Jeff, man I was enjoying a quiet day at the office, but you had to go ahead and do it didn't you? First you blog about Rosa Clemente getting the nod as the Green Party VP and when I still wouldn't bite, you sent me this WSJ article about Obama's voter registration efforts. Hells yeah it's "super-interesting." But you and I always ask, what does any of this mean?

After Obama excommunicated Wesley Clark from his campaign, which he was never working with to begin with, I half-expected Clark and McKinney to join forces. It would have been like one of those wrestling events where a wrestler unexpected changes teams and stirs half the auditorium into a frenzy while leaving the other half in disbelief. Even without this imagined WWE scenario a McKinney/CLemente ticket makes the Green Party more interesting than it was a week ago. One of the knocks against the greens is that they were too white. McKinney and Clemente not only change this perception in terms of phenotype, but set the stage for altering party politics in this country for years to come. As the WSJ article contends African Americans have voted democrat at a 90% rate, a statistic that McKinney and Clemente are unlikely to alter during this election. What they can do however is make cities and districts around the country, especially in states like California, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania battle-ground states in upcoming elections in ways that the democrats and republicans are not normally accustomed. If Obama generates as high a voter turn out as some are predicting, it is virtually impossible for the democrats and republicans to retain all of these enthusiastic new voters. We have already seen how the Ron Paul phenomena has siphoned some youthful voters away from McCain and the republicans, a similar process can occur if the Green Party can present itself as a more multi-racial coalition. It's not so much the Obama's of the world who have to worry, but more so patronage peddlers like Kwame Kilpatrick.

My two cents....

PS, you were right about the Billy Beane analogy.

PPS Baron Davis to the clippers, ouch.

Moneyball's subtitle is "The Art of Winning an Unfair Game." Baseball is as artful as it is unfair precisely because it's as irrational a sport as it is a scientific one. The Cubs and Athletics practically sellout every game but haven't won a title in ages, the Marlins have won two titles in a decade yet they can't draw any fans. It does not make any sense.

But it does, because more than numbers, what baseball fans love more than anything else are stories. Obama had a better story to tell than Clinton in the democratic race and that's largely why he won. One of the reasons that Wesley Clark's comments have gotten so much attention is that Obama's response unmasked a concern of his campaign, and that is that John McCain may be as good a story-teller, or have as good of a story as the skinny black kid with the funny name.

More than not bringing a title to Oaktown, Beane's legacy may be that he took the story out of the Athletics. Once people started focusing on the numbers, they forgot about those teams from the 70s and 80s and the characters who made them national phenomenons, larger than life figures such as Rollie Fingers, Reggie Jackson and the "Bash Brothers" Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. Obama might want to consider putting aside the speeches until the fall and think of this summer as if it's one big BBQ and the eyes of the world are on him waiting to tell his story. We may have heard it before, but we'll gladly listen again.

Jeff, I do not know about you, I’m still open to public-financing, as are a lot of artist-practictioners throughout this country who could use some of the financial support thrown behind Barack Obama during this campaign season. In an ideal world the money turned down by Obama and potentially McCain would be re-distributed to fund education and arts initiatives. But I digress….

In other news, Joe Klein seems to have agreed with my theory that Republicans will retain control over the military during Obama’s tenure. Klein suggests that Obama should retain Roberts Gates as Secretary of Defense declaring that “[Gates] has been a superb Secretary of Defense, as good in that post as his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, was awful.” Any thoughts on whether the Republicans will in fact hold on to the military?

The question I have for you this week is: what on earth happened to the Republican party?

Surely when Newt Gingrich led the Republican Revolution in the early 90s never did he imagine in his wildest dreams that in 2008 the Republican party would feature a septuagenarian atop its presidential ticket, a Democratic controlled house, and that Republicans would be struggling to find viable candidates to fill Congressional. Well here we are in 2008 and that is precisely the case.

Case in point, here in New York, after Staten Island representative Vito Fossella stepped down the Republicans selected mogul Frank Powers to run for his seat. Sadly, Powers passed away and the Republicans were sent scrambling again to find a suitable candidate. Powers’s untimely death was yet another unfortunate setback for a party that has been reeling for much of this decade, and which suffered a string of disheartening defeats in the 2006 midterm elections.

Worst yet, as the Democrat’s brand is soaring in light of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama’s historic campaigns, the Republican brand name appears to be going out of style. Ironically, it’s not as if the Democrats are the ones downgrading the Republican brand, it’s the Republicans themselves. Listen closely to McCain or any of his surrogates from within the party talk these days and you’ll hear them use the term “Conservative” to describe themselves a lot more than they use Republican. On the contrary you do not hear Democrats going around announcing themselves as Liberals. This is not simply because in some circles the “L” word is a dirty one in American Politics, but all Democrats are not liberals—a lesson that Joe Lieberman has been determined to teach us since 2000. Former Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Lieberman’s transformation into John McCain’s #1 cheerleader is not the only peculiar development over the last eight years; as interesting as Lieberman’s transformation has been the disappearance of figures such as Bill Frist, Tom Ridge and Christine Todd Whitman, who at one time represented a more-centrist Republican party, one capable of going toe to toe with the kinds of candidates being groomed by the DNC and DLC. Eight years later, neither of these retain their prominence as party spokespersons, and as with many of their Republican peers who have retired from the spotlight, they were not adequately replaced within the party.

The Republican, rather Conservative party has also let Fox News and flamboyant talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh set its agenda. Throughout this campaign many of the memorable “right-wing” sound-bites were not uttered by anyone working directly within the Republican party, but rather by sundry commentators on Fox. Since 2000 Fox has transformed itself from a mouthpiece of the Republican party dispensing party memos as news reports, to being an unwieldy beast that the Republicans themselves barely know how to control and therefore work to their advantage. What this has created is a news cycle that often features back and forth debates between prominent Democrats and Fox-News hosts instead of their Republican counterparts, or as has often been the case throughout this campaign, absurd-racist-sexist comments such as calling Barack and Michelle Obama’s embrace a “terrorist fist jab” or referring to Michelle Obama as “Obama’s Baby Mama” overtakes John McCain’s attempts at getting his own headlines and making Americans familiar with his agenda.

Seriously, has there ever been a point in this nation’s history where the party who has just spent eight years in power has entered an election cycle in such disarray? The Republicans do not appear to have any prospects in their farm system, they’ve rebranded themselves as conservatives therefore either alienating or confusing many voters, and their allies in the media are outfoxing them?

What in the world happened to the Republicans?

Yesterday Jeff explored whether McCain has a chance: bq. Historians--people who get paid to think about this stuff for a living--don't rate McCain's chances at all. Look at who he gets compared to--Adlai Stevenson in 1952, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Jimmy Carter in 1980, folks who just got murked at the polls.

As I suggested yesterday, I do not think McCain has a chance, but I do think the republican party has a great chance coming out of this election. Obama is intent on not making similar mistakes to Dubya and WJC, and therefore will try his hand at a bi-partisan government. If that plays out, the Republicans are likely to be generously compensated, likely more than one would usually expect by a President coming in with a seemingly strong mandate as Obama. I say seemingly strong, because as the polls suggest, this election will be a contest, and while most people are ideologically behind Obama, there is such a strong lack of faith in politicians these days, that Obama's advisers know that the victor in this election can not enter office beating his chest.

Finally, McCain is a sacrificial lamb in this election. Republicans are willing to take the L with him because he does not represent their future--a message that has been slow in getting to McCain's camp. McCain has spent more time trying to convince people that he's a "true conservative" that he neglected to realize that this election is a golden opportunity to 1) revolutionize the meaning of conservatism in American Politics 2) resuscitate the Republican brand and remind voters that republicanism is not simply a synonym for conservatism. Ever since Ross Perot, republicans have been losing their mavericks in a manner that although it is comparable to how democrats are losing voters to the green party, republicans have not developed a long term strategy for winning any of these voters back. Let's just put it this way, I've seen more Ron Paul offices in Brooklyn than I have McCain offices. McCain and his ilk fail to realize that christian fundamentalists are not the only radical group in the republican party and until they do so they will continue losing elections that they do not steal.

Jeff, I'm now done with my Hamlet impersonations. When Fox "News" put "Baby Mama" under Michelle Obama's name it was time for me to get back on this grind. As Adam Green wrote on the Huffington Post a while back, Fox is not a news network, the only difference between them and The Daily Show is that most people, or rather most people that I know, don't find their sense of humor funny. It's one thing to poke fun at racism and xenophobia like Colbert and Stewart sometimes do, but it's completely something else to perpetually peddle racist and xenophobic viewpoints. What has been striking about Fox's rise is not only their ability to win ratings battles against CNN and MSNBC, a trend that is shifting this year, but they have an uncanny ability to dominate the news cycle. People talk about Fox more than any other network, and until that changes, it's very unlikely that they will change their ways. After all, what do they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

In other news, Jonathan Chait has a piece on Joe Lieberman over at The New Republic. I agree with Chait's take on Lieberman, but still think that he's being too kind with Lieberman. If you compare what has become of Al Gore since 2000 and Joe Lieberman it's an astonishing difference. I'm sure that there are some who'd even have a hard time believing that they were even on the same ticket. Lieberman has become a media-seeking, revisionist history, foreign policy racketeering hack in the last eight years. Not only is Lieberman wrong in his assessment of how the democratic party has evolved over the last 50 years, but he's wrong, morally so about the arc of American politics in the last 50 years. I think even Karl Rove thinks that Lieberman is a little far right. Yet, just like he continued cozying up with Lobbyists long after it was no longer politically viable for any politician to do so, John McCain keeps on rolling with Lieberman as if Lieberman has anything to offer. Seriously, does Joe Lieberman have a constituency? McCain hanging around with Lieberman is like an someone kicking it with Andre Harrell thinking that they're going to get put on.

Also, in what will not be the last of such articles, The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Kaufman has a piece exploring whether it's time to end Affirmative Action. As with most of these articles, Kaufman tries pitting working class blacks and whites against each other in a debate over who has the edge for getting that elusive slice of the american pie. As expected the article fails to address issues such as legacies and athletics in college admission. Sure, we all know that Becky's parents hate the idea of losing her place at Chapel Hill to Jamaal, but how do they feel about her losing that coveted spot to Tyler Hansbrough?

Finally, did anyone catch Obama's speech in Michigan? He's really on his game when talking about education. The Democrats are on the right side of most of the issues these days because Bush has tilted things so much in their favor, still I have a lingering suspicion that the Republicans will win this election. Not John McCain mind you, but the Republican party. If Obama is to be as bi-partisan as he suggests, he will have to make a concession to the republicans. We all know it won't be on either healthcare, education or the economy. The only thing left for the republicans is the war and the military. Withdrawing from Iraq will take years to expedite and military spending is not likely to be severely cut because Obama will want a second term, and the military does play a role in spurring innovation and developing technology. That said, what will an Obama presidency look like if the republicans get a chance to tool around with their favorite toy?

F-Dot