The video is something put together by a high school student, but it’s actually pretty funny.  Here’s your history lesson of the 1844 election by They Might Be Giants:

Edward R. Pease, member of the Fabian Society, writing in 1925:

“The United States in the [eighteen-]seventies was not yet dominated by trusts and controlled by millionaires.  Indeed even now that domination and control, dangerous and disastrous as it often is, could not withstand for a moment any widespread uprising of the popular will.”  (History of the Fabian Society, p. 20-21).

This is classic Clinton. Listen to how she responds to a reporter’s question about her statement to Bill Richardson, “Obama can’t win.”

“You know we have been going back and forth in this campaign about who said what to whom and let me say this about that. I don’t talk about private conversations. But I have consistently made the case that I can win because I believe I can win. You know, sometimes people draw the conclusions that I’m saying somebody else can’t win. I can win, I know I can win. That’s why I do this everyday. I’m in it to win it.”

I’m sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but that wasn’t the question. I cannot believe this woman has gotten away with doing this for decades, and she’s just barely going to lose the nomination. She should be getting annihilated. Her candidacy should have been a big joke, and she should have been laughed at until she quit.

But it doesn’t end here. When pressed by the reporter: “Is that a no?” she responded, “That’s a no.”

Except that “no” doesn’t really mean “no.” CBS reports a later explanation given by Clinton’s staff:

But later, a senior Clinton spokesman told reporters that Clinton did not mean to imply that she was not referring to what she allegedly said to Richardson about Obama.

Oh. Well, now it all makes sense.

This is a very controversial piece, and I freely admit I may have to rethink some of this as discussion moves forward. Additional Point: One of the things I’m trying to do with this series is to demonstrate that one can agree with “liberals” or “progressives” (for lack of better words) on the causes and definition of racism without it becoming part of the Republican vs. Democrat power-play divide (“racism” vs. “race card”) on this issue (and also, one can agree on the causes and definition, while proposing a different solution to the problem).

Jon did a Google Reader share yesterday (Google Reader rocks, by the way) of the new video circulating of Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright (whom I’ve defended here previously), and many of his inflammatory statements about race (and a few on terrorism) in America. No doubt this is going to cause a firestorm. The Clintons will have to tread carefully here, as they’ve recently run into difficulty over the Ferraro gaffe. They’ll probably use it as part of their new “Obama is unelectable so you should nominate Hillary even though she lost” plan. Conservative pundits – though likely not McCain himself, who won’t want to revisit his “gooks” statement of 2000 – will be all over it in the general election.

Just for the record, watching rich white conservative men react with righteous indignation at Wright’s claim that rich white men run the country is, well, kind of appalling. ‘Cause whatever else you think of Wright, he’s, you know, right on that one.

The politics of all this makes it impossible, once again, to actually talk about racism. I’ll note that it is amusing (and by amusing, I mean “really sad”) the way this plays out. It goes sort of like this:

• White conservative person makes a statement about the effect race has on a vote.
• Liberal person claims “Racism.”
• White conservative accuses liberal of “playing the race card.”

And we never actually talk any deeper about whether or not racism was involved (or what racism even is). Ferraro’s comments are a good example (I know she’s not a conservative, but it illustrates the point). Ferraro’s statement that Barack is winning because of his race is a matter of sociological opinion/discussion, of course. I’d disagree with her (I think if Barack were running the same campaign as a white man, he’d have had this nomination wrapped up a month ago), but that’s a legitimate conversation of . But the question that many are unwilling to address is why Ferraro made the comment and what its effects are, and the answer to that seems to me to be – it’s an attempt to inject a racial element into the contest prior to PA’s primary, in order to favor Clinton.  So whether or not her statement was “racist” or “bigoted,” its effects are to use race in order to achieve a certain end (power for Clinton).

Here’s what I like about the fact that Jeremiah Wright is getting attention in this election, despite the fact that he’s over-the-top and there’s much he says with which I disagree: with a candidate like Obama in play, we might actually end up having a discussion about racism. It won’t happen in the media, but it just might happen across America anyway.

What I’m trying to do here is not to have the typical middle-class-white-man disingenuous “righteous anger” at someone like Wright, and to give his thoughts, as a representation of the black community, a fair and challenging hearing (this is America, right?). We tend automatically to deflect the arguments of people like Wright and never to really think about them. So, implications for political campaigns aside, here are the discussions about Jeremiah Wright’s views that I want to have (these are real questions, not simply rhetorical). I’ll show my hand right off the bat by putting my responses in brackets.

• Is Jeremiah Wright incorrect to say that since its founding, this is a nation that has favored whites at the expense of blacks? [No, not at all...and this is the fundamental conversation that needs to be had when it comes to defining and understanding racism in America.]
• Is Jeremiah Wright incorrect to say that America is an arrogant nation? [In some ways, we are humanitarian and do a lot of great things around the world, no question about it; but yes, we're an arrogant nation. That's standard as far as empires go.]
• Not taking Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America” statements entirely out of context (“damn” was set up in contrast to “bless,” he’s talking about judgment/cursing), are his statements that America is deserving of judgment for its sins incorrect? [No, of course not. The point of his statement here is a good one: American leaders assume and invoke the blessing of God while doing things that He abhors. It's the sin of presumption Wright's getting at here. I don't think Wright or anyone else wants American destroyed in a cataclysmic judgment from God.]

Update: Shocker – McCain voted against the torture ban.

The Senate has been taking advice from Gandalf. Bush will surely veto, but today the Senate voted against waterboarding and all forms of torture.

You can’t fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy, but unfortunately Gandalf’s wisdom seems long ago to have passed with him into the True West. ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

Yes, it’s happening, and not just among weirdo conservatives that no one’s heard of. Jeffrey Hart is a Burkean conservative was a speechwriter for Reagan and former writer for NRO (HT to De Regno Christi)

Jeffrey Hart sat at his kitchen table in slippers, reading Barack Obama’s words aloud. The retired Dartmouth professor, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, wore on his shirt an artifact of the 1900 Republican presidential ticket — a McKinley-Roosevelt pin.

“I am not opposed to all wars,” Hart intoned, quoting a 2002 speech before the Illinois State Legislature in which Obama, then a state senator, had warned of the perils of invading Iraq. “I’m opposed to dumb wars.” Looking up from the page, Hart nodded his approval.

“Very Burkean,” he said, referring to the 18th century Irish political writer Edmund Burke, hailed by many as the founder of modern conservatism. “Prudential. A sense of history, and what we’re up against there.”

I bet he freaked when McCain invoked Burke in his CPAC speech. I know I did. It seems to me that a growing number of conservatives are coming to the conclusion that Iraq was simply not a conservative war. The neocons duped us. (And I include myself in that “us.”)

Thoughts?

Yes. I plan to spend the next several months trashing McCain, for all 4 of my readers. This video’s making the rounds now. This is hilarious.

I post this for no other reason than that it’s a case study in bad reporting, empty rhetoric, and overall douchebaggery (am I allowed to say that?).

It takes either deliberate ignorance or complete idiocy to get this much wrong in one small report on Ron Paul:

Having failed to gain any traction in his Presidential bid except among a lose cadre of fringe anti-war allegedly libertarian voters

The new definition of “no traction” is apparently record-breaking fundraising, second place in a few states, and the strongest showing of any libertarian-minded candidate in recent decades.

he has had to suspend his campaign two days after appearing at CPAC.

No he didn’t. That’s just false reporting.

You know, having spent the past year bashing Jews, Republicans, the military, and the United States, it’s great to see Ron Paul forced to flee the field.

Don’t think. I’ll think for you. Any argument over what American stance towards Jews is the best for Israel itself means you’re actually against Israel.

As to the other two groups: anyone who can’t find reasons to “bash” Republicans after the last 8 years is a moron. Active military members have donated more to Paul’s campaign than all the other Republican candidates combined.

I’m planning a major essay on the fallout from the Ron Paul campaign in which I’ll take a overarching look at all the issues involved (support, media coverage, the campaign tactics, newsletter debacle, future of libertarianism, etc.) and what it means for conservatism. I’ll try to make some sense in doing so.

This Sunday is Tea Party 07, the next mass donation day for Ron Paul. In light of this, I’ll be blogging Ron Paul all week (this will also give my Reformed friends a nice break from my bashing of our theology).  I’ve already started with a couple questions about Ron Paul and 9/11, and a list of Festivus grievances against evangelical Huckabee supporters.

The exciting thing about this upcoming Tea Party is that we’re already, as of this post, over $11.3 million for the fourth quarter, making us less than $700,000 away from the stated fourth quarter goal. My guess is, as Ron Paul has done nothing but gain momentum since the “Money Bomb,” Ron Paul will be breaking his own record of one-day internet money-raising, and we’re going to see a huge amount of money available to the Ron Paul campaign for the early primaries. As I’ve said before, I think this is even more significant than it already sounds – Paul does not keep the bloated campaign staff the other candidates hire, which means more money for ads. (By the look of some of the ads, he’s not spending as much on them as the other candidates, either, and I guess we’ll see whether or not polished ads make a difference in less than a month).

Consider supporting Ron Paul on December 16, Tea Party ‘07. If this day is as successful as we hope, Ron Paul will get a new round of media attention (along with that crazy blimp!) just weeks before Iowa.