Youth: Wasted on the Dumb

Today we wish to bring your attention to the dumbest website that we’ve seen in some time: http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/. The moron who is responsible for this website wants to make John McCain’s age an issue in this year’s Presidential campaign because he believes that “because the world is a pretty complicated place right now . . . it’s not such a great time to elect our oldest President ever.” This is so f*cking stupid our heads our spinning.

What the dummy who is responsible for this website apparently fails to understand, along with all of the other idiots who want to suggest that McCain is too old to be President, is that the human lifespan is increasing. Anyone who can remember back at least 20 years or so ago should be able to realize that 50 years old today is not what it used to be. Nor is 60, 70, etc. Due to improvements in modern medicine, sanitation, the fact that machines now do much of the hard labor that people used to have to do, and generally increased knowledge of how to take care of ourselves, among other things, we are living longer healthier lives, and this is a good thing – a sign of progress. Moreover, the older that a person can be healthy enough to be President, the better, because an older person will have more years of experience living on Earth than otherwise, and experience is what creates wisdom. This, also a good thing for a President to have. We think that people who don’t get this and make ageist websites and arguments against people who are older than they are deserve to be made redundant at their jobs due to mandatory age limits, and deserve to be ignored by their offspring and placed in nursing homes where their diapers will not be changed as often as they should. And we’re sure that folks like this, with such a bleak outlook on aging, will live out a self-fulfilling prophecy, and will end up in diapers far sooner than those who hold the more reasonable outlook that every day ought to be better than the last. Then, when these people are in diapers, and their offspring will neither visit them in the nursing home nor listen to any of their wise advise, we hope that they will feel bad for making such stupid websites.

As an intellectual antidote to this offensive McCain website, we offer this piece by Ryan Cole published in the 2/27/08 Wall Street Journal, titled “Is McCain Too Old.” This piece briefly touches upon the careers of great world leaders like Winston Churchill, Charles De Gaulle, Golda Meir, Ronald Reagan, and Nelson Mandela, all of whom held office at approximately the same age as McCain would, if he is elected. Mr. Cole explains that:

“This diverse group of leaders shares a common denominator: They faced trying challenges in office and held the reins of power at momentous times in their country's history. They each had a great impact on their respective countries that continues to this today. They are remembered by their accomplishments -- great and visionary war-time leadership, rapprochement and reconciliation in the shadow of war and racial division, and steadfast commitment to defeating the last century's threats to peace and freedom. They are not remembered for their age at the time they entered office.

True enough, age can bring its share of infirmities. But with age can also come knowledge, understanding and expertise. Prior to becoming heads of state, many great leaders were soldiers, generals, ambassadors, activists, political prisoners, governors and ordinary citizens involved for decades with the political system of their respective countries. Some of that same patina can be seen on John McCain's résumé.

Given this precedent, a strong case can be made that age should not be a factor in picking our next president -- unless Mr. McCain, to paraphrase Reagan's famous quip to Walter Mondale, chooses to exploit, for political purposes, his opponent's youth and inexperience.”

We are the World, We are David Stern's

Ed’s note: Due to a technical error, this post was deleted in its entirety when we tried to edit its labels for more accurate classification. We’ve had this problem with posts that include YouTube videos. Unfortunately we don’t have a copy of our original post. We do remember that we expressed our belief that the above video provided interesting food for thought, and that issues surrounding race might be particularly interesting in Japan because of “sakoku” (meaning “country in chains”), Japan’s foreign policy, in place for over 200 years until 1853. Wikipedia tells us that under sakoku, “no foreigner or Japanese could enter or leave the country on penalty of death” for over 200 years, until 1853. In this post we also predicted that the Lakers would beat the San Antonio Spurs in the Western Conference Finals. We noted that with the Chicago Bulls, of the NBA’s third largest media market, winning the NBA’s draft lottery despite the longest of odds, everything seemed to be coming up Stern; and also that this development, combined with the impending Celtics/Lakers NBA Finals, was further proof that it’s David Stern’s world that we all just live in.

Cavs vs. Celtics Game 6 Preview, and A Major Award

We wrote before Game 5 on Wednesday that while folks expected the Game 5 LeBron magic that we've grown accustomed to, LeBron did not have it in him, physically, to get it done. We were right. LeBron busted out of the gates with 23 first half points, but was ineffective in the second half. Folks who want to credit the Celtics defense for this are giving the Celtics defense too much credit. LeBron is hurt. And his hurt back is even going to his head. He's forgetting to tip waiters at his favorite restaurants, which embarrasses all of us Clevelanders. The boy needs rest.

So now David Stern turns his attention to the next round, where his Celtics must get over the Detroit Pistons in the next round to arrive at Stern's wet-dream Lakers/Celtics media schlob-fest. Stern knows it will be no easy task for the Boston to get over the Stones, and we don't expect he's taking any chances with this one. To get the Celtics some extra rest, he'll call in the zebras tonight in Cleveland. We're picking another Celtics victory tonight. We're not even sad about it. The state of LeBron's health right now is such that a Cavs victory would be phyrric. We'll be launching our "he better not play in the Olympics" campaign next week. The Pick: Celtics +2.5 over Our Broken Cavs.

Finally -- if anyone doubts just how powerful the forces are that are behind the impending Stern wet-dream Lakers/Celtics media schlob-fest, consider again the free pass that Kevin Garnett has received for pounding his chest and screaming "f*cking f*ggots" to the Cleveland crowd, all captured in slow motion on TNT. Compare this to the treatment that our own Brady Quinn received from major media outlets when he was alleged to use an anti-gay slur in a fight outside of a bar in Columbus this winter. This wasn't even captured on camera, let alone broadcast in slow-motion to millions. Try this google search, "Kevin Garnett anti-gay slur." Our Wednesday post about this issue is the number one result, with no other major media coverage of this story anywhere in sight. Try "Kevin Garnett gay slur" The results are even more remarkable. Cleveland Frowns is the third result, and the first two are stories about the ALLEGED Brady Quinn incident. We will write more about the disparate treatment these two incidents have received in the media in a later post, but for now, we wonder: are we missing something? To find out, we'll send a Major Award, aka a $50 money order, to the first Cleveland Frowns reader who can direct our attention to coverage of this issue in a major American publication this week. We'll define major loosely, as a publication that appears to be more "major" than the site of our friends at Waiting for Next Year. Email us at clevelandfrowns@gmail.com with your results. Happy hunting!

Cavs vs. Celtics: Game 5 Preview

Before we get to talking about tonight's game, we want to express our shock at the lack of reporting/public outcry about the fact that media darling Kevin Garnett shouted an anti-gay slur (f*cking f*gg*ts) at the Cleveland crowd during game four. This was picked up by and broadcast in slo-mo by the TNT crew, as you can see in the above video. While this has been discussed on some local blogs, there has been nothing on ESPN about Garnett's hateful use of the word, and a Google searches using terms like "Kevin Garnett" "slur" "gay" "anti-gay" and "f-ggot" turn up no major media stories about this incident. We're awfully curious as to why this is the case, but it is consistent with the general media fawning over Garnett and this Celtics team, and only reinforces our conspiracy theories about David Stern and his plans for an untainted Lakers/Celtics NBA Finals.

As for tonight's game: The last two games have shown that the Celtics have bigger problems than most people anticipated (excellent piece by Bill Simmons today about that), and that LeBron's supporting cast is better than they've been given credit for. The big trade for Ben Wallace, Wally Sczerbiak, Joe Smith, and Delonte West is paying big dividends, with all four players making tremendous contributions in Game 3 and 4. Now the Cavs have the momentum going into game five in Boston tonight, in a round 2 where road teams are 1-17. Cavs expert Brian Windhorst reminds us that the Cavs have been here before, and this is where LeBron has been at his best, having led the team to victory in Detroit in the exact same situation in each of the last two years.

But in both of these games, LeBron has, quite literally, carried the team on his back. As Cleveland Frowns readers well know, we don't think he has it in him, physically, to do that tonight. Despite his well-rounded performance, and his jaw dropping dunk on Monday night, LeBron's scoring output is significantly down, he's still shooting well below 30% for the series, and, with rare exceptions, is not moving with the same force and speed that we're accustomed to seeing. We're going to keep hedging, and stick with the Celtics, and will of course be pleasantly surprised if our pick is wrong. The Pick: Celtics -9 over Our Cavs.

Dorothy Rabinowitz Does Good Work

Take it away, Dor.

"Unprecedented opprobrium." Very nice. More highlights:

"Mr. Obama's apparent inability to confront, forthrightly, the pastor's poisonous pronouncements and his own relationship with him is, of course, the cause of all the continuing questions on the subject. It had not been in him, for instance, to say publicly that for a pastor to have preached that the U.S. government had embarked on a project to inject blacks with AIDS was an outrage on truth and decency.

These issues – the unanswered, the suspect – which outraged press partisans have for days attempted to dismiss as trivia and gossip, largely forgotten by the public, are unlikely to be forgotten, either today or in the general election, nor are they trivial. This, Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos clearly understood when they chose their questions. Mr. Obama's answers told far more than he or his managers wished.

Offered a chance to explain the meaning of his remarks about the reasons people living in small towns cling to guns and religion, he went on to repeat them all over again in different words. What there was in those remarks, what attitudes shown, that had offended people, he had still not grasped. In short, what he had said that day he'd meant to say. "What you are, picks its way," as Walt Whitman told us."

Happy to discuss in the comments...

Northwestern Law School Sprung on Springer

Interesting story over at the Chief Source about Jerry Springer and a law school in Chicago. We admire and sympathize with Mr. Springer, generally, and think that he might be able to offer some comforting words to our pal Mr. Former Governor Spitzer. We hope that those two might get together one day soon.

A Vote of Confidence for Governor Spitzer

The news comes out yesterday that an FBI sting has revealed that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer patronized pricey prostitutes. The cable news hosts are indignant: “Greta, Tucker, Wolf, how could such an ethical man do such a bad thing!?!”

But what if the only thing that we can really accuse this good good lawyer of is breaking a bad bad law?

You might want to fault Spitzer for being dishonest with his wife. But what business is that of ours? No matter what either of them says publicly, none of us knows the arrangement that the two of them have between themselves. Perhaps Eliot’s tendency to “blow off steam” every so often is just what keeps his marriage healthy. Who are we to judge? And what if we assume that his family forgives him? Wasn’t Bill Clinton largely forgiven by America for doing something that was in a real sense worse (Spitzer was paying a professional, whereas Clinton had a personal relationship with a subordinate)?

But Clinton didn’t break the law, you say (at least not until he lied under oath about it). And furthermore, unlike Clinton, Spitzer was elected for his record as a prosecutor – a man of the highest ethical profile. But being ethical and obeying the law are different. An ethical person, in certain instances, has a duty to break (or refuse to prosecute) a law that he believes is unjust – it’s what kept the Underground Railroad running and speakeasies pouring. Shouldn’t we at least be somewhat relieved to know that this public servant, despite every appearance to the contrary until today, won’t let the law stop him from doing what’s right – or even just what he thinks is right at a certain particular moment?

Of course Spitzer’s solicitation(s?) was(were?) no act of civil disobedience, and there’s no need to get into the Genealogy of Morals here, but what about that law that Spitzer broke? Who’s the real victim when a consenting adult wants to pay for sex with another consenting adult who wants to be paid for it? Certainly the $5,000 an hour prostitute doesn’t want our help. One argument goes that prostitution is illegal because of the violence that sometimes goes with it – but we could still ban the violence without prohibiting the transaction. And isn’t the violence harder to detect when the whole business is taken underground?

Leaving aside a discussion of what reasonable folk argue are the proven benefits of the operations of the World's Oldest Profession, I could think of at least thirty five billion things that I’d rather have FBI agents direct their efforts toward than bringing down a high class prostitution ring – searching caves in Tora Bora, working ladles in soup kitchens, shoveling snow off of Cleveland’s sidewalks...

Instead we have them busting up victimless market transactions between consenting adults. And that’s what’s most interesting about this whole thing: Spitzer was once the scourge of Wall Street, who prosecuted a ruthless campaign against, among other things, CEO pay; i.e., a ruthless campaign against adults who wanted to pay other adults to work for them. So what goes around comes around. A lesson learned seems like the opposite of a reason for Spitzer to resign.

Update: Nice piece from Nora Ephron at Huffington Post: "New York's Senator Chuck Schumer has been heard from on the question of what is to be done about Eliot Spitzer. He has gone out on a limb to say he is sad for Spitzer's family but he isn't going to comment until Spitzer is more forthcoming. I can only suggest that Schumer has not read the indictment, since there's no way to do so without hoping that there will be nothing more forthcoming. New York's other Senator also had something to say on the subject yesterday, and it may not surprise you to hear that she somehow managed to make Senator Schumer look brave. "Let's wait and see what comes out over the next few days," Hillary Clinton said."

Ohio is Special

Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island voters put the brakes on what only a week ago seemed like an unstoppable Obama ascendancy to the Democratic presidential nomination. Ohioans preferred Hillary Clinton to Obama by a margin of 10 percentage points (54%-44%), ending an twelve state streak of consecutive Obama primary victories. Clinton’s margin of victory was closer in Texas (51%-48%), and larger in Rhode Island (58%-40%). Clinton reminded us after her victory that “[a]s Ohio goes, so goes the nation.”

Yesterday's results may shed light on the true meaning of Hillary's "experience." Benevolent Cleveland Frowns supporter Ben Keeler of The Keeler Report has a take on this race that suggests that Ohio voters might rightly be proud of their choice. That is, that “Clinton tells Democrats how it is on their side. Obama tells them what they want to hear. That is why he is winning - and why he will keep employing that strategy.” This take is consistent with Obama’s bashing of Hillary on her initial support of both NAFTA and the Iraq War. Perhaps Democratic primary voters have tired of the simplistic populist dialogue between these two candidates on these issues. If so, there are reasons for them to prefer Hillary over Obama. We have good reason to distrust the candidates’ position on trade generally, and on NAFTA specifically. At least Hillary has the benefit of having supported NAFTA in the past, if she doesn’t support it fully today. Further, she demonstrates at least some nuance in her position on Iraq, in contrast with Obama, who conclusorily and implausibly reminds us that he was “right from the beginning” about one of the most complicated and grand foreign policy endeavors in world history, the greater consequences of which might not be significantly realized for many years. True, Hillary has backed down, in varying degrees, from both of these positions; but it might well be the case that her earlier positions on these issues (her “experience”) demonstrated to voters a willingness to confront reality that Obama has not yet shown. On this view, March 4th primary voters chose substance over form.

But was substance really the winner last night? It might well be the case that the voters in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island do not perceive the difference between the candidates that I discussed above, but rather view them both as selling the exact same dream, and simply view Hillary as a better salesperson for that dream (i.e., the primacy of “health care, public schools, green energy, the eternal shafting of the middle class, the unions, protecting Social Security and Medicare.”) A less cynical view would be, however, that voters yesterday, particularly the older, more “experienced,” voters (who overwhelmingly preferred Clinton), did notice the differences thus far projected by the candidates on Iraq and the economy. Now consider that, paradoxically, Obama might actually be less likely to follow through on potentially disastrous economic and foreign polices than would Ms. Clinton. Obama’s senior economic advisor allegedly suggested to the Canadian Ambassador that Obama only espouses his populist rhetoric in an effort to secure the Democratic nomination – in other words, Obama feels it is necessary to kowtow to the vocal “netroots/wingnuts” minority to get himself in a position (the Presidency) where he may implement the policies in which he truly believes. If this is the case, it is time for both candidates to come clean as to exactly what they are selling. To that end, we might expect the candidates to begin answering the questions about where they truly differ that they have heretofore not discussed.

Note: The Ohio cartoon posted above is by a person called Natalie Dee. I don't know where she is from, but she might just be a woman after our own heart.

Democratic Debate, Cleveland ’08: Silence Speaking Volumes

I promised a review of last evening’s Democratic debate written from the perspective of one who paid close attention to what the candidate’s would not say. Last night’s was the 20th debate in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have participated in this primary season, and I was confident in knowing what to expect from them both. The primary focus of the discussion so far has focused on three main issues; 1) the economy generally, 2) the war in Iraq, and 3) health care. The issues of health care and the economy can effectively be considered as one issue for the purposes of this discussion, leaving us with two primary issues; the Economy, and Iraq. The candidates have clearly established where they stand on these issues, and, in doing so, have revealed that they stand in quite similar places. In contrast, the differences between Democrats and Republicans on these issues have rarely been starker. For instance, last night, Obama dismissed presumptive Republican nominee John McCain’s chances in the general election because McCain has “tethered himself to Bush on Iraq and the Economy.” In view of these differences, it is clear that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will eventually have to answer a number of important, simple, and obvious questions raised by their positions on these issues, many being subquestions raised by the broader questions of exactly what it mean to be tethered to Bush on Iraq and the economy and, why is it a bad thing to be so tethered. We all understand that there are, and will always be, problems in the world, and it is easy for the candidates to point to these problems, as they so often do. But what a worthy candidate must do is explain to us why we would be any better off against these problems with that candidate's own policies in place. I realize that it is an article of faith for many people that, whatever it means, it is bad to be “tethered to” President Bush on Iraq, the economy, or anything else. But there are a great many people who don’t believe this, or at least admit that they are unsure. These are the people that the Democratic nominee will have to address to win the general election.

In the debates that I had watched previous to last night’s, neither candidate had substantively addressed questions about their differences with Republicans. With Hillary on the ropes, with the Ohio and Texas primaries looming as the decisive battles in this primary, and with the candidates’ positions on the main issues having been made as clear as they would ever be with respect to one another, we had reason to expect something different last night. Electability is always an issue in primary campaigns – indeed, it was seemingly the dominant issue in McCain’s victory over Mitt Romney. Last night presented a tremendous opportunity for each nominee; Barack could have landed a decisive knockout punch, and last night might have been Hillary’s last best chance to resuscitate her flailing campaign. Last night we might have rightly expected one or both of the candidates to explain why one is more likely than the other to beat John McCain in November by explaining how they would address Mr. McCain’s positions on the issues. Last night, neither candidate did this. Instead we saw the same old story; Barack continued to sell “hope,” while Hillary peddled “experience.” It is nothing short of remarkable that neither candidate even approached discussing where they differ with Republicans in any substantive way.

At the very least, the candidates’ silence last evening on their differences with Republicans raises serious questions beyond those about the issues themselves. We must ask what it means that the applicants for “the most important job in the world” did not discuss these differences on such a big stage, at such a crucial time. Surely the questions raised by this silence are many, and some of them complicated. Here I will suggest only one: Why shouldn’t an independent-minded voter interpret the Democratic nominees’ silence on their differences with Republicans as indicative of moral and/or intellectual bankruptcy with respect to these differences? In other words, why should we take this silence as anything other than a reason to distrust these nominees on these crucial issues? Understanding that a discussion of the issues is necessary to even begin answering this question, I will lay out a roadmap of the questions raised by these issues below. These are the questions that any worthy President must be able to answer. These were the questions that were not so much as approached by the candidates last night. To the extent that these questions have been answered by the Democratic candidates in the past – please, fill me in. Please, let's have the discussion that we did not have last night.

Issue #1 -- The Economy: Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama: A staple of your campaigns, a common staple of a great number of political campaigns, is the heartbreaking tale of the individual unfortunate American. Hillary used her final statement last evening to discuss the plight of “a mother in Lorain.” Obama has spoken at length about unemployed factory workers in Youngstown, and promised us that as president he will “give people the chances they deserve to have.” We knew that you would both tell us stories about unfortunate Americans last evening. We all, generally, feel bad for these folks. Relatedly, we all feel bad for those who need health care but do not have access to it. Large groups of people share a number of sharply contrasting ideas as to how to minimize these problems. The existence of this contrast was not apparent in last night's discussion.

1. We know that Republicans and Democrats alike would rather not have factories close and would rather not, generally, see people suffer. It is obvious that both parties have different ideas as to the best way to minimize this suffering. Republicans favor a free market system, Democrats favor government intervention and forced income redistribution. Why is forced income redistribution generally preferable to a free market? It can't be because certain individuals suffer. Suffering has existed since the beginning of time, and will surely continue to exist as long as humans do. Surely you can’t be suggesting that the existence of some unfortunate cases means that we are all generally worse off, are you? Isn’t that “making the perfect the enemy of the good” in a very real sense?

2. If you admit that we will never be able to eliminate all suffering, don’t you have to at least pay lip service to the question of why “more redistribution” is a better policy than “a freer market.” There is at least some evidence out there that proves that forced income redistribution is a policy disaster (see, generally, the former U.S.S.R.). There is also an argument to be made that the United States is the most well off/powerful country in the world because it’s markets are the freest. Adam Smith, Tocqueville, and others have made this argument persuasively, and as far as I know, it has not been disproven (many smart folks still read and teach from the books these guys wrote). Even Hillary Clinton seems to understand this, or at least once did, when she supported NAFTA. Why, Mr. Obama, do you conclusorily attack her for this? I can trust the Republicans stance on this because it makes sense to me. If you, as you say, plan to take more money away from some Americans, and give it to others, can you explain to me why we should trust you to do so, over the Republicans, who at least pitch us a coherent narrative regarding incentives, and the benefits of freer markets? (Was the word "incentive" uttered by either candidate last night? Hmmm.)

3. Relatedly, Mr. Obama, is it possible for you to explain just how you will “give people the chances they deserve to have”? While you’re at it, would you be so kind as to tell us how you know just who it is that deserves just what chances? You give us some clue as to who you think deserves what when you rail against “job killing” policies, and factories closing in America to open up elsewhere. You rail against exports, you rail against “special interests,” and, Mr. Obama, you claim that you “will be an advocate for workers.” This raises another set of questions:

4. It is Economics 101 that we are generally better off when the producer of any given product is the one who can produce that product the cheapest and the fastest. This frees up other resources for better use. Can we at least discuss Economics 101 before we make you President? Economics 101 makes sense to us. The Republicans seem to understand; that if a factory closes because someone else can run that same factory better somewhere else, then we might not want policies to allow factories to reopen where they failed because someone could do it better. Of course it is hard for the people who lose their jobs at any given time, but isn't this a necessity of a dynamic economy in a world of scarce resources? Isn’t there good reason to suggest that the people who formerly worked in these factories would more productive if they worked at something else? Wouldn’t the whole world be better off if they did so? If not, why not?

5. Also, what’s wrong with exports? I like getting stuff from other countries that I can’t get here. I even pay more for it because I can’t get it here. Presumably people in other countries feel the same way. If I made stuff that people in other countries wanted, I would like to export it to them. Why is this bad?

6. Finally, if you “will be an advocate for workers,” Mr. Obama, will you share with us your definition of what a “worker” is? Almost every adult American can be said to "work" at something. Is the "worker" that you are concerned about any more worthy of Americans’ earned resources than folks who work at any of a number of things, for instance, folks who invent things that make our lives better (like cures for diseases, or new ways to take care of ourselves)? What about folks who run businesses that make our lives easier and more enjoyable? If certain “workers” are less worthy of your advocacy than others, can you tell us why, and to what extent?

The Republicans stance on the economy, generally, whether right or wrong, makes at least some sense to me, and others. Unless you can answer the above questions, your stance on the economy will continue to make no sense to me, and I will not be able to vote for you.

Issue #2 -- Iraq: Dear Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton, as you might know, the issue of Iraq is inextricably bound with the broader issue of the Economy at large. As such, your answers to our questions about the economy will go a long way toward helping us understand your positions on Iraq. In view of the relation between the issues, our questions about Iraq are more specific. One of the easiest predictions we could have made before last nights debate would have been that Mr. Obama would tell us that “he was right about Iraq from the beginning,” and that Ms. Clinton would tell us that, in hindsight, she would reverse her Senatorial vote in support of the War in Iraq. Neither candidate began to approach a discussion of the reasons for their position. Obviously, this raises questions:

1. Also obvious is that people generally feel quite strongly about the War. Relatedly, people generally dislike human combat, death, and the resulting human suffering. Regardless of one’s position on the War in Iraq, or wars in general, doesn’t one have to at least acknowledge the possibility that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the millions who supported and still support this war have a good faith reason for doing so?

2. To elaborate on this good faith reason: There is an argument to be made that promoting democracy is the only credible strategy in the war on terror. Relatedly, there is an argument that removing Saddam Hussein was the most logical way to plant the seed of Democracy in the place where it would have the most positive impact (For more info follow this link to the Chief Source and scroll down to post titled "Our Oil Under Their Sand"). Put another way, there is a good reason to view the US decision to depose Saddam as a worthy act of pre-emptive global hygiene by ridding the middle east of a murderous megalomaniac who 1) gassed, terrorized, tortured, and killed hundreds of thousands of people, 2) provided untold levels of support for terrorists, including the harboring of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, 3) flagrantly violated UN resolutions, tossing out UN weapons inspectors, 4) invaded Kuwait, 5) attacked Iran, 6) plotted to kill a former American President, 7) retained the infrastructure and desire for making WMD, 8) bribed the leaders of France, Russia and other countries with UN subsidies designated to feed his people, and 9) “harbored a grudge against the United States that could have played out in many ways to harm Americans.” In view of this reasonable justification for the War, can either of you explain why you did not, and or if you could go back in time would not, support the War “from the beginning”?

3. Relatedly, if one accepts the good faith reasons for going into Iraq, one must also accept that the attempt to remove one of the world’s most brutal dictators to plant democracy in the heart of the Middle East is an attempt at one of the, if not the, greatest feat of social engineering that any nation has ever undertaken. This feat would necessarily take years to accomplish. As such, would it not take at least a decade before we can begin to fully understand or at least generally agree upon the broad consequences of this decision? How, at this point in time, is it possible for anyone to say with a straight face that he “was right about Iraq from the beginning?” How is it possible for anyone to evaluate the truth of this claim? Every time you "elaborated" on your reasons for your position on Iraq last evening, you did not help to answer these questions, but rather only raised further questions. For instance:

4. You say that the War in Iraq has not made us safer. Why is this so? Were we safer at 8AM e.s.t. on the morning of 9/11/01 than we are today? Is it not true that attacks on American interests, both at home, and globally, have been substantially less in the years since we deposed Saddam than in the years before?

5. Mr. Obama, you admit that “if Al-Qaeda was forming a base in Iraq” that it would be worth intervening there. But Al-Qaeda is in Iraq right now. Further, why is an Al-Qaeda base in Iraq any more dangerous than Saddam, who had direct control of billions of dollars of oil revenue and repeatedly demonstrated his intent and ability to use this money to harm Americans and American interest? Al-Qaeda quite obviously has nothing approaching the resources that Saddam had at his disposal. Surely they are both bad, but isn’t Saddam worse?

6. Finally, Mr. Obama, you claim that you will be, as America needs, “a champion for the ‘small man’ in the White House.” Is there anyone in America who is “smaller” than the person in Iraq who lived under Saddam’s boot? Who is smaller than the man who is tied up and forced to watch Saddam’s sons and their friends rape his wife and daughters? Weren’t these people all, generally, worse off than any American? If so, then isn’t President Bush more of a “champion for the small man” than you are? If not, then why not?

In sum, Mr. Obama, it seems dishonest when you say that you were right from the beginning about such a complex issue, about which it is probably impossible to know who is “right” or “wrong.” It makes me distrust you. It seems even worse when you do not put effort into explaining why you are and/or were right about this issue, especially when, as last night against Ms. Clinton who did once support the war, you have a great incentive to. The Republicans tell a coherent story about Iraq. Right or wrong, I can at least understand a coherent set of interlocking reasons as to why America might be there, and why people, both here and in Iraq, want us to stay there. I do not understand your story about Iraq. I do not understand why you want America to abandon this grand and quite possibly necessary social experiment now, after we have devoted so many resources to its success, and are finally seeing demonstrable progress. Until you answer the above questions about Iraq, I will not begin to be able to understand your position on the issue, and I will not be able to vote for you.

As stated above, the democratic candidate’s silence as to the answers to these important, simple, and obvious questions serves only to breed mistrust among many (if not most) independent-minded Americans in the candidates’ positions on these issues. Again, I am forced to wonder whether the candidates’ failure to even discuss answers to these questions in last night’s debate could be a result of anything other than an inability to address them with clarity, or at least as much clarity as the Republicans discuss these issues with. I do not ask this because I think that any given American who is not running for or voting for a President is “right” or “wrong” to ask, or to not ask these questions; or to ask or answer a whole set of different questions. I ask because it is a fact that these questions are shared, in some significant part, by a substantial portion of our fellow citizens – at least close to 50% of us if the results of the last few elections are any indication. As such, we will not only understand our leaders better by discussing potential answers to these questions, we will understand each other better. By understanding each other better through this discussion, we will then be in a position to demand and secure more effective leadership.

Update: Welcome Keeler Report readers!

Update: Welcome Chief Source readers!

Update: Dan Henninger nails it in today's Wall Street Journal: "Hillary's politics is the world of Eleanor Roosevelt, when it was all being born anew. The Washington of LBJ's Great Society in the mid-1960s was alive with policy debates -- among Democrats. By now, the Democratic Party's ideas are largely generic. Everyone noticed that the Democratic presidential candidates were largely singing from the same script. Health care, public schools, green energy, the eternal shafting of the middle class, the unions, protecting Social Security and Medicare. This common script means that the Democratic primaries are largely an audition. The candidates are reading for a role. The lines are known.

The part, however, is challenging. The Democratic platform may be familiar, but it is also infused with the quality of a dream. Actually, the word "dream" gets used a lot in Democratic rhetoric. What are essentially bureaucratic arrangements, such as health insurance or after-school programs, are promised as "universal." Meanwhile, "the middle class" is being offered a version of never-never land -- total public protection from the traps and betrayals of the private sector, which has been reduced to a kind of Grimm's Fairy Tale abstraction, the wolves.
If you are selling a dream you need the best possible salesman to make it seem somehow possible. They found him in Barack Obama."

A Warm Front Blowing In...

The blizzard that hit Northeast Ohio while most of us slept should provide a useful buffer against the blustering hot air that will be swirling madly about Cleveland tonight. That’s right folks, all eyes are on Browns Town as Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama take the stage at Cleveland State University for their twentieth debate of this primary season (9PM, NBC). Because Ohio will be blamed no matter what happens, it might be worth paying some attention to this evening’s proceedings. As such, check back here tomorrow for a breakdown of tonight’s debate. We’ll be paying special attention to what the candidates do not say.

Related: Tim Russert of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” one of this evening's moderators, is a graduate of Cleveland State University’s law school, and received an undergraduate degree from John Carrol University.