slew of squeaky-clean biographical TV ads. But the message is simple: Obama's campaign is about changing Washington's partisan politics, unifying the country and reversing eight years of cowboy-style foreign policy. So an examination of his campaign ought to reveal a new way of playing the game, a focus on positivity and politeness, and change. Or something like it. It's whatever you want it to be, but it better be good. That's our standard for O-dawg.

Here's what we got:

· A rapid coming-of-age. Obama's first few debates were pretty bad, particularly compared to how good he was when giving prepared speeches. It truly made him seem like a one-hit wonder: talks good when when he writes it and rehearses it, can't hold his own against seasoned pros Clinton and Edwards. But Obama rapidly improved his debate performances, showing a clear preference for counterattacking rather than starting a fight. He's largely stayed true to his promise in the debates, focusing far more on answering the question (not always a good thing, as he rambles and panders and equivocates like any politician on hardballs) rather than scoring points against opponents.

· Countering and parrying. Obama is a reluctant attacker at best, but he definitely does attack, usually in the form of a counterpunch, so he can claim the fight was started by someone else. It's clever and has consistently remained effective. But it's also responsible for Clinton's repeated acts of resurrection, right when she was on the ropes. And these counterpunches aren't exactly pure as snow, either; in mailers and TV and radio ads, Obama's team has cropped Clinton's words carefully to prove his point at the cost of accuracy. But none of this is near the level of Clinton's famous 3 a.m. ad, nor is it even on the radar compared to the Swiftboating tactics Republicans will likely deploy in the fall.

· Unity of form and message. This has been glossed over somewhat by the mainstream media, but Obama's campaign has stayed pretty much on target with their focus on change, hope, unity and healing. Whatever those vagaries may mean to you, they've meant Obama was the man to thousands of Democratic primary voters. There's a remarkable consistency to Obama's printed materials and campaign memorabilia as well, and his striking logo -- the letter 'O' decked out in patriotic colors, with the "hole" rising like the sun on America -- has drawn squeals from graphic designers. Pundits call this "branding," and Obama has done a much better job on this than Clinton. And last year I thought Hillary's logo was pretty sharp-looking, too. Until I saw that 'O,' that is.

· Lots and lots of money. The pundits initially assumed Clinton would have the financial edge in the primary, given her connections with big-name and big-dollar Democratic donors. But they forgot about a little thing called the Internet. One thing Obama has done remarkably well is inspire supporters to throw cash his way, just a few bucks at a time, but every little bit adds up. But even back in July 2007, his fundraising machine was raising eyebrows. The money has allowed his campaign to appear efficient and well-managed compared to the Clinton camp, which has laughably been in the red so long that Clinton was forced to tap her personal fortune. How can someone so seasoned and disciplined be in danger of running out of money?

· Young voters and volunteers, plus a messianic ability to inspire. I don't think I need to explain this one. Obama has been a huge hit with apathetic college kids and even high schoolers; his campaign has been credited with bringing thousands of young voters into the Democratic fold, reshaping the electoral map by tapping a long-touted but untapped voting bloc. The remarkable and sometimes creepy fervor driving Obama's young volunteers has been evident during almost every primary state's on-the-ground, get-out-the-vote phase.

Obama's campaign wants you to think it's doing something new, amazing and absolutely sin-free, but of course that's not true. It's powered by polling and has teams of PR staff ready to fire press releases at the first sign of trouble. It draws contrasts by denigrating other candidates, often by exaggerating or distorting the truth. But it has indisputably been one for the books.

Put it in perspective: Obama is a political rookie compared to Clinton, short years of experience in the Senate and even more in the White House, to say nothing of the fact that Clinton simply has 15 more years of LIFE experience.

Yet by most measurable metrics, he's running a slicker, cleaner, richer and more unified campaign.

FINAL SCOLD SCORE: 90/100 (A)

Read more!

In-depth report: Mark Penn tied to RJ Carroll

Former Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn is a distant cousin of Scold senior political correspondent RJ Carroll, The National Scold has learned.

Penn, who was ousted from his position as the Clinton campaign's chief strategist and "message mastermind," is Carroll's second cousin, twice removed. Don't ask us how that's possible; it just is, and the pictures prove it.

If you ever wondered where Carroll's bizarre sense of humor and ironclad support for Hillary Clinton came from, wonder no further.

Carroll, who is an accomplished madrigal singer, expressed disappointment about his shared lineage with Penn as well as the latter's impact on Clinton's campaign when Scold reporters cornered him outside the notorious "Tit-for-Tit" bar and club in Morgantown, West Va.

"Mark Penn is a total douchebag," Carroll warbled between sips of a Long Island ice tea. "He totally screwed up Hillary's message. Run on a platform of steady experience in a year where people want change, and not the kind with coins? Insanity, I tell you!"

Penn was given the boot by the Clinton campaign after The Washington Post and other major media outlets ran stories about his efforts to work with the Colombian government to pass a free trade agreement Clinton herself denounced. Penn's controversial decision to continue working as CEO of Burton Marstellar, the globe-spanning public relations firm, despite his position in Clinton's campaign, drew widespread condemnation.

"Mark Penn is also an idiot," Carroll opined. "Even George W. Bush told Karl Rove, who also ran a successful PR firm, to drop all his clients if he was going to work on his presidential campaign. Mark Penn didn't! And Hillary didn't! I can't believe I'm related to this guy!"


When asked if he could possibly have inherited some of the political saavy that made Penn a household name among politicians and the Democratic elite, Carroll scoffed.

"My wit is my own," he said. "Mark Penn wouldn't know a good joke -- or a good opportunity to humanize his candidate -- if it came up and bit him on his fat ass."

At this point, reporters were about to tactfully make a point about Carroll's figure when he anticipated them and cut them off.

"Yes, I know I'm a little heavy myself," Carroll allowed. "But the point is, I wouldn't have needed Hillary to fake a little emotion on her own to take New Hampshire. I would've scripted that."

Neither Penn nor his spokesman returned calls for comment.

Read more!

Reaction: The 40-year exile

Ronald Reagan may have delivered the eulogy of the liberal majority in 1980, but the collapse of the New Deal coalition began 12 years earlier. The end of the "liberal moment," as The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne calls it, came in 1968. The harbinger of the fall was Richard Nixon and the tolling of the bell could be heard in the gunshots that struck down Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy.

In his "Southern Strategy," Nixon mortally wounded the New Deal coalition that dominated American politics since 1932. After stunning liberal victories in the Great Society, Dixie bolted the party and poor whites became the base of the conservative ascendency that is with us today. Recalling two milestones from this week may be instructive of how the upheaval came to be.

Friday was the anniversary of King's death. Forty years and one day after the assassination, this past Saturday, Charlton Heston died. Their stories are more connected than you might think.

Heston was very much an American icon. An an actor, he will be remembered for epic roles as Moses, Ben-Hur and a man trapped on the Planet of the Apes. His legacy as a political activist will be harder to sum up.

His later years were dominated by his outspoken support for the Second Amendment, including his presidency of the National Rifle Association. He was also vocal about his opposition to affirmative action and President Clinton. Earlier, he was a staunch opponent of Communism.

Yet Heston also lent his fame to social justice. In 1961, he joined a picket line at a segregated theater premiering one of his movies. He marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Washington in 1963, wearing a sign that read "all men are created equal." Heston also opposed the Vietnam War and supported the presidential ambitions of Democrats Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy.

So why did Heston become a right-wing icon? Did Heston's politics even change all that much? Perhaps his political evolution is not too different from that of the southern whites who have handed Republicans the White House seven times from 1968 on.

The late 1960s were plagued by increasing crime and violence in the form of riots. Even though many of these race riots were in fact the acts of whites angered by the Civil Rights Movement, there was violence on both sides. The Republicans exploited white fears of social disorder -- which were both real and imagined -- dislodging the law and order vote from Democrats.

With the deaths of both Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy in the cataclysmic year of 1968, a peaceful resolution of the racial strife seemed nigh impossible.

Some voices on the radical left became the loudest after the assassinations. Militants like the Black Panthers and Malcolm X further alienated the white blue-collar votes the Democrats needed. Other anti-war and anti-capitalist groups became the face of the "New Left" in the mind of many average voters. This of course, was neither fair nor terribly accurate, but it was a powerful image.

The 1968 Democratic convention was chaotic and violent. It is now known that much of the violence on the streets began by way of "police riots." The fighting was started by plainclothes cops in the crowd to give uniformed officers an excuse to crack down on the demonstration. On television, however, all America saw was lawlessness, racial strife and radical left-wing politics.

By 1972, Nixon was able to credibly call the Democratic candidate for president the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." If only!

Can you see even a principled, fair man like Heston supporting the Democratic party for too long in that state? Though committed to racial justice, he was also strongly for law and order and had no sympathy for the socialist-leaning groups on the left. How could he not be disgusted by "Hanoi Jane"?

As long as Democrats allowed themselves to appear weak and even silly, they had no hope of ever winning back Heston or southern whites. Democrats were bludgeoned as being weak on crime, then Communism, then morals and lately, terrorism. Throw in embarrassments like Dukakis in the tank, Bill Clinton's impeachment and turn-offs like political correctness and you see why, in some ways, it is still 1968.

Forty years out, the GOP is still scoring with Nixon's playbook. Democrats still seem to dither about on the fears of the day, fears that men like Heston want openly confronted. And, aside from acting ability, there are a lot of men like Heston.

Motorists from the 1990s may recall bumper stickers that read "Charlton Heston is my president," referring to his leadership of the NRA. Democrats should remember that the same man was once a liberal icon. As the nation approaches what may be the end of the conservative ascendency, liberals need to reflect on how they lost men like Heston, and think of how they can get them back.

Read more!

Analysis: Hillary's "he can't win" argument

Hillary Clinton truly believes Barack Obama can't win this November in an even fight against Republican John McCain. This, more than anything else, is fueling her desire to push on -- we've established this before.

Clinton's burning, personal belief that Obama would lose the White House was reinforced by a new, developing story: that when Bill Richardson called to tell her he was endorsing Obama, she "flatly" told Richardson that "he (Obama) cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

This is a statement that we here at The National Scold actually find a fair amount of merit in. There's plenty of reasons why Obama is weak against McCain. But here's the million-dollar question: if Obama would have trouble against McCain, can Hillary win?

We believe the answer to this, unfortunately for Lady Macbeth, is a definitive "no siree Bob."

There was actually a point during this race at which it seemed either Obama or Clinton would have no trouble trouncing whomever the Republicans trotted forth to oppose the Democrats in the general election.

This would be before the primary process become a bitter war of attrition, where pledged and superdelegates are being fought for -- to employ a military metaphor -- street by street, house by house.

This was before Obama and Clinton tore each other down, before each was forced to fire advisers who went too far in attacking the other candidate.

The point at which a Democratic victory in November seemed inevitable, has long passed thanks to a bitter primary battle that's highlighted Pastorgate and Snipergate.

My point is simple: Obama has emerged from all this in much better shape than Clinton. He's making more money, spending it more wisely, and he's ahead by pretty much every measurable metric -- number of states won, number of pledged delegates and the popular vote. Since the March 4 primaries, which Clinton WON, Obama has gained 11 superdelegates while Clinton has gained zero.

It's been analyzed a thousand times and there's no denying it: Clinton can no longer hope to overtake Obama by virtue of having more popular votes or pledged delegates. She can only win through backroom wrangling, convincing, bribing or intimidating superdelegates to buck popular support of Obama in favor of her.

So, why would Clinton fare poorly against McCain in November?

· Republicans hate her. Let's not forget that Clinton began this campaign -- and indeed her political life after Bill Clinton's presidency -- with high negatives among Republicans. It's more than fair to say Clinton has absolutely zero cross-over appeal with Republican voters. In fact, the only Republicans voting for Hillary are those who embraced Rush Limbaugh's amusing ploy: vote for Hillary to keep the Democratic race going on, so Obama comes out weaker. In the general, she's likely to increase Republican turnout against her.

· She can't beat McCain on experience. This is pretty self-explanatory. John McCain's life story and experience just completely dominates Clinton's. There really is no comparison. So without the experience argument, Clinton will have to focus on the issues, as she's already trying with her 3 a.m. ad on the economy targeting McCain.

· She would face a fractured Democratic electorate. If you think the thousands upon thousands of young Obama supporters who registered as Democrats to vote for him will vote for Hillary, think again. They'll go back to playing videogames on their XBOX 360s. Meanwhile, blacks, a historically crucial Democratic voting bloc, will stay home. Clinton's support among blacks, which would've been rock solid if not for Obama's presence in the race (no pun intended), would evaporate. This all adds up to greatly diminish the excitement and increased voter turnout among Democratic voters that was once cheered by the party.

Obama's weak points against McCain are significant enough to warrant their own story. But I should mention here that many of them have been amplified by Hillary's hand during the course of this remarkably contentious Democratic primary. Not that she cares any.

Read more!