In An Alternate Times-World (Old Times There Have Been Forgotten)

With Obama as a launching point Timeswoman Kate Zernike writes about Presidential charisma; at one point she takes up the question of whether Kennedy's charisma could have pushed his Civil Rights legislation through the Congress, or whether (as Hillary noted in New Hampshire) it took the more pragmatic dealmeister, LBJ.  However, Ms. Zernike goes historically and hysterically awry with this:

When Mrs. Clinton talked about how it took Johnson as well as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to achieve the rights legislation, Ms. Goodwin said, “she was absolutely right.” Johnson’s great mastery was to get the support of Southern Republicans. “It required his understanding of absolutely every single senator,” Ms. Goodwin said. “They were a team. Without Martin Luther King agitating the country and J.F.K. picking up the bill there would not have been that pressure on the Congress, and without L.B.J. there would not have been a bill.

Ms. Goodwin is not quoted as lauding Johnson's mastery of the Southern Republicans, so I am left believing that to be Ms. Zernike's extrapolation.  However, per Wikipedia, there were darn few Southern Republican available to vote, and all opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Let's see - in the House, where the outcome was not in doubt, Southern Democrats opposed the original bill by 87-7; Southern Republicans opposed it by 10-0.

In the Senate, where many thought the bill would be killed in committee or filibustered to death, Southern Democrats opposed the bill by 20-1; the lone Southern Republican Senator also opposed the bill.

For these purposes, "Southern" means a member of the 11 Confederate States of America.

Baffling.  Maybe Ms. Zernike is referring to border state Senators, but the story from the Deep South was nothing like she presented here.

Comments

[GMax]

Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen R Illinois was more responsible for the civil rights legislation than anyone other legislature. He certainly delivered a much higher % of his caucus for the bill than the Majority Leader did.

[Jim Hu]

I've been reading Walls of Jericho, which covers that time period. My impression is that Johnson needed Dirkson, and Humphrey's floor leadership was important, as were a lot of other factors.

An interesting aspect was the need to go counter to LBJ's usual dealmaking approach. The House had to be assured that they weren't going to take controversial stands and then have the final bill get watered down in the Senate.

Really a fascinating time in our history.

[MikeS]

This doesn't feel right. This nice Kate Zernike created a narrative. Then she invented some details and twisted some others to support her narrative.
Now you come along with a few facts and cheapen the whole effort.

Pure misogyny I say.

[SteveMG]

The Southern Democrats who opposed the sixties Civil Rights legislation were all strong supporters, at the same time, of LBJ's Great Society programs. Indeed, many of them were supporters of FDR's New Deal programs as well.

It does illustrate how remarkable that New Deal coalition that FDR created: leftwing northerners, southern segregationists, socialists, et cetera. To be able to contain such a melange of interests and views for four decades is stunning to realize.

[Forbes]

Democrats were the party of segregation for a century--an inconvenient truth--so a little revision is in order. Make the Republicans appear as the last holdouts baring the Democrats historic way forward.

These revisionist narratives appear often, so it's no wonder the Times is viewed as a mouthpiece for the DNC.

[JustAnotherDude]

As stated above, Senator Everett Dirksen was responsible for getting the civil rights bills passed in the 1960s. Prior to meeting Martin Luther King in person, he was not sure if the civil rights bills were the proper remedy for the country. However, after a personal meeting with King, he threw his weight behind the civil rights bills and he was able to convince most Republicans to support it, which prevent the Southern Democrats from killing the bills. In fact, President Johnson relied on Dirksen to push the bills through since LBJ couldn't control his own party.

[bgates]

It does illustrate how remarkable that New Deal coalition that FDR created: leftwing northerners, southern segregationists, socialists, et cetera.

Yeah, that coalition had people who thought they should control how others lived their lives, and...

...who else, exactly?

The New Deal coalition reminds me of the bar from "The Blues Brothers" - "We got both kinds of music: country and western!"

[Mory]

The Dirkson federal building is in Chicago ' like Obama, Oprah, Congressmen who want to control foreign funds and Exclusionary Obamasiah Church. Chicago can't take care of all the Obama shit. He got in office through his church.

[Other Tom]

I recall that Barry Goldwater forcefully opposed the Act, on the grounds of federalism and states' rights. His reward was to carry five states of the Deep South, in addition to Arizona, in November of '64.

I don't recall that he ever expressed any subsequent regret over his stance, but my guess is that he did regret it indeed.

[Other Tom]

Just sent the hapless Ms. Zernike an irate e-mail, essentially plagiarizing TM's borrowings from Wikipedia. I've become quite the busybody lately--comes with old age and idleness.

[Larry]

Posted by: Other Tom | February 17, 2008 at 07:16 PM I doubt he did regret it, O T. I think his was a principled states rights/federalist stance. My recollection of Goldwater, the first candidate I voted for for prez, was that he followed his conscience and let the chips fall where they may

[Larry]

They don't make 'em like Dirksen and Goldwater any more. I have special fondness for ole Ev, who gave me my appointment to USAF Academy. Who once said, "A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you're talking about real money."

[GMax]

Ever been to the zoo when the chimps start flinging poo? As long as you are not in the line of fire, its a hoot! With that in mind read this lifted from TalkLeft:

I was part of an online politics discussion community for YEARS. I have had to leave. The Obama people--who were my "progressive" "friends"--are

1. Nasty to people who say anything in Clinton's favor, even if it's supplying data from historical links or something that seems quite carefully chosen.

2. Mysogynic. But they are a big sly and/or offhand about it, and then deny it.

3. Self-righteous to the hilt. Obama-supporters who are a bit more reasonable (usually a woman) will ask them to tone it down a bit now and then, and they'll explain in several paragraphs how all the right is on their side, all the wrong, every bit, therefore, on the other, and btw, they are less sexist than the Clinton supporters, so there, you have it on the highest authority, theirs.

Just wait until after Texas and Ohio and the Hillbillys are back on top, and the Obamaniacs get a chance to fling theirs!! I am so enjoying this.

[GMax]

In the context of "hows that dream ticket thing working out?" Read this and chuckle:

Clinton delegates voting for Obama?? Well maybe...but I can guarantee you that Barack Obama cannot and will not get enough of Hillary Clinton general election votes to win the presidency. I have voted Democrat all of my life which includes five presidential elections and I am very proud for having done so! But I will NEVER NEVER vote for Barack Obama! And I can guarantee you that there are millions of Democrats who feel the way that I do! Even if this means dealing with John McCain for the next four years. I urge every Hillary supporter that if Hillary does not get the nomination to vote for John McCain!

Change. Courage. Peace Love and Paisley Skies!

[Jane]

Why won't they vote for him? Their policies are nearly identical. Is it because he dared to oppose a Clinton?

[Other Tom]

On another thread I posted a remark I pirated from Pajamas Media that is so rich I am going to repeat it: "The Clintons are experiencing a Caucescu moment." Oh, I do love it so. I want cameras filming their every step when the ultimate meltdown comes. I want special-access reporters taking notes for subsequent lenghty accounts in Newsweek. I want Inside Edition lurking when the ashtrays start to fly. I want them--and in particular I want him--not just to be defeated, but to be humiliated, to be sent off the stage to the sound of raucous laughter.

[Jane]

Me too OT. And I'm ashamed. Well I'm not really ashamed. But I probably should be.

[Larry]

"...the zoo when the chimps start flinging poo?" Posted by: GMax | February 17, 2008 at 08:47 PM My folks lived in San Diego from '60 till they died in the '90's. Whenever I was there for more than overnight, I made sure to go to the zoo. The gorilla and orangutan pits are/were next to each other. I can't recall a visit when neither threw poo! Those primates were probably much brighter than their homo sap cousins on the left. I'm investing in popcorn futures.

The trouble with quoting Doris Goodwin is that you can never be sure who else should be attributed.

[Larry]

"Ideally", Ms. Goodwin said, you’d have the combination of experience and charisma, “if you could mush Clinton and Obama together as one person.” Ya, they'd cancel each other out to leave zero charisma and added together they'd still be close to zero experience.

[dick]

Jane,

Read the Talk Left website. They are opposed to him because supposedly he is anti-feminist because he said that periodically Hillary has to get angry. They take this to mean that when she has a period, she gets angry and that therefore Obama is sexist. And they are truly vicious in their denunciation of him for this. Amazing. I thought they were all so forgiving and so inclusive while the republicans were vile.

[GMax]

OH NO Dont mix those two things together. They may be incomplete and harmless indivisually, but combined they make a very unstable element which might blow up the entire country.

[Jane]

Dick,

Thanks. I really can't bring myself to spend time at Talk Left. I appreciate your doing it for me.

[Other Tom]

Jane, no need to start with the feeling guilty stuff. I have had the same impulse from time to time--"Good God, this is so un-Christian of me!" But then I pause and think, "what would Jesus have wanted," and in my heart I know He would have enjoyed a good Caucescu moment as much as the next man. I mean, look what He did to the money-changers in the temple, right?

[Ralph L]

Dick, they're too stupid to realize that "periodically" doesn't apply to Hillary at 61, unless she's a freak.

[Other Tom]

I would be gleefully strafing and bombing over at TalkLeft, but they long ago banned me. Next week I'll take the laptop to the ski lodge and log in under a wholly new monicker, and then hit them with a series of dung-bombs.. Stay tuned; I'll report back.

[narciso]

By the way, as CBS descends deeper in to the sludge with 'Dexter'; then again after CSI/LAMINY, Criminal Minds and Cold Case
they really didn't go to far down the slope; 10;00 is the alternate serial killer
hour. what he's a crime fighting serial killer; the Knight Rider reboat goes out with a hat tip to Black River as the group planning World Domi. . .well you get the drift. This is in keeping with the Hallibur-Water characterization ofRavenwood/Jennings & Rall as the company behind the nuclear attacks on "Jericho' a similar group hunting vampires on "Moonlight". I guess Cyberdyne is just Dich Cheney's pet project.

[JM Hanes]

OT:

I'm pretty sure Jesus would have spelled Ceausescu correctly, but carry on!

[Jane]

I know He would have enjoyed a good Caucescu moment as much as the next man.

What a way to start the day.

I'm pretty sure Jesus would have spelled Ceausescu correctly, but carry on!

But could he pronounce it?

[anduril]

Amazing. I always thought it was spelled with a "c" in the middle, but it is Ceausescu, the "s" having a small hook under it. It's pronounced Chow-shes-ku. I always thought there was a "ch" sound in the middle.

[Jim Miller]

"The Southern Democrats who opposed the sixties Civil Rights legislation were all strong supporters, at the same time, of LBJ's Great Society programs. Indeed, many of them were supporters of FDR's New Deal programs as well."

That's a little too strong. Many, perhaps most, southern Democrats at that time were part of the conservative coalition, which meant that they voted with the Republicans on economic issues. Together, the two groups controlled most Congresses between, say, about 1944 and 1964.

And earlier, while it is true that many southern Democrats -- LBJ, for instance -- backed FDR, it is also true that many came to oppose him over time. In fact, FDR attempted, without great success, to purge some of them.

[Jane]

So now The NY Times and Drudge are reporting that Obama is stealing rhetoric from MA Governor Deval Patrick, who also campaigned on rhetoric and was devoid of any substance. That didn't bother MA democrats then, altho his current "F" rating might make them rethink that strategy.

[Ralph L]

Do you think the Deval experience will stop them from voting enthusiastically for Obama? "The Dream will never die."

[Other Tom]

Shoulda Googled Ceaucescu...

Here's a rich one to chew on from Armstrong Williams. If only I could believe it were true:

"The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee [sic]. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory."

[clarice]

Clap your hands if you believe in Bloomberg.

[Jane]

Oooh I hope that happens. What a fun campaign season this is!

[Topsecretk9]

-Posted by: Other Tom | February 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM--

Didn't Obama have a special meeting with Bloomberg a while ago?

Why yes, he did.

Obama, Bloomberg Hold Mystery Breakfast Meeting

Obama-Bloomberg '08 NYC Meeting Raises Eyebrows

Obama Has Breakfast with Bloomberg

Linky

[RichatUF]

OT-

I laughed out loud with the Obama-Bloomberg comment. Anything to keep the dream alive.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

I have BHO down for a solid win in CD-2 (Madison - Prog Heaven) and CD-4 (Milwaukeee - Dem Segregated district). Do you see any other solid district wins for him?

[Sue]

Bloomberg refused to run as an independent if his friend McCain was the republican nominee. I would be more worried about Bloomberg hooking up with McCain than Obama.

[Other Tom]

The biggest favor Bloomberg could do for McCain would be to fund an Obama third-party campaign. But I don't think for one nanosecond that Obama would do it.

[Other Tom]

The biggest favor Bloomberg could do for McCain would be to fund an Obama third-party campaign. But I don't think for one nanosecond that Obama would do it.

[RichatUF]

I was looking over at Drudge and does anyone else have that "a predator is watching them" feel with that BHO-Edwards picture.

Also I'm not so sure that Bloomberg would contribute a billion dollars for a kingmaker run-far too gratitous. If Obama were to lose the nomination to RW, Obama can then work to make sure she doesn't win the general and set himself up well for 2012.

[GMax]

The region along the shore of Lake Michigan just north of Chicago and up to Milwaukee, may be fertile ground for Obama with the yachting latte sippers. I dont know how they blend those area in with the Congressional districts, but Lakefront property is pretty pricey. Lots of second homes for Chicago swells in the area. That also means that Obama may be rolling buses up into Wisconsin, like Kerry is reported to have done. You can register same day in Wisconsin and Governor Doyle twice vetoed voter ID laws so its pretty simple to do.

[Brainster]

It seems obvious to me that Goodwin meant "Northern Republicans", so either she misspoke or Zernike misheard/mistranscribed.

[Porchlight]

Kenosha is also in the part of the state Gmax mentioned (CD-1). It's a sizable college town, 15K students/96K total population. And Racine's mayor endorsed Obama recently. CD-1 is basically a Chicago bedroom community, so if Wisconsin's same-day registration is anything like Minnesota's, as Gmax says expect lots of buses from Chicago.

[cathyf]

It is well-known among Milwaukeeans that once a month a parade of rattletrap vehicles roll into town. It is the Chicago residents who have signed up for welfare benefits in Illinois with their real addresses and Wisconsin under phoney ones, making the monthly trek to pick up their checks.

It's easy enough for them to come up on election day. And given that they have "established" Milwaukee addresses, they could vote even if Wisconsin required ID.

[Other Tom]

My guess would be that Goodwin would have said simply "Republicans."

[Rick Ballard]

GMax,

Here is a decent map. CD-1,5 and 6 are partial lakefront and Republican, CD-8 is Democrat. The effective Democrat segregation of blacks into CD-4 and progs into CD-2 leaves income as the next demographic marker and on that basis CD-3, 6, 7 and 8 should lean Clinton. If lakefront libs do go for Obama, then CD-1 and 5 might be his. That would mean

[Rick Ballard]

Stupid Typus Pad.

That would mean he would take 25 delegates to RWs 23 because some districts are more equal than others. I'm still ambivalent about him collecting the other 26 delegates because I have doubts about him taking an actual majority.

[GMax]

I would give Obama the clear nod in 2 and 4 and probably 1. I doubt he gets 5 as most of that district is inland and middle class.

Upstate is clearly Clinton country.

One demographic that we have not yet heard from that is somewhat prominent in Wisconsin, is the Indian tribes. Lots of smaller tribes spread around the State, mostly in the upstate region. If they break like the Hispanics and Asians, heavily to Clinton she may have a walk upstate in those three districts.

[Sue]

I can't get my copy and paste to work for some reason. The following was underneath a picture of Clarence and Mayme Vail in the Star Tribune.

They were married on Feb. 12, 1925, when Mayme was 16 years old, and had six children.

So tell me, how did she have 6 children by the time she was 16 years old? ::grin::

[Larry]

Ummmmm. Three sets of twins born at her age 14, 15 and 16? Where I grew up, they used to say they could tell if a girl was "old enough" by standing her up in a rainbarrel. If the top of her head stuck out, she was old enough. If it didn't stick out, they cut the rainbarrel in two and started over.

[Rick Ballard]

New TX poll RW 50, BHO 48. It's CNN. Two days ago Rasmussen had it RW 54, BHO 38. Loads of entertainment for this early in an election year.

[hit and run]

From the article with that CNN poll:

"One reason the race appears to be tight is that Texas Democrats are having a hard time choosing between two attractive options," says CNN polling director Keating Holland.

So the CNN polling director is saying the candidates are attractive options. Any chance he would say the same thing about Republican candidates?

Suuuuuuure....

"Likely Democratic primary voters would be equally happy if either candidate won the nomination

Riiiiiiight.....

Hip-waders! I need my hip-waders!!! Won't somebody fetch me my hip-waders!!!

[Other Tom]

Here's a nice one from the NY Daily News:

"Don Kettl of the University of Pennsylvania said an edgy electorate, tired of war and partisanship, wants a leader who elevates the tone - and Clinton hasn't been able to make the sale.

"'[Her] message of experience hasn't resonated with that yearning and her argument about experience, at least so far, hasn't rung true, because voters instinctively understand that there is a difference between the White House East Wing and the West Wing,' Kettl said.

"He argued that the wheels started coming off in South Carolina - and the former President's involvement is to blame.

"'He reminded everyone of that part of the Clinton presidency no one wants to relive and it resurfaced the tangled Bill and Hillary issues,' Kettl said.

"Privately, party insiders told The News they see Team Clinton tanking."

[Sue]

I just watched the 4 part series at Youtube of Michelle Obama at the UCLA campus. She is every bit the speaker Obama is. But a study in contradictions. She talks about how her father worked hard to support his family. And then tells of all the single parents who can't make it. Without ever touching on why there are so many single parents. She tells of the hard work her and Barack did to get where they are, apparently without government help, with the exception of food stamps for Barack at some point in his childhood. But wants government help to heal our souls. Parts of her speach sound like she was raised as a conservative, where she was responsible for where she went in life, and then she goes into her liberal mode of how the government should be doing this and that for us. Does she not understand that the government doing for us makes us not do for ourselves? A strange pair, those two. If they weren't so far left, they might be worth a second look. Too bad they are about to fall off the left side of the earth.

[Elliott]

Sue,

Will you be participating in the caucus as well as the primary?

I hope that Michelle Obama's proud of America for the first time in her adult life remark hasn't condemned us to weeks of the Clinton's counting the ways in which they've always been proud of it.

[Sue]

Elliott,

I don't know. I haven't really thought about it yet. I was reading a semi-local political site earlier and the conventional wisdom is my county is a toss up between Hillary and Obama. I think it will go for Hillary, because of the Bill factor. They love him dearly around here.

[hit and run]

Sue:
Does she not understand that the government doing for us makes us not do for ourselves?

Interesting...In the last thread, I posted a link to AT where Thomas Lifson points us to a page on Obama's website that has apparently been scrubbed, called "Escalation is not the answer".

Interesting because what he says in it regarding our involvement in Iraq:

...according to our commanders on the ground, adding American forces will only relieve the Iraqis from doing more on their own.
...
In fact, adding more troops will only push this political settlement further and further into the future, as it tells the Iraqis that no matter how much of a mess they make, the American military will always be there to clean it up.

That is why I believe we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq, and others who have a stake in stabilizing the country - that ours is not an open-ended commitment. They must step up.

Iraqis must step up.

"The poor" in the US? Stand down.

Had I more verve, I would go through and substitute poor American for Iraqi, and government handouts for troops.

Hey, the verve returns...

...according to our commanders on the ground leading advisors, adding American forces more government handouts will only relieve the Iraqis poor Americans from doing more on their own.
...
In fact, adding more troops handouts will only push this political settlement financial advancement further and further into the future, as it tells the Iraqis struggling Americans that no matter how much of a mess they make, the American military government will always be there to clean it up without any sacrifice on their part.

That is why I believe we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops government handouts to signal to the government and people of Iraq poor, and others who have a stake in stabilizing the country - that ours is not an open-ended commitment. They must step up.

Eh, not so much verve that I'm checking for accuracy, use your imagination where necessary to make it fit right.

[Sue]

H&R,

That was the feeling I got from her speech. It didn't fit. It was like, on the one hand, but then on the other hand. I have no doubt she is a liberal through and through, and a democrat of the first order, her father was a precinct captain, which is why I found her speech odd, to say the least. It must be terribly conflicting to be liberal and successful.

[Sue]

Elliott,

I can't decide how I want to vote. Part of me wants to go ahead and vote for McCain and help put a stake through Huckabee, the other part wants to keep Hillary alive to fight another day. And on top of all of that, our friend is the sheriff and has a democratic challenger this year. And by all accounts, it is a close race. I usually vote early, but I may have to wait until the last minute this year to decide.

[Ann]

Hi Elliott,

Proud Patriotic Americans, yeah that sums up the Clinton couple. LOL ;)

James Robbins brought up a good point at The Corner:

Wouldn't Go There [James S. Robbins]
Why would the Clinton campaign raise the issue of plagiarism (if copying a friend's stylistic flourish can rightly be called that) when it surely invites both heightened scrutiny over everything the senator has said or written recently, plus renewed attention to the controversy surrounding the authorship of It Takes a Village? Not only will this create a needless new set of distractions for the campaign as reporters and bloggers dredge up examples of boilerplate she used that others have in the past — "I'm in the results business" is her creation? — but it was monumentally ill-timed to boot. Now researchers have a few weeks before Texas and Ohio to look into this. Should have been sprung the day before. Very poor form, very poor.

[Ann]

Hit, that was terrific. I think you have another American Thinker article.

[Other Tom]

Just listening to Roger Hedgecock on local radio reading extensively from a Chicago Sun-Times piece about Obama's mother. Her friends described her (and themselves) as "fellow travelers," and it does indeed appear that if nothing else she was a Flower Child just a few years ahead of her time.

This is one fascinating dude, and extremely intelligent, but I'll guarantee you his background and his upbringing are strange in the extreme. (I don't figure that will matter very much with the electorate.)

[hit and run]

Sue:
It must be terribly conflicting to be liberal and successful.

Yes and no.

I mean, to a number of liberals who are successful, pushing for higher taxes and greater government control means less personal attention one has to expend on the matter of "the poor".

"I gave at the office government" becomes the standard line to the riff raff.

Or I gave a speech on the poor for $55,000.

Or I built a 28,000 SF house which raised the property taxes enough to force the grubby squatter from the property his grandpappy was born on.

But enough about vanquished former candidates from North Carolina who have great hair.

Note that the Obama's charitable giving was proportionally low...until the dreams of the WH started dancing in their heads...

"In 2002 ... the Obamas reported income of $259,394 [and] claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity."

vs

On their just-filed 2006 tax return, Obama and his wife, a hospital administrator, reported taxable income of $983,626 and claimed deductions for $60,307 in charitable donations. In 2005 they earned a combined $1.65 million and gave away about $77,300.

Circumstantial evidence, of course. We have nothing more to go on regarding than this circumstantial evidence.

Well. That and 5,193 other things about which Obama has proven himself the Cynicist in Chief.

from here

[Jane]

HIt -

Bravo!

Sue,

Vote McCain. You don't want a dog in that other fight. A week ago I would have said to vote "Obama" but a week later I'm nearly as disgusted with him as I am with HIllary.

McCain hasn't done a single offensive thing this week that I can recall.

[Elliott]

Should have been sprung the day before. Very poor form, very poor.

I think Robbins should have considered that it is the day before Wisconsin and the back-and-forth on this certainly influenced the national coverage. I don't know about local coverage. From the Clinton perspective it's a much better story line than "Obama poised to take Wisconsin; could put the nomination away with wins in Texas, Ohio."

[hit and run]

Jane:
McCain hasn't done a single offensive thing this week that I can recall.

Heh!

hit and run jr had a couple week span where he came home from kindergarten with yellow check marks.

It seemed like a pattern was developing. It wasn't that big of a deal -- I mean one of his yellow check marks was because he forgot to take his snack out of his backpack and put it into a cubby or something. sheesh.

Anyway, as a means to give him some positive reinforcement for good behavior -- we told him that if he made it through February without any yellow check marks, we would get him a new Wii game (that we have the Wii is another story ... and a new game benefits me more than the kids anyway, but don't tell them that!).

So far so good.

You too, McCain -- no yellow check marks.

[Sue]

Jane,

I don't mind playing with the system when it doesn't matter, but since it matters this year, I'm more relunctant to do so. I'll probably stick with my party and vote McCain.

[hit and run]

Elliott:
I think Robbins should have considered that it is the day before Wisconsin

Very good point. And it really isn't something to stay in the news more than a day or two.

I mean, now you're talking about someone going through and reading or listening to a bunch of Hillary speeches, perhaps repeatedly?

Egads.

There's only one group of people with that kind of masochistic attention surplus hyperactivity disorder. And they're already on her extended payroll.

[Sue]

Interesting...

Damage to several undersea telecom cables that caused outages across the Middle East and Asia could have been an act of sabotage, the International Telecommunication Union said on Monday.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080218163315.psfe6g65&show_article=1>Source

[Elliott]

Thanks, Hit and Run. I hadn't gotten around to commenting on it, but I think you were quite right to suggest that Hillary could pivot to the subject of Obama's association with Deval Patrick and start asking where's "the change we've been looking for."

However, the thought has just occurred to me that from the identity politics perspective such an approach might risk another racial backlash. The Clinton camp is probably happy with the Obama-Patrick split screen. It's subtle and it can't be laid at their door.

[Jane]

Actually the whole Obama/Patrick cabal sort of looks like "the blacks are in cahoots to overthrow the whites".

I'm pretty colorblind all things considered, but it was an odd juxtapositions because both steadfastly refused to talk about issues. They look like a couple of Manchurian candidates on that tape. So who are they really working for?

You get my drift as unseemly as it sounds after 2 glasses of wine.

[Porchlight]

Since the charge of plagiarism is so lame on its surface, it does seem like there must have been some other reason to make the connection. Then again, maybe the HRC campaign is just that incompetent. As much as I despise Carville/Begala et al, I have to believe they'd have done a better job with all of this than Solis Doyle/Penn/Wolfson/Williams or whoever makes up the Hillary team. At least Mr. Clinton's campaign was competent in its sleaziness.

[hit and run]

Good point Elliott (hey, we can go back and forth like this all night!)

If it's to be used subtly -- don't put it in Bill's hands.

You know, you'd end up with, "Well, sure, Governor Deval Patrick is backing Obama, he's getting mighty uppity for a former Clinton administration official..."

Jane:
but it was an odd juxtapositions because both steadfastly refused to talk about issues.

Other things aside, Patrick was probalby a good fit for MA ideologically (notwithstanding history of some Republican governors). And if nothing else, a good lesson in federalism for the rest of us.

That is, let's put Obama Jr. in the role of governor in MA and see through that laboratory experiment in Democracy what Obama Himself might look like as President.

Well, of course, I don't doubt that that experiment will go largely overlooked.

But I can audaciously hope can't I?

Who's gonna stop me? Obama?

[Other Tom]

OK, having nothing better to do, and no evidence whatsoever to go on, let me here and now predict that the Crass Fishwife will do "better than expected" in Wisconsin tomorrow--outright victory should not be ruled out.

[bgates]

On their just-filed 2006 tax return, Obama and his wife, a hospital administrator, reported taxable income of $983,626 and claimed deductions for $60,307 in charitable donations.

So the Obamas (or is the plural of Obama still Obama) gave all but their last $933,319 to charity. Curious about how that 6% figure compares to the monsters in office right now, I pulled up this discussion of Cheney's 2005 return. Apparently the man who puts 'Vice' in 'Vice President' exercised some Halliburton options in 2005. He had agreed in 2001 that when he did that, he would donate the proceeds to charity. The charities were also specified in 2001.

Halliburton options turn out to pay better than government service, because he claimed deductions for $6.8 million in charitable contributions on an AGI of $8.8 million. That's 77% of his income to charity.

Well.

Before and after 2005, you could only claim 50% of your income for charitable deductions. 2005 was different because of a law passed after Katrina. Cheney got the tax benefit of the higher deductible limit, even though he didn't give anything to Katrina-related charities - because he had set the charities this money would go to in 2001, before anyone even knew Rove could control the weather.

To sum up, Dick Cheney made an above-board decision to benefit from a provision of the tax code in the course of donating over three quarters of his income to charity.

Follow that link - commenters are livid about it. They're all but weighing the merits of impeachment vs assassination.

[vnjagvet]

Hit:

My dad did did something similar with me 62 some odd years ago. For each grade or conduct improvement after my unfortunate first grading period in second grade, he offered $1.00.

Next report period, I "earned" $12.00, which then was enough to purchase the Rawlings Claw first baseman's mitt I coveted.

Dad's comment after the report card came home:

Now we know you can do it. Here's the $12.00, but there will be no more of that. I expect you to do your best from here on out.

And he maintained that expectation until he died my senior year in college. No more bribes for me.

[Elliott]

(hey, we can go back and forth like this all night!)

Si, se puede!

[Sue]

Follow that link - commenters are livid about it.

Unbelievable.

[Elliott]

Other Tom,

I agree. In DHS threat assessor speak, I put the risk of New Hampshire v2.0 at threat level "elevated."

[Ann]

bgates,

Rush had a conversation today about how democrats pander to people with problems but never help them with their own money.

Liberals Exploit People in Trouble; Never Help Anyone Themselves

[hit and run]

vnjagvet:
which then was enough to purchase the Rawlings Claw first baseman's mitt I coveted.

I don't still have the first baseball glove I ever owned, but I do still have the last one. And though I may not be *that* old, that glove turns 20 this year.

[vnjagvet]

I wish I had kept that one, Hit, but its condition probably would preclude any value as a collectible.

It was a great glove, though. I always thought I could snag anything in reach with it. I had it through college, and have no idea what happened to it.

[Topsecretk9]

HAH!

asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him. They would not.

In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn't be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had "lifted" such language.
"Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/the-clinton-cam.html

[hit and run]

Heh, vnjagvet, I had originally written, but then edited out the following from my previous comment: "I'm sure that my mom has it (the first glove I owned) in the attic. She keeps everything."

I am amazed, even today, when some reference to some obscure toy or award or something else comes up at family gatherings, my mom goes, "Oh I think I still have that, let me check." And off she goes to the attic, generally returning minutes later with the item.

[Ann]

You are so lucky Hit. I just get.."I must of sold it in a garage sale." ;(

So, not to make my mothers mistake, my whole basement is full of everything my daughter touched and every note she gave me. ;)

[Other Tom]

Mine is a Rawlings "Art Houtteman" model--supposedly a "pitcher's glove," although I don't know how it differs from any glove other than those of catchers and first basemen. My parents got it for me in 1953 when I was twelve, and I have it in my lap as I am typing this.

Along the outside finger I somehow drew in ink the logos of six teams--the Cubs, the Cards, the Tigers, the Yanks, the White Sox and the Senators. (When I say "logo" I'm talking about the thing on their caps, except in the case of the Cubs, where it was the symbol on the left breast of their uniforms.)

Inside the thumb there is a straightened-out shoehorn, which I believe was for the purpose of making it a bit more rigid so that no hot grounder would glance past it. At the base of the shoehorn is a glued-on bicycle tire patch, which I think was supposed to make it more comfortable for my thumb.

Across the strap is my name, which I permanently inscribed there by using a magnifying glass to focus the sun's rays as I carefully embossed each letter for posterity.

I just can't give an estimate of the time I spent rubbing Neatsfoot oil into the pocket of the thing, nor the amount of that oil that I used up. But whatever it was, it was all far more than worth it.

[hit and run]

Well, mine is a Mizuno "World Win" GOC5 -- also now sitting in my lap.

There is no name or other writing or inscription or drawing on it.

The glove has seen action in TX, OK, KS, NE, ID, AZ, CO, France and the Czech Repbulic (actually, we were there the last year it was still Czechoslovakia)

It is now quite crusty. It is flattened with no shape left.

It is probably time to start working it back into shape.

hit and run jr will soon be using my brother's Rawlings Steve Carlton model to learn.

Why do I have his glove and not he?

I'm the older brother and until he can kick my a** I take what I want.

That's why.

[vnjagvet]

I remember when Art Houtteman was traded from Detroit to the Indians with Hal Newhouser for the 1954 season when the Indians set the win/loss record (then promptly lost four straight in the WS to the Giants).

That put two of Detroit's best pitchers along with Wynn, Garcia, Lemon and a declining but still sharp Feller. Four eventual Hall of Fame pitchers on one squad. Also two pretty fair relievers, Ray Narleski and Don Mossi.

I was fourteen and a rabid Indians fan then. I actually saw Houtteman pitch that year at Municipal Stadium for the Tribe. I would love to see a pic of the Houtteman glove, OT.

[kaz]

My original glove is still in the box in the closet. A '60 - something Mantle Rawlings. The strap is tied on with shoestring. It's about forty years old now and has arguably aged better than I have.

[Jane]

WAKE UP! Fidel Castro has resigned, it's Chedder Tuesday, and Hill is making a comeback!

(and I actually think Wolfson has a point about Obama running on his rhetoric so he sure as hell shouldn't steal it.)

[michaelt]

Hillary! isn't running on rhetoric, she's running on her experience, which is locked up in the Clinton Library.

So when do we get to see it, Mr. Wolfson?

[Jane]

Oooh Michael, great retort!

[clarice]

Obama and the Weathermen. http://www.nysun.com/article/71421
AIM links Obama to a Communist named Davis--and we've many months to go.

[hit and run]

Having slept on it...some observations...

I readily admit I am cynical.

And yes, I readily accept that my cynicism is one reason that Michelle Obama has not been proud of her country until today when her husband is the front-runner in the Democratic primary for President. I am willing to accept my share of the blame for her lack of pride. I am going to stand here and take that blame like a man. I am going to face the fact that I am one of the root causes of a poor rich, beleagured wildly successful, faceless nobody politically powerful diva, being unable to be proud of her country.

That's how I roll.

But I do have a few questions.

You know that Deval Patrick was the 2nd African-American governor elected in the US, right? And since Patrick and Obama are BFF, who practically finish each others sentences...

Did Patrick's election as Governor of Massachussetts not make Michelle Obama proud of her country?

Senator Obama, were you, unlike your wife, proud of your country when Deval Patrick was elected governor of Massachussetts?

And Senator, what would you call her attitude of not seeing anything for which she could take pride in her country before now?

If you ask me, a self-admitted cynicist who believes in the wisdom of "it takes one to know one", I'm thinking of a word.

And it starts with 'c'.

[Sue]

Top,

"Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said.

I was thinking the same thing this morning. Like family values. If you aren't running on them, you don't have to have any. Same thing.

[vnjagvet]

I guess Edwards' visits to the RW and BHO camps has had some impact on their campaign rhetoric.

Apparently he has convinced them that trolling for the votes of the "unproud", i.e. the badly dissaffected is the way to go. But it doesn't seem like a winning overall strategy, does it? Even Huey Long didn't get far with that one at the national level, and he was the acknowledged master of the genre.

Also, dare I point out that if objectively analyzed, the current frontrunning candidates for President, the Obamas included, are all part of the derided "rich" -- moreso than most of even their conservative bretheren and sisteren.

I love the political silly season. Hit reminded me how cynical I really am.

[Jane]

You have to admire this slow boil that Hillary has got going against Obama. I don't for one second think it is purposeful, but if it all works out Hill will legitimately get the nomination and the cult of Obama will be convinced that she stole it.

Where is Karl Rove these days?

[GMax]

Hey enjoyed the ball glove stories. Growing up I carried my glove on the handle bars of my bike, just in case we ran into a game someplace. We would play and then when the game was over, picked up new sides and start another one and play until dinner time.

When there was only two of us, we played curbball, which only required a tennis ball and a street curb. Three let us play pickle.

If there has been a pitch around when I was young I might have been a soccer player, but no one I knew even owned a soccer ball. We played baseball 24/7.

The only time I ever skipped high school, a buddy and I rode the DSR bus down to Tiger Stadium and stood around with the bums outside until they opened the stadium for a afternoon game. They dont play much in the afternoon anymore. I caught a foulball that day, a guy named Vic Wertz who played third base for the Tigers hit it. I had to figure out a story about how I got that ball...