Barack and the preacher.

When has there been a weirder election, I ask you? It's like upside-down land, or that planet on the far side of the sun that is an exact mirror image of the Earth, except that everyone eats corn on the cob up-and-down instead of side-to-side (apologies to Father Sarducci). On one side, a field of mostly white guys has narrowed to a woman and a brother; on the other, a 71-year-old "maverick" is winning out against religious and social conservatives. It took eight years of Dubya/Cheney to make this field look good to two historically cautious institutional parties. The Democrats haven't even half-seriously advanced an African-American or female candidate for national office since 1984-88 - now it's as if they figure, what the hell? And not choosing someone broadly approved by the Christian right is a very different kettle of fish for the G.O.P. Amazing. And yet, from a policy standpoint, we're not looking at any radical departures here. The general election will be a clash of two orthodoxies - a choice between basically what we have now and a slightly more managed version of empire, with the winner building his/her administration from that same pool of a few hundred players they always draw on.

What about Obama? Painfully cautious man. Either that, or he really is a passionate centrist. I'm not sure it matters. To the extent that I want to invest any serious thought into the matter, I do mildly prefer him to the other people running, but it's a kind of grudging preference. He does get people fired up and motivated to vote, and it would be at least nominally a new administration, if built from remnants of past administrations. Thing is, Obama could use his current standing to advance some badly needed political causes, but he won't, either because he doesn't agree with them or he feels they would cost him votes. The trouble with politicians on the center-left is that they're always trying to take their half out of the middle of the electorate. Likely this is because they get most of their money from industry sources that reside there politically. If money wasn't driving them, if they truly were a party of the poor and working class, they could win by taking bold positions. There is majority support in the U.S. for trading our current private health insurance casino in for a single-payer coverage system. They only thing lacking is a major party willing to take up that issue and that challenge. Obama, for instance, could but doesn't. The reason may be money. (Just a guess.)

Then there's Huckabee, Steven Colbert's friend and invention (perhaps the candidate's best attribute, aside from a television-friendly persona). Now he's probably the friendliest guy who ever threatened to force millions of women to carry their pregnancies to term against their will. But hell, I'm sure if you met enough members of them, you'd find at least one Taliban who seemed likeable. I think the thing that gets me the most about Huck is not so much that he, for instance, doesn't believe in evolution, but that he tends to adopt hare-brained policy positions like the national sales tax (known by its proponents as the "Fair Tax"). Aside from being massively regressive and favorable to the very wealthy, the "Fair Tax" promoters actually mask its true impact by claiming it's a 23% tax (!!) when it's actually more like a 30% tax (!!!!). (They do that by including the tax amount in the total - so for every dollar you spend, you add 30 cents... but that 30 cents is just 23% of the total $1.30 you just spent. Pretty tricky, huh?) But Huck has adopted it, so that must mean God wills it to be. Maybe they should just call it the "Jesus Tax".

Still burning. Just in case anyone has forgotten, we're still dropping enormous amounts of ordinance on Iraq - recently 19,000 pounds worth in Arab Jabour, south of the capital. Whoever you support for president, just make sure you hold their feet to the fire on this wretched enterprise.

luv u,

jp