America's blockhead

They don't make newspaper columnists like Jimmy Breslin anymore, and we're all the poorer for it. From a column purportedly about Mitt Romney is this gem about Rudolph Giuliani:

I today direct you to how religion overwhelmed this Giuliani, who always has been a little man in search of a balcony. Each time he inspected a height he stood there and rehearsed for the moment when the whole nation would look at him in fear and awe. Then he paused to scowl at the West Side of Manhattan, with its grubby liberals who say that he was the worst mayor we've had. Then came the attack on the World Trade Center and Giuliani ran right up the street from the smoke and into a television studio. There he remained for day after day until the cameras made him America's Mayor.

I mean, you could read the I-can't-believe-there-are-still-trees-left New Yorker profile (in 16 parts) or professional Rudy-hater Wayne Barrett's Village Voice job (or not read Harper's take).

But really, Breslin's sketch of him atop a balcony really captures it all; the arrogance, the righteousness, the terrible isolation, the fascism, the evocation of Mussolini and (Eva) Peron, the stature--even the Italianness.

Uncredited photo of Giuliani in various places online.

Unarmed opponent

Buried in the middle of Paul Gigot's WSJ column that broke the news that Karl Rove is resigning is this:

The president calls him to chat about politics on Sunday mornings, and they have a contest to see who can read the most books. (Mr. Rove is winning.)

Why Republicans will choose a Hispanic for VP

Come next September in Minneapolis, the Republicans should nominate a Hispanic candidate for vice president.

A Hispanic nominee totally changes the dynamic of the election. It'd give the GOP a shot at capturing the fastest-growing bloc of voters, lets voters make history by voting Republican, blows up the electoral map, and allows the traditional black/Latino fault line to tear Democrats apart from within.

A Hispanic is the only person who can fulfill the VP nominee's traditional job of attack dog against the other party's presidential candidate without coming across as racist (if it's Barack Obama) or a bully (if it's Hillary Clinton).

A Hispanic gives minorities a credible reason to not vote Democratic without feeling like traitors or bigots or sexists.

A Hispanic is the only way the Republicans can dodge the growing feeling that they're yesterday's party, top-heavy with tired white males.

A Hispanic ties 15% of the population to the Republicans, via an ethnic pride/emotional/historic appeal that cannot be underestimated.

A Hispanic demolishes the electoral map--it locks up Texas for the GOP, solidifies their hold on Florida, shores up their razor-thin margins in Arizona and New Mexico, forces Democrats to put more resources into the expensive New York and Illinois media markets, and--in combination with Schwarzenegger--actually puts California into play.

A Hispanic in the second spot gives cover for the Republicans to play their favorite wedge issue, immigration, following the George Bush/Karl Rove playbook.

There are only two reasons the GOP wouldn't nominate a Hispanic: The prejudices of their own core voters, and the lack of a credible Hispanic Republican candidate (Mel Martinez is the only one in the ballpark).

I guess it's apt that the only thing preventing the Republicans from seizing control of the 2008 race could be themselves.

When not winning is losing

In sports there's the concept of a team being behind in the game, but actually being ahead.

Like let's say in football, you turn the ball over 4 times deep in your own territory in the first half, but the other team is only up 10-0 on the scoreboard.

Really, you should be losing like 21-0, so the halftime speech from the coach goes something like they've taken their best shot at us and this is all they can do--this game is ours to win.

You'd be surprised at how often the team that's 'down' winds up winning the game in situations like that; you've got to make the most of your chances in sports, and when you don't the other team usually does.

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll from Iowa has Barack Obama at 27%, Hillary Clinton at 26%, and Johh Edwards at 26%.

I'm shocked. Edwards has practically lived in Iowa the last four years; the state gave him a surprisingly strong second place finish the last time out, and his entire strategy this time around is built around winning Iowa so he's devoted the bulk of his resources to the state.

Clinton's also been running for president for the past four years, has poured money and staff into Iowa, is married to someone who's enormously popular in the state, and has picked up the endorsements of most of Iowa's political heavyweights.

And yet they're both not only not up on Obama, but are actually trailing a man whose only advantage in Iowa is his ads in the Illionois Senate race leaked over the border.

I mean, if four years of concentrated work by Edwards and Clinton in a state that's 94% white can't even give them a lead over someone who's basically just shown up, my gosh, where are they gonna beat him once voters get to know him?

Polls are generally pretty soft this far out--the article notes:

History suggests that these voters are quite willing to change their mind as caucus day approaches and the campaign intensifies with television advertising and more direct engagement among the candidates. In the 2004 Iowa caucus day poll by the National Election Pool, 42 percent of caucus-goers said they made up their mind in the last week of the campaign. Just 30 percent made their final decision more than a month before caucus day.

However, this year is pretty different--the race has started earlier than ever before, and the people polled in Iowa are paying attention:

Americans elsewhere may not be paying attention to the presidential race on a day-to-day basis, but nine in 10 likely Democratic caucus attendees said they are closely following the movements and statements of the candidates. Seven in 10 said they have been contacted by at least one of the presidential campaigns this year, and four in 10 said they have attended at least one campaign event. ...

The poll provides stark evidence of how intense the early campaigning has been. The 71 percent of voters who have already received a telephone call from one of the campaigns is about equal to the percentage of likely caucus-goers who reported getting called in December 2003, the month before the 2004 caucuses.

The portion having already attended one or more campaign events, 40 percent, is up somewhat from that time, and the percentage donating money to one of the candidates is about as high. A third of likely voters have already received e-mails from a campaign, and a third have visited a candidate's Web site.

I don't know; the Iowa caucuses are one of the weirdest things in politics, it's pretty amazing that one of the key events in how a nation of 300 million people chooses the next leader of the free world centers around a few thousand people getting together in living rooms and arguing.

And the people responding to the poll may not be at all the people who are gonna spend hours taking part in the caucus next winter. Plus there's the complicating factor of the built-in bias against black candidates by white voters, vying with the 'Bradley effect' where black candidates generally do about 10 points worse on election day than polls show (a combination of bigots lying to pollsters, and last-minute undecideds often breaking for the default choice).

Nevertheless, this poll result from a state with voters who are paying the most attention in the nation, along with Obama's ability to outraise Hillary, along with the size of crowds he's drawing everywhere, along with the people he's managed to get to run his campaign, are all pretty telling that this game is gonna play out differently.

Scott Morgan photo of Obama from Getty Images via USA Today.

Midseason form

Gilbert Arenas is the king of all blogging. Mark Cuban needs to start taking lessons from him.

There Are No Such Thing as Shark Attacks

I know this is random, but I just want to clear this up for people out there.
There are these things called shark attacks, but there is no such thing as a shark attack. I have never seen a real shark attack.

I know you’re making a weird face as you’re reading this. OK people, a shark attack is not what we see on TV and what people portray it as.

We’re humans. We live on land.

Sharks live in water.

So if you’re swimming in the water and a shark bites you, that’s called trespassing. That is called trespassing. That is not a shark attack.

A shark attack is if you’re chilling at home, sitting on your couch, and a shark comes in and bites you; now that’s a shark attack. Now, if you’re chilling in the water, that is called invasion of space. So I have never heard of a shark attack.

When I see on the news where it’s like, “There have been 10 shark attacks,” I’m like, “Hey, for real?! They’re just running around? Sharks are walking now, huh! We live on the land, we don’t live underwater.”

And, from an earlier post:

I know I said was was afraid of the stingrays and sharks, but I actually got into the water with sharks on my vacation. I was swimming every morning with them. They were little 3-foot long sharks called blackheads. The locals said nobody has ever been bitten by a shark, there haven’t been any shark attacks, you know they’re not aggressive sharks.

So I was like, “All right, let me go in and give it a try.” But that was after I’d seen little kids in there swimming already, then I knew I could go in. I wasn’t going to be the first one in, that’s for sure.

More of my Gilbert posts here (although really, his posts are much more entertaining).

Uncredited image of Arenas from Detroit Bad Boys blog, who got it from who knows where.