MassEyesandEars at MyDD has
a post up on the subject of John Edwards and his proposed “New Partnership” with local government.

The post points out:

Local governments are day to day the face of government for most Americans and provide the services most people rely on the most. More than that, the struggles of our local governments are largely a reflection of the struggles of our communities and the disdainful treatment of the locals by the feds reflects the disdain the DC system has for everyone outside of it.

It also goes on to note two items in Edwards’ proposal having to do with health care costs — costs that are killing local government as they struggle to live within their means and, at the same time, honor their commitment to employees to provide health care coverage; and having to do with special education funding — apparently Washington is supposed to pay something like 40% of the cost of special education but routinely fails to provide even 20% of the cost, resulting in increased burdens on school districts and property taxpayers.

I haven’t read Edwards’ proposal, so I won’t comment specifically on it. I will say that, at a gut level, it feels wrong to pay so much in federal taxes relative to what I pay in local taxes given how much more I appear to be served by local government as opposed to federal government. Some of that is just an illusion, of course, — without a national defense, things would be quite different if the Canadian hordes came howling down from the northlands, for example. But, some of it has to do with criminally stupid expenditures of money. (See, e.g., Iraq, invasion and occupation of; Alaskan bridges, etc.)

I heard something on Hardball tonight that struck me. (By way of disclaimer, I don’t watch Hardball that much, but I tend to turn on MSNBC as I change out of my work clothes). Anyway, some beltway pundit or another was talking about how maybe Democratic primary voters would vote for Hillary Clinton even though they didn’t really like her because she might be perceived as “the most electable.” If primary voters voted for her it would show how much Democrats really want the White House.

My sense is that this completely misreads the mood of the national electorate this year. I could be wrong – I’m no professional pundit (but that probably increases my likelihood for accurate predictions.) I get the sense that the Democrats can elect anyone within reason this year. I think any Republican candidate (except for perhaps Ron Paul who almost certainly won’t get the GOP nomination) will have the Bush albatross so firmly wrapped around their neck that they can’t win. This year, the Democratic nomination is kind of like playing for the AFC Championship. It’s not guaranteed, but the winner has to be a prohibitive favorite to win the Super Bowl.

Now that I’ve stumbled onto the NFL metaphor, I’ll push it along for awhile. Hillary is kind of like the New England Patriots of the field – she has some gaudy stats, but she’s tainted with a lot of big money, a hint of dynasty, and a sketchy explanation for her war vote. At the end of the season, do you really want her wearing the ring?

Democrats should just forget about perceived electability this year. For starters, it doesn’t work. They picked Kerry in 2004 because they thought he was more electable. What that seemed to translate to was an overly cautious approach and an unwillingness to get pinned down on a position. This season, I figure Democrats should vote for a candidate whose policies they like best. From there, I think the electability will take care of itself. Now, I just have to figure out whether Obama is the Colts and Edwards is the Steelers, or vice versa.

And, for what it’s worth, Todd Beeton at MyDD has an interesting post entitled “If the Caucus were held tonight.” John Edwards is usually an afterthought in any Democratic primary discussion. But, there is a narrative going around that Edwards would probably win the Iowa Caucuses if they were held right now because he supposedly has a superior organization and, importantly for this process, he is a lot of people’s second choice. In the Iowa caucus system, if a candidate doesn’t get above a certain threshold of support, that candidate’s supporters go to their second choice among the remaining candidates.

One poll shows the likely-caucus goers as having second choice preferences as follows: Edwards 22.7, Obama 20.1, Clinton 13.8. I think Hillary is going to face real problems once it becomes clear that Obama or Edwards is more viable than the other. Supporters of the less successful of the two will mostly peel off for the other and mostly not go over into the Clinton camp. That’s my impression anyway.

At Clinton campaign offices in Rochester, New Hampshire, a man wearing what looks to be a bomb has taken two volunteers as hostages.

WNBC-TV in New York quoted an unidentified law enforcement source as saying the man wanted to speak with Clinton.

Clinton, who was in Washington, D.C., canceled a speaking engagement and was meeting with staffers.

She did not respond publicly to the reported demands, but her campaign issued this statement: “We are in close contact with state and local authorities and are acting at their direction. We will release additional details as appropriate.”

As always, Hunter is a great read.

On the hit list:
1. Poorly sourced smears against Obama flogged by the Washington Post.
2. Rove on Bush & Iraq: The Democrats made him do it.
3. Rudy and the New York City paid car and police driver for his mistress.
4. Hillary Clinton thinks Colin “these are facts, not assertions” Powell is a guy worth listening to.
5. Joe Klein continues to walk the earth unraped by drunken bears, thus proving there is no God.
6. A gay general got to ask the Republican candidates questions. The horror!

Hunter really burns bright on the screwed up notions of “moderation” and “bipartisan reasonableness” that would have pundits like David Broder require a Democratic administration to temper an otherwise sensible policy with “clusterfuckery” in the name of getting along; that would require the embrace of a guy like Colin Powell just because he has been deemed a reasonable guy even though he is the kind of guy who would go to the U.N. and tell the assembly that Hussein’s WMDs were a stone cold fact known “without a doubt.”

I probably drag this one out too often, but insisting on moderation when it doesn’t make sense always reminds me of William Lloyd Garrison writing on the subject of abolitionism and slavery in the inaugural edition of his newspaper, The Liberator:

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.

Hoosiers, by and large, are a loyal and relatively conservative bunch. So, George W. Bush has performed quite a task in developing a 28% approval rating among Hoosiers. The poll found that the average Hoosier supports universal health care and supports requirements to make cars more fuel efficient; with a plurality of Hoosiers planning on voting for the Democratic Presidential candidate.

I would take the poll’s information on Hoosier policy preferences more seriously than peoples’ Presidential voting plans. Presidential voting is going to be driven in some measure by the personality’s of the people running. (Hopefully “who we’d like to have a beer with” isn’t as much of a factor this time around, given how disastrous it was as a factor last time.)

One problem the Republican candidate will have to deal with is the Bush albatross:

Anti-Bush sentiment is strong and growing in Indiana, according to the poll.

Twenty-eight percent say they approve of the way Bush is handling the job of president, down from 37 percent in a February 2006 poll.

More than two-thirds of state residents disapprove of the president’s handling of the situation in Iraq, the economy, the federal budget and immigration policy.

“I’m not happy with President Bush at all,” said Georgetta Oakley, 60, Indianapolis. “The country is heading in the wrong direction. The president ought to be taking care of the people here in America, instead of draining every dollar fighting the war.”
. . .
Asked whether U.S. troops should leave Iraq sooner, instead of staying longer, even if it means disorder and potential civil war in Iraq, 56 percent said they should leave sooner. Thirty-eight percent favored staying longer even if it means potentially more deaths and injuries among U.S. troops.

Better late than never, I suppose, but I wish my fellow citizens had seen how bad of a President Bush is and has been at least back in 2004. As President Bush says, “Fool me once, shame on . . . shame on . . . you. Fool me . . . won’tgetfooledagain.” So, I can’t blame slightly less than a majority of voters for voting for Bush in 2000. But, there’s really no excuse for 2004.

A woman, a Jew, and a politician’s son walk into a video game store — stop me if you’ve heard this one before. . .

Sylvia Smith has an article entitled Video game ratings draw senators’ ire. Evan Bayh is apparently disgruntled because a video game entitled Manhunt 2 was given a “mature” rating when apparently the Senators think it deserves an “adults only” rating.

“We have consistently urged parents to pay attention to the (board’s) rating system. We must ensure that parents can rely on the consistency and accuracy of those ratings,” they wrote to the president of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.

“They” in this case refers to Senators Bayh, Clinton, Lieberman, and Brownback. Umm, hello? What part of “Manhunt” is confusing to parents?

If they wanted to be nannies, maybe they shouldn’t have run for the Senate.

(Via Talking Points Memo):

I’ve sort of gotten tired of explaining that, no, the Founding Fathers actually weren’t all born-agains and bible thumpers. Not hardly. (Probably better to say that the great majority ranged from believers in an entirely impersonal God — Deists — to believing Christians who nonetheless viewed popular religious enthusiasm with a polite and paternal disdain.) But presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governoer Mike Huckabee, himself a Baptist minister, actually told a crowd yesterday that “most” of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were “clergymen.”

As these folks at Politifact.com point out, one out of 56 were clergymen.

It’s a creative definition of ‘most’.

Kos has a post reporting that Chris Dodd has gotten more small donors in the past day than he had in the previous month. The reason? Dodd apparently has a commitment to our Constitution not immediately evident in the other Democratic candidates.

At issue is a provision that would retroactively immunize telecommunications companies for turning over citizens’ phone and e-mail records to the Bush administration under its program that put citizens under surveillance without warrants. Dodd says he’s going to put a hold on that piece of legislation and might attempt to engineer a filibuster. Politically, that has turned into $150,000 donated to Dodd’s campaign in the past 24 hours and more small-dollar contributions in the last 24 hours than he did in the previous month.

No, I don’t see this vaulting Sen. Dodd into serious competition for the Democratic nomination. But, it’s sure nice to see good behavior rewarded. Kos quips that Hillary is still focus group testing potential positions on the legislation, so it might be awhile before she does anything.