Okay, it’s an old clip, and it really shouldn’t be all that surprising, given the subject.  Still… when this video of Bill O’Reilly with Inside Edition exploding over something he didn’t understand on the teleprompter surfaced today, it was hard to turn away.  I guess that’s why it’s been viewed something like half a million times in less than 24 hours.  That man needs some serious help.

Back to the Eastern Shore, staying at the same Days Inn for the night. I swear, they stuck me in the same room as the last time, with the same view of the parking lot (which is made even better by the dreary weather outside… if I’m not mistaken, it’s now been raining since the beginning of time). Oh well, at least this time there’s a remote for TV. I seriously can’t figure out why some people like traveling for work…

Let’s get one thing straight: the Democratic Leadership Council is not culturally conservative.

They’re pro-business, pro-free trade, anti-populist, and covet all that corporate money for Democrats. They’re spineless on national security issues, with the top leadership split pretty evenly between the hawks and the doves (the hawks usually win the DLC’s internal debate), and they’re soft on, if not in agreement with, the neo-con movement. They’re pro-welfare reform, and seek to end the “era of big government.” But… on the social/cultural stuff? Rock-solid. They favor gun control, gay rights, are staunchly pro-choice (opposing even the partial birth abortion ban, which was fairly controversial within the Democratic caucus). They also opposed the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

This shouldn’t exactly be a revelation to anyone who follows Democratic Party politics — I mean, the fact that the DLC is socially liberal and economically conservative has kinda been the subject of some pretty high-profile articles, not to mention the book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” They have consistently turned their backs on working people and re-made the Party into a Party of professionals and elites. So why the hell are so many self-defined “educated” people getting it wrong?

Alright, a couple of other facts:

1. Yeah, Hillary Clinton has been a longtime member of the DLC.
2. Yes, she has also done very well with the working-class “Reagan Democrat” coalition.

But on this, A + B does not equal C. Her success with that coalition is due to a near 180 on DLC issues. She has papered over a lot of her past support for gun control, rarely if ever talked about abortion, and peppers her speeches with shots at “big oil” and “insurance lobbyists.” Not exactly that old Democratic Leadership Council (or, as Jesse Jackson tagged them, “Democrats for the Leisure Class”) formula for success.

Now, if this were just a matter of analyzing the Clinton campaign, I’d let it go. I didn’t vote for her, the jury’s still out on the sincerity of her populist awakening, and the Democratic nomination is pretty much a done deal. But this gets a bit more disturbing…

For years, I’ve been an opponent of the DLC (and the New Dems, the Blue Dogs, etc…). Now, I guess all of us anti-DLC Dems are supposed to be part of the whole “netroots revolution” stuff, and hey, I can appreciate that - you know, enemy of my enemy, and all that. But wow, reading some of that stuff is at least as infuriating as reading the DLC’s “New Dem Daily.” Check out some excerpts from this diary posted over at DailyKos yesterday (appropriately titled “Confessions of an Unrepentent Elitist,” with an apparent lack of irony about misspelling “unrepentant”):

“I am so tired of various political entities dissing people with IQs over 100 and incomes over $50K. The last two elections, the President was elected by lower middle class people with a high school education, so they claim. If so, then, well, they did a crappy job. Why don’t they admit it, and let the smart people pick out a President for a change.

If we can’t put together a winning coalition of smart and successful people, then I fear for our country…

…We need to let the elitists elect someone this time. I say this as an unrepentant elitist. I do have a graduate degree. I am upper middle class. That should not make me an object of scorn. I’ve made good decisions - trust me. I can pick the better candidate…

…Hillary, in the most infuriating way possible, has made it clear that she wants the rednecks to elect her. My vote is not wanted. I don’t matter. I am tired of letting dumb people pick our leaders…

…I say we quit rolling over when they throw the “elitist” charge at us. So what!! Dumb butts have screwed it up. They need to chill. They let the media tool them around and tell them useless crap is important that really isn’t. They need to wake up. They are being manipulated.

So, let’s have an honest conversation in the Democratic Party. Who are we the party of? Racists? Ignorant people? I say no. We are not that party. Our party can’t stand for racism and ignorance. It must stand for equality and knowledge. It must stand for clear thinking and smart decisions. It can’t stand for hate. If that’s what it takes to win Appalachia, then we should lose Appalachia.”

I have an idea that might please the author: why don’t we just go back to allowing only property-owning white males to vote? And why stop with voters? Why not institute an educational litmus test on candidates so we can ensure that uneducated riffraff like Lincoln and Truman never get anywhere near the White House?

Seriously, this is craziness! Change a few words here and there, and this post could’ve been written by William F. Buckley. I mean, working people — the people who elected FDR, the people the Democratic Party should be made up of, and fighting for — are now “rednecks,” “dumb people,” “dumb butts,” “racists,” and “haters.” And what exactly is the point? That the upper class educated elites are so benevolent that they can select a President who will benefit those rubes who insist on voting against their own interests? How charitable. Why is it I’m not all that confident that someone who believes these things about working people would actually care about their quality of life under a new Administration?

The great irony of this post is that the author (who let’s not forget has a graduate degree and is much, much smarter than the rest of the country) also believes that this strategy of embracing the elitism label is a means of opposing the DLC: In reference to reaching out to working class voters, the poster writes“The DLC has tried to play their game and succeeded at times, but they’ve mostly failed.” Yeah, they’ve really reached out… I’m sure working class people loved it when the DLC successfully pushed for more of their jobs to be shipped overseas. Hell, they probably stood up and cheered when the DLC encouraged the Democratic Party to weaken its alliance with organized labor. Yup, the DLC certainly has cornered the market on the “low-class,” “redneck” vote.

This diary might be the most blood-boiling, cringe-inducing example of the thought process of the latte liberals, but I’m afraid that the sentiment isn’t all that unique. Seems like a lot of people on the Left wanna play the whole “I’m smarter than you” card - whether they say it in such stark terms or not. And weirdly, they often conflate their hatred (and more than a little condescension) of cultural conservatism with their antipathy toward the DLC.

Don’t these Unrepentant Elitists get that its been their Party for decades, and they’re the ones who fucked it all up? It’s a brilliant strategy: we use the DLC to sell-out the base of the Party, and the netroots crowd to insult them. Nice tag-team effort.

Thankfully, it seems that the candidates haven’t fallen into this trap. Both Obama and Clinton (and clearly John Edwards earlier in the season) have run further to the Populist Left than any Democratic nominee in decades. The DLC is in free fall mode, with Mark Penn disgraced, Joe Lieberman shunned, and their national events pretty much ignored by prominent Democrats. It’s a good moment of opportunity for real, Left-leaning, progressive Democrats to win back the Party, win the November elections, and actually do some good for average Americans. The last thing we need is another elitist wing of the Party to come along and screw it up.

Every year over Mother’s Day weekend, the Social Security Administration releases the top 1,000 names given to children in the United States the previous year. Some interesting notes about the 2007 list, released last night:

1. Top five girls names: Emily, Isabella, Ava, Emma, Madison. For boys: Jacob, Michael, Ethan, Joshua, Daniel. So, clearly the trend of girls names ending in -a, and Biblical boys names continues to grow. With the exception of Daniel, the top five for both boys and girls remained intact, and just shuffled in order. Daniel was 6th last year, while Matthew, now 9th, rounded out the top five.

2. The pool of names is expanding… quickly. This year, only one name (Jacob) was given to greater than 1% of babies born (a little under 1.1%). No other name, for boys or girls, was given to more than 1 in a hundred babies. By contrast, last year, four names (1 girls name and 3 boys names) were given to greater than 1% of children; in 2000, 13 names (10 boys, 3 girls) were given to greater than 1%; and in 1990, 29 names were given to more than 1 in a hundred babies born, 6 names were given to more than 2 in a hundred, and 1 name (Michael) was given to more than 3 of every hundred boys born that year. With this trajectory, it seems likely that next year will be the first year since they started tracking (1880) that no name will be above 1% in usage.

3. The only newcomer to the top 20 list for boys is Jayden (multiple spellings of the name will always keep it further down the list than it actually is). For the girls, Addison (#11) is the newcomer, knocking Brianna (#20 in ‘06, #22 last year) out of the top 20.

Well, what I might’ve lost with my North Carolina and Indiana picks, I gained back with this bit on the VP race by Will Thomas over at Huffington Post today:

Jim Webb
Webb is the closest thing to a frontrunner for Obama’s VP these days. A former Republican, he served as Secretary of the Navy for Ronald Regan. Webb defeated George “Macaca” Allen to become a junior senator in Virginia.

Pros: Webb is a good foil for Obama’s post-partisan message, and he’s the military credentials to go match up with John McCain. He’s good at playing the attack dog, which will let Obama keep the high road. And he’s from trending-blue Virginia, which would be a great pickup in November for Democrats. He’s also pro-guns.

Cons: Webb can be a little out-of-control as attack dogs go.

Front-runner?  Back in February, I said it would be a predictive victory if he even made the short-list. Feels good to be back…

Still, two other cons: 1) he’s a Senator; 2) tough to give up that Senate seat.

It might be 228 days until Christmas, but really only 114 days until Christmas season.  Yeah, I’m that person who breaks out the Christmas music and decorations in early September (unless the impossible occurs, and the Orioles are actually in contention, in which case Christmas season bumps back to the end of baseball season.)  I love everything about Christmas season — the tree, the decorations, the music, the lights, the movies, even the crowds at malls.

This, by the way, is admittedly the least cool thing about me.  Most people, and especially people my age, take pride in their scorn for the pro-Christmas folks like me.  Some complain about the over-commercialization of the holiday.  Some just roll their eyes at the pure sappiness of the whole thing.  Others claim that while they have no problem with Christmas, they hate the fact that “it seems to start earlier each year.”  Yeah, whatever.  (Sidenote: Obviously, some people don’t celebrate Christmas for religious reasons, which is clearly something entirely different from the too-cool-for-school Christmas haters).

There are cool holidays to like, and they are generally the “friend” holidays (Halloween, New Years Eve, even St. Patrick’s Day) rather than the “family” holidays (Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter).  Me?  I love ‘em all.  But Christmas is the only one that needs defending.  No, I don’t mean some kind of Bill O’Reilly-style Christmas defense.  First off, that man is a moron.  Secondly, he believes the “war on Christmas” has to do with increasing secularization of society.  Like I said, he’s a moron.  Naa… the backlash against Christmas has nothing to do with secularization vs. religiosity.  It’s just that its always been cool to break with the conventions of society, and when you add in this generation’s love of cynicism, you don’t really get a Christmas-friendly environment.  At least in terms of style points.

I decided to give up on all those style points some time ago.  Sure, for a while, I’d join in on that “starts earlier every year” stuff, but even then I was secretly searching for radio stations playing Christmas music.  But really, why bother?  I caved.

On kind of a sidenote, I’m kind of a sociology/demography nut, and I love reading about and speculating on attitudinal trends.  I was a bit skeptical (and wrote about it) a couple months ago when I read that Bobos — the upscale Whole-Foods shopping, authenticity-craving urbanites with a social conscience — were starting to cede turf to some other group called neo-yuppies.  It sounded to me like an unnecessary update — just a new term to learn.  But, I looked it up.  Turns out neo-yuppies are the ones responsible for taking Christmas down the social ladder.  Yup, with a whole lotta “starts too early” and a little bit of overcommercialization arguments for good measure, they have made it socially unappealing to enjoy the Christmas season.  Just knowing this is a bit of a mini-victory.  After spending my Christmas-loving days being “that person” that causes everyone with an ounce of taste or class to roll their eyes, now I had a a group that could inspire my own eye-rolling.  Oh, you’re the person who gets mad at everyone who listens to Christmas music in their car… how wonderfully cynical.

So, Monday night.  My neighbor came over to my house.  We bought some Margarita mix to celebrate Cinco de Mayo (neither one of us felt like dealing with the crowds at the bars), and we started talking about holidays.  I thought about soft-pedaling my Christmas argument, but I decided instead to test my new preemption strategy.  My neighbor is young, well-educated and urban, so she serves as the perfect test case.  This time, instead of admitting that Christmas is my favorite holiday, while mentally preparing my defense, and anticipating the slow nod, I jumped right in.    Point A: I love Christmas and I’ll start celebrating it as early as I want; Point B: All these silly little hipsters think they’re so clever and unconventional for hating people who do that; Point C: Said hipsters will one day be remembered as a social group of this generation, much like the Beamer-driving status-obsessed yuppies of the ’80s.

On one hand, it livened up the conversation, and I seemed to get a bit more respect than that usual slow nod.  On the other hand, turns out her favorite holiday is Halloween.  Eh, can’t win ‘em all.

114 days and counting…

The only thing that could’ve made this more appropriate is if they had been sipping champagne during the segment…

Ten Observations from another night watching the returns:

1. When Obama tries to “Edwards down” his speeches (basically adding in anecdotes about people he’s met and everyday problems), he sounds kinda bored. He wakes up quite a bit when he starts talking about changing the process.

2. Obama did add a nice bit of patriotism in his victory speech last night; nice use of imagery too — “flag-draped coffin,” “shuttered steel mills,” etc…

3. That poor placard-waving guy with the teal Izod shirt behind Obama sure was entertaining. I can’t be sure, but it seemed like he spent a little more energy trying to figure out when he was supposed to cheer than he actually did listening to the speech. I felt pretty happy for him when he got it right. Still, it wasn’t as distracting as the A & F trio following Pennsylvania.

4. Bill Clinton is a bit transparent. Watching him stand behind Hillary last night, it was clear he knew it was over. He was pretty clearly lost in his own thoughts… I don’t often use the word wistful, but…

5. Hillary sounded a bit Lieberman-esque “3 way tie for third” when she tried to pull that “we won the tie-breaker” stuff.

6. Also, that weird fundraising call during her speech didn’t really play.

7. By the end of it, she sounded like she was just reading the words off the paper. Wow, I felt really badly for her.

8. Watching Harold Ford Jr. on MSNBC after 9pm makes me tired. Every time he blinks, I don’t expect his eyes to re-open.

9. Watching Norah O’Donnell present early exit poll data is always staggeringly misleading. About an hour before the polls in Indiana closed, she revealed that almost half of Democratic voters in both states considered the Reverend Wright controversy “an important factor” in making a decision. I pointlessly tried to figure out the math on that for about 60 seconds until I checked online and read that Obama was leading in those same exit polls by 15 points in North Carolina. Sure glad the networks embargo the head-to-head numbers before polls close… keeps people from jumping to conclusions…

10. I think they’ve managed to tame Chris Matthews a bit since his little “thrill running up my leg” remark he made after the Chesapeake Primary.

There’s a very real possibility that last night was the final contested primary night of the 2008 election cycle. Obama has picked up at least four superdelegates today. George McGovern (not a superdelegate) has un-endoresed Clinton and endorsed Obama. News broke that the Hillary had loaned her campaign $6.4 million last month… this thing looks pretty done. She’s vowing to continue until there is a nominee, but it seems pretty half-hearted.

MSNBC just made the call.  Fittingly, they made it while Chuck Todd was doing what Chuck Todd always does: explains why a state hasn’t been called until the final call breaks in and makes his analysis irrelevant.  Well… gotta appreciate the tradition.