August 2008 Archives

Republican presidential contender John McCain is if anything a good listener. The instant he heard the loud squeals from Republican pro-life hawks that his campaign would be DOA if he dared tried to shove former Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge or maverick Senator Joe Lieberman on the ticket, he back pedaled fast. Both are moderates on abortion. And that made them anathema to the hawks.

We'll never know whether McCain's brief float of their names as GOP VP possibilities was a trial balloon, a deft feint, or just loose talk. But it did set things up nicely for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Despite much talk from McCain's camp and the pro and con pundit chatter touting her as being fresh, young, a reformer, anti-GOP establishment and an ingenious pick, or slamming her as a political school girl novice, and a disastrous pick, the fact is Palin's on the ticket to assuage the pro-life hawks. But more importantly to fire up the millions of men and women voters who demand that a GOP presidential candidate firmly oppose abortion. That's the price for their vote.

The polls that show that the abortion issue languishes on the far back burner in the 2008 election badly miss this. Several major polls since 2003 have shown that while the abortion question at times has slid lower on the public's issues radar scope, it never slipped entirely off it. Americans have been almost evenly divided between those who call themselves pro-choice and pro-life. In the five presidential elections between 1984 and 2000 the majority of voters who said that abortion was a major issue for them backed the GOP candidate. Pro-life leaning voters were more likely to dash to the polls to back the GOP candidate.

A Gallup Poll Values and Belief survey in May measured the effect of pro and anti-abortion sentiment on the presidential race. It found that the pro life voter edge translated out to about a 2 to 3 percent bump up for the GOP presidential candidate.

In a runaway election for either the Democratic or GOP presidential candidate that percent wouldn't mean much. In a tight down to the wire election that percentage jump could be huge. The 2008 election appears to be just that; a squeaker win for either Obama or McCain. The Gallup Values survey also found one other thing that Team McCain almost certainly picked up on and that's even when voters say abortion is only a minor concern, or one of many issues, that changes as Election Day gets nearer. It found a measurable jump in those who suddenly said that they do care where a candidate stands on abortion. The big majority of those for whom it matters label themselves pro-life.

Palin is a made-in-heaven choice to rev them up. Even amidst the heavy pot shots and ridicule at her non existent foreign policy and national security resume, the GOP cash tills have started to ring loudly. The Republican National Committee gleefully said that millions poured in within hours after McCain picked Palin.

The dilemma for Democrat's is how to defuse the pro-life hot box. The obvious counter is to fire up pro choice advocates. They also number in the millions, and an aroused, impassioned plea to them and their march to the polls potentially could give Obama the bump up he needs from the pro choice side. NARAL-Pro Choice America and NOW wasted no time in lambasting McCain and Palin. They called his picking her a cynical ploy and smoking gun proof that he's a rigid extremist on abortion. The big question though is will the blasts do more to fire up pro choice or pro life men and women voters?

A too bare fisted, down and dirty hit against her for her hard nosed pro-life stance could backfire in another way. Many might see this as tantamount to witness badgering. In criminal court trials, DA's and defense attorneys always tread carefully with a witness who is a middle-class or working class mother. Beating up on them could stir juror sympathy for them and cost them a case. Palin is not only a tough politician but to some the epitome of the struggling American mother. Millions of struggling working class mothers could identify with her no matter what their views on abortion.

The pro-choice groups, though, had no choice but to quickly go on the attack. Palin has drawn a harder line on the abortion issue than any other presidential ticket candidate in the past two decades and that includes W. Bush. He showed a slight tinge of flexibility by at least saying that he opposed abortion except in instances of rape and incest and when a mother's life is in danger. Palin opposes abortion even on those grounds.

It matters little where one stands on abortion or Palin. Plopping her on the GOP presidential ticket assured that abortion won't stay on the backburner much longer this election.

No one who enters political life is ever ready for what happens. No one can imagine the prying, the distortions, the lies. Even in local politics--from small district school boards to city councils, the world plays rough with our families and our lives.

When you enter into political life at the national level--and as a relative neophyte, as Sarah Palin did--you cannot, literally cannot, imagine what is going to happen to you. There is no conceivable knowledgeable waiver or informed consent you can give.

What is about to happen to Sarah Palin and her daughter is terrible, and while I have no political common cause with her and it is easy to say that she should have known better, she couldn't have. Without judging her, this is part of what keeps good people from running for office.

One of the best places to watch the emerging political spin is in the comments sections of some of the major right-wing and left-wing blogs.

It was on those blogs that liberals swiftly rose up to mock the inexperience of Gov. Palin. As the volunteer shock troops of the GOP, conservative loyalists howled at the hypocrisy involved in Obama fans criticizing someone else's inexperience.

There were inconsistencies on both sides. If Obama fans believe that judgment and character outweigh decades of Washington experience, then they can't rip Palin for her political callowness. Yet conservatives need to acknowledge that Obama fans are hissy about the experience issue precisely because conservatives have made such a, um, federal case out of it.

The GOP loyalists counter that an inexperienced Palin is "merely" the bottom of her party's ticket, whereas an inexperienced Obama is at the top of his. That's a bit disingenuous. We all know the bottom of the ticket is supposed to be as poised for presidential service as the top. Thus, conservatives now need to back away from the experience issue, having lost credibility there, and focus on proving that their ticket offers a better blend of values, character and decision-making.

McCain seems to be acting on a hunch, but his choice seems gimmicky. Further, he has taken a risk by choosing a candidate who has not yet had a public baptism by media fire. Joe Biden had that baptism 20 years ago, and surmounted it. Palin? We'll see.

Again, having argued recently that veep picks don't affect the typical presidential race, I'm now curious to see if I'm wrong.

Team Obama wasted no time in jumping all over Alaska governor Sarah Palin as they brusquely put it she has zero experience in statecraft. The obvious point is that this automatically flushes down the drain Republican rival John McCain's prime hit point against Democratic nominee Barack Obama and that he's simply too much of a greenhorn on foreign policy and national security to trust White House command too.
This may or may not work. Palin certainly has no discernable experience in dealing with Iran's potential nukes, North Korea's real nukes, Middle East turmoil, thorny Cuban and Venezuelan relations, India-Pakistan rivalries, the war on terrorism, China rivalry, globalism and trade, foreign oil controls, and Iraq and Afghan war policy. And if McCain is indeed a heart murmur or a there's a dangerous flare up of the cancers that he's suffered from and he goes down as president, then Palin would step in. Democrats say that would be a disaster of the highest order because the country would be in the hands of a foreign policy novice.

That's the sell job that Team Obama and the Democrats will push on voters. It's a good one, except for one thing. The statecraft challenged Palin is not running for president, McCain is. Voters pick presidents on their foreign policy and national security experience not their vice president's experience or the lack of that requisite experience. We need look no further than 1988 and George Bush Sr. and his presumed equally disastrous VP pick Dan Quayle.

The inexperienced, unknown, and much maligned Quayle was absolutely no asset to the Bush Sr. ticket. But he didn't have to be. The point of Quayle was that he didn't muck up things. Or to borrow an old football analogy, if you have a championship caliber team that's driving for the Superbowl the team doesn't necessarily need a quarterback who can win the big one for team but the quarterback must not do anything to lose it for the team. That year Bush Sr. had the money and a united party behind him as does McCain. But Bush Sr. also importantly had a solid record of administrative, diplomatic and national security experience, and even more importantly his Democratic presidential opponent Michael Dukakis was just as foreign policy and national security lite as Obama. He picked long-term Texas senator Lloyd Bentson as his VP mate. Bentson brought along a bulging portfolio of foreign policy and administrative experience to shore him up in that area.

During the campaign, Quayle was the butt of endless jokes, took colossal hits from the Democrats and pundits for everything from his Midwest preppie looks and odd name to his lowly status in the GOP pantheon. That also included Bentson's smackdown of the ages in their debate when he coldly told him that he was no JFK. But that and Bentson on the Dukakis ticket didn't make much difference. Bush Sr. still won, and though Democrats peg Dukakis's loss mostly to the Willle Horton ambush by the GOP, the truth is that that wouldn't have worked without widespread public belief that Bush was simply fitter to be president when it came to making the big decisions than Dukakis.
But McCain figures that Palin's inexperience and the endless hits he'll take on it is worth the risk because she brings assets to the ticket. There's the obvious. She's young, a woman, pro-life, nuanced anti gay marriage, has an impeccable record on ethics, and has shown a willingness to thumb her nose at some in the GOP establishment. In other words, she's the GOP's version of hope and change.

The bigger reason she's on the ticket though is the less obvious. She is the breathing embodiment of the much needed signal that McCain needs to send that his administration is not simply a recycled four more years of Bush policies. Democrats wore that line out at their convention. And Team Obama will try to pound it home relentlessly in every breath, sentence, speech, statement, and in every nook and cranny on the campaign trail. And with Bush approval ratings wallowing at Ocean bottom depth and showing absolutely no sign of rising before November, the McCain-Bush Siamese Twin joined at the hip graft is the ultimate trump card. Democrats bank that this will propel Obama into the White House. At least that's the Democrat's hope. Palin is the antidote to that. At least that's the GOP's hope.

McCain answered one of the great theological questions with his pick of Sarah Palin: Can a Baptist throw a "Hail Mary" to an Evangelical? Yes is the clear answer.

He gave up, as Rob pointed out, the 3 AM phone call attack ad, as well as the age and experience to be Commander-in-Chief on day one argument. What he got was a person who would help to shore up the right-wing base that neither loves nor trusts McCain. They also hope that she will bleed some of the female vote from the Democrats.

It is fair, if awkward to admit, that there is identity politics on the Democratic side. Some women who might not have been either personal or ideological fans of Hillary voted for her because she was a woman, and they wanted to be part of making history. It is also fair to observe that there was a reason that many pundits felt secure that the African-American vote would go to Hillary in recognition of all she and Bill had done over the years.

In the beginning, few thought that Sen. Obama would long be a factor. After Iowa, however, everything changed, and American Blacks realized that there was a literally an African American with a legitimate chance. Surely, we must admit some voted for him out of sense of pride, history and solidarity.

Well, Obama will pretty clearly keep the Black vote by an overwhelming majority. The question is not about real Democratic women who supported Hillary. They will not, with rare exception, vote for a McCain Supreme Court. But independents and conservative women who wanted Hillary for reasons more historic than ideological will come to McCain and Palin. Will their numbers be enough? I don't know, but I do not believe so.

Given the wars, the economy, the general sense of "malaise" the Republicans should not have a chance. Given that McCain has no single segment of the Republican Party that is passionately for him, he needed to do something. He did. He threw a Hail Mary.

By picking the unknown and relatively inexperienced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, is John McCain trying to frame his own experience and fitness for office?

Is McCain saying that Barack Obama's choice of Senate veteran and foreign-policy expert Joe Biden is a pick designed to shore up the Democratic presidential candidate's lack of experience?

With McCain choosing a newish governor of a small (in population) state, he seems to be adding the requisite "executive experience," however thin, to his ticket.

And obviously McCain's not a woman.

But isn't John McCain really saying that he doesn't need to bring any additional experience, gravitas, leadership quality, or any of that kind of thing to his ticket because he lacks none of these things himself?

And a pick of an unknown with little relevant experience also says that despite whatever lingering injuries John McCain has from his captivity in Vietnam, and his recent bouts with skin cancer, that the presumptive nominee, like his 90-something-year-old, still-alive mother, is healthy as a proverbial horse and isn't likely to ever need to tap his veep for anything except attack-dog speeches and breaking ties in the Senate?

It worked for George H.W. Bush ...

You could feel the history of it all.

Seeing Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama deliver a rousing yet measured acceptance speech to a packed arena, how could you not feel the moment?

Even if you're a Republican, Libertarian, Clintonian or other, seeing an African-American accept a major-party nomination for president and, in the long process leading up to this moment, change the political landscape of America, is nothing short of momentous.

During the speech, I heard the theme of responsibility tied to government, business and the individual. He had the line about Republican's telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, along with the paradox of not having said boots or the straps that go with them.

But Obama made it clear that America is the place where fairness can and should reign and where dreams can be realized.

He mentioned helping displaced workers some two decades ago, but he also recalled pushing welfare reform while in the Illinois statehouse.

Obama didn't come out against abortion, but he did talk about how to discourage the practice.

He pledged to support the Second Amendment as far as gun rights go, referring specifically and positively to hunters in Ohio, but deliberately excluded assault rifles from what he'd consider OK.

As far as an energy policy goes, he veered into "land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth" territory by pledging to make the country to become foreign-oil-free in a scant 10 years.

He wouldn't support gay marriage but instead called for equal rights and protection for all.

On many of these issues, he's counting on his base to look the other way.

Let's face it, Obama is middle of the road.

He didn't want to be in Iraq, wants to get out, but is hell-bent on the fight in Afghanistan.

He wants to pay teachers more (I don't know quite how the federal government could make that happen) and said that some kind of federal standards would go along with any federal money. I waited for him to mock "No Child Left Behind" by name, but he didn't take that bait. Maybe he likes it.

He talked about the Rev Martin Luther King Jr. and the importance of the March on Washington some 45 years ago.

But Obama was careful to say that all Americans — the ones who aren't rich, anyway — are hurting.

He talked about opportunity not for any specific racial group or gender, but in a different way. OK, he did mention women, veterans, college students, teachers, auto workers, steelworkers, parents, grandparents ...

The whole "leaving behind the politics of the past," and "politics of hope"? It could be a lot of smoke.

I don't know if presumptive Republican nominee John McCain really thinks you need to drag in $5 million a year to be considered rich, or if he just has a very dry sense of humor, but did that really need to be in Obama's speech?

It sounds pretty "politics of the past"-ish. Effective but not the high road.

Obama's challenge leading up to November is to get specific. What does he want to do? Where will the money come from? Can he get anything out of Congress?

Speechmaking ability matters. Organizational discipline matters. Obama and his campaign have those two bases covered.

But can Barack Obama close the deal? A whole lot depends on how detailed he's willing or able to get over the next couple of months.

As far as who will prevail in November, Obama or McCain, much depends on what happens in this country and around the world.

Falling gas prices won't help Obama. Nor will unrest around the world that the current administration deals with effectively.

If Iraq makes any progress whatsoever, it favors the pro-surge McCain.

If the mortgage crises and the overall economy worsens, that would help Obama. And does anybody see the economy getting any better any time soon? That's a good enough reason to campaign on McCain's $5 million blunder.

And with the Republicans setting up shop in Minnesota next week for their convention, John McCain and the GOP have a very tough act to follow.

Sarah Palin as the veep pick for a 72-year-old candidate who at times seems feeble? That seems puzzling.

I argued last week that veep picks don't help or hurt the top of the ticket. I think I still agree with myself. But this may actually hurt McCain. An ardent pro-lifer such as Palin won't draw Clintonites, but it may soften the Bubba base of the Bible Belt, where people don't feel comfortable with the prospect of a young woman being in charge. This isn't exactly Golda Meir that that the GOP is putting forward.

Most of all, it invalidates McCain's central contention, that experience is crucial. Apparently he believes you can be a rookie governor of a truly marginal state and still have the "right" experience from the job. But that won't fly with voters.

Why is tonight different from all other nights? Tonight an African American officially became the nominee of the Democratic Party for the presidency of the United States of America. Wow!
I have such a sense of joy and hope in my heart that they are pushing tears out my eyes and down my cheeks. I know that this is partly generational, that those younger than my generation (and that is most of America) are not as blown away by the positive changes we have marked this year. They don't understand the length of the journey and our shared accomplishments because they did not see from how far back we started.

For those who never saw a "coloreds only" drinking fountain or a "whites only" waiting room, for those who never heard a young white call a grown black man "boy," for those who never saw the sign in the Hollywood bar (in West Hollywood before it became a city) that read "No Faggots Allowed," for those who knew that no woman could ever be nominated, no less seriously considered for the presidency of this nation--you cannot understand my feelings. And I don't blame you. You had to be there.

It is easy to look at our world and our own society and see it all going to hell. This is the traditional observation of older people. With the astigmatism of nostalgia, we see all the great things from the past, but the pain and injustice are imperfectly remembered--unless they happened to us. We sentimentalize the 50s and see it through the distorted lens of Happy Days and Ozzie and Harriet. While there was some truth to those depictions--they didn't apply to the poor or most Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. They didn't apply to gays or to left-leaning liberals. We forget blacks and black lists, browns and brown shirts--re-rapped in red white and blue.

I too forget my own prejudices and assumptions--some harmless, some not. I repress the memory of fag jokes, the racist assumptions I made, not out of hate but ignorance and inexperience and, of course, the sexist assumptions of my time. Gays were hidden or if suspected assumed to be potential child molesters. Blacks were not teachers or lawyers, doctors or accountants. Their women were maids and the men invisible. When Watts exploded, many in my area asked "Where?"

When I was a kid, boys wanted to be Mickey Mantle, Johnny Unitas, Bob Cousy or Rocky Marciano. Something began to change when I started hearing kids fantasize about being Willie Mays, Jimmy Brown, Bill Russell and Mohammad Ali. It may seem a small thing, but I think not. The kids were beginning the on-going process of seeing not primarily the color but the excellence.

Nat King Cole was the first Black to host a TV show. Black and white musicians and singers appeared together and expressed and modeled some affection for each other. But there was no black white kiss till 1968. Captain Kirk boldly went where no white TV actor had gone before with Lt. Uhura. Bill Cosby became popular--twice: Once in a spy drama and then as a doctor in a comedy. TV certainly played a part in mainstreaming integration and making the formerly unimaginable appear before our eyes--albeit in electronic form and not flesh.

TV has also helped on issues for gays and lesbians. We've come a long from Milton Berle in drag--not an image that either gay or straight people cherish--to Tom Hanks in drag, funny and silly but without ridicule. We've come from the late John Ritter in Three's Company pretending to be gay to Will and Grace. We have learned not to fear Ellen DeGeneres. Rosie's legacy is more difficult to assess. Many preferred her closeted incarnation of the Queen of Nice to the Queen of Mean. But that's okay too. Men, women, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, gay and straight are people and some we like, and it's okay not to like others--based on their individual virtues or foibles.

Women were assumed to be physically weak. They were not allowed to run the marathon. They did not play football or lift weights. Tennis and swimming were okay. We just knew they didn't have the toughness, the endurance and certainly not the upper body strength to compete in some sports. Just over ten years ago when a friend said her niece was a champion pole-vaulter I said, "No. Can't be. Surely you must mean she vaults over the horse in gymnastics." Everyone just knew that pole-vaulting takes upper body power that no girl could possibly have.

In 1987, on the 40th anniversary of Jackie Robinson, the first Black in Major League Baseball, Dodger General Manager Al Campanis was asked on Nightline why there weren't more African Americans in management positions in baseball. His reply was that they didn't have "the necessities." His remark was not based on hate, but like mine about a woman pole vaulting, just an abundance of ignorance and failure of vision.

That's the thing about failures of vision: We don't know what is possible. We certainly have no idea of the time it might take. Twenty years ago, I was sure AIDS would be cured in 10 years. When we landed on the moon in 1969, I thought we would have colonies on Mars by now. In 1960, when I saw Inherit the Wind, about the Scopes "Monkey Trial," I never dreamed Darwin and evolution would ever again be issues.

On the other hand, I also failed to credit our society with the ability to legalize--if incompletely--gay and lesbian marriage. I did not foresee America truly becoming the "melting pot" that we bragged about so well in advance of the facts. In my own little mostly Eastern European Jewish family, we are also ethnically Irish and Polish, Italian, Korean and Norse, Persian, African and Chinese. We are the world.

No, we have not reached the Promised Land. We have racism, sexism, homophobia, terrible class issues and inequality of education and opportunity, but we also have both hope and reason to hope.

When John F Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 Daniel Patrick Moynihan remarked, "We'll laugh again, but we'll never be young again." Tonight, with this milestone of progress--and only a milestone, not a finish line--I am laughing through my tears, and I am young again!

I was appalled to hear that a leading conservative Christian group, with a proven track record of Obama-bashing, would stoop to even momentarily calling on God to rain out Obama's acceptance speech.

I have defended Focus in the Family in the past, and I have good friends who work there (I was there just this past June). Yet in the aforementioned link, Rupert Murdoch's Times of London, no liberal "fruitcake" paper, calls Focus an "ultraconservative" group, and the moniker increasingly seems appropriate to me. It is sad that Focus staffers can believe that such prayers, even in "mildly humorous" jest, are consistent with their stated commitment to the "kingdom of God," as they attempt feebly and laughably to persecute a man with a sincere faith in Christ that he attempts to balance with the imperatives of a pluralistic democracy.

Their satirical aspirations aside, as one wag noted, Focus could have been better spending time praying for the safety of Americans threatened by hurricanes. This all adds to the notion that Focus is focused on its own "unequally yoked" marriage to secular society's right wing rather than to the inclusive "kingdom principles" of the scriptures to which they pay lip service.

My first reaction to Obama's acceptance speech is of wonder, and of envy. As a speechwriter, I wish I could write a speech with that mix of passion, directness and poetry. David Gergen, on CNN, just now called it less of a speech than a symphony, and I would agree.

This may turn out to be a transforming moment for this nation's political culture -- even if Obama does not win the election in this particular year. He showed a form of leadership that reminds me of an old comment by political commentator Jonathan Alter: Any one can take people where they already want to go; but true leaders can take people where only their better selves are willing to tread.

McCain will promise money and security to Americans next week. Obama said that America's true promise requires a commitment to sacrifice -- a shared commitment. And he said it beautifully.

To be quite honest, Hillary's speech was goosebump-worthy. Powerful, assertive and compelling--but was it convincing? Most of the speech was a highlight of Hillary's campaign-trail tales and a re-cap of her own personal political achievements. It seemed as though the Barack Obama endorsements were awkwardly placed throughout her speech, just for good measure. I'm scared for Obama--is he strong enough to carry this election toward a presidential victory? Throwing in the visual support of a Clinton or Kennedy might have surface results (i.e. goosebumps, tears of joy, liberal hey-day nostalgia, etc.) but is it enough? At this point, it doesn't seem so. Obama's support is flailing, so we'll have to see if the past few weeks' Biden-Kennedy-Clinton formula will bring election glory, come November.

Bill Clinton is always fun to watch. He was a great audience for Hillary's passionate, well-crafted and perfectly delivered talk. He smiled, laughed, wept a little and even qvelled. (Yiddish for bubbling over with joy at the accomplishments of one we love)

His own talk was equally masterful, of course brilliantly delivered and filled with the joy and charisma of someone who loves the large crowds and the spotlight at center stage.

With Bill one always has to look at the language and parse the words carefully. Clinton said that Obama "is the best man for the job" (of president). Now normally this would be just fine and would be understood as a full-throated endorsement. Some sensitive modern analysts might carp that it is unconscious sexism and doesn't recognize the possibility that women should be included. They would be wrong in this case.

Bill clearly knew exactly what he was saying. He believes that Obama is the best man for the job and that Hillary is still the best person for the job. Bill Clinton the loyal husband at last.

I'm not sure that Earl is prescient when he says that Clintonites won't heed Bill n' Hill's plea to get behind Barack.

Those Clintonites will soon stew while watching a Republican convention that will mock Obama for his association with the values of Billary.

Those Clintonites will watch Republicans air ads and publish books that demonize all liberal political values. Those Clintonites will recall how conservatives who recently hated McCain managed to rally around him once the Democratic alternative became clear, and that will help the Clintonites rally around Barack.

And if the uber-egotistical Bill and Hillary can support Barack, so can and will their fans.

Hillary and Bill Clinton were as good as their word and did everything they could to prod the legion of Hillary's still very diehard backers to get behind Obama. But it will take more than carefully scripted and orchestrated TV spots from Clinton blasting McCain and imploring America to get behind Obama to win this recalcitrant crop of Democrats over.

The bitter truth is that many did not vote for her because they liked her and her policies. They simply didn't like Obama. She was the only other Democrat on the ticket in the primary contests. And the reasons they don't like him -- racial fear, distrust, uncertainty, his inexperience, patriotism questions, and a too liberal voting record - won't magically vanish just because the Clintons tell them they should.

This week, the DNC was supposed to be all about Obama. But for many people, Hillary was the star -- their glorious falling star. And she lit up for one brilliant speech Tuesday night as she graciously -- and presidentially -- threw her support behind Obama. It was one of the most poignant moments of the race so far for me, and I don't even support Hillary.

I've been conflicted all along about the two democratic candidates, going so far as to pen a column endorsing Hillary before the February primary election in California. Immediately after the election I wrote a column changing my support to Obama, mostly because I realized not only could he win, but he would win.

My decision wavered again Tuesday night with Hillary's address and, at least, to me, the obvious sincerity of her plea for party unity. This is what it would have been like to have her as president. And it would have been good.

Even if Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama didn't utter Martin Luther King Jr.'s name once in his Democratic presidential acceptance speech, the legacy of King and the civil rights movement would hang heavy over Denver's Invesco Field. Obama's meticulously scripted decision to break convention tradition and give his acceptance speech in an open air site on the 45th anniversary of the March on Washington dispels the myth that Obama is a post civil rights generation African-American politician.

To his credit Obama never bought into the myth. It would be hard for him to anyway. He has frequently praised King and the civil rights movement, and has said that he has read and studied closely King's writings and speeches. But even if he hadn't read a word of King's speeches, Obama is not just the symbolic embodiment of the civil rights struggle, but an embodiment of the still unfinished business of the civil rights movement. That's with one added caveat and a risk. The caveat is that the civil rights challenges that King faced and that he so eloquently spoke of in his I Have a Dream speech 45 years ago are even more complex forty five years after the March on Washington. The risk is the great temptation to see Obama's historic candidacy as the end not the continuation of the civil rights battles.

The checklist of problems that King faced and Obama now faces includes astronomically high unemployment among young blacks, gaping racial disparities in the criminal justice system, resegregation of neighborhoods and schools, rampant housing discrimination, racial glass ceilings in corporate hiring and promotions, black family instability among the black poor, police abuse, racial profiling, and racially motivated hate crimes.

There are challenges that King didn't have to deal, or were barely issues a half century ago. One of those is that race problems in America are no longer exclusively a black and white problem. That's because blacks are no longer America's top minority. Latinos are. Immigration reform, the English Only wars, and the fight for political empowerment are the new civil rights concerns.

Obama also faces a glaring problem that King had only begun to wrestle with in his last days. That's the plight of the urban black poor. As America unraveled in the 1960s in the anarchy of urban riots, campus takeovers, and anti-war street battles, the civil rights movement and its leaders fell apart, too. Many of them fell victim to their own success and failure. When they broke down the racially restricted doors of corporations, government agencies, and universities, middle class blacks, not the poor, rushed headlong through them. More than four decades later there are now two black Americas. The fat, rich, and comfortable black America of Oprah Winfrey, Robert Johnson, Bill Cosby, Condoleezza Rice, Denzil Washington and the legions of millionaire black athletes and entertainers, businesspersons and professionals. They have grabbed a big slice of America's pie.

The black America of the poor is fragmented and politically rudderless. Lacking competitive technical skills and professional training, and shunned by many middle-class black leaders, they have been shoved even further to the outer margins of American society. The chronic problems of gang, and drug violence, family breakdown, police abuse, the soaring incarceration rate of young black males, the mounting devastation of HIV and AIDS disease in black communities, abysmally failing inner city public schools have made things even worse for them.

Then there's the political rise of, and influence of black conservatives, the black evangelicals, and the rancorous internal fights among blacks over gay marriage, gay rights, and abortion have tormented, perplexed, and forced civil rights leaders, who are mostly liberal Democrats to confront their own gender and political biases. They have tried to strike a halting, tenuous balance between their liberalism and the social conservatism of many blacks.

In his drive for the White House Obama has had to walk a tight line between those who demand that he say and do more about civil rights, and from those who watch hawk like for any hint that an Obama White House will tilt toward minorities. That would have rendered his campaign DOA on arrival.

Obama's decision to peg his acceptance speech to the March on Washington is not mere showy campaign symbolism. It stands as a fitting tribute to the civil rights movement that challenged the nation to make King's dream of justice and equality a reality. Obama faced that challenge as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, during his stints in the Illinois legislature and in the Senate. He'll face that same challenge in the White House. And that can hardly be called post civil rights.

Hillary got 18 million votes and Obama 18 million plus just a few. Dead heat. Call me a sore loser, but Michael Phelps didn't really win the Olympic 100 butterfly either. Milorad Cavic really won. Like Hillary, Cavic says, "Let it go," but I can't. Not in my nature.
What's 1/100 of a second? Nothing. Cavic worked his heart out. He comes from Serbia--a land the American media hates. Americans always win swimming. This was Serbia's turn.

Hillary worked her heart out, she trained, she charmed, she laughed and she cried. She worked hard enough and got close enough that she should have won. This was her turn. The media were against her too.

Anyone else suspicious of the timing by Omega and that Phelps endorses Omega? Anyone else think it isn't fair that Cavic has to swim against Phelps' disproportionately large feet? Given those huge advantages, losing by a mere 1/100 of a second can't be considered losing. I won't recognize Obama's, uh I mean, Phelps' gold. Unfair!
Bill

It all started innocently enough. At least I was innocent back then. Mayor Reardon called me and asked for my support. Before I could respond, I had to put him on hold to answer Governor Arnold's call. I felt very popular and honored to be asked for my support by two such important politicians whom I barely knew. Still, it was possible. I'd met Reardon on a bike ride some years before. Seemed a good chap and Arnold I'd known back in the early 70s at Gold's Gym in Venice. Reluctantly I asked Arnold to hold. When I got back to the mayor I realized that it was only a robocall. Of course, I didn't even know the term robocall back then. They didn't want to consult me. They were after what parents used to warn their girls about, "Just one thing." In this case that would be money. These days I just hang up on the robocalls.

However I have recently discovered the downside of signing up to get Obama's early notification his Veep pick. Sen. Obama is my new best friend. Since Saturday I have gotten three emails from Barack (as he signs his missives) and my new friend Joe Biden.

Ah, the New Media. Somewhere between networking and cyber-stalking. By phone, by junkmail, by Blackberry and iPhone, I am never beyond the reach of their important messages, pleas for help, support and yes, I know that eventually--sooner rather than later--they'll be looking for my money.

I know that this creation of an email and phone data bank can be an important tool in modern campaigning. It can raise money, give encouragement, organize events and enlist help in getting out the vote. But it can also be abused and turn people off. I will think twice about ever signing up again. In the mean time, am I really going to mark Obama's email as SPAM? Suddenly, I feel very powerful.

You know it's the August news slump when A) there are front page stories about which state has the most fatties, B) all halls of every legislative body in the land are empty and C) the news media is breathlessly waiting for the announcement of Barack Obama's running mate in the presidential election. I don't know about you, but I don't care that much unless it were Hillary. Wouldn't that be a fun match up? Death Race 2008.

On Friday evening this were really bad with broadcasts saying, excitedly that Obama had picked his candidate, but we still didn't know who it was. Talk about a non-story.

Truth is, unless the veep candidate is either truly fantastic (George Clooney), truly reprehensible (Dick Cheney) or truly goofball (Dan Quayle), who cares? I don't.

John Nance Garner, two term vice president under FDR, declared that the vice presidency was "not worth a warm bucket of spit." The actual word wasn't spit. It was "piss."

This is no longer true--as Dick Cheney has proved. There is power beyond the traditional attending of funerals for the famous and powerful who are not quite famous and powerful enough to warrant the president.

This season, with the public questioning of the readiness of Obama and the age and health of McCain, the VP candidate could play a role in people's decision making process.

While no VP candidate has brought a state since LBJ delivered Texas, this year it could make a difference in the election and more importantly in governing the nation.

I had to grin when I heard that the California Supreme Court restored a tiny bit of sanity to the criminal justice system. I'm talking about its narrow ruling telling a meddling, political pandering, eye on the voter's governor (i.e. Governor Schwarzenegger) who noses in when an inmate shows they're a cross between Mother Teresa and St. Paul behind bars to butt out and stop trying to keep the inmate in the slammer.

The court, of course, said that the things that should matter most in determining an inmate's release are good behavior, rehabilitation, productivity, remorse, and of course will they be a pussycat in their behavior if they're let loose.

Even though Schwarzenegger lost this round with the court the good Guv won't give up on trying to keep the good guys behind bars. It's bad morality and law, but good politics.

Rob is right that veeps don't matter -- except for when they do. Yes, not even Dan Quayle could sink George H.W. Bush, but that's because he was running on Ronald Reagan's coattails. Bush also had the good fortune of running against the pathetic Michael Dukakis.

Other veeps have made a big difference. Walter Mondale, Al Gore and Dick Cheney all brought D.C. street cred to their outsider running-mates. LBJ and Bush Sr. unified shaky coalitions -- which can be priceless if it frees up the candidate to focus his efforts on swing voters.

Such gains are hard to detect, but meaningful nonetheless. What's most important at this stage is that no one bungles his pick. Could you imagine if Obama had chosen John Edwards?

Veeps don't matter. The exemplar is 1988.

Trailing Michael Dukakis badly, Bush Sr. named a young laughingstock-in-training, Dan Quayle, as his mate, while Dukakis tapped the charismatic, statesmanly Lloyd Bentsen. Dukakis chortled about how Bush flunked his first test of judgment. But Dukakis got Willy-Hortoned to within an inch of his life by November of that year. VP candidates can't help or hurt this race, unless someone picks a minority with a Muslim middle name. Oh. Wait.

Here's a bet I'm up for: I'll bet dinner if one of the candidates actually gets a demonstrable, lasting poll boost through his selection.

Let's be brave and bet lunch. It's about time we were held responsible for our guesses. We brag when right and hide when wrong. Time to go out on a two limbs--one which will be sawed off by the time this goes to press.

Biden bloviates and has plagiarism scandal in past. Bayh is bland, boring and young. Kaine has no foreign policy experience, and General Clark has hoof in mouth disease.
Obama picks Chris Dodd! Dodd brings grey hair, experience, gravitas and humor. He follows the first law of Veeps: Do no harm.

McCain can't go pro-choice with Ridge or Lieberman. Jindal takes the youth and inexperience charge off the table. He hates Romney. Picks Pawlenty. Doesn't annoy right or terrify middle. Safe.

The ideal VP would complement the Presidential candidate - be the butter to his bread.

In the Obama camp, rumors are currently flying that Senator Joe Biden of Delaware is Obama's top choice (though Biden denies this). It makes sense: Biden, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, could provide the strength and muscle to Obama's foreign-policy Achilles' heel. That's achieving one goal when picking a VP (as Earl noted): making up for what you lack, a.k.a. do what'll reap the greatest benefits at the polls.

On the other hand, McCain is stuck in a controversial situation: he named pro-choice Tom Ridge (former governor of Pennsylvania and ex-head of the Department of Homeland Security) as a strong VP possibility. This leaves McCain in a political pickle - alienate the ultra-conservatives or attract those who are more in the center?

The rule of thumb in picking vice presidents is that they must do three things. They must balance the ticket, make up a real or perceived deficit that the presidential contender has, and hopefully help him win the presidency, or at the very least don't help him lose it. This rule of vice presidential thumb applies more than ever to presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain.
If Obama or McCain had been able to widen the poll gap comfortably over each other, the vice presidency would still be important, but not as crucial. That hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen. So this election the VP will do something that seldom happens, he will help seal or sink the deal for Obama or McCain.

A hundred college presidents say here that the over-21 drinking limit is a sham that actually promotes binge drinking. I agree.

The Culture Code, by famed marketer Clotaire Rapaille, contains a gripping analysis of America's peculiar relationship with alcohol. Americans view alcohol almost the way fundamentalist jihadists do -- as a naughty instrument of moral rebellion. It's naughty to the MADD crowd, and it's naughty to the frat-boy crowd. The naughtiness is the very fuel for the bingeing.

Europeans don't binge in nearly the same way (except for British dockworkers and football fans), because alcohol isn't "naughty" there. It's something that brings out the taste of good food. Ten-year-olds are given tastes of it and are encouraged to cultivate a sophisticated appreciation of it, and so it becomes demystified.

And after all, anything that mom and dad want you to try can't be all that cool. But if mom and dad and Uncle Sam forbid you from drinking it, now that is cool, and that increases the temptation to do it in feckless abundance.

As reported by CNN, UCLA has refused to offer academic credit to some Christian schools' courses on science and history, jeopardizing the admissions prospects of graduates from those schools. Good for UCLA and the UC system.

One religious school administrator offered this other-worldly defense of his school's academics:

Our teachings reflect that God exists ...whereas UC wants courses to be taught from a perspective that there is no God.

And one student offered this defense of her religious school's curriculum:

When you look at our science curriculums -- we're given every theory from intelligent design to evolution... whereas it's more narrow in public schools so I think we're given a broader spectrum.

Sure, that's great. But it's fair to say that, at any school where creationism is taught as a legitimate theory, evolution will be taught as a weaker cousin. In other words, such a school intentionally places its ideology above the ideology of empiricism, which drives American higher education.

So they've made their choice. And choices have consequences. They'll need to go to Azusa Pacific instead of UCLA.

Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf wanted to help his country, but he also wanted to cling to power, because he convinced himself he was essential to his country's salvation.

That's to be expected. The gene that makes a person the kind of alpha dog who leads others is the same gene that makes a person cling to a leadership role after he's no longer welcome.

This wouldn't have happened if Musharraf listened to my humble advice a few years ago... (Please forgive the dated photo.) Instead, he's attempting to choose between resigning in disgrace or being impeached. I'm not sure he's being handled wisely or fairly, but this wouldn't have happened if he focused more on succession and less on personal success.

Obama and his advisors made a terrible mistake today. They caved to the Clintons. They withered before the whining, needy grievance of Bill and Hillary. They had already given Hillary Tuesday night primetime, Bill Wednesday night prime time, and now they got rolled into Hillary having her name put into nomination, getting a roll call vote and even letting Hillary's media team do her own set up and filming.

Bill is despondent because he is no longer in charge of the party and was not a successful kingmaker--or queenmaker in this case. Hillary's motives are less clear; however, what is clear is that she had the choice of saying no, of not pressing and insisting on this. Bill predictably passed up the chance for peace and was willing to risk the election for his narcissism. Hillary just miscalculated. Her recalcitrance will cost Obama in several ways.

Her last woman standing hard-enders cannot be assuaged. There is no therapy or ransom that will satisfy them. "Catharsis" is what Sen. Clinton claimed her supporters deserved. We should remember is a term from Greek tragedy. It usually follows the death of the hero. Nice.

Most importantly, in this horrible miscalculation by Obama, is the material it will provide to the Republicans. We can predict that their talking point will be: If he can't stand up to Hillary, how can we trust him with Putin and Ahmadinejad?

It's a phony issue but possibly an effective weapon, aimed at the sense of uncertainty some have concerning Obama's toughness. Obama has lost the appearance of control over the up-coming convention.

The Republicans run ads picturing Obama between two white blonde starlets, with phallic towers and obelisks in the background. The Clintons unhelpfully counteract this image of potency by trying to un-man him. This is not good for Obama and the democrats.

I had lunch today with Michael Chertoff*, a bevy of Secret Service guys (Yes, I only saw guys) and I'm guessing an undisclosed candidate for the presidency. I never saw the guest of honor but am guessing that he was getting a security briefing from the Secretary of Homeland Security.

But that's not the story. Since the restaurant was on Robertson near Beverly, there were bevies, hordes, squads and pods of Paparazzi--lurking and cruising for Paris, Lindsey or some other truly important person who would be recognizable on sight. Having seen the police motorcycles, the three Highway Patrol units and the four black SUVs, they knew something was up.

When I left the restaurant, they asked me who was in there, and I told the press gaggle that Michael Chertoff had just left. These affiliates of the media, if not the press, all said in a happy chorus of ignorance "Who?"

As a society, we have interesting priorities. Sigh.

* Okay, when I say I had lunch with him, I mean we shared the same restaurant.

For Californians who like to grouse about our state tax burden (such as myself), turns out, it could be worse. We could live in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Maryland or Hawaii.

In fact, according to new study by The Tax Foundation, California ranks as the sixth highest tax burden state in the nation, with about 10.5 percent of our income going to state taxeshere. We're No. 6! We're No. 6! Read the entire study (if you dare) .

Now someone needs to do a comprehensive study in the state that wastes most of its taxes on non-essentially spending. No doubt, California would once again be in the top 10.

The lowest tax burden state? Alaska. Trouble is, you gotta live there.

Is there a difference between racism and just acting stupid? The Spanish Olympic basketball team posed slanting their eyes by pulling them with their index fingers.

We're predictably horrified and assume that the copying of ethnic features is and racist. Is it? We're pretty much in agreement that the minstrel days are gone and that white performers should not put on blackface. There is a current controversy with the film Tropical Thunder and white actor Robert Downey in blackface (for the purpose of satirizing white Hollywood). There is another white actor in Jew face with exaggerated Semitic features.

Does intent mean anything or is acting as any other ethnicity automatically wrong and racist? When white kids copy Black jargon are they racists, stupid or both?

Here's some elementary logic, based on what's being said on American talk radio:
• All Muslims see themselves as part of a jihad against non-Muslims
• Barack Hussein Obama plans to slip Al Qaeda a key to the White House backdoor on the afternoon of January 20, 2009.
• Obama should be able to sit back and expect 99% of the Muslim-American vote.

But the talk-show freaks, and maybe Obama himself, would be surprised by a growing movement: Muslims Against Barack.

One devoted Muslim, my Pakistani-American mother, trashed the Great Brown Hope the other day, responding to Obama's threats to hammer militants in the Pakistani northwest frontier more aggressively than Pakistanis are willing to.

"Obama just wants to march into the northern areas and start shooting," she says. "Doesn't he know that the extremists will just go south, into Islamabad and Lahore and everywhere else? Doesn't he know they will eventually go into India? Does he really think he can stop the extremists in the northern area without angering everybody and destroying our whole country?"

It's a valid point, and it brings up a question: Why does a kind-hearted Pakistani-American grandmother show more foreign-policy acumen than an Ivy League-trained University of Chicago professor? One obvious reason is that, although Mama and Obama both love America, Mom cares deeply about Pakistan and Obama cares deeply about shutting up the hawks who mock him.

Mama's comments about Obama came just moments after she screened for me a DVD of "In the Name of God." That provocative 2007 Pakistani film electrified Pakistan with its depiction of a moderate Pakistani family wrenched by fundamentalist forces. To Pakistanis already struggling with the religious civil war depicted in the film, Obama sends them into fits of rage by his threats to violate Pakistan's sovereignty in spectacular fashion (whereas the Bush administration is set on violating it more quietly and semi-secretly).

Obama is a decent man - this "secret Muzzie" is in fact the most genuinely Christian presidential candidate of the past generation, in the way that he seems to be fueled by Christian character traits such as grace, forgiveness and redemption. Yet he is also a weak man - a new breed of "chicken hawk." He counters the charges of weakness by morphing from Obama to "Oh, Bomb 'em."

The unintended consequences of power matter very little to the hammer that is trying to prove its power, but those consequences matter very much to the thumb that happen to be in its way.

Since 9/11, Pakistan's army may not have time decimated sparse northwestern villages as harshly as the U.S. would like. But Pakistanis realize the collateral damage done by the Israeli government in its efforts to root out terrorists. It creates a Hydra effect - and before that effect reaches America, it reaches cities such as Islamabad and Lahore. So Pakistanis are hardly getting out of the way of terrorists in order to allow terrorists to reach America: Pakistanis know they themselves are directly in the path of such anarchists, and they are debating how to tame the threat with minimal unintended consequences. Obama is not helping much. Small wonder that he skipped Pakistan on his recent global victory tour.

Finally someone other than an editorialist calls L.A. City Hall pols on their juvenile antics. In getting City Controller Laura Chick and City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo to cease fire on the audit fight. It was the was the topic of our editorial today, Council President Eric Garcetti smacks the two for their childishness that lead to one Delgadillo suing Chick -- at our expense, of course:

"We need our elected officials to act like adults and to be adults, and so we're trying to step in and provide that responsibility to the voters."

M'reow!

File this one under "Campaigns designed to fail." Some group I've never heard of called the #don'tGo Movement is asking us to, um, go somewhere. To Washington, D.C. that is. To protest high gas prices. That's right.

Some things you just have to read for yourself. Here's the first two grafs of the press release:

#dontGo Movement founder Eric Odom today called upon Americans nationwide to leave their homes for Washington, D.C. to protest high gasoline prices.

"Since Congress is at home for recess, we figure that there should be some angry Americans waiting for them when they finally come back to Congress," said Odom.

To recap. If you're mad about gas prices you should go to D.C., presumably using some of your precious gas budget, to protest -- even though politicians are on vacation. Hmmm. Good luck with that.

In case you were wondering, the oddly named "movement" appears to be just another presidential campaign website, this one with a conserva-tilt. Can't say I see a whole lot of future for a group with such a perplexing name and pointless call to action.

Los Angeles City Councilman Jose Huizar was fined more than $14,000 by the City Ethics Commission today for misusing his office-holder accounts to investigate former LAUSD school board member David Tokofsky. Is it creepy he used these funds to gather intel on another politician? Heck yeah. That money is supposed to pay for constituent things. Only a devious mind could interpret that to mean investigating a politician for another political entity.

Butt what's creepier is that this fine is barely a slap on the wrist to a tied-in politico like Huizar. A fine like that would sink me and many of us working schlubs (these days even the DWP's s $2.50-a-month surcharge for a bin I don't have has got me worried). But it won't even cause a ripple in Huizar's life. He's already gathering donations for defense funds. You can bet he will get them.

What we really need are punishments for politicians that work: Imagine how a ban on holding or attending a press conference for six months might put the fear of the Ethics Commission into a publicity-minded pol. Or no legislation for a year. How about they lose their city-owned car?

This is warning to every Angelenos to open anything -- no matter -- how dull that the bureaucracy of sanitation sends to your house, and then scrutinize your bi-monthly DWP bill.

Why? Because otherwise you might find you are paying even more than $36-a-month trash pickup fee that begins next month to pay for cops, raises and anything else City Hall needs money for. You might find a surcharge for having extra capacity bins, even if you don't have them.

Today the city announced it would start charging people with more than one bin.

Sanitation officials estimate that 77,000 Angelenos have extra bins that the city has neglected to charge for, resulting in an annual loss of $8.5 million. Notices were sent out to those residents, and about 1,000 chose to return their bins.

Residents who retained their bins should expect to pay $5 a month for the black and brown units, which hold garbage and horse manure, and $2.50 a month for the green bins that hold yard waste.

That sounds reasonable except that my personal experience is that the city doesn't have good records of who has more bins than they should. Here's my story:Earlier this summer I got a note from the B of S department saying that i would have to start paying this surcharge, even though I only had the normal amount of bins -- one blue, one green, one dark brown. Their records said I had two green bins, which I don't.

This was puzzling to me until I recalled a time several years ago when the city was doing bin-replacement detail. (I ever wrote a column about it.) The way it worked is that bins out on a certain trash day would be emptied by one team, followed by another team that would replace the bin with a new one, whether it needed replacing or not.

On the day the green bins were scheduled to be replaced, I didn't have any yard waste. I didn't take it out. I didn't get a new bin; the old one is still fine so I didn't call anyone. And the city inaccurately recorded that it gave me a new one, but didn't take the old one away. Bingo. Surcharge for me.

The customer service person said she would flag my account, but I'm willing to bet I still get hit with the charge come September. If you had missed any bin replacement, you should assume the city will charge you too. I know it's just a little amount, but its the principal. Banks, credit card companies, cell phone service providers, airlines, just about everyone is killing us with fees. There's got to be a line somewhere.

I guess I'll follow up my piece from Friday, "The Coming War?", with "The Current War." The tragedy is that one does not exclude the other, and war with Iran is not made any less likely by the current war in Georgia.

Our good friend Vladimir Putin (can we agree that president Medvedev is a cipher?) has invaded north Georgia. His provocation was Georgia's assertion of authority over its own territory. He had set this up, long before the actual provocation by issuing Russian passports to ethnic Russians in Ossetia. So, once Georgia tried to crack down on the separatists, he could sweep in to protect Russian citizens. This is a time-honored tactic used by the Nazis in the Seudeten Land as well as all through the 19th Century as Germany and France fought over Alsace.

Our American position on this--in so far as we have one--is not very coherent. We would like Putin to stop and to play nice. This desire, were it to be fulfilled, would be without precedent both for Russia and Putin. Secretary Rice, an expert on Soviet/American relations, apparently is not so current on Russian/American relations and has done nothing of merit or use in checking Russia's hegemonic ambition and desire to re-integrate its former republics back under Russian control. That Russia's ambition also includes its former client states--Poland, Latvia and Lithuania is also obvious. That our efforts to check their ambitions have been futile is also clear.

Our incoherence and ineptitude may have actually been a part of the problem. We not only did nothing to stay Russian ambition, we may have actively, if unintentionally, fed it. As we expanded NATO (an idea and institution whose day has past), we have been deaf to Russian concerns about our expansion of power and influence to their very borders. Our friendship with Georgia did Georgia no favor. Our desire to install missiles in Poland and other former Soviet satellite states increases Russia's sense of persecution and vulnerability. We are pushing our sphere of influence towards their borders as their economic power has grown, largely through oil, and they feel a complicated and conflicted set of emotions.

They feel the power of their economy. They feel threatened by the further splintering of their former republics and movements for independence from various non-Russian ethnic minorities. They feel shame for their defeat in Afghanistan and frustration over their inability, despite disproportionate violence, to calm and control Chechnya. They feel powerful in their influence in the Middle East and unhappy with American policies in, what they consider to be, their own backyard. This is why they are making more and more noises about increasing aid and trade with Cuba, Venezuela and other parts of our backyard. They are committed to being as in our face as they see us in theirs.

It is important to understand Russian interests and drives. This is not to defend their brutality but to realistically be able to understand their drives, ambitions and policy choices. So far, we have not demonstrated a nuanced understanding of who they are, and therefore we keep getting surprised when they act as they have always acted. They also react to our policies in ways that are completely predictable.

We should also note that along with their nostalgia for a greater Russia and discomfort with independent and western-leaning regimes on their borders, there are also major oil pipelines running through Georgia. They understand, as we should, that we are involved in a struggle for influence and control of those pipelines. These are all powerful reasons for them to ignore us and to be as unhelpful as possible with Iran, the Middle East or any other place where our interests do not converge.

When I originally saw this article I thought it was about L.A. wasting money on freeway renovation.

But no, it's literally a story about a man (code named "Mr. Yee") whose backpack flew open and out poured $2,000 worth of cash.

Incredible. The one time I actually wish I were on the 10.

I'd never have guessed that The Dark Knight would rise to #3 in the all-time domestic box-office chart in just a month, with a chance to move into #2 by next weekend. After the film spent three weeks at the top of the charts, I might have imagined that the country would run off instead to see Pineapple Express this past weekend for some comedic catharsis. But Batman topped the charts again.

It is a decent comic-book movie, but I disagree with the critics who see it as so much better than the rest of the lot. It is quasi-profound, but not profound in fact.

I also quibble with the notion that Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker is Oscar-worthy. Jack Nicholson played a far more compelling Joker some two decades ago, with more range and charisma and convincingness. Ledger's Joker is just creepy, and creepy is one of the easier roles to play. The overwhelming and irrational human sentiment that gushes up when a life ends prematurely has much to do with the acclaim he is getting. There, I said it...

Yet I suspect that the sullenness of The Dark Knight, the despair of Ledger, and the morose quality of Christian Bale must in some way tap into something happening in our culture at large. We need to get our nation on a couch.

My native Pakistan has been called "the world's most dangerous place" by the Economist, Newsweek and other major publications. Yet having been there this summer, I suspect it's not as dangerous as it is dysfunctional.

Amidst food riots, mass poverty and illiteracy, and growing tensions between the moderate majority and a fundamentalist minority, Pakistan's elected leaders have decided that one action is most essential: impeaching Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf is far from perfect and very far from popular. But I do think they have a few other things to worry about. In many ways, it is politics in its classic sense, and we as Americans shouldn't feel too far removed from it, as we pay $400 billion every year in interest alone on our swelling debts, while politicians distract us with bread, circus and wars of catharsis.

There is an increasing possibility and even likelihood of a major strike against Iran--which would loose, in the words of Yeats, "mere anarchy" on the world. Most great wars are not simply the failure of diplomacy--though they certainly are that. Most wars are great blunders and seldom serve the ambitions of the warring parties.

Iran looks like it has badly miscalculated its own interests in going nuclear. They seem willfully ignorant of what happened to Saddam Hussein. Whatever you think of the Iraq war, Saddam actively pretended to have biochemical weapons and wanted his regional enemies in to worry about him obtaining nuclear weapons. He played hide and seek with the UN inspectors because, like a young street thug, he wanted the other guys to think he was packing more heat than he had. He could have stopped the invasion by throwing open the doors, but he calculated that we wouldn't pull the trigger. A mistake with consequences for all of us.

Ahmadinejad seems to be reading Saddam Hussein's insane playbook. He brags about the centrifuges. He photoshops pictures of missile tests, adds missiles and changes the dates. He is like a puffer fish swelling up the appearance of his power for status. He does not believe we will attack him or that we will allow Israel to attack him in order to knock out his nuclear arms program. And yes, few experts believe that he is acquiring nuclear power, building reactors and refining plutonium to heat the houses of Teheran. He sees that nuclear power gives a certain kind of protection. He remembers that President Bush said that North Korea's acquiring of nuclear weapons was unacceptable, but that after their first test, instead of punishing them, we reached out to them and renewed negotiations. This lesson is not lost on Ahmadinejad.

It may be a tragically wrong lesson however. He and the Mullahs may believe we engage in empty threats and don't have either the military ability or the political will to strike them. They do not accurately factor Israel into this dangerous equation.

Israelis understand that they are in the middle of a fight much larger than their own. There is a clash of civilizations, religions and ethnicities, but the Jewish-Muslim struggle is over regarded. The larger struggle is Arab (mostly Sunni) versus Persian (mostly Shiite). Israel has some common cause with their traditional Arab adversaries. They both want to stop Iranian hegemonic ambition. Israelis also understand that Iran is not a mad state. Iran has been, by American and Israeli standards, a bad actor, a problem and an exporter of violence and death. But Iran has not been an irrational player on the chessboard of the region. They have not in fits of pique or passion sacrificed major pieces for no reason. They have aided others, used others, financed and armed others. They have been cunning and not crazy.

There is no evidence that Iran would launch an attack against Israel. They know that this would inevitably lead to Israel using nuclear weapons against Iranian targets--both military and civilian. There is no evidence that, save for a very few truly crazy, there is a great hunger for Armageddon and the rising of the Hidden Imam. I do not think that Iran presents a clear and present danger greater than the already nuclear armed and nearly failed state of Pakistan. I am far more concerned with loose nukes from Pakistan or the former Soviet Union being bought and used by terrorists--probably Al Qaeda (Sunni) than the Nation of Iran.

But then I do not live in Israel, and the price for being wrong is high beyond calculation. In the Middle East there is a tradition of trash talking, of making threats and a certain kind of braggadocio. Iran's rhetoric certainly fits into this pattern. However, Israel and the entire Jewish World do not have the luxury of assuming that Iran is only engaging in trash talk. One of the tragic lessons of the 20th Century is that when someone says that they mean to destroy you, eliminate you, annihilate you, they might be blustering, but you cannot assume so. Hitler may have seemed like a clown in 1929 or even 1933, the threats and plans enumerated in Mein Kampf may have seemed far-fetched, but they came horrifyingly true.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not have real power today, and Iran may have been a rational player up till now, but Israel cannot take that chance.

Thus here we find ourselves today--Iran looking for power and hegemony in the Middle East and acting puffed up and proud. Israel knowing that it cannot meaningfully survive a nuclear attack and has only two choices. One to make sure that the price of its destruction is the complete destruction of its attacker. The other is to pre-empt and prevent Iran from getting the weapons that could put Israel's existence in peril. This is not a happy choice for Israel, for Iran or for the world.

The world is pretty passive and the Europeans, as per their tradition, are stalemated and unlikely to do anything constructive. It is not too late to avoid a ruinous lose-lose war, but Iran will have to back away from the brink. They can. Israel cannot--both politically and for its very survival. Time is not on the side of peace.

A small item on the Sacramento Bee's web site caught my attention today as it illustrates how politicians in California see themselves as royalty of the sort. Here it is, in total:

The Department of Motor Vehicles announced it's eliminating Saturday hours this month to cope with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's layoffs, but one office remains open - if a bit hard to find. The unmarked DMV office, room 121, buried in a dark corner of the Legislative Office Building across the street from the Capitol, is devoted to serving the Legislature and its staff. The catch: that section of the building is not open to the public and security refuses to give directions.

I called DMV Spokesman Michael Marando this morning to confirm this. He said this is somewhat misleading as the office never was open on Saturday (which makes sense. What pol is going to work on Saturday?). But still, they need their own office?

Who knew at the core of Nirvana's famous anthem there was a swinging beat? Paul Anka, that's who. While walking my doggies through a deserted grove in Elysian Park this morning, I was listening to a podcast of an previous Fresh Interview with the former Rat Packer. They played an bit of his retooling of this iconic tune from my misspent youth, so of course I had to waste some time finding it and listening it on Youtube. Now, I share it with all of you folks. Enjoy it. I did.

I love how when gas prices soar suddenly everyone is an expert on oil production and has a theory on how gas prices can be lowered. Just drill more and all our problems will be solved. Just use oil reserves and wait it out. Just develop the car that runs on water and who cares about oil.

Well, I'm no expert on oil production and I doubt any of the friendlyfire folk are either, but I do know this: We have got to change our oil consumption ways, not just find new sources.

More oil drilling rigs off California coast and in ANWAR might give us some relief -- in a few years once the bids have been figured out for which companies, and the exploration completed and the rigs set up -- and it might also impact the environment. More oil rigs increases the possibility of an accident.

Besides, this is clearly just a political wedge issue. democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won't budge on opening up oil drilling and giving W a least a small victory to slink out of office on. And the GOP and all its oil supporters are going to use it to sow animosity among consumers who are getting hit at the pump.

Is it possible to discuss energy policy during an election season? Probably not. Both candidates are smarter than their policies but need pander to their hardcore corps.

Despite the pain at the pump, gasoline is still cheap by world standards. Our pump prices don't reflect the true costs of security paid in blood and money to protect oil fields, pipelines and friendly governments. The 20% of our oil that comes from Middle East and Venezuela could easily be compensated for with lower speed limits and better fuel mileage standards.

Cars with 50 mpg averages going 50 mph would make up the 20% and radically reduce our annual automotive death rate of 42,000. Fewer wrecks would get us to our destinations quicker.

Let's do it now!

Bush knows better. Dick Cheney knows better. The oil and gas shot callers know better. But Chris still buys into the totally debunked notion that more off shore drilling will save Americans a nickel now or in the foreseeable future on gas prices. The oil companies already have access to 70 plus billion untapped barrels of crude in coastal waters according to the Federal Mineral Management Service. Yet where's the pumping and the savings?

Even if they pumped every barrel this wouldn't loosen our grip on the Saudis, Venezuelans, or the oil man on the moon. They'd just sell the stuff on the open market to the highest Chinese or Indian bidder. Forget the offshore drilling fraud, Chris, you're on much safer ground when you pitch conservation and alternative fuels as the answer to America's seemingly insatiable gas guzzle binge.

I'm amazed by how only one in four Republicans in California worries about global warming as a serious threat, while half of independents and seven out of ten Democrats feel it's a big deal. Are we all reporting to different science labs each morning? No, we report to different political echo chambers each morning.

That's a nice way to mess up our children's world (well, your children; I'm gratefully progeny-free). Expanded drilling may be a short-term solution, but it's not as good a solution as curbing demand and taxing those arrogant Hummer drivers back to the Stone Age.

I've long thought that California's own Dianne Feinstein would be the ideal running-mate for Barack Obama. She is everything he is not: Older, experienced, female, and moderate. She would woo back the Baby Boomer women who are still bent out of shape about Hillary's not being on the ticket. And she would alleviate some of the concerns many Jewish Americans have about Obama.

As for McCain, I'm not sure there are any good choices for a campaign in this much trouble. Bobby Jindall's name gets tossed around a lot because he's young, non-white, and conservative. But he's got even less experience than Obama, and as such would take away what might be McCain's strongest advantage. JC Watts would be better, IMO.

But what do you think? The veepstakes is the topic of the Q&A forum in this Sunday's paper. Send in your suggestions for the candidates, 125 words or fewer, to opinionated@dailynews.com, or just post them in the comments field.

For years, I've driven past the oil derricks along the Santa Barbara coast, where there hasn't been a spill in four decades, and the rigs certainly haven't hurt real-estate values. They sit, innocuously, like specks on the horizon, making me wonder: Are the majority of Californians right to support off-shore drilling?

True, drilling is not the solution to our energy woes. But can't it be part of the solution? Couldn't increased domestic oil production help reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- a vital national-security need? What if we packaged drilling with a tariff on foreign oil, and used the revenues to fund green-power alternatives?

Why does the energy debate invariably boil down to either drilling or clean alternatives. Why can't the answer be and/both?

* Headline amended to belatedly give Paris her due.

Pakistani President Musharraf faces impeachment at the hands of his political rivals, and it again reminds us of the complexities and vexing inconsistencies involved in "spreading democracy" in the Mideast and South Asia.

We have preached democracy, but we have justifiably formed pragmatic alliances with strongmen such as Musharraf in the war on terror. The problem arises when we show our frustration with his democratically elected opposition -- at this point, we reveal ourselves to be less interested in democracy than in getting our own way. At that point, we lose all moral authority in those lands, as countless surveys have revealed.

Pakistanis aren't pro-terrorism; they in fact face a far greater threat in their everyday lives than Americans do. But they are not convinced that the American military solution is the answer, either. The result is that American leaders and media now posture about how this "stalwart ally" is in fact an American enemy.

It worries me greatly, as someone with roots there. I do see a crisis coming.

Jack Johnson is set to perform at UCLA in order to raise awareness for the L.A. River. And while I'm not a particular fan of Johnson's, I think this summer's an opportune time to bring back the River into the L.A. spotlight. LA Weekly ran a feature this week on a group of performance artists called the Mud People who kayak down the river's modern-day flood channels in order to disprove the common notion that the River is not navigable. The Daily News ran a similar article on the L.A. River Expedition 2008 Kayak Team last month.

There will always be debate regarding whether or not the River can be salvaged. Historically transformed into a concrete flood channel following a devastating flood in the 1930s, the River has since undergone constant efforts for revitalization and eco-restoration. Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes has championed the River's natural defense.

If the River were to be saved, that'd be a huge relief for L.A. both aesthetically and and economically - currently, L.A. spends about $1 billion a year importing water from outside sources like the Colorado River. But it will take more than idealism to revitalize the River from its current state into a key resource for our city's standard of living.

Perhaps Johnson can provide some relief.

I can't tell if this photo emailed to the Daily News' letters to the editor account is a cleverly disguised campaign stunt by Obama's people to win over the Christian fundamentalists, a note from an honest-to-God regular dude who thought the trick of the light was amusing, or insane people who think that Obama really is an angel sent from heaven to do some savin' n' smitin' n' stuff.

In any case, here's the photo and below is the message from the guy who sent it out. You decide, but I have my doubts considering the guy is an animator and therfore a skilled image manipulator. But I can tell you one thing for sure. Obama might be a rock star, but he's no angel.

Earlier this year when Obama visited Dallas, I took a set of photos. Once they were downloaded, I noticed an amazing sight. An angelic light seemed to be emanating from the famous candidate. If you look closely, there appears to be a dove of peace at the light's center.

All kidding aside, at the moment I clicked this picture, I caught a lens flair due to a camera's flash. By coincidence or God's intervention, the rear placement of the reflection made me laugh. I realize that lens flairs can be faked, but I guarantee this photo, though cropped, is untouched. I have the original which shows another bright area from a flashing camera which generated the flair.

One last note... These are the last photos this camera ever took. It ceased working after the photos were downloaded.

You and others in the media are welcome to publish this photo with credit given to:

Bryan Koeff
www.bryankoeff.com

The celebrity figures she will run for the presidency since that "white-haired dude" seemed to endorse her. In this silly video on www.funnyordie.com, she accepts. And then trots out an energy policy that actually makes some sense. Scary!

Former President Bill Clinton was probably shocked at the storm of rage that he drew back in January with his apparent Jesse Jackson slough off of presumptive Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's win in the South Carolina Democratic primary. And there was good reason. Midway through his second term, Clinton got higher popularity marks from blacks than Jackson, former Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and Al Sharpton. Everywhere he went in black communities he was mobbed. They ogled him with swooning, adoring, near coming of the Messiah adoring eyes. In a moment of pure runaway rapture or more likely silliness he was even dubbed the "black president."

There is absolutely no public record that Clinton did anything to damp down the black adulation or plead openly to knock off the black president stuff. It was a kid in a candy store dream for him and he reveled with kiddie delight in the near reverence that blacks held him in.

It likely would have stayed that way even when Obama came along. The kicker was Hillary and his over the top, frenzied barnstorm for her. There was nothing wrong with this. He owed her a lot both personally and politically, so a sprint to the barricades to get her the Democratic presidential nomination was appropriate. In fact, the Jackson quip that got him in hot water with blacks initially was not really out of line.

He simply said that Jackson won the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary twice and ran a good campaign in the process. It was a factual and accurate statement. Jackson did win the Democratic primary, actually then it was a caucus, in that state in 1984 and again in 1988 as well as a handful of other states that year. He did it by grabbing most of the black vote. He ran a good campaign to win it, yet he still didn't get the nomination. There was nothing demeaning, disrespectful, or racially offensive in what Clinton said about Jackson, and absolutely nothing that really denigrated Obama. Even Jackson didn't snap at Clinton for the remark. In fact he said that he didn't think what Bill said about him was racist.

If anyone else had made the same comparison it would have likely passed under the media and public radar scope. But it came from Clinton. So the fury of blacks at him soared precisely because of their past admiration of him. His apparent attack on Obama was considered a betrayal by him and not just a political observation or criticism.
Hillary quickly caught the drift and tried to do damage control by apologizing for Bill's apparent racial insensitivity. Clinton might have slid by with a minimal surface wound. But there was Obama. He won the South Carolina primary and he got a fair amount of white votes. This was anything but a Jesse Jackson rerun. When asked about Clinton's comparison of his win to Jackson's, he subtly went for the jugular by curtly dismissing the remark saying that the voter's saw him through a "different lens."
As Obama racked up win after primary win and black Obamamania reached zenith heights, Bill stepped up his Hillary barnstorm. That made him more than just racially suspect to many blacks; it marked him as a racial enemy who threatened to dash their dream of getting not an honorary, but a genuine African-American in the White House.

When Obama was unable to shake Hillary from the contest, it increased Bill's determination to keep Hillary in the hunt. The attacks on him flew hotter and heavier. Black Democrats, including his former pals and allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, accused him of bullying, browbeating and using dirty tactics against Obama. Clinton wisely held his tongue. By then even he caught the drift. But that didn't mean that he was ready to take a vow of racial forgiveness. He still holds a grudge against the former chair of the Caucus, South Carolina Democrat James Clyburn for what he plainly sees as his leading the racial mugging of him.

Obama took the cue and repeatedly rebuked Clinton for ganging up on him. The not so subtle inference was that they were ganging up on him because he was black.

Clinton remained justifiably perplexed by this sharp about face by blacks. He just didn't get it. But a big reason that he was so popular, and dubbed the black president, in reality had little to do with his charm and charisma, and everything to do with the frustration, fatigue and anger of blacks at more than a decade of GOP presidents who thumbed their nose at them as well as black Democrats and civil rights organizations. Clinton was their breath of spring time political fresh air, and they deeply inhaled and exhaled him every chance they got.

That's long past. And Clinton's tepid endorsement of Obama isn't likely to make many blacks restore the title of "black" president to him.

I think the issue of an Olympic boycott is moot, and I wasn't particularly pushing it. I'm more concerned with decency--or rather indecency. I admitted at the start that no nation is pure and implied than virtually any criticism of another nation can smell of either hypocrisy or moral blindness.

Yet I fundamentally disagree with Earl's strong statement that our many (and accurately rehearsed by Earl) American sins make criticism of other nations wrong. I am an American--and an Angelino, a Californian and a Jew. There are a lot of identifiers I can claim.

The fundamental moral and ethical question is if the imperfections of any of my categories should silence me and make me stop speaking my truth to others? Given America's history of slavery, racism, sexism and economic inequality, is all criticism by Americans (not by America) wrong? Must I remain silent on Kenya or Zimbabwe and have no position on trying Serbian war crimes?

If so, then Palestinians are hypocrites for criticizing Israeli policies while they continue to kill each other. American Blacks have no standing for objecting to police brutality, as they suffer numerically more from Black on Black violence. Given the treatment of Palestinians, Israelis should remain silent on Darfur.

The fact that our nations or tribes are imperfect must not silence our own moral voices and restrain our ethical hands. As individuals we must, despite our civil and personal failings, be able to bear witness to our values.

...if this is the best the GOP can do to criticize Obama:

From a press release emailed today by the California Republican Party:

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released its latest web video entitled "Barack Obama Forgot Latin America." The web video points out what was missing from Barack Obama's speech in Berlin as a citizen of the world any mention of a city or country in Latin America. As a citizen of the world, Barack Obama failed to mention a major part of the world.

They forgot to add this crucial part: "neiner-neiner, stoopid head!"

What's next, press releases harping about how he forgot to wear a flag lapel pin? Oh wait, that already happened.

Caption: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., waves after speaking at the Victory Column in Berlin, Thursday, July 24, 2008.