As I remarked (in a comment) yesterday, I actually got a little queasy thinking about the discussion among the Bush speechwriters that hit on this idea of having the grandson of a Nazi sympathizer/financier/profiteer (you choose which) invoke the Holocaust to make a US domestic political point. . . while standing before the Israeli Knesset.

Bad enough that the president abandoned the “all politics stop at the water’s edge” axiom. Bad enough that he (or the speechwriter) was dumb enough to quote a Republican Senator’s wish of talking to Hitler. Bad enough that Bush would mar what was supposed to be a celebration of Israel’s founding with a nakedly political speech. Bad enough that he would cheapen the Holocaust and dishonor its victims by invoking it just to serve his partisan goals. And certainly bad enough that a sitting president would sink so low as to liken the Democrat running against Bush’s third term to a Nazi appeaser. . . but. . .

What do they say—timing is everything?

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who bowed out of the presidential race in January, endorsed Senator Barack Obama at a rally here tonight.

Officials announced the news of Mr. Edwards’s endorsement shortly after Mr. Obama landed here late this afternoon. The campaign timed it to coincide with the start of the major evening newscasts, which would have otherwise focused on Senator Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in West Virginia, which raised new questions about Mr. Obama’s strength with white working class voters.

Edwards has been out of the race for months, and yet still polled 7% in West Virginia. Doing this today—and in Michigan, no less—is a media coup.

Add to this NARAL’s endorsement of Obama earlier today, and this interesting statement from Senator Clinton, also from earlier today, and you can now see (not the end, not the beginning of the end, but) the end of the beginning.

John Edwards just gave a heck of a speech. In the words of Barack Obama at the same event: “I haven’t been seeing John as much—I forgot how good he is.” If Edwards can move Obama to the left on healthcare and poverty issues in exchange for his help with blue collar and more liberal Democrats, this could be a big win-win.

Your thoughts?

Robert Rauschenberg, one of America’s most prominent and prolific visual artists of the post-war period, died Tuesday. He was 82.

Much is sure to be written in the coming days and weeks about the work, meaning the artistic work, of Rauschenberg—and that attention is much deserved. But there will likely be much less said of his political work, which, though perhaps less transformational than his art, is certainly worthy of some praise, as well.

As the New York Times obituary mentions in passing, Robert Rauschenberg was not only an artist, but also a patron of the arts, an advocate for arts education, and a longtime supporter of (mostly) Democrats and Democratic causes.

In fact, the notice of his death during this political season had me curiously looking about the web for whom Rauschenberg had supported this cycle, and here I found a small surprise. Though Rauschenberg had supported many individuals (along with some PACs) in years past—mostly in his adopted home states of Florida and New York—in 2008, the artist had put his money behind only one candidate: Democrat Scott Kleeb of Nebraska.

And it wasn’t just a little money. Rauschenberg gave the legal maximum to Kleeb—for both the primary and the general.

Scott Kleeb is seeking the Senate seat now held by Republican Chuck Hagel, who is not running for reelection, and yesterday, only handful of hours after Rauschenberg’s death, Kleeb took the first big step, winning the Nebraska Democratic primary over a much older and wealthier (RR’s money notwithstanding) opponent. Kleeb will face former Nebraska Governor and GW Bush Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns in November.

My congratulations go out to Scott Kleeb and his wife Jane Fleming Kleeb—a very exciting victory—but the question of the night for me referenced Rauschenberg. How was it that the eighty-something East Coast artist came to max out for a thirty-something Plains State rancher and college professor?

Because brainstorming about Obama's VP pick is an incredibly fruitful activity, I thought I'd jump into the fray. We've been hearing Kathleen Sebelius' name a lot recently: she lost Open Left and Dailykos' straw poll by two votes (to Bill Richardson). Bowers says she is the best choice of major Democrats who have endorsed Obama; the main reason, he says, is that she opposed the Iraq war from the start. And some are speculating that Obama's Vote for Change video, which features Sebelius, signals that he is considering her for the VP slot.

To put it very simply, Sebelius' perceived advantages seem to be the following:

1. She is a popular governor.

2. She is from a "Red State."

3. She is female.

4. She has a record of "reaching across the aisle."

5. She is polished.

I'm not sure any of those advantages are winners. To be clear, I support female candidates, but if that's a criterion I wonder whether someone like Janet Napolitano might not be a better choice. And I have my own reasons, which no one agrees with but me (hey, that happens in politics sometimes), for not being completely comfortable with Sebelius.

Plus, I like Brian Schweitzer better. He brings the "Red State" cred, he frames progressive messages really well, and he would provide the "reinforcing" of Obama's message that Bowers always says is so credible. And he would reinforce not just by being polished, but by being passionate.

But I'll leave you to judge. Schweitzer and Sebelius aren't the only two choices, of course, but I'm going to start pushing his name, so I might as well compare him to the (online) frontrunner, eh?

What follows are two clips that I consider decently representative. Feel free to leave your opinion in the comments.

Recently, I (and everyone else) commented on the McCain/Clinton "gas tax holiday" ludicrousy.

Aside from that, an important component of both Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's strategies for addressing raising fuel prices is to impose a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies, which would supposedly generate revenue for developing renewable, alternative fuels. (Note: Obama accuses Clinton of double-booking this money to pay for the gas tax relief as well, but we'll ignore that for now.)

But while the sentiment of investing in alternative energies is certainly the right one, introducing a windfall profits tax is bad policy, predicated on the false notion that oil companies' profits have anything to do with a windfall.

Strictly speaking, we want businesses to be as profitable as possible. We should encourage our citizens to collaborate and enterprise and take risk, and thus to create goods and services and jobs (and thus wealth) that improve our everyday lives. Profits are the incentives that drive innovation, and punitively taxing firms for innovating too well is counterproductive to this aim. (Think carefully: how would our society be different today if the founders of Ford, General Electric, and Microsoft had all been told at the outset of their enterprising that if they made too much money, it would be taken away from them?)

The problem, then, comes when profits are made at the expense of something else — human or environmental health, for example. When oil companies make billions without internalizing the costs of their share of, say, global warming, they are not creating wealth, but rather redistributing wealth toward themselves. True wealth comes when firms enterprise, innovate, and create wealth without doing any harm.

Suffice to say, corporations in America enjoy a unique set of legal privileges and protections that make them the all-mighty forces they are today, but also allow them to do plenty of harm. As has been noted by the Seminal, these privileges include eternal life, limited liability, and a range of Constitutionally-guaranteed protections (e.g. of freedom of expression, of freedom from unreasonable search, of the right to equal protection under the law) that millions of humans around the globe have yet to obtain themselves. Corporations have long enjoyed a legislative climate that protects the interests of business owners and managers before those of employees or even consumers. They have access to the most free-flowing, wide-reaching financial markets the world has ever seen, as well internationally-recognized mechanisms for registering and controlling intellectual property. They operate in a political environment that holds sacred their rights to support candidates and lobby government, despite having resources exponentially greater than any individual or public interest group could ever hope to amass. And though they love to talk about "free" markets, American corporations enjoy a biblical flow of direct and indirect government subsidization, tax and regulatory relief, and preferential procurement practices that ensure that regardless of whether they are particularly efficient or democratic in their operations, they stay in business and drive the American economy.

These are the underlying legal and regulatory — and more broadly the political and cultural — factors that allow corporations to be so extraordinarily profitable in the first place, though targeting "windfalls" completely fails to address them. Introducing stronger principles of accountability, democracy, and liability to the regulations surrounding corporate behavior, and withdrawing government prop-ups, would constitute a real approach to redistributing oil companies' astronomical profits to the Americans who actually need them.

Like the gas tax holiday, a windfall profits tax is a feel-good gimmick that may win votes, but will at best address a symptom of a much larger, systemic problem. Corporations such as Exxon-Mobil will always benefit from "windfalls," unless we abandon our culture of protecting profits before humans, and before the Earth itself.

Yesterday the Seminal pointed out that top McCain advisor Tom Loeffler, founder of the lobbying firm the Loeffler Group, spent years lobbying the U.S. Congress on behalf of Saudi Arabia, taking in over $5 million in fees as recently as 2006.

Over the weekend, two other top aides in McCain's campaign, Douglas Goodyear and Doug Davenport, resigned from their posts because of their connections to the Burmese junta. From the BBC:

Both Mr Goodyear and the second aide to resign this weekend, Doug Davenport, worked for the lobbying firm DCI, the former as its chief executive. Newsweek magazine revealed on Saturday that DCI was paid more than $300,000 (£150,000) by Burma's military leadership for lobbying work to improve its image in the US… Mr Davenport, a regional campaign manager for Mr McCain, reportedly was directly in charge of the DCI lobbying efforts on behalf of Burma's authorities in 2002.

So, to be clear, before joining the McCain campaign, Tom Loeffler voluntarily worked for a government that he knew regards women as lesser-humans and that for years has profited from America's painful addiction to gas; while "the Dougs" willingly lobbied to improve the image of a government that keeps its people in misery, violently suppresses peaceful resistance, and is now blocking humanitarian aid that it knows would prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Personally, I'm not sure how these people sleep at night.

Call me idealistic, but I believe that those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to choose our professions, and moreover our employers and our clients, have a special obligation not to use our gifts in the service of evil. McCain's aides certainly have the luxury of choosing who they work for, and by lobbying on behalf of certain clients they became complicit in the actions of those clients. Whether they concede it or not Loeffler, Goodyear, and Davenport are accomplices and enablers of two of the world's most brutal and undemocratic regimes.

More importantly though, if the company he keeps and the staff he employs as a candidate are any indication of the company and staff he would seek as president, we can all be certain John McCain's voluminous blabbering about ethics reform and reigning in lobbyists is empty bullshit. From his nauseating website:

John McCain has fought the good fight against the practices that alienate the public from their elected leaders. He has fought for public disclosure of those who lobby lawmakers for a living, and to prohibit them from providing gifts to elected officials. He has fought for greater transparency regarding the official activities of lobbyists, disclosure of those who arrange for lawmakers' travel, and require members to pay full charter rates when using corporate aircraft. He has fought the "revolving door" by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided. He has fought for an independent ethics office in Congress to help restore the public's faith in the integrity of the legislative branch.

Right, so McCain has "fought the 'revolving door'" by employing Tom Loeffler, who after eight years in Congress swung right through it to found his lobbying firm and represent the Saudis. I suppose we are all now to believe that if McCain were elected, Loeffler, Goodyear, and Davenport would return to their lucrative lobbying careers and never ever ever make use of their relationship with John McCain.

I don't think so. These guys represent the worst of Washington spinelessness — they have money and power, and are happy to sell their services and their influence to the highest-bidding special interest, regardless of whether that interest is a faceless, soulless corporation or a dictatorial foreign government. Now, they have sold their services to the candidate that is most likely to to preserve their right to carry on this type of work, a candidate who calls them friends. I say between them, McCain and his aides have done enough damage to America.

The wing of the Republican Party that is dissatisfied with both George Bush and John McCain has swung back into view recently. Dedicated, activist supporters of Ron Paul are "quietly [plotting] GOP convention revolt against McCain," the LA Times' blog tells us. The next battleground after their "stunning success in Nevada," DailyKos' McJoan says, is Idaho, where Paul supporters are attempting to take over the state level GOP committee.

If his followers are organized enough, they might be able to pull off a repeat of Nevada and possibly throw a monkey wrench into the downticket races. Both Bill Sali, Idaho's first district represenative, and Jim Risch, current lieutenant governor and the party establishment's heir apparent for Larry Craig's seat, have primaries. Risch, in fact, has seven of opponents, a few of them the run-of-the-mill Idaho Republican kooks (including the Californian who has never been to Idaho), and a few of them fairly serious and committed.

A serious revolt by Paul's people, should it trickle down the ticket, might give Risch a bit of a scare in his march to the nomination. Once he gets that nomination (and he almost certainly will) he's going to have to contend with one of two Independent challengers: the elk rancher who has made it his goal in life to harrass Risch (so much so that he decided to run as an Independent, to up his chances of being on the general election ballot), and Pro-Life, a Ron Paul supporter), who has made it his goal in life to be on the Idaho ballot every two years. Is any of this enough to really endanger Risch or McCain in getting their respective nominations? Highly unlikely, but it could make things a little more fun to watch.

Paul's supporters and their activism aren't the only symbol of cracks in the Republican Party. Right on the heels of the significant protest votes against McCain in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina, we have Bob Barr declaring his candidacy as a Libertarian. As Blue Texan said this morning,

The GOP brass begged Barr not to run. And Sean Hannity's complete freak out on this clip shows you just how spooked the wingnuts are over this.

Make no mistake: this is a huge blow to the Republicans, who are already fighting with one arm tied behind their backs thanks to Dubya, Iraq, the economy and Dubya.

I think all this is not just cause for progressives to laugh scornfully at a divided GOP, but also a call for frank dialogue about our country's future. Having battled a lot with Paul supporters on the pages of this blog I believe that some of them - not all - genuinely have a vision for this country. Though it is a powerful one, I do not agree with it. Nonetheless, I respect their urge to change their party from the inside, and I have done my best to understand their leader's appeal.

But to Paul supporters, libertarians, and other unhappy Republicans, I have a request to make: vote for Barack Obama this fall. If your efforts bear fruit, and you can weaken McCain, great. Thank you. But don't cast your vote for Bob Barr or write in Ron Paul on your ballot in November.

Why? Because a vote against McCain is essentially a vote for Obama, even if you cast it for another Republican. So give it to Obama directly, and give it to him as a mandate to end the war in Iraq.

We already had one Democratic president who won with a plurality (not a majority) of votes, twice, because of a third-party, right-leaning candidate. And what mandate did Bill Clinton have? What benefit did Ross Perot's supporters reap from their votes? Did they have grounds on which to hold Clinton accountable?

If you believe in smaller government, then give Obama a mandate to end the war. Let's elect him not with an electorate divided 43-37-19, as it was in 1992, nor even 49-40-8, as it was in 1996, but with a majority, a real majority, and one that signals to him that that majority wants the war to end.

Can we not start there? After the US leaves Iraq, you can go back to calling me a socialist, and I can go back to calling your free market beliefs naive and immoral, and whatever else we can come up with to throw at each other. But without leaving Iraq, you and I will be having those debates in a country that is poorer and weaker than it is now. A country where we worry more about our children's futures, about whether the bridges we drive across will hold up, about whether America is going to remain competitive in science and industry.

Let's not send a confused message to the victor of the presidential election this fall. Let's not send the message that we are a country divided and unsure about what it wants, simultaneously pulling in three, four, five directions. Let's send the message that the Bush years are over, definitively, and so is the war.

So do your worst to McCain. But if, in early September, we find that the choice still remains one of Obama versus McCain, then please give your support directly to Barack Obama. Give him that mandate, so that he'll know that on at least one issue - the biggest issue of our times, in my eyes - the majority of the country speaks with one voice.

It's become a once-a-week thing. Each week, usually on Friday, the McCain campaign tries to take a swipe at Obama, basically calling him a terrorist:

In the clearest indication yet of how he intends to confront SenatorBarack Obama on foreign policy issues in the general election, SenatorJohn McCain on Friday again portrayed the Democratic contender as being the favorite of Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, and implied that he would also be friendly with Iran, a Hamas ally.

I gotta say, if this is the core of McCain's foreign policy attack against Obama, I'm unimpressed. Saying things like “I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States,” really don't seem like potent attacks, seeing as most Americans have no idea who Hamas is, or what weight their "endorsement" should carry in American politics.

And, besides, McCain's team isn't entirely clean of terrorist ties. Someone should ask McCain how he thinks Americans feel about his top aide, Tom Loeffler, lobbying for Saudi Arabia while at the same time working on McCain's presidential campaign. Hamas may be a terrorist group, but Saudi Arabia is arguable where it all started.

In anticipation of the Democratic primary in West Virginia, as well as the imminent end of the seemingly perpetual nomination process, my girlfriend and I went to Morgantown to volunteer for Obama's campaign this weekend. Good news, there are some Democrats here. A 74 year old white woman, offended by Hillary's recent comments about working class people, told me she is voting for Obama because he represents the working people and can actually change things. Dozens of other Morgantown residents we spoke with are enthusiastic Obama supporters, and it was clear that they appreciated canvassers' efforts to engage them and their neighbors.

Bad news, there is still an awful lot of racial and homophobic tension 'round these parts. West Virginia University had let out the day prior, so there weren't too many people bar hopping in this hotbed of liberalism on a Saturday night. There were enough to disgust me, though, so that's a start. As we walked by one club we were warned, "don't go in there unless you want to dance with spooks." A bit later, as we were waiting for a cab, we chatted up a young man in jacket and tie, discussing mostly politics. Before long he was explaining that he was against gay marriage because it is "sick" and that "homosexuals have an extra gland in their brain, it's well documented." He also said that he would rather his (future) child commit suicide than be homosexual. After attempting to abuse his illusions for a few minutes, we walked off to get our tab, wondering whether we should laugh or cry. As we walked away the young man hollered in our direction, "Walk away, gays." Sadly, he wasn't the only one. We heard concerns about gay marriage from several registered Democrats that day.

Why, in a place that has been economically devastated by NAFTA and other unsound policies, are Democrats fooled by so called "moral issues" so easily? There are theories about Kansas, but what's the matter with West Virginia? This thread is wide open. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, and I'll have more later.

Since I know you're salivating for it.

Bill Clinton has a confrontation with a voter in West Virginia.

Rasmussen announces it will stop doing daily tracking of the Democrats' nomination fight, because it's over.

Edwards pseudo-endorsed Obama today, as we pointed out earlier. It's fairly clear that Edwards voted for Obama in North Carolina, and he said the candidate he voted for is likely to be the nominee.

From McCain, the straight talk continues, even as he comes under fire from House Democrats.

At least our allies love him:

More than a half of British voters want to see a Democrat win in November. Senator McCain gains the support of a fifth or less of the public.

Bwahahaha. A vote for McCain is a vote for flushing America down the toilet. Keep that in mind, party people.