I write about things as they interest me. As I endorsed Barack Obama specifically because Hillary Clinton’s style is so bad that it will hurt America, Obama’s style mostly interested me. Since I realized the nature of Hillary Clinton’s ‘zombie coalition’ of uneducated whites, latinos, and asians, a coalition that Obama must crack, how his style relates to that coalition has been fascinating.

It struck me that a man who stands for so little, who’s campaign was built mostly on being nice in a generic, at-least-I’m-not-as-bad-as-Clinton sort of way, couldn’t even keep that up. His new strategy conflicted with his old one of winking-and-nodding-to-racial-separatism to help him in Illinois state politics, and his attempt to fuse the two models was a monumental failure. He simultaneously gave reinforced the fears of all members of Hillary’s zombie coalition.

Though certainly Obama is somewhat a victim of the campaign season, it can’t be denied that his campaign is now far more identity-driven than Hillary’s ever was. Hillary’s cry-and-tear act was tiresome, but she never gained the same fraction of the female vote that Obama gained of the black one. She never alienated the same fraction of the male vote that Obama’s aliented of the non-black-one.

And now, in the coup de grace, Barack “Don’t listen to my camp says on NAFTA” becomes Barack “Don’t Listen to what my camp says on Iraq.” Because, according to Camp Obama, we will be in Iraq for a hundred years.

Now, this is fine and dandy. Indeed, it is great. Except for that Obama formerly feigned ignorance of what such a pledge meant, and criticized McCain for saying the same thing.

Obama isn’t interesting. He isn’t a uniter. He’s more divisive than Clinton, and more deceptive than Clinton.

But being politically unready, Obama is so at least partially through incompetence, while Clinton’s failures are the result of deliberate and cold calculation.

That’s why I still support Barack Obama for the Democratic Nation.

As the Tibet unrest continues, China “pulls an Obama,” reacting to a well-run opponent with fear and self-defeating insularity:

China rethinks Tiananmen Olympics broadcasts – CNN.com
Like the Olympics, live broadcasts from Tiananmen Square were meant to showcase a friendly, confident China — one that had put behind it the deadly 1989 military assault on democracy demonstrators in the vast plaza that remains a defining image for many foreigners.

“Tiananmen is the face of China, the face of Beijing, so many broadcasters would like to do live or recorded coverage of the square,” said Yosuke Fujiwara, the head of broadcast relations for the Beijing Olympic Broadcasting Co., or BOB, a joint-venture between Beijing Olympic organizers and an IOC subsidiary. BOB coordinates and provides technical services for the TV networks with rights to broadcast the Olympics, such as NBC.

Earlier this week, however, officials with the Beijing Olympics Organizing Committee, or BOCOG, told executives at BOB that the live shots were canceled, according to three people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

“We learned that standup positions would be canceled,” one of these people said. “No explanation was given for the change.”

It’s obvious what China fears: some protestors will be videotaped being roughed-up on live international television. But Tiananmen is the largest city square in the world, in one of the world’s largest cities. Any brutality or protests in Tiananmen during the Olympics will be videotaped and will be broadcast to the world: this just guarantees that the footage will be grainy, and all the more disturbing.

Besides any westerners who may cause trouble, China’s showing her weakness and will attract attention from Tibetans, Uighers, and Falun Gong. This is a dangerous mix of very different protest strategies, that (combined with Communist media paralysis) will help embarrass that country.

Good.

MSNBC has a great story that intertwines two areas where Obama is on the defense: In defusing Clinton’s “zombie coalition” of uneducated whites, latinos, and asians who may vote for McCain rather than Obama on racial-coalition lines, and in the Rev Wright debacle. For the first, Obama has snatched up Bill Richardson‘s endorsement, trying to pull at least some latinos into his coalition. For the second, the Obama campaign sent a picture of Bill Clinton meeting Wright at some function to the press, in an attempt to tar Clinton with association to the man who baptized his children.

In both cases, Obama keeps his campaign focused on race, which is strange for a candidate who once was greeted by chants of race doesn’t matter. But it makes perfect sense when one realizes that Clinton is controlling this campaign, “moving his pieces and hers,” and that her attempt in South Carolina to define Obama as a race-based candidate is paying off.

First thoughts: A bad week for everyone – First Read – msnbc.com
That said, two developments that occurred last night — the news that Bill Richardson is endorsing Obama and the breach of his passport records — have changed the subject, at least in the short term. But we do have this question for the Obama campaign: Why did it leak that photo of Wright with Bill Clinton? Doesn’t that just give cable networks another excuse to run the video of Wright? How does that turn the page? It was an odd decision to say the least.

*** Richardson’s endorsement: When John Edwards made an appearance on Leno last night, we were bracing ourselves for a possible endorsement. We just didn’t know it would be coming from Bill Richardson, who will formally throw his support behind Obama at a campaign event today in Portland, OR. The endorsement isn’t too much of a surprise — Richardson had been hinting his support for Obama for a while. Still, it’s significant for two reasons: 1) Richardson becomes the second Dem presidential contender to endorse Obama, while none has backed Clinton (Biden and Edwards are still neutral); and 2) ,b>Richardson specifically cited Obama’s speech on race as a reason for getting off the fence. “He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together,” he said in a letter to his supporters.

Obama is so wise for running out the clock. He’s a weak candidate who has trouble competing in arenas were good speeches are not enough. Thus, Obama looks like he will be able to hobble his way to the Democratic Convention, win the 48-state election, and face John McCain in the general election.

I’m currently reading the “2008 Call for the Democratic National Convention” (PDF), after reading two posts by Marc Ambinder about it. The important sections appear to be

VII(J)(1), VII(J)(2), VII(J)(3), and VII(J)(4):

J. Credentials Committee and Procedures for Challenging Delegates or State Delegations:
1. The Credentials Committee shall determine and resolve questions concerning the seating of delegates and alternates to the Convention pursuant to the resolution entitled the “Relationship Between the 2008 Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee and the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules,” which includes the “Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee of the 2008 Democratic National Convention” hereby approved and adopted by the Democratic National Committee, and set forth in full in the Appendix to this Call. The committee shall report to the Convention for final determination and resolution of all such questions. This committee does not have authority over the allocation and distribution of convention credentials, including passes for delegates, alternates, guests or press.
2. Challenges to the seating of any delegate or alternate shall be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee. Any challenge to the seating of a delegate or alternate that is not made in conformity with these rules shall be deemed waived.
3. Upon the request of members representing twenty percent (20%) of the total votes of the Credentials Committee, a minority report shall be prepared for distribution to the Convention delegates and alternates as part of the committee’s report; provided, however, that no member elected to the committee by a state delegation may join in such request as to a proposed minority report relating to a credentials challenge to any delegate or alternate from his or her state. The committee staff shall assist in the preparation of such report.
4. The report of the Credentials Committee and any minority reports shall be distributed to all delegates, alternates, and the public as soon as practicable after their adoption.

and VIII(B)(1) and VIII(B)(2):

B. Temporary Roll:
1. The Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall determine a Temporary Roll of delegates to the Convention which shall consist only of those persons selected and certified as delegates in accordance with the Rules and pursuant to this Call, unless a credentials contest shall have arisen with respect to any such person(s), in which case the Secretary shall include on the Temporary Roll the name of the credentials contestant recommended for inclusion by the Credentials Committee in its report.
2. Persons whose names are included on the Temporary Roll of delegates shall be permitted to vote on all matters before the Convention until after the adoption of the report of the Credentials Committee; provided that no person shall be permitted to vote on his or her credentials contest.

What this boils down to:

There are two sets of “superdelegates.” There are automatic delegates to the Credentials Committee described in VII(J) and largely appointed by Howard Dean. There are a different set of automatic delegates to the Democratic convention described in VIII(B) that everyone has been talking to. Both might be able to use the VII(J) vote to constrain the VIII(B) vote. For instance, consider if Obama’s lead is small enough, or his credibility is shot enough, that he fears superdelegates who would ultimately vote for him wished to see Michigan and Florida seated. In which case, he could use his VII(J) delegates and Democratic Chairman Howard Dean’s superdelegaets to sit phony Michigan and Florida delegations. When Clinton’s delegates’ minority report is challenged on the floor, his phony Michigan delegation could vote in favor of this phony Florida delegation, and then his phony Florida delegation could vote in favor of his phony Michigan delegation.

Assuming the votes and caucuses end without a clear winner, then nothing new will be really known until after the Olympics in August. Nothing firm will happen between the June Puerto Rico vote and the August convention. It could be an interesting summer.

I give Barack Obama credit for knowing that he’s being outcompeted by Hillary, and that he needs to run out the clock. After Obama’s disaster of a speech, he defends his comparison between his anti-American pastor and his grandmother:

“The point I was making is not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that’s just the nature of race in our society.

What’s weird, of course, is that his grandmother appears to be parroting one of Jesse Jackson’s line:

Jesse Jackson is traveling the country with a tough anti-crime message that he is delivering to inner-city youngsters. In Chicago he said, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.

If I wanted to be snarky, I would write “Does Barack Obama think that Jesse Jackson is a ‘typical black person.’” But of course, the problem with Obama’s actions over the past few weeks is he’s barely thinking at all. Clinton has him frozen in strategic paralysis: Unable to advance or retreat, Obama now hopes that outside forces make Clinton go away.

Too bad.

Spike Jonze makes great music videos. He also deserves props for launching VBS.tv, whch just produced a 14-part series on travel in North Korea:

Hat-tip to DPRK Studies, One Free Korea, ROK Drop, and Zen Kimichi.

I want Clinton to lose the Democratic nomination because I know she will do to the country what she is already doing to her party: cause it great harm. This video of Keith Olberman, courtesy of MyDD, is an example of the intra-party feud going on among the Democrats. I have no doubt the fight will become just as vicious among Americans if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination.

And then there’s this:

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.
Obama, on the other hand, earns solid support from African-American voters but attracts only 36% of white voters in a match-up with McCain.

Hillary’s doing her best to set the stage for the most racially polarized election in American history, a “blacks v. everyone else” affair where Hillary’s zombie coalition of uneducated whites, latinos, and asians leads to Democratic defeat. As with her recent campaigning in Michigan (softly encouraging Floridians and Michiganers to stay home if their delegates are not seated), Hillary’s laying landmines to convince the Democratic Party they cannot possible win without her as the nominee.

Hillary would probably be a good commander and chief — better than Obama, if they are both to be trusted. Likewise, she’s useful for the harm she’s causing to the Democratic Party. But as a general election candidate she would be awful, and for her the general election would never end.

Until the Taiwan Crisis I was hoping that the Chinese National Party (KMT) prevailed in the Taiwanese elections. Eight years of the Taiwanese Nationalist “Democratic Progressive Party” (DPP) had helped China “grow up” as it came to Taiwanese-Chinese relations. It appeared that Beijing knew the best approach to take if she wanted her one-country-two-systems policy to come to pass. Plus, DPP was increasingly desperate, and bringing up non-issues (the KMT candidate has a US green card) in its attempt to shore up votes.

However, the Tibet Riots have thrown light on how China’s actual “One Country Two Systems” policy with certain provinces actually work. The Tibetan Protesters are helping the world embarrass China for actions that are not appropriate for a Great Power. A DPP victory, or at least a crippled KMT win, would further embarrass the Communist party.

China Tensions Sway Taiwan Election – New York Times
China’s suppression of protests in Tibet and missteps by the opposition Nationalist Party have made the Taiwanese presidential election on Saturday an unexpectedly close race. What once seemed to be an insuperable lead for the Nationalist candidate, Ma Ying-jeou, has narrowed considerably, politicians and political analysts said.

A narrow victory for Mr. Ma would give him a weaker mandate for his goal of closer economic relations with mainland China. An actual defeat for Mr. Ma, now a possibility although not yet the most likely outcome, would be a serious setback for Beijing officials, who have cultivated relations with the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang, over the past four years.

Mainland Chinese officials loathe Taiwan’s current president, Chen Shui-bian, and his party, the Democratic Progressive Party, for pursuing greater political separation from the mainland. Beijing has been wary of the party’s candidate, Frank Hsieh, even though Mr. Hsieh has repeatedly voiced much more willingness than Mr. Chen to allow increased Taiwanese investment on the mainland and more cross-straits transportation links.

If Mr. Hsieh were to win, it could be perceived in Beijing as a high price to have paid for forcefully putting down demonstrations in Tibet.

For Taiwan, for Tibet, for China, and for the future: Vote DPP.

McCain convinced Bush. Then he convinced me. Now he has convinced Clinton: the Petraeus, Surge, and COIN are the way to go:

Clinton Praises Petraeus – The Caucus – Politics – New York Times Blog
CHARLESTON, W.V. – As critical as she is about the Bush administration’s conduct of the Iraq war, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a relatively rare shout-out to the military’s top man in Baghdad, General David Petraeus, calling him “an extraordinary leader and a wonderful advocate for our military.”

The commanding general, who has been a target of antiwar opponents and liberal groups like Moveon.org, has been a strong supporter of the escalation of American troops in Iraq, a strategy that Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama have opposed.

But Mrs. Clinton, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has had opportunities to talk and meet with General Petraeus about military matters over the years, and some aides say that she respects his expertise.

Major props for Bush for being stubborn enough to keep the war going until he found what worked, McCain for harranging him until he accepted the right answer, and Clinton for adjusting her positions as facts changed.

Bush is serious about natural defense. McCain and Clinton are the two serious Presidential candidates when it comes to national defense.

Broadly, questions fall into two types: natural or theological. Natural questions are those open to scientific investigation. Example of natural questions are:

• Is global climate change caused by human activity?
• Would al Qaeda cease attacking us if we ceased supporting Isreal and Saudi Arabia?
• Should the United States military include both blitzkrieg and COIN capacity

Theological questions, on the other hand, question the nature of God and His relationship to other things. Examples of theological questions are:

• Is there Hypostatic Union of Human and Divine Nature in the Second Person of the Trinity?
• Do all non-Missouri-Lutherans go to Hell?
• Can Allah destroy the Koran?

In general, one might say that deciding who to vote for on account of natural questions is applying a “natural test.” Likewise, deciding who to vote for on account of theological questions would be applying a “religious test.”

Certainly, some people use religious reasons to answer natural questions. Thus, Paul argued that Christians should support the State, while Martin Luther King, Jr. agitated for civil rights for American blacks. Though some people are uncomfortable with religious motives for natural tests, there exists a broad consensus that religious beliefs can meaningfully inform political and economic structure, among both Catholics and Protestants.

However, fewer people support the idea of Religious Tests for office. Left-leaning Salon snickered at evangelicals who refused to vote for Mitt Romney. Even right-wing commentators limited their concern over a Muslim congressman to how he would answer natural questions.

Thus, I was surprised that Eddie of Hidden Unities argued in favor of a religious test for President. Specifically, Eddie appeared to argue for a cordon sanitaire against ministers who give incorrect answers to the theological question of who will go to Heaven or Hell, among other things.

I was taken aback by Eddie’s assertion. So far my friend has neither supported nor renounced his claim, though it has made me think about a question that previously I took to be a no-brainer. So

Should there be a religious test for government office?

If so, which theological questions must candidates and their associates answer correctly?