Nothing Better To Do

It's amazing how the issue of gay marriage ebbs and flows in the American political consciousness. Sometimes, it's a hot button issue, with states contemplating constitutional amendments seeking to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Then, without much rhyme or reason, the issue recedes, to reappear some other time.

The recent court decision in California striking down same sex marriage was the match that re-lit the fire. New York Governor David Paterson made sure the flame would last awhile after directing state agencies to recognize same sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Time to lay aside concerns about the rising cost of gas, home mortgages, and the war in Iraq. Fighting same sex marriage is more important than any of that.

Just ask the legion of organizations in New York and California that vow to turn back this so-called threat to traditional marriage. In the Empire State, legislators are upset that Gov. Paterson took the unilateral step of trying to shield the state from liability in the event legally married same sex couples from elsewhere are rejected for benefits after moving to New York. These folks would rather have been told ahead of time, so they could find a way to stall things as they usually do.

Social conservatives, on the other hand, would muddy the waters between church and state. It's amazing how many people think their belief that homosexuality is an abomination should imposed on everyone. They cite biblical chapter and verse, apparently unaware that racists and other miscreants have cited scripture in much the same way to justify slavery, laws against race mixing, and even eating shellfish (yes, that's an abomination too).

Gov. Paterson took a bold step, for which he is to be commended. Too bad same sex marriage, with both its benefits and obligations, isn't yet legal in New York State.    

The Willingness to Meet

Senator Barack Obama has taken a great deal of heat for his position that he'd meet with leaders of enemy nations. The notion that there are countries America shouldn't communicate with is a curious one. Talking, after all, isn't the same as breaking bread. Yet Obama has been called everything from naive to an appeaser for saying he'd talk to the leaders of Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and (God forbid) Iran.

In order to best assess what Obama proposes, we ought to take a moment and look at what the Bush policy of refusing to talk without preconditions has wrought. The answer is an American foreign policy in shambles. Has not talking to Iran derailed their nuclear experimentation? No. How about their whack talk about Israel? Nope. 

Bush says Syria has been offering aid and comfort to the insurgency in Iraq. He won't talk to President Bashar al-Assad either. How then does he explain the fact that Israel has been holding secret talks with the Assad government for the last little while? Could it be the Israelis understand something Bush and his buddy McCain don't?

Obama has had to tinker with this central component of his foreign policy in the face of relentless criticism. He shouldn't have to. America's enemies have shown they won't back down simply because we won't talk to them. And we all know speaking to the enemy isn't the same as sleeping with the enemy. 

As long as you are dealing with nations from a position of strength, what's the problem?

Scotty Mac's Beatdown

Hell hath no fury like that of a stooge scorned. So it is with Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary. He was the guy who, among other things, fudged the administration's way through the Iraq war run-up and the Valerie Plame scandal. Now he's published a book titled "What Happened Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception". He makes some bombshell accusations, including but not limited to:

Bush relied on propaganda to sell the Iraq war.

Some of his own assertions from the podium of the White House briefing room were "badly misguided" (he lied).

That Scooter Libby and Karl Rove held a secret meeting to get their stories straight about the Plame leak when the feds were hot on their trail, then misled him about the facts.

That Bush and his minions "embraced a permanent campaign approach to governance". That is, too much time running for office, not enough time running the country (plain English isn't the strong suit of the stuffed shirt).

Incredibly, McClellan asserts the White House press corps was too easy on the administration in the run-up to the war. This is something many in the progressive media were saying at the time, and was refuted by, among others, Scott McClellan.

One must say there's some satisfaction in seeing George W. Bush get kicked while he's down. Republican congressional candidates avoid him like the plague, John McCain acts like he'd rather get caught with a hooker than with the President of the United States, and now this. The guy everyone thought was Bush's most loyal loyalist kneecaps him as turns to walk out the door of his failed presidency.

Can you think of anyone more deserving?  

Utter Madness

Memorial Day weekend is a time to honor those who have died, not to get shot. Yet this past weekend in New York City, gun violence claimed the lives of three, and wounded nine others. Eight of the wounded got that way during a shooting spree in Harlem that sounds like the Wild West of old. The three deaths and one critical injury all happened in the Bronx, and aren't getting nearly as much coverage as the Harlem shootings.

In Harlem, police are speculating a person who got jumped earlier in the day Monday sought to take revenge. All eight of the victims are expected to live. Police hadn't arrested anyone by early Tuesday. In the Bronx, the shootings were separate, but again, there have been no arrests. Here's hoping they find the person or persons who did this in both cases. Gun violence is the scourge of the city. Not just New York, but cities across America. 

In these cases, the victims were as young as 13, and all are black males. At some point, we have to stop and ask ourselves, is this really what we want for our kids? Is settling a beef worth peoples' lives and futures? Somehow, the pipeline of guns to our communities must be stopped. Or are we just prepared to sit back, roll our eyes, and move on? The victims of these type of crimes are too often young people who should be finishing a school year, or raising a family. 

We rightly got upset about the verdict in the Sean Bell case. Will these shootings, and those to come, upset us as much?

I don't think so.  

American Nightmare

So American Airlines, a carrier which already gets low marks for its treatment of passengers, which already charges for mediocre food, will start charging $15 bucks a pop for each checked bag. Wonderful. What's next, charging for waiting in line for a ticket? The carriers say they're being squeezed by soaring fuel costs. That means they keep hiking airfares. But charging for checked bags?

So far no other airline has followed American's lead. Maybe they're too embarrassed, as American should be. These are the same airlines that will leave people stranded in planes on the tarmac for hours at a time, without food, fresh air, or an explanation. On time performance is often a joke, and a cruel one at that. What do passengers get for their trouble? Another ridiculous charge.

Sadly, most people will gnash their teeth and pay up. They see no alternative. An airline passenger bill of rights got shot down here in New York by the courts. A national bill is currently stuck in Congress. Obviously our lawmakers don't have to worry about getting to a destination somewhere close to the scheduled time. It would be a pleasant surprise if American experienced a steep drop off in its passenger load, and therefore made no money from the charge for checked bags.

Wishful thinking.

Note: We're off Monday. Be back next Tuesday. Till then, take no shorts!  

Ugliness Exposed

Some time ago, I began receiving e-mails, some of them from people I knew, questioning Barack Obama's patriotism, religion, and even citizenship. When I talked to colleagues and others about them, they said at the time, "Not to worry. They're isolated e-mails from wackos and they don't pose a threat to Obama". It may be time to re-think that one.

There has been an organized, down low e-mail campaign whose main purpose is to undermine Obama's Americanism among the very white, working class voters who are so hesitant to support him. It's already made his campaign, as it pivots toward the general election, re-state broad themes about Obama's background as a uniquely American story.

That these smears come through the Internet is no surprise. Its very openness, which so many rightly treasure, allows outright falsehoods about Obama to become truths to some, no matter how often they're debunked. One example, courtesy of my friends at Politico.com: Obama is quoted as saying the national anthem carries a war-like message. He never said anything of the sort. Another, which I've seen myself, says Obama was sworn into the Senate on the Quran. He wasn't.

This would just be one of countless political smear campaigns if not for the fact that an astonishing number of voters cite these falsehoods in polling. Despite the Rev. Wright flap, one in ten Americans still think Obama is a Muslim. Such is the power of organized Internet smearing. None of it has been traced directly to Republicans, or their operatives. Despite the ugliness of the primary campaign, one doesn't think it comes from the Clinton camp either. At a point, it may not matter.

That it has to be rebutted says a lot about us as a nation. 

The Fence Mess

You may remember the fence the Bush Administration vowed to build along the Mexican border.It was all about keeping illegal immigrants from crossing into the US. The Department of Homeland Security pledged to build 670 miles worth by the end of this year. As of last month, 309 miles had been built, but that's only half the story. 

An organization called the Texas Border Coalition filed a federal lawsuit last week, seeking to halt construction of the fence in the Lone Star State. The coalition says the homeland security boss Michael Chertoff didn't conduct required negotiations with affected property owners.

To make matters worse, Chertoff himself now acknowledges physical barriers aren't even the key to stopping illegal border crossings. Electronic surveillance seems to work better, but the plan to expand it is mired in technical and bureaucratic glitches. So why construct a fence that's going to cost $2.1 billion dollars when all is said and done?

That's what mayors, county commissioners, and economists along the border are asking. It's starting to sound a lot like the airport security passengers think is about keeping them safe. Experts say it's more for show than anything else. Could it be the border fence is more of the same?

People who track illegal immigration say it's only a matter of time before smugglers adjust their efforts away from areas the Border Patrol is scrutinizing most closely. The mayor of Brownsville Texas calls it Homeland Security's effort to give middle America a false sense of security.

How about just a waste of money?     

The Devil is in the Details

So here is precisely where we are in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Barack Obama has the lead in the popular vote, among pledged delegates, and among superdelegates who have expressed a preference. All this is true unless you happen to be Hillary Clinton. So just how, from her perspective, can the nomination be taken from Obama even as Kentucky and Oregon vote today?

It can happen by two separate processes, both of which have little to do with actual voters or their preferences. The Clinton campaign is still reportedly trying to strong arm both uncommitted superdelegates, and those who support her who might be thinking about bolting to Obama. The whole superdelegate structure is something few Americans know about, much less understand. Do most folks know, for example, that there are still almost 50 superdelegates yet to be named by the DNC? 

Most voters also don't know that the practice of making all Democratic members of Congress superdelegates only dates back to 1996. It didn't make much of a difference then, what with Bill Clinton cruising toward a second term. However, as Matt Taibbi points out in this week's Rolling Stone (he's required reading for people serious about politics, btw), members of Congress care most of all about which candidate will help them get re-elected. It's this self interest that has driven the superdelegate race through this entire election cycle.

Then there's the end of the month meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC. They'll decide what to do about Florida and Michigan. Remember, it was this same committee that banned delegates from both states for moving up their primaries. Of its 30 members, 13 are Clinton supporters, 8 back Obama. That means the fate of this nomination process lies in the hands of nine party committee members, and superdelegates not bound by anything other than their word at any given time.

Nice.

Peace Talks?

Barack Obama spoke to a Portland, Oregon crowd estimated at 75,000 and Hillary Rodham Clinton sat through a Kentucky church sermon about adultery this past weekend. Even as these two states prepare to hold primaries tomorrow, there's word the two sides are trying to make peace. Interestingly, detente is starting among fundraisers for both camps.

There's a growing realization that, no matter who the nominee is, Democrats will lose a great shot at winning the White House if they bicker through the summer. That's why you don't hear Hillary's public mantra about Obama's lack of electability much anymore. Likewise, Obama has turned his fire toward the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.

This is as it should be. Over the past few days, the Clinton campaign has grudgingly begun to acknowledge the obvious. Her chances of wresting the nomination from Obama are now slim and none. It now appears she wants to go out with her head held high. For his part, the Illinois senator reportedly will not attempt to declare victory after tomorrow's balloting.

Could it be that the wounds inflicted by both camps on each other will have time to heal? Can those Clinton supporters who have vowed not to support Obama be convinced to change their minds? Perhaps a dignified end to this primary season will cause some on both sides to rethink their hardline positions.

No matter how things look now, Democrats will need all the diverse components that make up the party to win in November.   

Ease Up

I never thought I'd feel compelled to write this, but here goes. Can we all just ease up a little on the Clintons? Lately, Some callers to my radio program have accused them of everything from ruthlessness to outright murder. And not just of one person, but of hundreds, including former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Come on! Yes, Hillary Clinton wants to be president, and wants it so badly she's willing to go further to procure it than most people thought.

And yes, the former president has spent an awful lot of his political capital arguing with everyone from reporters to just plain folks, angering many of his friends in the process. Yet there's something vaguely troubling about all the talk about the urgent need for Hillary to drop out of this race. After all, don't we reward those who see an endeavor through to the very end? Don't we normally lambast quitters as not having sufficient heart?

Sure, it's easy to draw comparisons between politics and sports, but what would we say about a favored long distance runner who dropped out when the race was three quarters done? We'd say he or she should run until the end, even if there was no shot at winning.

So why is Hillary different? Even Barack Obama has said she should quit when she's ready, and not sooner. Yeah, I've heard all the talk about how McCain is getting a free pass while Clinton and Obama beat each other up. Hillary's apparently heard the talk too, and has eased up herself a bit in recent days.

So shouldn't we ease up on her?  

Patriotic Pin?

Does wearing an American flag lapel pin make you a better American? What about a flag flying in front of your house? Or maybe the bumper sticker with the flag and slogan "These colors don't run"? Patriotic sloganeering and symbolism are as old as the republic. It's come up this election cycle in the form of questions regarding Barack Obama.

Seven months ago, he had the temerity to say he didn't feel compelled to wear an American flag lapel pin. Suddenly there were questions about Obama's patriotism. They've lingered, along with the persistent false suggestion that he's Muslim. Lately, he's taken to wearing it more frequently, while it's been noted that neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain wears one every day.

Aside from the obvious double standard, this American flag business has always given me the creeps. Wearing your Americanism on your sleeve has for me always been a cheap way to infer that those who don't aren't American enough. This reared its ugly head most often after 9-11, when motorists were confronted by people in parking lots and on public roads. Folks were demanding to know why there was no flag on people's cars. If you think it's far fetched, think again. It happened to my wife.

Perhaps some of these flag wavers are well intentioned. Many are veterans who are re-affirming their sacrifice, and I have no problem with that. Yet the notion that Barack Obama or anyone else has to wear a visible symbol of their nationality is to me trashing the very principles on which this nation was founded. If America is about freedom, how about freedom from judgment based on what you wear on your lapel?

Not to mention tolerance.

Race Unresolved

Hillary Clinton's symbolic victory in West Virginia is more than just an effort to breathe life into a mortally wounded campaign. It presents in a sharper focus than any other primary how race continues to shape American politics. In West Virginia, the polls tell us, a higher percentage of voters said race played a role in their balloting than in any other primary state.

That Hillary Clinton must play to this audience is sad. If the actual percentage of Americans who won't vote for a black presidential candidate is at 20%, the nation has an awful lot of work to do. These numbers imply a blindness that some optimists thought was left behind in the last century. Black America has always known better. It wouldn't matter who the black candidate was, or is. Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Barack Obama, liberal, conservative, it really makes no difference.

To be clear, most white Americans don't feel this way. If 20% do, then 80% don't, and that ought to be heartening except that 20% can lose you an election. Hillary Clinton knows this. She wants to win the nomination so badly she's willing to throw away her legacy and that of her husband to pander to that minority. And still, the ultimate prize eludes her grasp, snatched away by a black man.

Again, there ought to be some nuance to any analysis of this problem. There are large segments of the white working class that don't buy into racism on any level. Over the years they've found common cause with their black counterparts on a number of issues. One hopes their number is growing.

Yet the inability of some to put down racism is not Barack Obama's problem with the white working class.

It's America's problem with race.   

Still Standing

By day's end, we may know if Staten Island Congressman Vito Fossella will either serve out the rest of his term, run for re-election, or quit, now or later. The details of his DWI and baby daddy saga are by now well known. Less examined, however, is the recent history of lawmakers who have faced ethical/criminal problems. Some stayed in office, some quit, but what's interesting is their sheer number, and the fact that more and more of them decide to gut it out.

Why? As in so many situations these days, the answer is often money. Scandal tainted pols like Fossella want to minimize the taint that may make it hard for them to get work after they leave office. Those K Street lobbying firms so many want to join could find issues like his toxic. However, there seems to be no taste on Capitol Hill to force problem politicians out of office.

Consider Senators David Vitter and Larry Craig. Despite Craig's arrest in an airport sex sting, and Vitter's admission of a "serious sin" involving the late DC Madam, both remain in office. Neither have had even censure resolutions brought against them by the Senate Ethics Committee.

In the House, no one has been expelled since 2002, when James Traficant was convicted of bribery, racketeering, fraud, and tax evasion. Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney both quit after pleading guilty to criminal acts. Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson, however, remains in office after being indicted on federal corruption charges. So do two Republicans, Rick Renzi and John Doolittle.

So maybe Vito Fossella's Hamlet act will last longer than we first thought.  

The Wait

Since Indiana and North Carolina, speculation has swirled within the chattering classes. How much longer will Hillary Clinton fight for the Democratic presidential nomination? If she decides to drop out, would she take the number 2 spot on the ticket with Barack Obama? If not Vice President, what exactly does Hillary want?

The short answer to all these questions is, nobody knows but Hillary. She's plodding on, spending time in West Virginia, a state she will likely win. Yet even she knows her presidential bid is beyond long shot. When the pundits start using the word presumptive in front of Obama's name, you know it's just a matter of time.

So it comes down to this for the senator from New York. Will she bow out gracefully, accepting something, anything in exchange? Even Obama's help in retiring her massive campaign debt doesn't sound as far fetched as it once did. There's even been some whispered talk about dumping Harry Reid and installing her as Senate Majority Leader.

The alternative is that she keeps up the fight. That would involve continuing to try to keep uncommitted  superdelegates neutral. Despite her best efforts, Hillary's once formidable lead among the party elders has totally evaporated. It also involves trying to keep Michigan and Florida in play, a tactic that may not last past the end of May.

Look for Hillary Clinton to keep fighting. The odds may be long, but the presidency is what she wants, and nothing else will satisfy her. If it eludes her grasp this year, as it almost certainly will, she'll live to fight another day.

That's the Clinton way.      

Family Guy

Earlier this week, we lamented the DWI bust of Staten Island Congressman Vito Fossella. Now it seems the bust is the least of his worries. The conservative, Republican family values guy is now exposed as having led a double life, love child and all. Which leads to a question. Is there anything a politician thinks he or she can't get away with?

Fossella, after being taken to a drunk tank in Virginia with a .17 blood alcohol level, contacted a woman not his wife to get him out of stir. We now know she's retired Air Force Col. Laura Fay. At first, she was described simply as a mystery woman. Then it was revealed she'd been separated from her husband since '03, yet had a 3 year old child. 

Somebody did the math, and Fossella had to admit he was the baby's daddy. One can assume that didn't play well with his wife and three kids back on Staten Island. The congressman had himself two separate families. Maybe he could afford it on his salary as a congressman. Maybe Laura Fay didn't ask for much except time. No matter. When a man who represents a conservative, Catholic constituency gets caught up in something like this, the words "step down" come quickly to mind.

Vito Fossella says he'll spend this weekend assessing his options. Smart money says his wife is doing the same thing.

Polygamy and Immigration

At first, they would appear to have little in common, polygamy and immigration. The former has come into sharp national focus after 462 children were seized from a compound of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or FLDS in Texas. Issues abound about the number of pregnant underage girls the sect harbored, and the like.

What's interesting is the response of law enforcement in Texas, Utah, and Arizona. These are states where FLDS members live. They are living illegally, regardless of whether there are any underage children involved in marriages, pregnancies, etc. Yet both the attorneys general of Utah and Arizona appear to be approaching this illegality with a caution unseen when dealing with the question of illegal immigration in their states.

There's a town hall meeting planned tonight in St. George Utah. The top law enforcement officials of both Arizona and Utah will be there. Neither plans any mass raids on polygamous settlements in their states. Contrast this with the get tough attitude lawmen take when it comes to illegals. The major rationale there is that these immigrants are breaking the law.

Okay, fine. But what about polygamy? Last I checked, that was illegal as well. Yet the law breaking argument has less weight in these cases. The attorneys general appear to be looking for abuse cases first and foremost, as well they should. But will they lock anyone up for the crime of polygamy? There seems to almost be a nod-nod, wink-wink attitude that permeates discussions on the issue, whether it be from those who engage in the practice, or those charged with bringing them to justice.

No such luck for illegal immigrants.   

Step by Step, Inch by Inch

Yesterday's results from North Carolina and Indiana did little to change the math for Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama won big in Carolina, while the senator from New York barely eked out a win in the Hoosier state. Obama told supporters last night he's within 200 delegates of clinching the nomination. So why is Hillary pressing on?

Because she can't do anything else. This was supposed to be her time, the nomination process little more than a run-up to her eventual coronation. It hasn't turned out that way, and now she's got a big problem. Her money is running out, and the results last night guarantee she won't be raising $10 million dollars in 24 hours like she did after Pennsylvania.

Yet the nation has a bigger problem than Hillary Clinton does. The closer Barack Obama gets to the nomination, the closer America gets to confronting an ugly, fundamental truth about itself. Racism lives, and too many Americans take it into account when assessing Obama's fitness to be president. Yes, media has nibbled around the edges of this story, but generally its been slow to take it on.

Behind the rhetoric about Jeremiah Wright, the Weather Underground, and flag lapel pins is the rather unpleasant notion that enough people will refuse to vote for Obama on racial grounds to hand the presidency to John McCain. And who are these people? Without generalizing, many are the same working class whites we've been told are so important this election cycle.

They also Hillary Clinton's base of support. This doesn't make her a racist, just a beneficiary 

Here We Go Again!

Time is running out for Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Their duel for the Democratic presidential nomination is close to finished. Indiana and North Carolina today hold the final big group of pledged delegates before the process ends June 3rd. Today's contests won't solve the nomination puzzle any more than Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio did.

Finally, in the home stretch of this latest battle, do we hear talk of issues the American people have as concerns. The squabble over a gas tax holiday is a line of demarcation between Clinton and Obama we've rarely seen. Even this, however, doesn't change expectations for both. Clinton must win Indiana, decisively some say, and Obama must do the same in North Carolina.

Then what? We'll pretty much watching the same immovable landscape as before. The only thing that changes is the slow drip of superdelegates, most moving toward Obama. It does seem more likely that in the end they will decide who runs against John McCain. Then there remains the thorny issue of what to do about Florida and Michigan. Keep in mind when the Clinton camp does their delegate count, both states are included. Assuming she doesn't quit the race before Denver, she'll fight for their inclusion. 

At some point, party elders will have to take a long look at this 2008 election cycle, and decide if the process needs to change. Of course, a lot will depend on whether the Democrats win the White House. Maybe it shouldn't. A long, drawn out nomination process eventually burns out many of its participants.

To say nothing of the voters.   

Random Notes From NYC

A lot of people have been saying celebrities needed to step up and make their voices heard regarding the acquittals in the Sean Bell case. Several hip-hop stars have spoken out, but leave it to Jay-Z to take it to the next level. 

Published reports say he's set up trust funds for Sean Bell's two children. The trusts are reportedly of substantial amounts, to be paid when the youngsters become adults. Some may remember the Detective's Endowment Assn. here in New York slammed Bell's widow for appearing an a Roc-a-Wear ad campaign. All one can say is, actions speak louder than words.

Speaking of the Bell case, Rev. Al Sharpton says there will be a number of pray-ins around the city on Wednesday to protest the verdict. He says they will involve civil disobedience, and one could well take place at police headquarters. There's been little word yet on the status, if any, of the federal investigation promised in the wake of the acquittals.

Poor Staten Island Cong. Vito Fossella. First he gets busted for DWI in Virginia. He says he only had one drink. Then comes word his drunk test registered .17 , twice the legal limit. Must've been a BIG drink. Now there are questions about a "mystery woman" who bailed him out. Next time the Giants are at the White House, stay home, congressman!

And finally, yet another public figure admits mistakes in his personal life. That would be Roger Clemens, former star pitcher for the Red Sox, Blue Jays, Astros, and Yankees (did I leave anyone out?). The mistake must have been that long standing relationship he had with a country music star, one that he first denied was sexual. It must have been tough to deny after the woman and her mother said otherwise.

And oh, yeah, the Rocket said again he's never done steroids.

Any believers?  

Go Figure

So here we are again,  just ahead of not one, but two more "crucial" Democratic presidential primaries. Indiana and North Carolina may not solve things any more than Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania did. Certainly the explosion of poll numbers and superdelegate endorsements haven't made things much clearer.

One poll should make the chattering classes sit up and take notice. Americans apparently are getting tired of the end to end coverage this race has spawned. Back in January, only 36% of those surveyed thought there was too much coverage. That number is up to 54%. So much for that old cliche, "The American people want to know".  Seems quite a few people are tired of knowing.

The stakes in Indiana and North Carolina are simple, and its not about win or go home. If Barack Obama wins North Carolina by less than double digits, he'll be portrayed as blowing a big lead. The statements of his former pastor will be dredged up yet again to show how much he's been hurt by them. Conversely, if Hillary Clinton loses Indiana, it will be another nail in her political coffin. Problem is, nobody, least of all Obama, has been able to nail the coffin shut.

Hillary's supposed to have momentum, while Obama racks up superdelegates no matter what Jeremiah Wright says. A more confusing script couldn't have been written by Brian DePalma.  

Bloom Off the Rose

American consumers are finally doing what people do when prices spiral and wages stagnate. They're cutting back. The Commerce Dept. says there's been a sharp pullback in consumer spending. Many economists thought this would happen sooner. Yet the numbers tell us the pullback, though late, has been sharp, and it has consequences for the broader economy.

For most Americans, the numbers may not mean much. Consumer spending is rising at a rate about one third what it was two years ago. This is a function of hikes in the price of gas, transportation, and housing. So it should come as no surprise that non essentials are the first on the household budget chopping block.

The economists call this discretionary spending. Do you go out to eat three, maybe four times a week? Maybe you cut back to once or twice. You hold off buying that iPod for yourself or a loved one. Trips in the car that don't involve work get fewer and fewer. And nobody tells you much of this wouldn't be a problem if you got a raise. They don't tell you because they know your boss isn't planning on giving you one.

It seems like a dim memory back in 2001 and 2002, when President Bush urged America to spend, spend, spend as a way to tell the world we'd gotten over terrorism. He never told us that in the last year of his presidency we'd see both government and the private sector pick our pockets. Now, finally, consumers are getting wise.

It's not going to be pretty.