A compilation of my recent Obama posts (see here, here and here) has been posted on The "Y" – the online magazine written for and by the Young Professionals of Chicago. While loyal PatRoW readers have already read and digested my rants weeks ago, I encourage everyone to check out The "Y" and leave a comment on my – or any other – story.
Without further adieu, I give you Black Enough for the Blogosphere?
There's no such thing as a "post-racial" candidate when you look black . In this country, Obama can still be followed in a store suspected of being a shoplifter, be passed by a cab driver afraid to pick him up, or stopped by a police officer for "driving while black." In none of these cases would it matter if Barack Obama pulled out a family picture to show he's half white.Isn't that the point here? Whether or not you believe Obama's genetic profile is representative of a specific community does not matter; what does matter is that, taken on appearance – not substance – alone, he is a black man.
A wise man once called the US Senate "the place where charisma and charm go to die". Sounds good…but what about integrity?
On Monday, the Senate voted to discontinue debate on the three proposed non-binding resolutions opposing the war in Iraq. Let me say that again: they voted to NOT DEBATE any of three prospective resolutions that would express disapproval yet carry no legislative clout. They voted to avoid conversation; they voted to stick their collective heads in the sand and pretend that the conversations happening in homes, schools and workplaces across America isn't happening.
Blaming the entire Senate is not exactly fair, but I refuse to pin the fault exclusively on Republicans…even though 45 of the 49 GOP Senators voted against continued debate (bravo to Minnesota's Norm Coleman and Maine's Susan Collins for adhering to the will of the people despite pressure from party bosses; Florida's Mel Martinez and presidential hopeful John McCain were strategic no-shows). In contrast 47 of the 49 Democrat Senators voted to move forward with debate ( South Dakota's Tim Johnson remains in a hospital after his brain hemorrhage and Louisiana's Mary Landrieu honored a previous commitment in her state after it was clear her vote would not make a difference in the final tally). Vermont's Independent Bernie Sanders voted with the Democrats and – shock of shocks – Connecticut "Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman voted with the Republicans.
Republicans (and Jo-mos) are to blame for their hypocritical votes, but my problem is the resolutions themselves. None of the three proposals had any legal teeth, and none were hard enough on Dubya's Folly. And here's the thing – Democrats seemed to be OK with that. Their harshest suggested "disapproval" of the Interloper's surge. One plan suggested benchmarks for the Iraqi government (even though that resolution's author, the absent McCain, admitted that there were no real consequences to not meeting those benchmarks). All agreed that the government would not cut off funding for troops already deployed, even if it withheld funds for a surge.
George W. Bush dug us a hole that we can't easily crawl out of, especially not with a measly non-binding Senate resolution. But that would still be a start. Don't we owe it to the 3,000+ American soldiers who have lost their lives in this unnecessary conflict? What about the hundreds of thousand of non-insurgent Iraqis who have been injured/displaced/killed due to our instigating this war?
Can't we all agree that what's happened should not have? How can we sit back and let the Interloper to compound his many mistakes by adding fuel ( i.e. American lives) to the fire? And where, Senate douchebags, do you get off voting to stop the debate?
Despite the fact that PatRoW legions failed to nominate me for Best New Weblog of 2006, my public service continues. And today I revisit an old, yet oddly forgotten theme – the bastardization of the word "liberal" by right-wing pundits.
A few months ago, I compared Republican tactics to some dialogue from one of my favorite movies: " There's a line in 'The Usual Suspects' in which Kevin Spacey's character opined that 'the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist'. Well, the greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled was convincing the country that 'liberal' is a 4-letter word." Today I've read something that expands upon my point as it explains the genesis and historical connotations of "The L Word".
I've always been in the JFK school of thought about the word "liberal", even as I never actually realized we occupied the same intellectual space. And yes, I realize that statement can be taken as both incredibly egotistical (I'm as smart as a former president!) and incredibly self-deprecating (I'm as smart as a dead guy!):
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'liberal'? If by a 'liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people--their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties--someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'liberal,' then I'm proud to say that I'm a 'liberal.'
FDR, the godfather of the notion of Democrats as "the bearer of liberalism and of progress", went even further in his definition of the term. He recognized "a deeper need--the need to find through government the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization."
That need – the need for a government that serves its citizens is at the root of liberalism and seems difficult (for me at least) to argue against. And yet, it meets with outrage and contempt from not only Republican political opponents, but from the very middle- and lower-class Americans who would seem to benefit most from this highest of liberalism's high ideals.
The smear campaign began (in earnest) with Ronald Reagan, who "openly attacked both liberals and liberalism--painting them as soft on crime, foreign policy, and the work ethic--and won two presidential elections in the process". Liberals began to run away from the tag that had political benefited and accurately defined them after those slurs, yet it was still prevalent enough to be used as the focal point for Newt Gingrich's ire in 1994 – a race that drove the left from Congressional majorities for the first time in decades.
After reassuming control of the House and Senate a few months ago, one would assume there would be a race to embrace the symbolism of true liberalism, but alas, that has not proven to be the case. After decades of lies, damn lies and Rovian lies against our beloved ideals, liberals are still thought of as pansies and our proud label dismissed as irrelevant by some INSIDE OUR OWN PARTY who want Democrats to back away from a fight about semantics.
But here's the thing: I want to fight about semantics. I want to embrace the label that most accurately defines my ideals. I want to reclaim the word "liberal" from the black hole of political exile and restore it to its rightful place at the forefront of national debate.
Do we need a national re-branding campaign? Or maybe, just maybe, liberals around the country need to own up to what and who they are. Maybe, just maybe, there is one politician brave enough to stand in front of his constituency and declare, "My name is (insert imaginary representative here) and I am a liberal".
Maybe, just maybe, that's possible. Then again, maybe being an idealist serves no practical purpose, maybe I'm a condescending asshole who can't or won't relate to mainstream America, and maybe, just maybe, conservatives are right in saying liberals like me are pussies.
Nah…that can’t be right. Except the condescending asshole part – that’s probably a valid observation.
We all know I think John Kerry got a raw deal in 2004 and again with "Botched Joke-Gate" last November, and – rambling Senate floor speeches not withstanding – I think he is a fine and responsible politician.
One thing John Kerry is not, however, is the next President of the United States. Yesterday he announced that he will not enter the wide-open fray in a statement that showcased the sometimes overly-eloquent senator at his plain-spoken best:
His voice cracking with emotion, Kerry said that what the Senate does now may determine the future of Iraq, the Middle East and the United States. Kerry recalled the question he asked after returning from Vietnam -- "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- and said he "never thought" he'd be "reliving the need to ask that question again."
"We are there," he said. Kerry acknowledged that one of the reasons we're there is that he and other senators voted to authorize George W. Bush to use force in Iraq. Because of that vote, he said, members of the Senate now have a "moral obligation" to bring the war to a close.
Wow. John Kerry is making sense both as a politician and a human being. Jim Webb – supposedly a man lacking basic communication skills – is channeling his inner Obama. Barack and Hillary are early front runners in the Democratic presidential primaries. Are all Senate Dems such strong, influential leaders capable of leading a national debate and serving as the conscious of the people? Have they collectively and suddenly become the voice of reason and rational thought?
Oh wait, there's still Joe Lieberman. It's good to know some things never change.
Apparently, I wasn't the only one taken aback by yesterday's Salon piece about Barack Obama not being black. Today, another of the online magazine's writers weighs in and quite strongly states his premise that Obama is, in fact, black -- he just isn't "black."
Did you get that? How about this:
People whose race or ethnicity defines their identity, or at least makes up a major part of it, are what I think of as quotation-mark people. They are not only mixed-race, they are "mixed-race." Those whose race or ethnicity has little or nothing to do with their identity, with their sense of themselves, are non-quotation-mark people. They may recognize themselves as black or Latino or Asian, be whatever race or ethnicity they are to the core, and proudly affirm they are such, but they aren't "black" or "Latino" or "Asian."
What the fuck is going on here people? Obama is African-American (he is quite literally the son of an African and an American), but despite the OBVIOUS AND (hopefully) IRRELEVENT color of his skin, he's not black and/or "black" enough for some folks?
The Iowa Caucuses are one year away, and we've allowed barely a week to pass between the official announcement of Obama's candidacy to slip into ridiculous rhetoric about race. Let's talk about America's silent racism and sexism – an important issue on which all primary voters need to seriously soul search. However, debating this kind of race label is as silly as talking about augmentations vs. escalations.
As I've documented in the past, nobody loves hyperbole more than me. That's why I couldn't pass up reading an editorial that claimed as its main argument that Barack Obama is not black.
Read that line again. I'll wait.
Salon's Debra J. Dickerson holds off on harsh criticisms of the senator's platform, but she does go after the one fact that everyone seems to agree on
"Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term.
Wow. And you thought Scott McClellan was the king of spin (truth be told, he was *so* 2006).
Though I am wholly unqualified to debate the attribution of "blackness" in 21st Century America, I can't get behind the argument…even as I find it intoxicatingly original.
Barack Obama is not black? What's next – Hillary Clinton is not a woman (I knew her hands were too big! Someone check under the skirt).
Maybe John McCain isn't really a war hero (in reality, he spent four years at Cambodia's Club Med).
Perhaps George W. Bush isn't really a douchebag (uh…well…uh…no, I can't come up with a plausible defense. He really is a douche).
One of the great things about the internet is that nothing ever goes away – and yes, I realize that will come back to haunt me when testifying in front of Congress (or trying to persuade the parole board) 30 years from now.
Anyway, an essay co-written by George H. W. Bush in the March 2, 1998 issue of Time Magazine has resurfaced, despite an apparent conspiracy to cover it up. In it, the former president gives some fairly solid reasons why he did not, despite significant pressure, force Saddam Hussein's ouster in the first Gulf War. And guess what? The rationale seems applicable today as well:
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have… incurred incalculable human and political costs. ...The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. …Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
The Interloper's desire to distance himself from daddy has been long documented and he has infamously not turned to his father for counsel, despite the former president's considerable depth of international experience and familiarity with diplomatic nuance. No one will remember HW as an especially good president ("Read my lips: no new taxes" and puking on the Japanese guy – that's his legacy), but clearly he had a sense of the delicate political climate in the Middle East and an appreciation for the cost of American lives it would have taken to enact regime change. Is that too much to ask from our president?
And did I just pine for the wisdom of George H. W. Bush?
Uh oh – we're picking up Joe-mentum again.
Joe Lieberman, the selfish, grandstanding, traitorous senator from Connecticut, has taken a perilous stance defending the Interloper's Iraq surge plan – a plan that isn't being so vociferously defended in the president's own party.
One has to wonder if the White House is blackmailing him with photos that would make Mark Foley blush, because Lieberman' support of the troop surge counters both the insight of our most experienced military professionals and the will of the American people. And he's so smug about it to boot!
Lieberman appears desperate to shed his former blue ties. A profile in Salon today reveals that:
After the election, Lieberman advertised himself as the least reliable member of the Democratic caucus by insisting that he be listed by the secretary of the Senate as an "Independent Democrat." Last week, in a development noted by few, Lieberman's office admitted to Congressional Quarterly that the whole I.D. thing seemed not to be catching on, and that, if Lieberman had to choose one or the other, he'd rather be known as an Independent than as a Democrat.
C.Q., at least, reported that it is going to consider Lieberman an Independent from now on: "With Lieberman's latest shift, the Senate now has 49 Republicans and 49 Democrats…"
Gee, Lieberman is showing less than enthusiastic allegiance for the Democratic Party. Who would have guessed it? Oh yeah – me!
He doesn't want us, and we only tolerate him to keep up the appearance of a Senate majority. While the dysfunctional relationship between Lieberman and his supposed party can continue, shouldn't we all be asking "why" in our loudest, outside voices? Mr. Senator – why did you run for reelection on a platform that stated "troop reduction" as an immediate goal, yet turn around at betray that sentiment less than two months later? Why did you claim outrage at the administration's handling of post-Katrina affairs, only to slink away from the issue once you retained your seat?
And why, Joe, why should we label you with anything other than the tag that most loudly speaks every time you open your mouth? For those of you still trying to do the math, it rhymes with "ducking fooshbag".
For the most part, I have avoided posting about the Iraq War, as no-win situations offer little ground for know-it-alls like me to sound smart and offer a reality check. Iraq is a depressing situation with no real solution that will continue to worsen. How/when/why will our troops get out? How can I get passionate about an answer when there are only questions?
On Wednesday, the Interloper interrupted my primetime TV viewing schedule to announce he was augmenting (apparently, in an image is everything administration, this is different than an "escalation") troop levels by 21,000. In their testimonies in front of both House and Senate committees Thursday, Secretary of State Condi Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were greeted by bipartisan opposition to the president's plan. That's right – questions about strategy and sincerity were voiced from both sides of the aisle, as some of the administration's most loyal congressional lackeys have begun to eat crow and distance themselves from Dubya's Folly.
Happily, however, for the Wonderful Wizard of the White House, one man had the courage to applaud the president's plan: you guessed it – Democratic (ahem) Senator Joe Lieberman!
In a statement released by his office, Joe Lieberman wraps his arms around the president's "correct and courageous" new strategy. "I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq," Lieberman says. He says that Bush has offered up "a comprehensive program to chart a new course in both winning the military struggle to establish order and in achieving the political and economic objectives to build a more promising future for Iraqis."
I had a few words about Lieberman this fall after he lost Connecticut's Democratic primary, then selfishly ran and won as an independent. I will admit I was wrong about one thing – he has chosen to caucus with the Democrats and seems willing to support the Party's main objectives. Small miracles, right?
But the fucking balls on this prick! How can any Democrat, any elected official, any sane person, still have such enthusiastic support for Dubya's dumbass plan? More than just an embarrassment to his party, Lieberman is in embarrassment to the human race; running onto a sinking ship while even the dirtiest rats escape is not as heroic as Joe would have us believe – it's a disgusting betrayal of his constituency and a treasonous insult to his office, party and nation.
I know what you're thinking. "Two posts in one day? Dude, pace yourself." And yet, perhaps this is the pace that should be expected of me, especially when there is so much to say. Furthermore, don't call me "dude"; I think I've earned the respect to be called "sir".
Anyway, I read a few pieces that I just couldn't sit on. One, written by the calculation of voters was curiously one-sided--measuring candidates almost exclusively in terms of their flaws, rather than taking stock of their attributes, as well". One could argue that Kerry's loss was inevitable:
If Kerry lacked the vulnerabilities of some of his rivals, he also lacked their skills. He couldn't win people over with charm or inspiration. And, while he had a bevy of nifty policy proposals, he had no grandiose, overarching message with which to sell them. So when the general campaign got tough, Kerry had no reservoir of public enthusiasm or support on which to draw. And, when the Republicans attacked what was supposedly his best asset--his record of heroism in Vietnam--Kerry didn't have the tools to fight back successfully.
when the time came for Democrats to cast their ballots, they embraced Clinton anyway--for the very simple reason that he reached them in a way other candidates didn't. For some, it was his sheer charisma. For others, it was his ability to identify with the anxiety they were feeling. And for more, it was his serious discussion of ideas that held real promise for improving their lives.
House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.
But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.
Uh…Nancy? I love the big ideas, but what use is our idealism if we can't be held to our word? I don't want those Republican douchebags clogging up the wheels of change any more than you do, but we're the party that *doesn't* believe that the ends justify the means.
And how about this? Then Speaker Dennis Hastert wouldn't acknowledge Pelosi's 2004 proposed "bill of rights" for members of Congress in the minority party. Now, Republicans are proposing – wait for it – a "bill of rights" for members of Congress in the minority party. Who saw that coming?
Three years ago, Pelosi said, " the people's business would be well served" if Congress followed the principles behind her "bill of rights", "no matter which party is in control of the House." Now she will be put to the test; as much as I believe in her platform, I hope she also realizes this: hypocrites can maintain power in the short-term, but can easily lose the support of even the most historic national consensus with a brash disregard for integrity.
It has been a slow two months in PatRoWland, and I'm sure you are as sick as I am of YouTube videos and flash animations. So as we stand on the precipice of a new Democratic majority in Congress (and hope, with baited breath, that they can last a few weeks before their first major fuck up), the time has come to address THE issue of the day in progressive politics:
The Race to Not Do Something Stupid and Nominate an Intelligent and Competent Woman for a Job for which She is Entirely Qualified Yet Stands No Chance of Winning an Electoral or Popular Majority (or, as you call it, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Tomato, toe-mah-toe).
As I stated back in November, I still believe that Hillary's presidential campaign will serve as a smoke screen used to attract the Right's attacks and allow our REAL nominee to rise to the party's forefront virtually unscathed from widespread criticism. Oh sure, there will be hotly contested primaries, but state-wide Democratic races will help us all figure out who is the best-suited to lead the presidential charge in 2008. Not a coronation or manifest destiny as some pro-Hillary folks would have us believe, the best Democrat will emerge from a large field of prospects ranging from likely (Obama, Edwards) to possible (Vilsack, Kerry) to laughable (Kucinich, Sharpton).
The first big name candidate to declare, John Edwards has a real platform, exudes charm and possesses ability to live in and understand the "two Americas" – something vital to relate to the masses and attract funding from the elite. His absence from elected office since his ill-fated 2004 run with John Kerry may prove to be more of a blessing than a hindrance; Edwards has spent the last 2+ years cultivating his resume on matters of international politics, while his lack of a constituency has allowed him to be the only major American political figure talking about poverty and offering a realistic plan for universal health coverage. Plus, relative lack of practical experience shouldn't be held against him, as Edwards himself points out:
"Look at Rumsfeld and Cheney. Both of them had extraordinary experience -- but we've seen that experience does not equal good judgment, and experience is not the same as having a vision, and experience does not guarantee adaptability. We've seen absolutely no capacity to adjust, to move with the world's changes."
The other big names likely to be on the 2008 campaign trail are still clinging to the ridiculous notions that they have yet to decide about their presidential ambitions. An old friend of ours measures up three juggernauts on his Obameter, and finds that the junior senator from Illinois may have an edge over his more experienced chamber-mates (I know I just spoiled his conclusion, but please read the article anyway. You won't regret it…plus YPC needs all the hits it can get).
I suppose it may still be a bit premature to start measuring horses in a race they haven't officially entered, but that's what modern politics has become. Besides, with less than absolute confidence in the ability of Team Pelosi to govern efficiently and effectively, the 2008 presidential campaign may be our only hope to ensure our country doesn't regress back into Republican control of all three branches of government.
And although such a scenario would be conducive for blog content, it's one I'm hoping doesn't come to fruition.
I know that we still have two more weeks to go before the end of 2006, but I don't think I'm out of line by officially awarding PatRoW's prestigious "Quote of the Year" award to a certain attempted murdering vice president.
At Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon going-away party , Vice President Dick Cheney, who began his career as an intern for Rummy in 1969, said "I've never worked harder for a boss and I've never learned more from one, either."
Senior Administration sources reveal that President Bush was not offended by Cheney's snub because he a) has never tried to teach his VP anything; and b) never realized he was actually Cheney's boss.
Virginia's George Felix Allen, outgoing US Senator and all-around douchebag (what – you forgot? I did a whole series on this loser) has given his first formal interview since losing to Democrat Jim Webb. What did "Macaca Goldstein" reveal? Well, for one thing, he likes using ridiculous football analogies. For another, he's an idiot.
"When you lose a game by one point, you can go through every play in the game and say, 'If we didn't jump offside, if the referee makes that call, if we caught that pass, if we didn't fumble, we could have made a difference," he said.
There is no word on whether anyone on Allen's staff explained to the senator that giddily throwing racial epithets isn't the same as "jumping offside", or that sticking a deer head in someone's mailbox is slightly different than dropping a pass, or that posing for pictures with the Confederate flag is a bit removed from a referee making a bad call, or, that adamantly denying, then begrudgingly accepting one's Jewish heritage is a bit more than a fumble, or, well, you get the picture.
But the mock redneck wasn't done making an ass of himself.
"Everyone, including myself, could have done a better job. I have high standards and high expectations for myself. I could have done better."
How? Allen wouldn't say.
"I'm not good at psychoanalysis," he said.
No, he sure isn't. Nor is he good at tolerance, or being humble, or recognizing the importance of education. But the next time you need to burn a cross, best keep George Allen on speed dial.
What happens when Republicans falter, Democrats don’t screw up and my political blood pressure cools from a boil to a mere simmer? PatRoW readers get the shaft with (at best) infrequent postings or (at worst) mediocre baseball analysis. But don’t fret, friends – Quick Hits has returned to pick up the many pieces that are worth a word or two, if not a full-fledged rant.
There is a gay agenda -- winning elections – I don’t believe it. Barney Frank, you sly dog you!
K-K-Kramer – anyone else still have Michael Richards’ catchy apology rap stuck in his head? Um…me neither.
Likability poll bad news for Kerry – perhaps the most understated headline of the year. It seems that the Massachusetts Senator, flubbed joke making, once-and-future Democratic presidential candidate finished dead last in a nation-wide likability poll of 20 top American political figures. Saying that this is “bad news” for Kerry is akin to saying that the passing of a kidney stone will lead to “some discomfort” or that the war in
How is Kate Winslet like a car? – from those zany folks at Broadsheet, comes the latest in a series of wacky headlines. So how is Kate Winslet like a car, you ask? Hell, I can play this game without reading the article!
· She has “Oldsmobile” tattooed on her bumper
· Heh, heh. Hummer. Heh, heh.
· She has dumps like a truck, truck, truck
· “At 17 I went to prison for murder. By 19, I was penniless and heartbroken. I almost drowned at 20. My mind started to go at 24. Then I had my memory erased at 28. And by 29, I was in Neverland.” OK – so that really has nothing to do with how she’s like a car, but every time I see that stupid American Express commercial I want to run Kate over with my Honda Accord
Feel free to add your own idea for “how Kate Winslet is like a car” by posting a comment below. Trust me, it’s a blast!
Peace out, my Wigga – amazingly, this is not another Michael Richards joke. Rather, it’s an amusing tongue-in-cheek “entertainment” piece written by Salon’s sports writer, King Kaufman. Not so amusing is the fact that this seems to be a real story, not a spoof.
C'mon, I can't be the only one who showed up to work this morning in a navy blue suit with a copy of Tiger Beat in one hand, 8 ounces of Jergens in the other, and a name tag that says Congressman Mark Foley maf54…can I? And why the weird looks that I brought my nephew to the office today?
We are one week away. Things are looking good. The Interloper continues to make an ass of himself. Why can't I be optimistic?
Perhaps it's alarmingly naïve logic like this:
If the election were held today, and if the latest polls turned out to be accurate predictors of the outcome -- and let's be clear here, it's too early to start assuming either of those things -- Democrats would hold on to seats in Maryland and New Jersey and pick up seats in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, Ohio and Virginia. If Democrats pick up either Missouri or Tennessee, they take the Senate. If they don't, Dick Cheney spends the next two years breaking 50-50 ties in favor of the GOP.
But here's the thing – that's not exactly true. Cheney's vote means that 50/50 split is still a Republican majority, at least until after the 2008 elections (and likely after those elections as well). And what about Joe Lieberman – why are we counting the Independent candidate in the "Democrat" column? Oh sure, he'll be receptive to some core liberal ideals, but don't you think he'll be the least bit bitter that he lost the financial support of the party that nominated him as its #2 guy six years ago?
If Democrats pick up either Missouri or Tennessee, they will indeed have taken the Senate 50-49-1 (Lieberman's independent vote would be as meaningless as Cheney's tie-breaker). And aren't we putting the cart before the horse a bit in Virginia? Let's not overreact to one poll, which may or may not have been unfairly skewed by the days of the week in which information was collected (although I'd love to ask national GOP consultant Christopher J. LaCivita, how or why "everybody knows surveys conducted Fridays and Saturdays…are skewed toward Democrats.").
The House still looks like a safer bet, although some of the left's most respected voices still have their doubts about that as well.
